Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Infobox of MK

Why has the photo of MK got a title like 'Murder of Meredith Kercher'?; that is not what the photo shows. Some info under photo of the victim and about the victim seems to have been changed and expanded into a eyecatching POV mini summary that discusses legal outcomes of other people in a misleading way. It's trying to supplant the article IMO. That not the place for the subject, it shouldn't be there and anyway its text is POV and wrong. For example 'Convicted of sexual assault, murder' is incorrect, the verdict at an Italian trial of the first grade does not have the status that a conviction at trial has in Britain or the US, 50% of verdicts at trials of the first grade are reversed. Back to this version of the MK photo box please.Overagainst (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

In a infobox wording is necessarily abbreviated. Issues that required an explaination, such as the status of verdicts at AK/RS's trial of the first degree, should not be given a deceptive presentation on the pretext of brevity as is being done in the highly prominent infobox, right alongside the lede. The wording was not neutral 'Convicted of sexual assault, murder'. Info in an infobox for MK's photo should be about her and consist of those relevant details that can be accurately given in the limited space available.Overagainst (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. "Deceptive presentation under the pretext of brevity"...you jump straight to that conclusion? That statement = bad faith. Funny that you are the only one who is claiming a POV in the infobox. Try holding on to the wrong version if you think that is the case while the issue is being discussed. So far, you have been reverted by two other editors. I'm restoring the previously accepted version while discussion is ongoing so folks can see what is under discussion. If a consensus forms here to change it then we will...there is no rush.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 12:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources are currently stating that they were convicted...we use what the sources state. See CNN's "Italian prosecutors appeal decision to overturn Amanda Knox conviction".
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 12:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice of you to defend the person responsible for the edit to the photo/ infobox text. I don't know who was responsible for that drastic alteration to the text under the MK photo so I didnt call anyone names. It is permissable call an edit out of order if the edit hasn't been discussed in talk, or mentioned in any edit summary.Overagainst (talk)

I don't know who made the modifications to the text box but it has been there for months. You shouldn't jump to the conclusion that whoever did it was being deceptive. Also, the box info is accurate enough according to sources. The nuances of the Italian legal system are explained in the article. You suddenly deciding that calling them "convictions" is incorrect and trying to correct it as POV is what seems out of order. For all intents and purposes, they were convicted and spent several years in prison before successfully appealing.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The change was made last year on October 9 with a clear edit summary and tweaked by another editor on October 17. Since then there were no complains. Honestly, the mistake was to add a bio info-box early on to the article even so the subject is the crime and not the person.TMCk (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It is an eyecatching mini lede right alongside the proper lede and supplanting it. The wording is tendentious, 'Convicted of sexual assault, murder' is not proper wording for a label in an infobox. The article makes clear, in the Italian legal procedure section, that AK &RS were not convicted as is understood in the UK or US. AK & RS were referred to, and had the legal status of, defendants after the verdict in the trial of the first degree, so how can it be called a conviction. And 'convicted of' is hardly neutral wording , especially as the people being referred to were, in second stage of the trial process, acquitted. It really won't do to have that deceptive worded information in such a prominent place. The featured article Death of Ian Tomlinson has a picture infobox showing the circumstances of his death in a photobox called that. The 'Murder of Meredith Kercher' is on the photo infobox but the photo of Kercher is not related to the circumstances of her death. It's there to show who she was and give basic facts; the ones that can be got across in the restricted space available. I don't see a biobox format as inappropriate for the intended purpose as long as the labels are worded properly. The text is the thing.Overagainst (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Go convince CNN and all other sources that they are being tendentious when they say "convicted". I guess they are being deceptive...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If they never were convicted would mean that there was nothing to overturn and yet the court overturned a conviction. Maybe some undiscovered paradox is taking place?TMCk (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Any minute now we'll be back on the old "describing them as having been convicted is a BLP violation" train so beloved of PhanuelB. pablo 14:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

'Convicted of' should be 'convicted on charges of' or better still 'found guilty on charges of'. There is not room in an infobox label for that wording "Convicted of sexual assault, murder" is too long as it is. That was my point about slanted language getting through under a pretext of brevity. The infobox is the wrong place and in the wrong place - right alongside the lede and containing a very poorly worded version of the same info. The trial of the second degree is akin to a retrial (with more intelligent lay judges) and not very like what is understood by the word 'appeal' in the US or UK. The first trial's verdict was overturned but it was not the overturning of a 'conviction' as most English speaking readers will understand it.Overagainst (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm; let's see. Convicted in UK; go to jail, conviction overturned, get released, get on with your life, sell story to papers etc.
Convicted in US; go to jail, conviction overturned, get released, get on with your life, commence suing everyone in sight etc.
Convicted in Italy; go to jail, conviction overturned, get released, get on with your life ... all these examples of overturning of convictions seem pretty similar to me. But then I do not claim to be an expert on what most English speaking readers would understand. pablo 15:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Giulio Andreotti was 'convicted' of murder (in a Perugia court), as someone in Britain would understand it, was he? Or would it be deceptive to say that so baldly.Overagainst (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Not (as far as I know) in this case, he wasn't. pablo 22:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Giulio Andreotti was acquitted in his first trial, then convicted on appeal and acquitted again on appeal. But what's the point? That his infobox doesn't show this? If that's the point let me say this again: This article is about the crime and not the bio of MK. Andreotti's article is not about a crime but his bio. Clear and simple.. one might think.... one other might not.TMCk (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

How can you be convicted for the first time at an appeal? You can't, what you are referring to as an appeal is what in Britain or the US would be called a re-trial. The point is the Italian legal system has differences that do not allow a ready translation of terms like 'conviction' as the legal status of a person found guilty on a charge at a trial of the first degree in Italy is not equivalent to a conviction on a charge at trial in the UK and US. 'Conviction' should not be used about the verdict at the first trial without carefully explaining the differences. 'Convicted of' is not accurate or neutral for a verdict at an Italian trial of the first degree and should not be used in this context. 'Found guilty on a charge of' is better. Overagainst (talk) 09:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC) In the UK of US a conviction has far more weight, anyone in the UK or US who read that that Andreotti was convicted of ordering that murder, but the conviction was overturned, would believe he was probably guilty but got off for lack of evidence. That eyecatching infobox is parrallel with the lede. "Infobox" MoMK starts off with bio type info under the MK photo, (a bio type photo, not a photo of her being murdered). Then it turns into a a mini lede which states Amanda Knox was 'Convicted of sexual assault, murder'. Overagainst (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Found guilty on a charge of" means "convicted of" in English however.

