Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

How can Wikipedia report tabloid sex game

27-Feb-2010: Many of us, recently working on the Murder of MK article, were also appalled to learn there was no evidence of sexual activity before the Kercher murder, and certainly no evidence of a "sex game" (Italian: "gioco erotico" ). Many readers have been upset about the article's content, and several of us have tried to correct the article, noting there was no evidence of a so-called "sex game" despite the outrageous claim. Yes, it did seem like a tabloid article, in the sense of "Elvis sighted on Mars" or "High piano note breaks all dishes" or "Queen Elizabeth saved by UFO" then we get "Kercher murdered in sex game" or "house thoroughly cleaned with bleach" where no fabrics were faded, no one had bleached hands, and no one choked on chlorine fumes: perhaps the house was on Mars. Yes, the Murder article, for months, has seemed like a "yellow journalism" tabloid story, but when we tried to lessen the bizarre claims, some editors quickly deleted any attempts to question the sex game or massive bleaching. I mean, they removed text over, and over, and over. They even omitted Guede had been released by Milan police, just 5 days before the murder, with a stolen school knife plus PC/phone stolen 2 weeks earlier in a Perugia law office burgled with a rock in an upstairs window (like the Kercher broken window). The Guede stolen-property issues were then deleted from the article 2 more times (!). So, trying to keep the article factually balanced, with less tabloid claims, has been very difficult. Please understand that it is contrary to Wikipedia policies, per WP:NPOV, to try to push tabloid claims while suppressing extensive evidence to the contrary. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a source for there being no evidence of sexual activity? I have only read English translations of parts of the Micheli report from Guede's trial, but I thought there was clear forensic evidence of sexual activity. Thanks. Bluewave (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC) And, by the way, I absolutely agree that the article shouldn't include a load of tabloid stuff about sex games. Or the stuff about satanic rituals that comes up in tabloids from time to time! Bluewave (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

In a few more days, a written document will be published, in which the panel of Judges will explain why they convicted. It's an official document; we should not deem that the reliability of an article or that the opinion of a forensic expert carries the same weight. What's in the parte motiva of the judgement is the official interpretations of the event that led to Meredith's death and I think we should consider that as the actual way it all was.

Of course, we should be reporting all the controversies that have arisen so far, but in no way should we give them the same weight we give to the judgement, at least until the Court of Appeals has ruled on the issue. Salvio giuliano (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

According to press reports, within 45 days after the publication of the court's document, the defendants will be filing their appeal setting forth the basis for their views as to why the court got it wrong. That information will need to be included in the article as well, if it isn't included already. I would think a lot of it is already included, since there has been discussion of possible appeal issues in the press for a while--like DNA issues, forensics, ect. All of this information, both from the court and the defendants, needs to be interpreted mindful of the presumption of innocence that continues to apply during the pendency of the appeal process. Zlykinskyja (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Because the 2 trials were stretched across 2 years, it was a slow process for the trial judges to receive opinions from the Italian experts for each type of evidence. See, from 6 months into the case: "Report: No Evidence British Coed Was Sexually Assaulted Before Murder", Fox News, 15 April 2008, web: FOXnews62. That page describes the analysis by 3 Italian forensic experts, with the quote:

"Sky's Nick Pisa, in Rome, said: "In their conclusions the experts say there is no evidence to suggest that Meredith had any form of sexual activity, whether consensual or not, leading up to her death."

Perhaps the media under-reported the 3 experts, because the "sex game" was what reporters most remembered. Facts like that, plus the [knife] cut marks in both of Kercher's hands, are the type of details that help re-focus what happened during the murder. Let's at least try to explain the murder, from expert opinions. I wonder if someone really did draw a blood-pattern Celtic horse on the wall when they moved the body, and placed the clothes near the doorway, but those details are hard to find in sources. However, I think it only fair (for WP:BLP) to emphasize that Kercher was wearing clothes when stabbed (there was no evidence she gave consent), even though that concerns a non-living person. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That FoxNews article was from April 2008, well before any of the trials began. More evidence must have been presented at the trials (eg Lalli's evidence at Guede's trial), or how were the convictions for sexual assault proven? Bluewave (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Knox/Sollecito trial

I've just been looking at the Knox/Sollecito trial section, which currently seems a bit random (and there is stuff about the trial dotted around the article. I suggest there ought to be a chunk here which summarises the prosecution case and another chunk summarising the defence (much of which is just a refutation - with evidence - of the prosecution. Starting with the prosecution, I think that the main points are:

• The evidence that there wasn't just a single murderer.
• The evidence about the staged break-in and later clean-up and who would be motivated to do that
• The DNA evidence especially the "double DNA knife" and the bra clasp
• The lack of alibis (Knox says she was with Sollecito: he says he was alone)
• The witness testimony that placed them both in the vicinity of the house where the murder took place.

Is this a fair summary (of a prosecution case which consisted of about 10,000 pages of material!) I appreciate that all of these points are contested by the defence, and we will need to work on that too. Bluewave (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. I think that's a brilliant idea. Very well organized. It will make it so much easier for the reader to understand. There's so many bits like the double DNA knife, etc., having it all sorted out in that way will also make it more neutral POV. Well done, Bluewave.Malke2010 15:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Malke! Just to add to this, I think the main points on the Knox/Sollecito defence side are:

• The lack of any real motive
• The number of attackers being inconclusive (could have been a lone killer)
• Challenges to the DNA evidence (possible contamination and minute quantities)
• Lack of defendants' fingerprints/DNA at the crime scene
• The credibility of witness testimony (lack of)

Again is this a fair summary? Bluewave (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave: I object to any substantial re-write on the section. You consistently write in a highly POV manner, tending to make Knox sound as guilty as possible. That is what you will do with this section. Many editors have spent time adding to this section. What they have done should be tweaked, not re-written by you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to summarise the two sides that were presented at the trial. That seems to me a reasonable way of improving the content of the trial section. Re-editing of sections by various editors is the usual way that articles are improved. I expect it will be edited and re-edited until it reaches a "good article" kind of state, at which point there is then a good argument for keeping it stable. It certainly hasn't reached that stage yet. I have asked people if they agree with my summary of each side's case. The reason I am doing that is to try to avoid any POV being expressed. Bluewave (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, having seen countless edits by you, you tend to edit in a consistently POV manner, which is anti-Knox. There is no reasonable expectation that if you re-write the section it will be NPOV. Try tweaking the section. That will be less controversial, and less disruptive to the work other editors have already put into the article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, your arguments seem to be against me personally, rather than what I am proposing. The same is true of the rather upsetting message that you left on my talk page. Bluewave (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not the one who has been trying to whip things up behind the scenes. I am here simply to write and edit. Also, I have nothing to do with any person or group involved in this case. No association whatsoever. Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe I have ever suggested or even thought that you were connected with anyone involved in the case, despite what you say in the message. Bluewave (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, when I commented on allegations being made that I was somehow connected with this case, I was referring to a discussion between Malke and an adminsitrator in which they seem to think I am connected with Sollecito or someone else in the case. It is nonsense. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, your editing style here has been tendentious. Please read the guidelines. You are editing from a POV. Everyone has one, but in this instance, Bluewave is attempting to restore WP:NPOV and remove unsourced material which is clearly original research which is also a violation WP:SYN. You don't seem to understand the point here is to make this article as balanced as possible in the interests of presenting a neutral article on the subject.Malke2010 21:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