convict (v) declare (someone) to be guilty of a criminal offence by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge in a court of law
OED

to find or prove to be guilty
Merriam-Webster

How is "convicted of" not the English meaning of what happened to the defendants? pablo 10:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

If word for word rendering of Italian into English was the only way you would be right. However we can use a few words to be more exact in our translation of the single word of Italian. The context includes the fact that in Britain or the US, 50% of verdicts at trials are not reversed. A conviction in the English speaking world means something different than it does in Italy. Not totally different, but different enough that the phrase 'convicted of' which glosses over the presumed innocent status of a defendant, until they are found guilty at a trial of the second degree, should not be used.Overagainst (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No we don't need to user more than one word to translate the Italian. We need to state what the sources say. More words can be used within the body of the article to explain this technical point.
They were found guilty at their first trial. They were presumed innocent for the purposes of the second. The article states this. Relative percentages of successful appeals in other countries is irrelevant. pablo 11:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Rather than using valuable space and wasting readers' valuable time by using the article to resolve misunderstandings created in the infobox/bootleg minilede, let's just leave the trial outcomes for the lede and article where they can be explained properly.Overagainst (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox labels

Let's emulate the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, a featured article. It has infobox label 'Perpetrator" and one name - Sirhan Sirhan. Thane Cesar is not mentioned. Assassination of John F. Kennedy infobox has label 'Perpetrator(s)'. Lee Harvey Oswald is mentioned, but Clay Shaw, who was actually prosecuted, is not mentioned in the infobox. I don't see a precedent for the prosecutor Mignini being mentioned in the MoMK infobox. The O. J. Simpson murder case info box does not name a prosecutor. Is Jim Garrison mentioned in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy infobox? Overagainst (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

'Convicted of sexual assault, murder' as a infobox label

I can not find any other article which has an infobox label like the one in MoMK. It seems to me the phrase 'Convicted of sexual assault, murder' is overlong for an infox label and yet not able to convey what the article does on the status of the trial of the first degree verdicts. The infobox does not mention Knox being found guilty at the trial of the second degree on a charge of slander, even though the slander charge is the only one she was truly convicted of under Italian law. Also, there is no space to explain that Guede's convictions for murder and sexual assault are definitive, as he was found guilty at trials of the first and second degree and the supreme court appeal. Guede's conviction on charges of sexual assault and murder was never of the same status as that of Knox and Sollecito on the same charge. Infobox labels should not contain information which can not be given in a clear way in the space available . I don't see any precedent for the prosecutor Mignini being mentioned in the MoMK infobox. Jim Garrison is not mentioned in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy infobox. The O. J. Simpson murder case infobox does not name a prosecutor. Overagainst (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC) If you disagree now is your chance to say so. A consensus is not silent. Overagainst (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It is when it is clear. You do not have consensus and have not made a convincing argument. Your last edit concerning the infobox is clearly edit-warring against the consensus here.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The infobox is the short version, Cliff's Notes as it were. It should only display the final result of all the court cases, that Guede killed Kercher. The Knox, Lumumba and Sollecito arrests should be the last we hear of them in the infobox. I have no problem with Mignini in the infobox. Binksternet (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

We still have to talk this one out. I found some guidelines on how to handle such and try to post them when I have the time. Might be a few days tho.TMCk (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Those rules are basically about adding the most basic and notable aspects of the subject and should be applied by consensus.TMCk (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems like the most basic listing would be to tell the reader who killed Kercher—Guede did—not clutter the infobox with the sideshows.

Follain's book

Any chance that someone besides Overagainst has Foillan's book at hand to check and add full quotes in footnotes at the article for more context? There were or still are occasions where Dempsey's book was used for content that either was not backed up by Dempsey's account [in part maybe just the wrong page number was given] or instances of misinterpretation of the source. I'm not that hooked on this article to by yet another book as the last two I bought put me to sleep :)TMCk (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have the book, but the request(s) will need to be more specific. --FormerIP (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't be more specific than what I've already said since I don't have the book. I'm asking for someone to go over the article, verify what's sourced to Foillan and add footnotes as needed or appropriate. I know it's not just some minor work and if you would do this you'd have to use your own judgment of course. Or you could send me your book for free and I'll do the rest :)) TMCk (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Follain will be too happy about you requesting someone to stick key passages of his recent and copyrighted work onto WP. It's a good book, he got incredible access. For anyone interested in the case what's in the book makes it well worth buying. There are lots of interesting details and insights that I have not referenced.Overagainst (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Re removal of my earlier brusque remark about buying the book- Please give people a little time to sign, tidy up and moderate their more obviously rushed talk contributions before taking it upon yourself to delete them with a pointed comment/edit summary. I think you'll find worse things said about me, than by me, on talk in recent months. Attribution of 'ownership issues' is hardly civil. Some may think the tone of a comment like "It's safe to say that she'll never be a low-profile individual.", made under a pseudonym and about an identified person, is rather ill-judged on a WP talk page. Ownership is the - "I don't own that book, so I can't confirm your source." I went to some trouble in giving a helpful response to TMCk about the book a while back. Footnotes with excerpts from the referenced text in Follain's book should not be put on the page, it would be a copyright violation. A couple of editors have the book and any misrepresentation will be picked up on.Overagainst (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Knox's book

It's safe to say that she'll never be a low-profile individual.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2012/02/amanda-knox-gets-4-million-book-deal.html

This is best addressed in the Knox article (as someone has already done), but may merit mention here.LedRush (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The first thing that came into my mind when I saw the update on Knox's bio that it would be safe to say that she at least can pay off the debt her parents had to build up. Good for her (and her folks.)
And yes, I think it warrants a mention in this article too, just not sure about the section to include it but I'll take a look. Although someone might beat me to it...TMCk (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe under "reaction/media coverage"? Could be a bold section under "media coverage" like "book deal". Any thoughts?TMCk (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Could be like follows:
  Knox book deal or Knox memoir
  In February 2012 Knox signed a $4 million contract with Harper Collins for writing her memoir.

I've boldly added it but everybody please feel free to revert and discuss further.TMCk (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

.TMCk, you say above "let me say this again: This article is about the crime and not the bio of MK". Now you're putting completely irrelevant materiel about Ms Knox's life since her release into the article and getting supported. EG LedRush, "may merit mention here" I'm astounded at that. I think there is no case whatever for Knox's life since her release qualifying as encyclopedic content, certainly not for the MoMK article. I've been criticized for ownership issues, OK I'll give it a rest and leave it to TMCk and like minded editors to update their Amanda Knox blog Overagainst (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Is that a promise?LedRush (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You can be as certain of it as you can be that Mick Jagger is the cousin of Roger Daltrey. Overagainst (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone! Just made a bold edit and put all the book deals as a separate section. When everybody's writing books, why mention just Knox's deal?--Tinpisa (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The relevance of an unpublished book to the topic of the article cannot be established. The book's text is not known. I removed the book deals section. Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no strong feeling about this but I do think that a $4 million book deal for Knox [who became the main notability for and of this article] as a result of this case is notable and worth to be mentioned. BTW, before the changes today it was the only book deal entry.TMCk (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The proposed books are by people who are directly connected with MoMK, and have become very notable. The book deals can be included in an encyclopedia if its notable - the book need not have been published. A simple google search of the term Amanda Knox book deal yields 1.9 million hits. Do you still think it is not notable? Raffaele Sollecito book deal yields 73K hits and John Kercher book deal gives 78K hits. The deals are certainly notable. The notability of all the people connected with MK stems from the MoMK. Moreover, Raffaele Sollecito redirects to MoMK, and anything connected with him can only be mentioned on this article. Thanks.--Tinpisa (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No objections ?Tinpisa (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Add to the the above ones, these WP:NOT#NEWS"Wikipedia is not a newspaper". Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons"must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material." Family members "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. See also Invalid criteria". "Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy." WP:NOTSCANDAL Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person." Overagainst (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Umh, well. It's sure not just news because the deal is set. It also is for sure not a BLP vio and no scandal for sure. Now if you would bring up a real wp reason like challenging the notability you would have my ear, But not with "wishi-washi"that doesn't apply.TMCk (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
And then again, I don't have strong feelings about that but I would like to see some better argument to keep it out instead of the simple "it doesn't belong there", also called in wp language: "I don't like it".TMCk (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Still no convincing argument. The deals must be mentioned. Also amazing is the fact that my friend, Overagainst, understands BLP articles need to be done with sensitivity, and yet has pushed extreme weight and details in favour of one protaganist on the article. Tinpisa (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Tinpisa says "The proposed books are by people who are directly connected with MoMK", I cited WP guidance "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person" Tinpisa's approach to determining whether 'Book Deals' is notable is to cite 1.9 million hits on a Google search! While this might be evidence that something is news, it does not show it qualifies as encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is not a newspaper.

Unconfirmed details, based on less than clearly sourced news reports, of the finances of a living person subsequent to her involvement in the MoMK case, are relevant in what way to the MoMK ?

Let's not play the innocent about the impression which will be created by adding the book deals to the MoMK article. This kind of content meets the "especially high standard" required for content about living people, and does not "infringe the subjects' right to privacy" ? Overagainst (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Changing wording and changing the meaning

Article in previous version said " At her trial Knox's account of what happened during her interrogation differed from that of the police. She testified that she spent hours maintaining her original story, that she had been with Sollecito at his flat all night and had no knowledge of the murder, but a group of police, both men and women, (ref Time World, Sept 29, 200(The Tough Women of the Amanda Knox Case) refused to believe her.

Magnificent Clean-keeper changed it, in in his edit summary he says "subjective and judgmental + rm undue mention of mixed group which adds nothing to the understanding of the subject". he changed it to this;- "At her trial Knox's account of what happened during her interrogation differed from that of the police. She testified that she spent hours maintaining her original story that she had been with Sollecito at his flat all night and had no knowledge of the murder, but a group of police[97] did not believe her.[98]"

Firstly, it is made clear that this is Knox's version of what happened which she gave at her trial. The criticism of it being subjective would only apply if this was being stated in Wikipedia's voice as what happened. If the police version is given then Knox's version as she gave it should be also. Tone down Knox's version and it ceases to be her version. . Magnificent Clean-keeper has taken upon himself to alter the meaning. a group of police[97] did not believe her.[98] " Speaking directly to jurors, Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox on Saturday sharply disputed testimony given by officials as to what happened at police headquarters the night before their arrest. In a show of defense solidarity, the two spoke one after the other in response to testimony from the head of the homicide unit and the policewoman who questioned the 21-year-old Seattle woman from midnight until 5:45 a.m. the morning of November 6, 2007. "I'm very sorry to hear what these witnesses have said," Knox stood to tell jurors. "It's not true. [...] I was only treated like a person after I made those last statements to the police -- then I was allowed to go to the bathroom, have something to drink." here And the Judges severely criticised the interogation and said it was of 'obsessive duration' so there is support for more than "a group of police[97] did not believe her " Overagainst (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This is Knox's account, not Wikipedia's, and therefore we should use her stronger, POV words and not the neutral words of the Wikipedia voice.LedRush (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't use non-neutral language when paraphrasing. If we ought to use Knox's words they need to be presented as quote (which the article is already full of... just saying).TMCk (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If we are stating what Knox's opinion is, it is POV to change it to mean something it is not. Neutrality here requires accurate portrayal of the subject/topic at hand. Your edit is POV as it deliberately distorts the subject to make it mean something different (in your mind, more neutral).LedRush (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, trying to insult me is not helpfull and doesn't serve you well.TMCk (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, did you actually read my comment? Do you understand the difference between paraphrasing and quoting? Please take another look and leave out the POV accusation BS. We had enough of that in the past so please don't start that unhelpful crap again. We sure can do w/o it. Thanks.TMCk (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please reread my post and try again. Thank you!LedRush (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Keeping up with BS-ing me doesn't change anything. Again, there is a difference between paraphrasing and quoting someone. You want her exact words in the article? Then suggest a way to quote her entirely and we might find some kind of consensus to add yet another quote.TMCk (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:PARAPHRASE,
"To properly paraphrase content, you review information from reliable sources, extract the salient points, and use your own words, style and sentence structure to draft text for an article."TMCk (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Add (after (edit conflict): "In some instances it is helpful to capture the words as written, in which case the guidelines for wp:Quotations apply."TMCk (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Because you are either unwilling to read my position or unable to understand it, I will try again: in describing Knox's account of the exchange, we should remain true to what her account actually is. By choosing words that alter her account, you are making POV changes to the article. In short, we need to accurately convey what the source says, and your change to the text doesn't do that. The source uses the word "refused", and it makes sense for us to as well. We need not quote everything in order to accurately convey an idea.LedRush (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No, the sources quote Knox as saying "refused". Read the essay and guideline I've linked above for further information how to deal with such.TMCk (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where in the paraphrasing article it says we need to dramatically alter the meaning of the sourced content. Could you please point it out?LedRush (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