So the real question is: have these summaries of the prosecution and defence cases picked out the main points (as far as we can tell them from the sources currently available)? Bluewave (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No I don't think so. There is a great deal being left out. In prior discussions it was agreed that the alternative or minority points of view would be included under NPOV guidelines. The whole thrust of your editing has been to minimize the defense views and to paint Knox and Sollecito in as bad a light as possible. So there is no realistic chance that if you undertake to write the defense side of the case that it would give proper credence to what the defense is saying. You don't agree with what they have to say. You think A and S are guilty. So how realistically can you write a report summarizing their views? That would take a great deal of objectivity, which you have not shown to date. I think things should be left basically the way they are in that section. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Bluewave has been more than neutral, so far. It is correct to report the defense views, but we should not forget that a Court of law did convict the three defendants... So it is obvious that this article cannot be a slavish copy of the defense views: it would be a delegitimization of the verdict. Salvio giuliano (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, if you step back for a moment, you will regain perspective, and you will see that Bluewave is attempting to be as neutral as possible. The subject matter is very difficult to work with and he is making a good faith effort here. Please try to see that. But also understand, this article is not a forum for appealing the convictions of Knox and Sollecito. If you want to make a separate article on the evidence, or the some other detail of the case, you are free to that.Malke2010 22:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Salvio: Of course the article cannot be a "slavish copy" of the defense views. No one is suggesting that. But on the other hand, painting A and R solely as guilty when there is not yet any final decision in their case (and won't be for quite a while during the appeals process) presents fairness and libel issues. Then there are the NPOV policies. I'm just saying that the defense views need to be included, but not to the exclusion of the prosecution views. The appeals process will be a few more years, no?Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is correct. Salvio giuliano (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not concerned with WP:CRYSTAL, i.e., what will happen in the future. In the meantime, the legal fact is that both the defendants have been found guilty by a legal court of law. We cannot edit based on what might happen in the future.Malke2010 23:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll have a go at writing this (the two sides of the case) up as continuous prose and post it here in the talk page to see what people think. It may take me a few days though, as my Wikipedia time is going to be a bit limited and there are some other articles where I've promised to do work. Bluewave (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Despite having done some work on this offline, I'm having some second thoughts about the timing. I believe that it is a major omission at present, that there is no summary of the cases that were presented at the trial. However, the way we summarise those cases will no doubt (rightly) involve quite a bit of debate before a consensus can be achieved. I have been reminded (in one of Slavio's posts below) that the judgement of the court is due to be published within a couple of weeks and that may put quite a different slant on what parts of the prosecution and defence cases were actually considered important by the court. Perhaps it would be better to leave the summaries until after that document has been published and we have had time to absorb its findings. In the meantime, we probably ought to make sure that the major points of the prosecution and defence are at least mentioned and cited in the article. Do people agree? Bluewave (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No evidence Knox in Kercher's room & police released Guede

27-Feb-10: I understand that it might be difficult for new readers of the article to believe that there was no forensic evidence (or witnesses) placing Knox in Kercher's room. Also, the Milan police had booked Guede with the stolen school knife and stolen PC/phone from the Perugia law office, and the police really did release Guede on 27 October 2007, just five days before the murder (Italian: "appena cinque giorni prima l'omicidio") [Source: Ann Wise, ABC News, web: ABC1 ]. So, therefore, no one needs to be deleting this information from the article: it is backed by multiple reliable sources. In the article, we are trying to explain the "murder of Meredith Kercher" based on all sources, including the judicial hearings, but also what investigators who went to Perugia learned. Writing the article has not been easy: "everyone" in Perugia changed their story along the way:

• The police inspector (Battistelli) claimed he didn't enter Kercher's room, but Filomena's friend Paola & boyfriend Luca both testified they watched him enter the room, lift the quilt to check if MK was still alive (www.king5.com/news/local/59757357.html).
• The prosecutors claimed a cleanup was done by Knox because she lived there, and Guede left for nightclubs, but Guede's DNA on the severed bra strap led prosecutor Manuela Comodi to conclude, during the cleanup, Guede held the strap while Sollecito held the metal clasp. When, before Guede went dancing or after?
• Police confirmed Kercher withdrew ~300 euros (expecting to pay rent) but that money was missing. Knox's police statements never mentioned the money, credit cards or the 2 phones, and customers confirmed Lumumba at his bar. Knox's imagined "memories" don't explain the event.
• Lumumba claimed that he was pressured, threatened by police as a "dirty black" to confess, but he was Italian-fluent, age 38 (not 20) and kept claiming he wasn't there.
• The only witness testifying he saw Knox, Sollecito and Guede together on the night of 1 Nov 2007, claimed earlier that other people around them were "wearing masks" (aka Halloween) on All Saints Day (?), but of course these 3 weren't wearing masks (which is how he recognized all of them?).

Those issues are what the sources say: we are not inventing this stuff. There were no other witnesses placing the 3 suspects together, ever. The only credible testimony has a black man running from the area circa 10:30-11:00pm, and no security-camera videos saw that. Hence, we are still trying to explain what really happened to Kercher. So, please don't delete whole sections from the article. All the text we are adding to the article comes from solid sources, and we are seeing claims that police pressured both Knox & Lumumba, but only Guede talked about Kercher's missing money. Both Sollecito's former and current housekeepers testified the bleach was months old, there was no "bleaching" of his apartment, and no blood was found nor bloody clothes. For the article: please don't delete this type of information. The readers want to know this stuff, and they expect Wikipedia not to keep deleting it from the article. This is one of the "most watched" murder cases in the world. Thank you. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikid77, I agree that the "facts" don't always agree with one another (the newspaper accounts certainly don't) and that no-one connected with the case sounds like they're telling the truth, so it is impossible to know what really happened. However, you say "we are still trying to explain what really happened to Kercher". In fact we are not, because that would be original research. The "facts" can be presented in many ways. The way you have presented them above sounds like Knox and Sollecito could not possibly have been guilty. Yet, the way all the evidence was presented at a trial led a court to conclude the opposite. So clearly yours is not the only interpretation of the evidence. Bluewave (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

If the sources don't agee, the article text should cite them as not in agreement. Articles are meant to echo the sources, not span them with meaning. Moreover, if there are sources published in reliable and independent sources, which do put forth opinions, these can be cited. By no stretch does WP:BLP mean an article should take an outlook on any notion of "justice" or "injustice" but reliable sources which do this can be cited. Sundry opinions/outlooks can be cited, following WP:WEIGHT. Any disputed text which is not straightforwardly cited to a reliable source can be removed by any editor. Likewise, no editor should write uncited text, even if they believe they're fixing original research or PoV pushing of any kind. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikid77, Thank you for your comments. I agree that it is quite problematic that well sourced information keeps getting deleted from the article. It is very time consuming to do all this research and come up with good sources, only to find that both your research and your citations have been deleted. The clear pattern, in my opinion, has been to delete or re-write information in such a manner as to present Knox and Sollecito in as bad a light as possible. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Both Knox and Sollecito are living people who fall under the protection of the laws of libel and the wp:BLP policies. At this point in time, under the laws of both Italy and the U.S., they are presumed innocent and there is no final judgment of guilt against them. Yet, there are those who edit this article in a manner to try to make them look as guilty as possible. I have a problem with that because it is inconsistent with the presumption of innocence, proscriptions against defamation and BLP policies on living people. Many concerns have been raised in the media and by public figures that prejudicial pretrial publicity damaged the rights of Knox and Sollecito to a fair trial by painting them in a highly negative light long before their trial started. Those who hate Knox think that is okay, that is a good thing, "she deserves it" type reasoning. But perhaps folks should question why it is that they hate her. The truth before God may be that she is innocent, and if she is innocent then the hate is unjustified. Wikipedia should be about a neutral reporting of the facts. Wikipedia should not be used to poison the public atmosphere against a defendant to jeopardize the defendant's right to a fair trial. It is unfair and wrongful to use Wikipedia to diminish the chances of Knox and Sollecito of establishing their innocence, by trying to convince the public of their guilt--which some editors on here are clearly trying to do. Convincing others of the guilt of Knox and Sollecito is the Prosecutor's job, not the role of a Wikipedia editor.Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you, Zlykinskyja, for taking time to clarify the legal issues. I am not a legal expert, so these legal aspects are valuable here. I am beginning to see that the article text appears repeatedly slanted, being pruned to omit negative aspects of other people, such as Guede or Lumumba, while leaving the refuted slurs in the article against Knox and Sollecito (there were not just one, but 3 Italian forensic experts who said there was no evidence of sexual activity before the murder). That type of refuted claim needs to be refuted anywhere it appears. The suggestion to list all the prosecution claims, as a solid wall of text condemning Knox & Sollecito, followed by a remote section contesting those claims, would give undue weight to those claims, as a top-billed soapbox ranting against them. Not only is there no guarantee that readers might quit reading before the remote section refuting the claims, but search engines would display each condemnation with no follow-up text as a rebuttal. Plus, the idea of stacking a top section of prosecution claims would slant the article away from the goal of explaining the murder, as a general topic, and funnel the text into a viewpoint of proving guilt or innocence. In my opinion, a neutral point-of-view requires interleaving the pro-and-con text of any issue, in a side-by-side manner, while wikilinking to detailed sections that elaborate all major sides (not just prosecution v. suspect) of the issues. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would think an interweaving approach is best. The article is long and placing the defense positions as subsequent entries could get confusing. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja Wikid77, the interweaving approach can be useful when comparing positions to which equal weight can be attributed for each. However, be careful ... when one source is considered undue weighting, then that point should be noted in the article itself, or Wikipedia should probably present the only source that carries more weight. And I’m not so sure that interweaving should be use with statements in which defendants contradict themselves. In such cases, I would suggest that the statements should be removed entirely. Jonathan (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Does interweaving mean that any time a piece of prosecution evidence is mentioned, it is immediately followed by the defence's refutation of it? If so, that would give the reader an impression that the defence successfully refuted all the evidence. Which they clearly didn't succeed in doing, given the eventual verdict. Bluewave (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Reactions: Undue weight applied to Senator Cantwell‘s remarks

Here is an example of a case in which undue WP:WEIGHT is applied here:

Senator Cantwell: State of Washington U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell released a statement over her concerns that "anti-Americanism tainted this trial."[176] She stated that in her view there had not been enough evidence to convict Knox beyond a reasonable doubt[177] and also spoke of the "harsh treatment of Ms. Knox following her arrest, negligent handling of evidence by investigators, and pending charges of misconduct against one of the prosecutors stemming from another murder trial." Cantwell indicated her intention to seek assistance from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has yet to take a position on the case.[178]

This is essentially contradicted by the US Department fo State (Ian Kelly, Spokesman): http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2009/dec/133266.htm MR. KELLY: Yeah. Well, the Department has followed this case very closely. The Secretary was asked about the verdict in – the verdict in the trial that had ended something like 12 hours before. It doesn’t mean that we’re not going to have some kind of statement, as the process goes forward. As – but as I said before, our role is to ensure that any American citizen is treated fairly, according to local law. The Italian court system is not the same as the American court system. It’s still early days, but as I said, we haven’t received any indications necessarily that Italian law was not followed.

Senator Cantwell does not have any jurisdiction or authority over a parking ticket in Oregon, let alone a murder trial in a foreign country. This open letter "statement" that Senator Cantwell released was unsolicited, deliberately vague, offers nothing of substance and does not fall within her constituency. By contrast, one of the specific tasks and responsibilities of the US Department of state is to ensure that the laws of a foreign country have been followed and due process granted.

The US Department of State - having monitored the case “very closely” - supports the guilty verdict, as provided in numerous bulletins.