"Dramatically"? You must be kidding :)) TMCk (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the word refused is being applied out of context from the source. It states: "Miss Knox said Italian police had interpreted the phrase "See you later" as a firm plan on her behalf to meet up with Mr Lumumba later that evening. She insisted that in English it was simply a casual sign-off but said police refused to believe her and pressured her to blame the murder on Mr Lumumba." ref

That means that they (according to Knox) refused to accept her explanation of the message text. As it stands now, that is a gross misapplication of the ref as it is being used to support another use of refused. If we are going to use Knox's words they must be used correctly.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Now that is indeed "dramatically" altering the meaning of the source. Not that I'm surprised. So what should the rewrite look like? There should be a consensus version drafted out here on talk although I'll reinstate the less contentious version till this is sorted out.TMCk (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed the usage is not perfect, but the intent is clear and accurate. However, I agree that a more complete rewrite could be an improvement. Per WP policy, I have restored the longstanding language to the article before TMCk's ill-advised, bold change. Now we're in the talky time, TMCk.LedRush (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think the problems with the sources go deeper. I have no doubt that the language as is can be sourced, but it is not by the two provided. The Time article mentions the browbeating of a false confession, while the telegraph states that the police refused to accept the obvious meaning of an English phrase and, this led them to suspect Knox. Neither mentions that Knox maintained her alibi for hours, etc. AS I said, I am sure this can be easily sourced, but it isn't now.LedRush (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes...a rewrite. Everyone needs to stop reverting as they are on the edge with 3RR. I don't see TMCK's change as ill-advised. The ref was being taken out of context and he sought to correct that. OverAgainst's concern in the original post has no merit. Led, you argued above that "...we should remain true to what her account actually is. By choosing words that alter her account, you are making POV changes to the article. In short, we need to accurately convey what the source says,...".
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 06:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I would again remind you that Knox's testimony was in Italian. The phrase 'Refused to believe her' was a loose but terse paraphase. It was replaced with 'Didn't believe her' which has a meaning quite different and is not a paraphase of Knox's testimony as given in reliable sources. Anyway, 'Didn't believe her' is non encyclopedic as it is attributing a mental state to the police, (rather than conveying that the detectives were telling her she was lying). If my faithful though economical paraphase is deemed unacceptable we will use a quote which is explicit that Knox maintained her alibi for hours while detectives refused to believe her. "I kept saying I had nothing to do with this and remembered being at Raffaele's apartment. They yelled at me, and I was in this state of confusion because for hours they called me a stupid liar." A confident Amanda Knox defends herself, says she wasn't there during slaying She says police bullied her into statements that weren't true. Overagainst (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that TMCk replaced an accurate phrase with an unencyclopedic one that changed the meaning, but as has been pointed out above, the original phrase doesn't deal directly with the subject either (meaning, yes, it's better than TMCk's POV distortion, but neither accurately says what the sources do). The source said that the refusal of the police to believe was with regards to the meaning of "See you later", which of course does relate to the alibi and Knox's story. But it is best to use a more explicit source regarding this subject. I don't think we need to use the quote you have there, but that that source can be used to make a general rewrite regarding Knox's account of that part of the interrogation.LedRush (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Question: Should that text remain in its current section? After all, we have a section titled Knox's withdrawal of her statement and the prosecution section follows later where this might be more appropriate. It was brought up a good while back (I don't remember who) that the article should have a chronological flow and not have points and rebuttals interspersed throughout the article. To me, having Knox's rebuttal in trial placed in the interrogation section is getting the cart before the horse.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

LedRush , yes Ref 98 is not directly relevant to "She testified that she spent hours maintaining her original story that she had been with Sollecito at his flat all night and had no knowledge of the murder, but a group of police[97] refused to believe her". Therefore A confident Amanda Knox defends herself, says she wasn't there during slaying-Seatle PI June 11, 2009, should be the ref for that statement or the re written version of it. Existing refs should be kept in para. By a re-write do you mean altered wording by tight paraphrasing of the quotes already in the para, or a substantially new version?

Berean Hunter, the artlcle has chronological order to the extent that is compatible with an encyclopedic article. The issue does not arise in this case. We are using the best sources to give an account of testimony about what happened in the interrogation. The para is Knox's account of what happened at the interrogation, the police account has been given in the preceding para. Cops' then Knox's. You think this is not chronological because Knox's account is from the trial, let me ask you this: when do you think the police account of the interrogation was given? At the trial obviously.Overagainst (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Overagainst again. The only way that Berean's suggestion makes sense is if we first have a neutral account in WP's voice. However, if we wanted to rewrite the section to be a completely dispassionate and neutral telling of the story, it would be nearly impossible (I would imagine that with the court rulings and recent press, the dispassionate version would most closely mirror Knox's, not the prosecutions'). As it currently sits, we are largely saying what the cops/prosecutors said, then what the defense said, in chronological order. The trial section then deals with how this conflicting information was dealt with at trial.

The only other way to do this would seem to be to delete everything contested from intro, and only write what is largely considered accepted knowledge in the initial sections. This could work, but it would also leave large holes in the narrative (for example, how could we treat the instant information? Omit it?)?LedRush (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, from my perspective this is a well reasoned, well argued discussion of how best to present the information that is available to aide the reader in sorting through a very complicated and contradictory tale. A tip of the hat to all. Okay, carry on. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

"Refused to believe her"

Free dictionary "Refuse usually implies determination and often brusqueness". It does not just mean 'did not believe her'. Oxford learner's says it means 'feel certain' as in "He refused to believe (that) his son was involved in drugs". Overagainst (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not the issue here. The issue is that it is a quoted opinionated POV word which has to be clearly marked as such and, as pointed out by BereanHunter above, used for the wrong statement. You keep on ignoring this.TMCk (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, it is made clear that this section summarising Knox's version of what happened, as she gave it at her trial. The criticism of it being subjective or POV would only apply if this was being stated in Wikipedia's voice as what happened. The ref that you have left in, currently ref 99 says "She insisted that in English it was simply a casual sign-off but said police refused to believe her and pressured her to blame the murder on Mr Lumumba." You say (see above) the words 'refused to believe her ' can't be used for anything but the police reaction to her explanation for the message in reply to Lumumba, and the word 'refused' has to have quotation marks. Neither of these assertions has any merit, the phrase is not quoting Knox it's summarizing what she says was the way the police acted throughout, not a particular reaction to a specific answer (about the text reply) Knox's version of what happened in the interrogation is summarised in a 3 word phrase, the fact that phrase also occurs in one of the sources is neither here nor there. "Refused to believe her' is supported by the ref you keep deleting -"I kept saying I had nothing to do with this and remembered being at Raffaele's apartment. They yelled at me, and I was in this state of confusion because for hours they called me a stupid liar." A confident Amanda Knox defends herself, says she wasn't there during slaying So both refs are relevant. Overagainst (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't say what you said I've said; I merely endorsed a view based on facts by another editor who, unlike you, didn't try to twist a source in a strange way to serve some obvious and yet strange agenda.
" She insisted that in English it was simply a casual sign-off but said police refused to believe her and pressured her to blame the murder on Mr Lumumba." With other words, "...she [Knox] said...". Find a ref that clearly paraphrases while using the word in question.
Further: Taking another ref out of context by implying it does back up the claim of "refused", made in the article as of now, is simply a dishonest and strong one sided personal view and extreme free interpretation of the source. Quoting the ref, "I kept saying I had nothing to do with this and remembered being at Raffaele's apartment. They yelled at me, and I was in this state of confusion because for hours they called me a stupid liar.", does in no way warrant the word "refused" but indeed backs up the wording that they just "didn't believe her" as suggested by me at some point.TMCk (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The single word ' refused' is having quotation marks put round it, apparently as a way of tagging it. We are adding scare quotes to articles now are we? You said the single ref originally provided did not support the wording, I have provided another ref , so that there are two refs for that disputed sentence containing 'refused to believe' but you are reperatedly removing it. Now we are told we can't have two refs for the wording 'Refused to believe'. I'll try again to explain. This para is giving Knox's account of the interrogation, and is qualified by explicitly stating it is what Amanda Knox said happened. Police could have not believed her but that is attributing a state of mind, in that case 'did not believe her' would be accurate. Calling someone a stupid liar, when they have been maintaining their story for hours, goes far beyond -'did not believe her'. Saying that Knox's account was that police 'refused to believe her ' is perfectly reasonable and quite conservative, especially as Knox says she was; called a stupid liar, shouted at, and slapped. I still think it's relevant that Knox says a large group of men and women interrogated her. 12 male and female cops sued her for saying she was slapped during the interrogation. Overagainst (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

A simple "no" will do as response. We only add quotation marks to quotations as was explained to you several times. Is there a slim chance that you just "refuse"to listen?TMCk (talk) 02:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You don't accept the first sentence in the para (which I think is a brief paraphrase) and insist on putting three tags on the sentence. I think that sentence is a loose paraphrase of this "I kept saying I had nothing to do with this and remembered being at Raffaele's apartment. They yelled at me, and I was in this state of confusion because for hours they called me a stupid liar."ref 100. That's what Knox said the police did . Now why is that not 'refused to believe' her? And why are you tagging that linked ref as if it can't be verified. Overagainst (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's just get rid of the word "refused". If she had actually used the word in this context, it would still only be a better, "correct" detailing of her version of events. Seeing as we don't have a source which says this, let's take it out. For the record, I think that Overagainst is probably right regarding how justifiable the current language is (meaning, the source he points to supports the language enough). However, the case is not as strong as before, and this argument is really a silly waste of time.LedRush (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Although I don't agree with your reasoning, I support the language you introduced.TMCk (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Source question

TMCk removed this sentence as it has no source. [[1]]

Is the Follian book not the source, or was the sentence added after the source was in?LedRush (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It was added two days ago.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Got it!LedRush (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Follain p128 says the phones 'became inactive', but he also says records show 'they" usually "kept their mobiles switched on until late at night". 'Switched off' may not be fully supported for RS. Follain p320-1 says AK explained why she "switched off" her phone, but does not say anything about RS. The phone records confirm there was no phone contact that could have been arranging any meeting at the basketball court. Lumumba's call, which was originally alleged to be arranging such a meeting, became irrelevant when he was replaced with Guede. So the prosecution were implying there was a prearranged meeting that did not require a call. The visitor at RS's flat at 8.40 pm was a medical student friend cancelling an arrangement she had made with with RS who had agreed to take her to the bus station to pick up a suitcase from a bus arriving at midnight. This arrangement was made earlier the same day, at 5.50pm. Hence a prearranged basketball court meeting was implied despite RS agreeing to the the trip to the station untill it was cancelled at 8.40pm. One source says it's unclear from conflicting reports/translations of testimony if AK's and RS's phones was switched off or just inactive. But AK testified at trial to switching her mobile off according to Follain. Follain gives the same time for RS's mobile phone becoming inactive as the call from his father - 8.42pm (Follain p.156). So what Follain says specifically about RS's mobile phone is that it became inactive (after the visitor) and a phone call from his father, and he is giving 8:42pm as the last activity. Overagainst (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Good. It sounds like you agree that there is no source for the sentence as it was drafted.LedRush (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