In this example here, Senator Cantwell should not be given more weighting that the US Department of State. My suggestion here would be to wither A) to remove the text pertaining to Senator Cantwell's remarks, or B) at the very least, place in larger amount of text that shows the official US Department of State position, or C) re-write this section so that it is clear that Senator Cantwell disagrees with a decision that is not within her jurisdiction or purview.99.8.149.98 (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I was particularly concerned with the statement that Hillary Clinton is "yet to take a position". This seems to imply that she ought to take a position, while ignoring the fact that the Department of State has actually been doing its job, which is not to "take positions" but (presumably)to monitor the way that U.S. nationals are treated overseas and to use appropriate diplomatic channels where this does not happen. I also noticed, in the UK press, there was reporting of a backlash from some of Cantwell's constituents[1]. I was a bit suspicious about this reporting because it looks like a UK paper reporting a U.S. blog, so I haven't mentioned it before. Can anyone from the U.S. comment on whether this is in fact notable or is it just yet more rubbish being recycled by the UK press? In answer to the original question, I would say we should make brief reference to the Cantwell statement and accompany it with a sentence saying that the State Department has followed the case closely and has not had any reason to believe that due process of law was not followed correctly. Bluewave (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, that was me (Jonathan) that wrote the Senator Cantwell undue weight item - I forgot to sign in. I'm not quite sure if it would even be relevant or required to cite any sources that disagree with Senator Cantwell's "statement", if you can call it that. In the US diplomatic / governmental hierarchy, foreign affairs is a few levels above the senator's head. If this issue were a situation in which two opposing US Junior Senators were stating contrasting opinions on something that directly concerned both of them, say for example, if the State of Washington and the State of Oregon took opposing sides to some dispute along their state lines, then Wiki should give equal weight, but not in this case Jonathan (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan, it doesn't have to be another government official disagreeing with Senator Cantwell. I doubt Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be making any statements. If she says something it becomes the official U.S. position. But if there is something wrong with this source, re: the backlash, then I agree with Bluewave that it needs to be vetted. Also, from my experience on Wikipedia, U.K. papers often recycle the American reporting without questioning it and they do blend their articles with blogs which are not really sources.Malke2010 17:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• There could be a similar section about positions of the U.S. State Department. Just a reminder that the U.S. Government tends to stay strongly divided (by Constitutional law) into the 3 branches: executive (by President Obama with secretaries H. Clinton etc.), legislative (by 100 senators +435? representatives) and judicial (by U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts). Only the President and Congress have war powers, so Obama's Secretary of State & the Homeland Security deal with other nations, but any U.S. senator (because of war powers) needs to be informed about events in other nations. The Supreme Court mediates disputes but is severely limited to following the U.S. Constitution to make decisions. The CIA handles international surveillance while the FBI investigates crimes within U.S. borders, but all groups have some connective liasons to spread information as pertinent. Each U.S. state governor (highest local-government executive) tends to avoid any involvement with foreign problems but is very likely to invite foreign-company investment into that U.S. state, etc. Then there are the U.S. "sister cities" with Perugia linked to Seattle, WA (Knox hometown), but those tend to favor cultural exchanges or crisis relief while avoiding clashes. In general, when any high-ranking American official or celebrity makes a statement, that opinion is likely to make news, like the infamous Dixie Chicks comment regretting W. Bush being from their homestate of Texas. Remember, the Kercher case is one of the "most-watched" murder cases in the world, so don't be afraid to add information into the balance. Wikipedia benefits when this article answers more reader questions. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

- Wikid77, the Secretary of State in not required to make any sort of specific statements, the press release from the Department of State makes clear that they carefully monitored the trial over two year and do not disagree with decision rendered. My point is that Senator Cantwell's comments should be either removed completely, or at the least placed in context that she has no influence over anything related to the appeal, as the US Department of State's position trumps a Junior Senator's position. The silence from the US Department of State is deafening. Jonathan (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree, Jonathan. I was thinking those exact words, the silence from Hillary is deafening.Malke2010 18:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikid77, you are also missing this incredibly important point as well: your statements are all true with regards to how the US is structured with three branches of Government (Legislative, Judicial, Executive) , and you are properly attributing that there are roles and specific jurisdictions that each level or elected/appointed position is responsible for. But then you immediately say that the unsolicited, personal opinion of a Junior Washington State Senator should be placed cheek-by-jowl in contradiction to the US Department of State’s official stance, and given equal importance. Do you knot understand the concept of placing thing into context? Do you see how you are placing significant undue weight to Senator Cantwell?Jonathan (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• An opinion by any 10-year U.S. Senator is massive. The 3 branches of the USGovt are considered "equal" under Constitutional law because of the checks and balances. Neither President Obama nor Secretary Clinton "out-rank" a U.S. Senator, when it comes to legislation or declaring war. If the U.S. Congress declared war on a nation, then it is almost unstoppable. The 100 U.S. Senators are considered the highest ranking in the U.S. Congress: never treat a current U.S. Senator as an "underling" - those senators have the longest tenure of all Federal elections (6 years versus 4x2 for President). Only the U.S. "Supremes" justices are appointed for life, but Senators can get re-elected forever. Hence, any strong statement by a U.S. Senator should be considered almost the rank of U.S. President, and Sen. Cantwell might be in office longer. Compare it to a chess knight outranking a queen which is boxed in behind other pieces: the knight jumps along the el-path and out-moves a queen on some occasions. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikid, thank you for your insightful comments on the separation of powers. You are precisely correct that the legislative branch and the executive branch have very different roles to play in this saga and in general. Senator Cantwell is the federal representative for Amanda Knox and her family in the Senate, along with one other senator. Hillary Clinton and the State Department are not their representatives. It is certainly appropriate to include what a federal representative of the Knox family has to say about this case. The fact that other officials may be silent does not negate the fact that an important American official whose job it is to represent the citizens of Washington, including the Knox family, has taken such a strong position in this case. Furthermore, the Clintons tend to work behind the scenes. No one really can say that Secretary Clinton has not tried and will not try to help with this case. We just don't know at this point. The press conference quoted was right after the verdict. All that happened there was a diplomatic dodge, not an approval or affirmation of the proceedings. Any argument that the official position taken by a U.S. senator in connection with her official duties is not entitled to weight in this article is not well founded. The article quotes many people giving their opinions and positions in this case, and most of them are not nearly as important as a U.S. senator. If Cantwell's opinion is not important enough to include in the story, then no one else's opinion now in the story is important enough either. Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Wkid77, you’re confusing the concept of checks and balance, which most certainly does not allow for a Senator to “outrank” and supersede the Department of State. If that were the case, Senator Cantwell would have intervened long ago. The responsibilities of the Executive and Legislative branches are clearly defined and have relevance only within the United States. The crime was not committed within the State of Washington. So once again, the only “influence“ Senator Cantwell has as the representative of Knox, Washington state citizen, is to request that the US Department of State look into the matter. But the Senator is a day late and dollar short, please re-read the official quote from the Department of State, the DoS has already looked into it and has found nothing. The only thing that the Senator can continue to do is to raise her unsolicited opinion here. Please don’t obfuscate this. Jonathan (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Let's review, again: the U.S. President conducts wars and the U.S. Congress has the power to declare war: on other nations, not as "relevance only within the United States" (read: U.S. Constitution). So, U.S. Senators certainly do have global influence, and they can remain in office for decades, while U.S. Presidents come and go, every 4-to-8 years. Senator Cantwell might be stating opinions and crafting legislation about Italy, perhaps 30 years from now. I hope that clarifies the situation. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikid77, to be quite honest, there is really no reason to even respond to your statement. If you are truly serious and believe that a US Senator can "craft legislation about Italy" 30 years in the future, then all hope is lost and it is pointless to continue further discussions. Jonathan (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja , I‘m not sure what you mean when you say “Hillary Clinton and the State Department are not their representatives…”. Outside the USA, the Department of State is most explicitly, unequivocally Knox’s representative. This distinction is very important, I don‘t understand why you are attempting to grant preposterous authority to Senator Cantwell. The opinion of Senator Cantwell is neither good nor bad, everyone is entitled to theirs. My point is that in Wikipedia, it must be clear that the Senator’s authority and sphere of influence in this case is extremely limited, almost nonexistent Jonathan (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think she's trying to say Senator Cantwell's statement should stay and I agree with her on that. The senator's statement is supportive. Also mentioning that Secretary Clinton has not made a statement is all right, too. I don't think keeping the Senator's statement violates neutrality here. It is what it is. Amanda Knox has supporters as well as detractors. Point is, I don't see the harm in keeping the senator's statement in the article.Malke2010 20:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• The U.S. Congress is composed of people who "represent" the citizens of each U.S. state, and are thus representatives elected by Knox's fellow citizens. The Secretary of State, however, is appointed by the U.S. President, reporting to him, and is not elected to represent any U.S. citizens or state but, rather, as an official of the Obama Administration. That's what the term "representative" means in reference to U.S. citizens. It would be bizarre to imagine a Secretary of Defense as representing the citizens rather than the U.S. President and the Constitution. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Department of State has often weighed in on the prosecutions of American citizens on foreign soil where it believes the punishment is too harsh, or the criminal procedures were questionable. Having the U.S. State Department do that trumps anything a senator has to say and in fact, protocol would demand that the senator defer to the higher office. Jonathan's point is, don't try to put over that what Senator Cantwell has said has more significance than what Secretary Clinton would have to say, or didn't say. Clinton represents Obama by his appointment. Obama represents all the people of the United States. When Clinton says something it is as if Obama is saying it. Clinton is his emissary in the world and she does indeed represent the citizenry. And btw, when the Secretary of Defense sends U.S. troops someplace, he does indeed represent the American people. In the U.S. scheme of things, all the elected officials, and all the people they appoint to serve, represent the people. This is government by the people, for the people.Malke2010 02:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Malke, my point is that when the US maintains diplomatic relationships with another country, such as with Italy during February 2010; a US Senator has no influence whatsoever over the Italian judicial system. Zero, none, nothing - specifically in this case. Yes, only Congress has the authority to declare war against another country, but that is completely irrelevant to this case, and the only reason that I think that was brought up was to either deliberately confuse this issue or possible to sabotage the discussion. Jonathan (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Jonathan, you are correct. A U.S. senator cannot speak over President Obama and Hillary is Obama's representative on the world stage, not Senator Cantwell. I was directing my comments above to Wikid77.Malke2010 04:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• U.S. Senators are on the world stage. Refer below: #U.S. Senate decides foreign treaties. -Wikid77 06:52, 1 March 2010