As I remember the BBC radio news on the day the appeal was granted (which took a highly skeptical tone) said there was a switch off of both their phones, so that would mean RS's too. When the BBC states something as fact you would think it was easily verifiable, but it wasn't. Perhaps because they don't fully understand prosecution tactics common in the Italian system, namely unconfirmable allegations, the BBC seem to be a little credulous of such assertions. EG the BBC are baldly asserting that Guede was a drug dealer.Overagainst (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Update on Parents' Slander Case; Prosecutor Admits possibility that police hit Knox

http://abcnews.go.com/US/amanda-knox-testify-italian-court-defense-parents/story?id=16037131

The first piece of info could go into the out-of-date section on the parents' case. The second should go in the investigation section.LedRush (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

"During closing arguments in the 2011 appeal trial, prosecutor Giuliano Mignini conceded that 'it is possible Knox was hit in the head by mistake'." Not new and Mignini had been reported as saying similar things before. In an interview with journalist Bob Graham he supposedly said he wasn't in the room so didn't know what happened. Anyway there is has not been any admission by the interrogators who are bringing the complaint. The outcome of the case may merit inclusion in the article but this is a little thin IMO.Overagainst (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Note regarding Follain as source: it was his article (which includes a fraudulent and very prejudicial 'translation') that was the subject of a police filing of charges on Knox family. Including purile gossip that can be sourced only to him and considering him the 'best source' suggests unfamiliarity with the subject or bias in favor of his work or against Knox. The police did not show up in court to pursue the charges incidentally, which may cast further doubt on the reliability of his work in this case. Kaosium (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57398361-504083/amanda-knoxs-parents-to-go-on-trial-in-perugia/

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Knoxs-Parents-Slander-Trial-postponed-key-witnesses-no-shows-145142835.html

Incidentally, it would be *much easier* to establish a relationship between Follain and Monica Napoleoni than it would be Knox and Guede. Why don't we keep gossip out of this? ;-)Kaosium (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Kercher writing a book

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/father-of-meredith-kercher-to-release-book-about-loss-of-his-daughter-quest-for-justice/2012/04/10/gIQAjziF8S_story.html

This should probably find it's way into the article.LedRush (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Guede in basement

Kaosium, I don't think the account of the unsavoury conversation the Italians in the basement had with Guede establishes anything about Knox. Some may think those Italians letting a character like that into the house, and then talking to him about the girl like that, suggests something about the judgement of the basement residents. But suit yourself. Overagainst (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough and a good point: there are other questions those boys might have been asked which would have been quite germane to the issue. However in fairness to all, locker-room talk about a convicted (in finality) rapist-murderer's interest in a girl found to be uninvolved by the Italian Court System is not only rather unsavory it's also unfair to both the boys downstairs and the girl: none of them could know what would occur in the future. Just because it's in Follain's book doesn't mean it needs to be on the wiki page when it (at least this particular episode) doesn't really have anything to do with the Murder of Meredith Kercher. Kaosium (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

We don't know what Guede said, but the Italian mens' assertion that he expressed interest in Knox was important to the prosecution case and it is relevant Guede was asking about her in the second conversation while being given quite a bit of encouragement from the Italians. It is relevant that one of the Italians bet Guede that AK would not object to his advances. They let him in the house, introduced him to Knox and Kercher, and later told him that he would be successful with Knox. I think it's fair to mention the context of the Italians' evidence: Guedes supposed attraction to AK was expressed during conversations in which the Italians encouraged his interest. They allowed him into the basement for the second time not long before he broke in to the upstairs apartment and murdered one of the girls the Italian men in the basement had allowed him to meet. Most people who knew Guede stayed away from him. The Italians knew Guede. There is stuff in Follain about the Italians in the basement that is not in the article; G, who was MK's boyfriend, used to ignore her in the street. They didn't seem too attentive or protective of the beautiful foreign girls who liked and trusted them. Well, they'll have no need to worry about our girls going to their city any more.Overagainst (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

To me, this is all WP:OR. And your wording is really unfortunate: "Italians" for "the basement guys", "our girls" for "foreign students". By the way, there are lots of American students in Perugia... --Grifomaniacs (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Outside Rome Perugia's University for Foreigners is one of only two places in Italy to offer suitable courses for Italian so it is hardly surprising that Perugia still has US students. I don't know why you bothered removing mention of Ms Knox, who chose to go to Perugia and by all accounts liked the place from the Perugia's University for Foreigners article on the grounds that she didn't 'graduate' (it was a one year course which, I believe she continued). It would have been her US Uni she would have graduated from, surely. Italians apparently think she speaks their language rather well.

Nothing I said was personal research. Perhaps there is an implication that the young Italian men who lived in the basement ought to have thought twice about introducing a character like Guede to a couple of naive foreign girls. In the early US documentary on the case a young black American, who worked in a Perugia nightclub, said that everybody knew Guede, and they stayed away from him. Guedes own best friend said Guede was known for bothering girls, telling lies, and poor personal hygene, and that many people disliked him. Guede did have a bad reputation. While it is true that the Italians did not know all of this, they were well acquainted enough to know the sort of person he was. They'd met Guede at the basketball court in Piazza Grimana, which was frequented by drug dealers as well as students, (Follain p.26) as I added to the article. You should know this as it was you who removed that little piece of information from the article. (M)any English girls in Perugia now? Meredith Kercher was English, she was the one who got murdered remember. Incidentally Follain says Meredith Kercher was frightened by the amount of drug use in Perugia, eg she found a used syringe outside Via della Pergola 7 (someone removed that detail from article too) and saw a group of men smoking heroin in a Perugia street. Anyway, Gude was allowed in to the house a second time and things were said that show the basement residents had some opinions of AK. When Guede broke in and murdered MK shortly after, the basement residents account of that second conversation was very important evidence against AK. Hence what the Italian men said in the the conversation with Guede is important to give the full context. Overagainst (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Amanda Knox is technichally not an Alumni of the University for Foreigners in Perugia. Unfortunately, she didnt have the possibility to finish her course and get the achievement (whatever it is), thus she doesnt belong there. I have to say that British students in Perugia have never been too much, there are lots of students coming from Northern Europe (German and Scandinavian in particular), Southern Europe (Spain and Greece), from the US, from Asia and from Africa. The Mayor of Perugia has announced that the University of Perugia will establish a special programme of study dedicated to the memory of Meredith Kercher (La Nazione http://www.lanazione.it/cronaca/2011/11/01/611747-giovani_dimenticano_meredith.shtml ). Whenever it will be, in this case a mention will be appropriate. I still think that we have not to weight too much social issues in Perugia based on monographic books on this case, they could be overemphasized due to the nature of this heinous crime. In fact Eurostat reports demonstrate that Perugia is not exceptionally "risky".--Grifomaniacs (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the one who is saying that the victim's experience (finding used syringe in grounds, unknowingly being introduced to a psychopath, seeing prowlers in garden, being inveigled into caring for cannabis plants, and finally being murdered) is typical of Perugia. You were the one who tried to remove from the article that Via della Pergola 7 was in a bad area of Perugia, not I.Overagainst (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Via della Pergola 7 was not in a bad area of Perugia, on the ground of objective parameters such as house prices before the murder. We cannot blame for the murder anyone of the Italian guys in the basement: they werent pushers, just students that used to smoke Cannabis like Amanda Knox... And we cannot say that Guede was a psycopath, that could be an easy justification for that horrifying crime he committed with other undetermined criminals. --Grifomaniacs (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Via della Pergola 7 was not in a bad area of Perugia? Perhaps I ought to alter the article and make mention of MK seeing men openly smoking heroin in Via Del Lupo to show that the whole of Perugia was just as well policed as the area of the cottage. An athleticaly built psychopathic man armed with an knife does not need assistance to murder anyone, certainly not a girl he outweighs by over 50lbs.. Overagainst (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Prejudicial Non Sequiturs

Regarding the recent edits, lets talk about this then: if reports of the judge mocking the prosecution contentions are not up to wiki standards, how is it that the contentions themselves that were worthy of judicial disdain are? What is the point of including non sequiturs regarding exercises or underwear purchases if the outcome of that presentation in court is considered too outrageous for wiki? How could that be reconciled with a neutral point of view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaosium (talk • contribs) 22:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not the subject. It's mainly the way you worded it, 'ridiculed' was used in a news report. It's journalistic commentary. Better worded it would read something like "The appeal judges said the clothing she bought was not lingerie, as the prosecution had alleged, but merely underwear of a type commonly worn by young women". It should be in the section on the appeal judges, not where you put it. Overagainst (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring

This edit needs to be discussed and not forced into the article by way of edit warring.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Where's op when you need them? A simple link dump for ref. should resolve this, but I don't care to find it right now, and it seems I'm not alone in that Procrastination. I'll see if I can come up with one in the next few days, and I'll share it. kk, Berean-san? Joshua Torelli (talk) 05:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Derp? What did I do to the links. That's the right syhntax, right? Or am I just being dumb?Joshua Torelli (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You mean Procrastination? Lectonar (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Still not sure why it didn't work for either link. I understand that I long-formed it without thinking about it, but they both should have been functional wikipedia links. I digress. I'm just gonna shut up now, and look for the links sometime.Joshua Torelli (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

MK scholarshp fund

This is fine for the article but it doesn't really rate a mention in the lede IMO.Overagainst (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree. This may be better placed under the Reaction section.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not a reaction, that's an aftermath. --Grifomaniacs (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone removed the text asking for discussion. So, it's correct to say that if something is cited into the lead abstract, it has to be present at least also into a section and not vice versa, I admit it but the problem was that actually it does not exist a section that fit that contribution. I dont think that a scholarship fund after the name of Meredith Kercher is a reaction. That is something that could make her noteworthy of a dedicated page as for WP:BIO1E, on the aftermath of the murder that shocked Italy and the world in 2007. However I dont think we need a Meredith Kercher stand-alone page. I think we should expand the biographic section about her on the page, and there adding mention of the scholarship fund. Also, it has to be discussed what is noteworthy to be on the abstract section. Actually, I may see room for improvements as follows:

• Bold Patrick Lumumba redirect notice at the top of the page. His name has been cleared off, he's been no longer a suspect for years and he's not notewhorty of a own page, so why his name has to be so evident at the top of the page? I propose to delete the redirect and its page.
• Media coverage section. It is correct to blame Italian and English "salacious" tabloid reporting on this case, but it should be added to complete the information that Amanda Knox family hired a PR firm to contrast this perceived misinformation that could have influenced the court case.
• Aftermath. What happened after? That is something that is of public interest and will contribute to represent this article not only as a simple news repository but as historical. That's why I would add on the lead about the Meredith Kercher scholarship fund as well as other events that could occur to parts involved in this case in the future.

Please partecipate on this discussion, the more the better. Thank you. --Grifomaniacs (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Lumumba redirect request for deletion

Go here for reasons and to eventually contest its speedy deletion.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Addition to lede

"The trial is still awaiting a review phase by the Italian Supreme Court, because both Knox and the Public Prosecutor's Office of Perugia appealed the verdict to it; its judgement will conclude the murder case. The General Public Prosecutor of Perugia, Giovanni Galati, said that the verdict of innocence is "full of mistakes and omissions".[5][6] The Knox family stated "We are not concerned about this appeal as Amanda's innocence was clearly and convincingly proven in her appeal trial."[7]"

As I understand it, Amanda Knox was found not guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher, she isn't appealing against that. Knox is appealing against the conviction on charges of criminal slander, on the evidence of her note of 6 Nov which said she was very doubtful of the truth of what she had said several hours earlier; as a result of being subjected to obsessive tag team questioning through the wee small hours by interrogation specialists, while cooperating as a helpful witness, without a lawyer - and without knowing she was a suspect. At the trial of the second degree Knox was found not guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher. The Judges' written statement explains the official legal position in the murder case, and the rationale of the Italian court for its verdict. That's all that should be quoted in the lede. Overagainst (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