When representing the official administration POV on something, it would be either President Obama himself, or Hillary Clinton or the appropriate cabinet secretary. However, a U.S. Senator can say whatever she likes. She's not censored. Just watch CSPAN sometime. But you are attempting to make it seem like the Senator's statement on Knox carries more weight than say Secretary Clinton's statement or President Obama's statement, and it does not. But I think it should stay in the article.Malke2010 08:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've re-read Cantwell's statement and I don't think she is claiming to have any jurisdiction over the case. Clearly she hasn't, and this has nothing to do with the U.S. constitution (more to do with the Italian constitution and international law). Also, I don't think she is claiming to speak on behalf of the administration, and I don't think a reader would believe she was doing so, even without having a detailed understanding of the U.S. constitution. She seems to be expressing concern about the circumstances of one of her constituents (Knox) and passing those concerns on to the people who might be able to have some influence, namely the U.S. Ambassador to Italy, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Embassy of Italy in Washington, DC. I would suggest that we keep the statement because it is notable, but we should not suggest that Cantewell is representing anyone's views except her own. We should also balance it with a summary of the statement from the State Department, in place of the rather misleading "Clinton hs yet to take a position" sentence. Bluewave (talk) 11:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Bluewave. Cantwell is not speaking for the U.S. government. And a statement from the State Dept. would be good to have, as well.Malke2010 17:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Senate decides foreign treaties

Recent discussions remind me that many people, even Americans, do not understand why a U.S. Senator would feel qualified to comment about judicial proceedings in Italy. Of course, this is not a huge mystery. The U.S. Constitution, Article II Section 2, empowers the U.S. Senate to decide foreign treaties submitted by the President, along with the power to declare war and coin money, etc. Many non-American readers might not know this central, 220-year-old aspect of American government, so I understand it should be stated in the article: the U.S. Senate decides U.S. treaties, not the President nor anyone else.

Hence, the article should not only provide context for extreme claims such as "thorough bleaching" but also provide context for quoted opinions, such as noting that U.S. Senators decide all U.S. foreign treaties, as context for quoting a Senator about events in Italy. We must always consider the novice reader, and not assume that something is totally obvious, to most people, but rather, should be footnoted in the article. When Bill Gates says, "The Internet is a passing fad" there might be some people, unaware of the extreme implications, who would just think, "Gee, that's too bad, I thought the Internet was very useful worldwide, so I wonder how many years Gates will need to replace it." Of course, today many people would balk at the notion of this "passing-fad" claim, but imagine how computer scientists felt when Gates announced that prediction in 1995.

One man's Senate confirmation hearing about an ambassador is another man's group of "minor U.S. officials who have no business talking about Italy" [unlikely]. Consider the U.S. Senate as the jury for treaties, and ignoring them would be like a trial with no jury. So, because there is no guarantee that readers understand the overall situation, the article must provide some context to emphasize the immense importance of some events, or to explain the extreme nature of terms like "sex game" orgy, as to the kind of evidence that such an extreme claim entails. I am amending the article to note the U.S. Senate approves all U.S. foreign treaties and U.S. ambassadors, hence they might maybe have a few opinions about Italy. -Wikid77 06:52, 1 March 2010

I'm not sure that the statement that U.S. Senate approves all U.S. foreign treaties and U.S. ambassadors adds anything to the article. Foreign treaties and U.S. ambassadors don't really feature in the article. A senator only features in the article as a public figure who has expressed an opinion. If people want to understand the role of senator, they can follow the wikilink and read all the detail. Bluewave (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, you are correct, the US foreign policy towards Italy has nothing to do with the protocol for interacting with the Italian Judical system and does not belong anywhere near this article. I beleive Wikid77 is attempting to deliberately confuse, derail and sabotage this conversation by bringing in irrelevant information in this rambling discourse. I see no reason to respond further to this, in fact, I would suggest this gets removed. I agree with your suggestion is that appropriate text should be inserted into this article that shows that the US Department of State has monitored the trial all along, reviewed the case, supports the verdict rendered and has not found anything that would make them intervene on Amanda Knox's behalf at this point. The US Department of State should be the WP:RS Jonathan (talk) 11:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan, I've taken the liberty of editing your post. I think you meant square brackets around WP:RS, rather than curly ones (which stick the entire text here). I've also added a summary of your quoted text from the State Department to the article...I can't see any reason for not including their statement. There was a broken cite about Clinton not commenting. I deleted that for now, because it didn't work - I don't know if it can be repaired. Also changed to more neutral wording about Clinton. Also removed the bit about the Senate deciding foreign treaties. When placed beside the statement from a senator it gives an impression that Cantwell was speaking on behalf of the Senate and that they were somehow involved through international treaties. I think Cantwell's statement is quite clear and it is equally clear that she presented it to people who might be able to influence things and was not implying that she could influence things directly herself. Bluewave (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

All apologies, Bluewave, on my formatting gaffe! The text you inserted looks good, and it accurately reflects that Senator Cantwell's position and opinion differs from the Department of State - even though the Department of State could carry a greater weight, the Senator's comments are certainly more notable. Also, I hope that I did not in any way disparage Senator Cantwel by attributing her statement as opinion - any Senator can state anything they choose, I just wanted to provide the context and balance here, Jonathan (talk) 12:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the sentence added accurately reflects what the State Department was saying during the press conference held shortly after the verdict. I don't think the State Department was saying that it viewed the trial as reaching a correct result. They were just saying that the proceedings looked basically legitimate and were conducted by a democratic ally. The gist of what they were saying is that Clinton will meet with Cantwell as a first step and then proceed from there. The sentence added gives the misleading impression that the State Department was giving its seal of approval to the trial.

This is the gist of their position as of December 7, 2009:

QUESTION: Ian, Senator Cantwell also said today she hoped the State Department would look aggressively at the details of the case, just following up on Elise. And she said she is hopeful that Secretary Clinton will express concern about the case to the Italian Government. Is that in the cards for Secretary Clinton and the State Department?

MR. KELLY: Well, I – as I said before, the Secretary looks forward to talking to the senator and having a discussion with her, and then we’ll see where we go from there.

Since the gist of what Mr. Kelly was saying was that Clinton and Cantwell would meet and take it from there, I have edited the sentence to reflect the fact that Clinton has not yet taken a position. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that Senator Cantwell's opinion should remain, accompanied by the note issued by the DoS.

Anyway, it is not within the province of a Senator to comment about the judicial treatment of U.S. nationals abroad. It is the Government that has jurisdiction over these matters: it is called diplomatic protection, an institution of customary international Law. Salvio giuliano (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why someone has deleted the bits where the spokesman said "the Department has followed this case very closely" (surely important...they've been doing their job), "our role is to ensure that any American citizen is treated fairly" (also important as it establishes what they can and can't do), and "we haven’t received any indications necessarily that Italian law was not followed" (again important because it explains why the State Department hasn't done anything specific). Can anyone explain why this should all be deleted, or shall I just add it again? Bluewave (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with cherry picking part of the press conference to suggest that they agree with the case by singling out the part about Italian law being followed. That suggests an approval of the case, which is not the gist of what he was saying. I quoted above what the gist was. Quotes should not be cherry picked to give a misleading impression. The reality is that there is no approval by the State Department of these proceedings as of yet. They simply said they would meet with Cantwell and take it from there.Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this section it seems that it is being edited more and more to present the reactions in particular way. For example, the quote attributed to Knox suggests that she approves of the case, which clearly she does not. It is misleading to suggest that she agrees with the outcome of the case. Maybe she said something like that, maybe she did not. But a lot appears to have been lost in the translation of her statement to an Italian official. She may have been saying that she thought the trial procedures were fair, but that does not mean that she agrees with the outcome. One report I saw was that all she was saying was that her lawyers did a good job, not that the trial was well done. This is just one of many examples of quotes being cherry picked to present a misleading POV. Quotes should be selected to represent the gist of what is going on, not to create a false impression for the reader. Since Knox clearly does not approve of the proceedings, the quote should be deleted. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, I don't see why you consider it cherrypicking to include those quotes that I mentioned but not cherrypicking to exclude them. The quotes don't say that State Department agrees with the verdict, or is giving some sort of approval of the Italian court. I don't think they would ever say that they agreed or disagreed with the verdict of a court, because that is not their job. Their job (as Kelly explains) is to ensure that Americans travelling abroad are treated fairly. The only thing he has to say on this subject is "we haven’t received any indications necessarily that Italian law was not followed", which is surely relevant. We would be cherrypicking if this statement was at odds with the other things he says, but it isn't. It would be cherrypicking, if we had chosen a bit of his briefing where he said something that wasn't strictly in his remit, but this isn't that either. This is not cherrypicking. Bluewave (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And here is another example of cherry picking the reactions to the trial:

"But even one of her lawyers, Carlo Dalla Vedova, said that he believed the trial was fair. He added that he “disagreed” with news media coverage that depicted it otherwise." This clearly is not the gist of her lawyer's position. This is another example of seizing upon language which is favorable to a certain position to give a false impression. The reality is that the State Department does not in any way approve of this trial. Knox does not approve of it, and her lawyers do not approve of it. But bits and pieces of remarks are being cherry picked to create false impressions. Since the State Department has not taken a position approving of this case, including language indicating approval by saying that Italian law was followed is misleading. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the source?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice try, Zlykinskyja, you are deliberately removing out the quote from the State Department that contradict Senator Cantwell, and you are attempting to portray the position that the US Department of State is just begunning to look into this trial, where in fact, they have followed it closely over the past two years. You cannot omit this information, nor can you suggest that the Department of State is reaching out to Senator Cantwell to discus this case, when it is the exact opposite: Senator Cantwell is simply requesting something that the State Department has been already doing all along. Senator Cantwell is a day late and a dollar short, only when additional information shows up should it be added. Jonathan (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The link to the press conference gives all that detailed information. The gist of what Mr. Kelly was saying was that Clinton intended to meet with Cantwell. Other than that,I don't see a firm position being taken. But I will do some research to see of they have updated their position by now. The press conference was December 7. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong again, Zlyknskja, there is clear and unambiguous text in the press release that states that the Department of State has been following this trial all along for two years and found nothing wrong with Italian law; and also states that the Department of State is willing to discuss the case with anyone ... but the DoS are under no obligation to reach out to anyone here, nor do they need to provide a specific approval of teh case.. Can we revert the text back to what Bluewave put in earlier today? Jonathan (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I would think so since we should reflect what they said, not what they didn't.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jonathan. We should revert back to what Bluewave had earlier.Malke2010 18:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

US Department of State Consensus

I would suggets that the context clarified, specifically regarding the Senator Cantwell's statement vis the US Department of State. I suggest that any such text should accurately reflect the following:
1. The State Department has closely monitored the trial throughout
2. The State Department has not found any irregularies with Italian law with regard to the trial
3. The State Department has neither approved nor disapproved of the decision.
4. Senator Cantwell has concerns and presented them to the DoS.
5. The US Department of State did not request or initiate any discussions with Senator Cantwell.

Can we all come to a concensus that this is an accurate portrayal of the US State Department's current stance?

The Friends of Amnda & Senator Cantwell are suggest Unclean Hands in this trial ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unclean_hands - this is an extraordinary accusation. Extraordinary accusations require the person making them to provide extraordinary proof and support. Jonathan (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(after e/c) That's how I read it and support this summary as I indicated above.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I just copied this from the State Dept website which is being used as the source for the edit that claims Clinton and Cantwell are planning to meet to discuss what to do next. This is not really how the State Dept sees it.

Amanda Knox case / Secretary Clinton is aware of Senator Cantwell's concerns / Will discuss with the Senator / The State Department has followed the case closely / Ms. Knox has the right to an appeal in the next 45 days

Italy has its own judicial procedures'

It sounds like Clinton is going to discuss Cantwell's concerns. Not her own and not the State Dept's concerns. Just Cantwells.Malke2010 18:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I'm not sure I would actually include point 3 in the article, because I doubt if the State Department of one country would publicly approve or disapprove of a court decision taken in another country, so it's not particularly notable that they haven't in this case. But if those of you who are more familiar with U.S. practice think it is worth including, I won't object. Points 1,2,4 ,5 are important points from the State Department's briefing and should definitely be included. Bluewave (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Skype Call: Removal of Recanted Quote Attributed to Rudy Guede

This quote attributed to Rudy Guede has been recanted, contradicted, is false and should be removed from the article;

"“During an intercepted Skype call between Rudy Guede and a friend while he was a fugitive in Germany, Guede stated that Knox had not been present at the house the night of the murder…“

I am going to remove it completely, I would suggest that if there is any reason to add it back, it would have to include the notation that it is recanted or contradicted.Jonathan (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Must either include all the information about this or it can't be included. Goes to WP:NPOV.Malke2010 19:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Misleading Quotes on Knox and Her Lawyer's Reaction to Trial

The two quotes on the reactions of Knox and her lawyer to the trial also need to be removed. One quote is in the "Reaction" section and the other quote is in the "Media" section. These quotes do not represent the views of Knox and her lawyer and are being taken out of context in the sources. It is not accurate that Knox and her lawyer approve or condone the results of the trial. The truth is clearly just the opposite. Including those two quotes misleads the reader on their positions on the trial which are that the trial resulted in unjust convictions of two innocent people and the verdicts need to be overturned. To lead the reader to believe otherwise is clearly POV. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about the quote from the New York Times?Malke2010 21:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There is one in the Reaction section where Knox is quoted as saying that her "rights were respected" in the trial and it gives the impression that she is not in strong opposition to her conviction. Obviously, that is not an objective picture of her reaction. Other reports were that she was so distraught she had to be held and comforted by the guards as she cried all night. There is another one where her lawyer is quoted in the New York Times as saying something along the lines that the trial was "fair". But since he is filing an appeal and takes the position that she is innocent, the quote does not accurately portray his views either. There needs to be clarification that neither one thinks the right result was reached in the trial. It may be that they were misquoted due to translation problems, or the quotes were taken out of context. They could have meant that the procedures were fair, but they clearly do not agree with the end result of those procedures. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

At footnote 171 for example, she is quoted in a headine as saying that the trial is "correct." Sounds like a translation problem to me. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a wp:RS that shows how they where misquoted and do you have one that shows a different context? Or is it your personal believe (which would have no place here anyways)?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It is common knowledge that Knox and her attorney do not agree with the verdict and maintain that she is innocent. Presenting them as not being in opposition to the result of the trial is clearly not accurate. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, You're right, in that it sure does sound odd that Knox would say something like that. Although the quotes are indeed there in Corriere della Sera article, seemingly in direct response to Senator Cantwell's unsolicited statement. Could it be that her Italian defence lawyers advised her to make these "fair trial" quotes to perhaps better position herself in the appeal and distance Knox from Senator Cantwell? Keep in mind, Senator Cantwell made an extraordinary accusatino against the Italian Judicial System ... It would be interesting to find out why she said that Jonathan (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan, it could also be a translation problem, no? How can she maintain her innocence and yet defend the trial?Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You can loose a game [first round actually] and still call it a fair game, no?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"Misquoted" and "out of context" are statements of facts and need sourcing. As for being in odds with their actual believes is a matter of opinion and interpretation. Sure, what Jonathan says makes sense and could be true but we don't know that, so we leave it to the reader what to make out of it.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

She could well be positioning herself for the appeal. During the trial, I thought it was extraordinary that Knox didn't go out of her way to show respect for the court (eg in style of dress, style of language, and general demeanour). Maybe she is now getting some better advice! In the UK, the most hardened thugs, charged with atrocious violent crimes, will always turn up in court wearing smart suits and ties and will address the court in a very deferential manner. Of course it shouldn't make a difference, but most defendents don't believe that. I bet it's the same in Italy. Bluewave (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Knox clearly maintains that she is innocent and that the trial reached an unjust result, as do her lawyers. To maintain otherwise has no basis in reality. There once were numerous sources cites in footnotes showing the reaction of the defendants' camps as being strenuously opposed to the verdict but most of those sources were deleted and what remains tends to present the opposite of the true picture. To maintain that these quotes paint a fair picture of the defendants' camps is POV. But that much is clearly obvious. This article needs some sort of dispute resolution, mediation or arbitration to avoid so much wasted time with these types of issues. I'm not sure what other types of procedures are available but if there is a way to streamline these disputes by utilizing more formal procedures, that should be considered in the interests of efficiency and accuracy. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, as to being a translation problem, my own personal opinion - (for what it's worth!!!) is that Knox did indeed deliberately make those statements, and they are not a mis-translation. My instincts tell me that Knox's legal representatives have their fingers on the pulse of the Italian Appellate Courts and probably figured she would have more credibility if she made those statements, again, likely to put distance from Senator Cantwell. In reality, from this point forward, virtually all of Knox's public statements will be carefully vetted and scripted by her Legal Team, anyway. And righty so, it is in Knox's interest to defer to their judgement. . .. Does anyone have a transcription of the converation with Mr Verini of the actual text? Jonathan (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You just said above concerning a statement damaging to the prosecution by Guede, that if there is a contradiction in the information, the quote should be removed. Obviously these quotes do not represent the reality of the K and S camps' views. So why should they be left in the story?Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, That quote that was attributed to Guede was retracted and contradicted by Guede himself, so it is no longer valid which is why it needed to be removed. If you are able to find a direct-sourced quote from Knox or more likely, her Legal Team in which she maintains the original position that the trial was unjust OR if you find a quote in which she recants the "trail was fair" comment, then certainly it would belong in a section titled "Reactions to the trials and convictions". Although again, my own personal opinion is that you would be entering a rabbit's hole, as Knox's legal team seems to be moving on from the "unfair trial" angle and putting their efforts into less volatile tactics. Proceed as you wish. Jonathan (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree that Knox's legal team is probably keen to show that they believe the Italian system was fair and they still have a belief in it. It doesn't contradict Knox's claim of innocence for her to say she got a fair trial. Agreew with what Magnificent Clean Keeper said, about the fair game. Knox lost the game but she can still say it was a fair game.Malke2010 00:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And also, Zlykinskyja, bear in mind that you might be under-estimating the scope of the negative impact of Senator Cantwell's statement. I understand that you may or may not agree with the actual content of the Senator's statement, but it was an incredible, unbelievable, broach of diplomatic protocol. You can see for yourself how quickly the US Department of State reacted and issued their own 'the trial was fair" statement. In the highly-diplomatic, read-between-the-lines world of International politics - where absolutely everything is carefully scripted - that is about as close at it comes to to a public reprimand of the Senator. That is the context in which Knox's defense attorneys are working under. Jonathan (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jonathan. Zlykinskyja, I think everyone here understands your concerns. But Jonathan is right about the rabbit hole. Don't go down it. Knox's legal team needs to be seen cooperating with the process.Malke2010 02:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan, our role is not to psyche out what the various strategies might be based on mere conjecture. We have no way of knowing what anyone's strategy might be, nor is it our role to help or hinder anyone's stragegy. We just state the facts, hopefully as accurately as possible. The facts are that neither quote presents an accurate record of their positions, so the quotes need to be removed. I am pretty sure I can find much better quotes that explain how the K and S camps have reacted to the verdict (which was negatively) so I will try to locate those this week. In terms of Senator Cantwell's statement, it is indeed a very strong position, but she issued her statement as a press release so there is nothing wrong with including it. It is fair to assume she meant it to be high impact. Whether that was wise or unwise is not part of the editorial decision. FYI: I'm done with this discussion for now, as I think the issue has been hashed and re-hashed and too much time has been spent on this already. Good night all.Zlykinskyja (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you completelty, Zlykinskyja, that this article itself should only state facts - but unfortunately, Knox, the US Department of State and her Defence Team have all made highly public, unambiguous statements since the verdict was rendered that there was a fair trial. I don't think any editor would object at all when/if you can find any sort of direct, WP:RS subsequent quote attributed to Knox, the DoS or her defence team that supports the "unfair trial" angle. But the public statements made by Knox, the DoS and the Defence Team will essentially be in contradiction to anyone that is still fanning the flames of the "unjust trial". Jonathan (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Zlykinskyja, in regards to the quotes that you would like to remove from the Reacton to the trial... subsection, these three distinct points seem to be presented:

A) Knox maintains her innocence and disagrees with the verdict
B) Knox has appealed her conviction through the proper process
C) Knox has slightly modified her stance and now maintains the trial itself was fair
.

What you think - are these three points are an accurate reflection of Knox's current position? When taken together in context, it seems to correspond with the public statements made by her Defence Team. But if you think that any one of those three points are inaccurate, poorly translated, given undue weighting, balance or context, then perhaps a bit of a re-write is in order? Looking at one of the specific quotes you mentioned (the "rights were respected"), I'm still thinking that it belongs in the article because actually it starts to put Knox into a better light, and makes her seem more cooperative. Jonathan (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This quote violates BLP policy because it suggests an admission of guilt--that she must be guilty of a horrible murder since she allegedly said to an Italian politician that she thinks she had a fair trial. There were no witnesses to this alleged admission. This is HIS account only. The alleged statement is not credible because it flies in the face with everything known about the Knoxs, which is that they completely and totally reject the trial. It is not required to reach consensus to remove info that violates BLP policy. The statement is misleading, it is defamatory, it is likely concocted or misinterpreted. Under BLP policy, it must be removed. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how this violates BLP policy if it is a cited source quoting Knox. Also, saying that her human rights have been observed and that she has faith in the justice system doesn't in any way suggest that she is admitting her guilt. It surely says that she fully expects to win an appeal. Bluewave (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Knox's statement saying she had a fair trial isn't saying she's guilty. By that assumption, if she had been found not guilty and said she had a fair trial, should we then assume she is really saying she was guilty?Malke2010 22:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, The quote is damaging to Knox's reputation. It violates BLP policy. The source is highly questionable. You have justified deletions based on questionable sources. Well, Knox never said this stuff. It is one guy's word, who had no witnesses. Other sources have said that she was misquoted and said that she remarked that her lawyers did a good job, not that the trial was in any way good or meeting her approval. I think this demonstrates the POV editing going on here. It is false and misleading, without good source, damaging to a living person. It needs to go. No consensus needed under BLP policy. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, Zlykinskyja, why are you citing WP:BLP? There is no "she allegedly said to an Italian politician", that was very accurately and WP:RS. If you are arguing that statement is false or mi-translated, then bring it up and get consensus. But you deliberately avoided this discussion on the Talk Page. Can you please give everyone the courtesy to voice their thoughts before you delete text? Don't keep hiding behind BLP to push your POV.Jonathan (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

@Zlykinskyja:Would you be so kind and share these "other sources" with us or do we have to take your word for it?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is the quote's direct source in the Della Corriere ...

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/09_dicembre_09/in-cella-da-amanda-ho-ancora-fiducia-nella-vostra-giustizia-alessandro-capponi_bfed4194-e48a-11de-b76e-00144f02aabc.shtml

Zlykinskyja, can you profide anything that would verify your assertion that this is mis-translated, offer specific examples so it can be vetted here on the talk page? Simply saying that "other sources" disagree is not sufficient. Jonathan (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I provided the information in the article but you deleted it. For anyone else who wants to read about the clarification statement reported by a major news network, here it is: http://abcnews.go.com/International/AmandaKnox/amanda-knox-family-denies-approved-trial/story?id=9315568Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You should've placed it here in the first place. Anyways, I've added Knox's disappointment by the verdict from the source. I guess there is no dispute from your side that she said this.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)