She was never found "not guity" , her guilty conviction was overturned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.206.238.146 (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Fairness in documenting

Let me first say, I have been very saddened by this unfortunate act. I also use Wikipedia regularly to gain insight on everything. I am a big fan of wikipedia. I am not here to comment on the case, I am here asking Wikipedia to be fair 'when using pictures of people associated with the stories reported. For example, in this case I find only one picture used when reviewingt the facts. I know there are pictures of all the other people involved. Why are they not pictured? Be fair when using pictures. Keep your honor in reporting -- What you have here is history making, so make it factual on all accounts. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.138.189 (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

What on earth are you waffling about? Talk about round the houses? If there is something wrong with the article say it, call a spade a spade don't. I find "only one picture" being used. Maybe that's because of Wikipedia's fair use rationale, did you think of that?86.181.161.198 (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Lead issue.

"The murder and subsequent events, especially Knox's arrest and trial, received worldwide press coverage, often in the form of salacious tabloid reporting, particularly in Italy and England. Some observers criticised the media for not describing the case accurately and dispassionately, as they believed it could influence the court case" - "salacious tabloid reporting" I am well aware that this happened, but can we have a source that specifically states this went on? Further, "Some observers" should really be changed to "American observers and the lawyers of Knox" because they were, along with the Italian layers, the only ones who really questioned the legitimacy of the trail at all (per the only source used in the lead section). I also want to ask why there isn't anything on the American medias reaction to the trial, which was frankly, a polar-opposite to what was going on in Europe (specifically Italy/England) - but with added nationalist elements and dare I say it, "American exceptionalist values" (like how the Italian media accused the American reaction of being arrogant). I also don't understand why there is nothing in the lead relating to the sexual elements of the murder, and why some of the media reported on it in a "salacious" way ie relating to what some perceived as Knox's irregular behavior. Thank you. (So basically, I'm wondering if the lead could be expanded, esp in regards to counter-arguments) --Kawaii-Soft (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Salacious tabloid reporting happens all the time. I think it's beyond the scope of this article. Of course this is a compelling story that is written about from all angles, but we don't want the media to be the story here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.206.238.146 (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that that Kawaii-Soft has highlighted a weak point on the lead. We have an opportunity to reduce bias by developing a more global perspective.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the offending sentence(s) should be deleted until such time as more acceptable or verifiable one(s) can be re-written. Alternatively Kawaii-Soft, as you raised this point and seem to have a good grasp on it perhaps you could just go ahead and re-write it yourself now and see what happens, as per WP:BRD. The worst that can happen is that it will be reverted without explanation. That shouldn't happen (unless its vandalism) as I think we can agree that a valid bias is in question here. I've added this to my watchlist, as per WP:RCP. In the meantime, this matter is not closed, bias in the article needs also to be addressed below. -- Jodon | Talk 12:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality is highly questionable

The neutrality tag was added to the article for its very questionable neutrality. Read through the article. Display of the facts is tailored in a way that the reader would only learn about Knox's claims, especially in the section of Summary of prosecution and defence arguments, which is overwhelmingly dominated by defense arguments. Furthermore, contrast the English Wiki article with that in other languages. -- chulk90/discuss/contributions 14:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

What? Knox does not have 'claims', the prosecution is the party with claims. Nothing they claimed was true and Knox was exonerated. She is innocent of the murder. What is it you are looking to change, specifically? Without a specific focus, the tag you placed on the article is nothing more than an undeserved badge of shame. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Knox to this day claims she was innocent, for one thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.206.238.146 (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It's fairly common for people accused of a crime to deny it. The article as it stands today is too long, poorly written, and reads as if it was written by Knox defenders. --John (talk) 06:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed written with big influence from "defenders". But if you prune it down and make it plain neutral, it will be (again) like what we see in political articles all the time: The left claims slant to the right and vise versa. Maybe in ten years or so it will be possible to have a decent article on this subject.TMCk (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The truth seems to have a clear pro-Amanda Knox bias while myths support her detractors. The facts here are cited clearly and the detractors have nothing to counterweight the lack of evidence implicating her guilt. SinhaYugaya (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The truth is she's been convicted of murder, and with the appeal thrown out, the conviction is still in effect until the next appeal. It's a highly circumstantial case with lots of evidence pointing to her guilt, as prominent attorneys have stated recently. It's OK for the article to point out criticisms of the evidence but let's not pretend that there isn't any evidence, that's not helping anyone. Perhaps there should be an evidence section of the article, followed by criticisms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.104.239 (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't some of the weight of this be already covered in the Amanda Knox article? I think we're diverting a little from the neutrality of the reporting of the facts in this article being the issue here, not Amanda Knox's guilt or innocence. As SinhaYugaya hinted at, the reporting of the facts should be reflected by the amount of verifiable sources that are available, regardless of how biased it makes "the truth" sound. This is an allowed Wikipedia guideline, as per Wikipedia:Tutorial/Keep in mind, which says "views should be represented in proportion to their representation in reliable sources". Regarding Amanda Knox, the key word here is "circumstantial" evidence, not real evidence. Circumstantial, as we have seen, can be biased heavily by speculation and media hype. The only "real" evidence that would have pointed to her was compromised by clumsy forensic work. -- Jodon | Talk 04:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

There is already an evidence section. It covers how much DNA was found on the knife and the bra strap, the luminol tests, etc. I'm not sure what the IP user wants to add. SinhaYugaya (talk) 07:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Also a new trial has been ordered. The guilty verdicts have not been affirmed as the IP user implies. SinhaYugaya (talk) 07:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. This is still too current. Other than reporting facts, any views on this would have to be considered speculation. As far as I understand, her acquittal was overturned not because any new evidence had come to light but because of a legal technicality. All this does is reveal further how the Italian legal system works, as it brings in potentially new information into the article about Double jeopardy. This is all very interesting for future additions to the article but it doesn't address User:Chulk90's original concerns about the neutrality of the article as a whole. Unless User:Chulk90 can re-write the article in such a way as to address those concerns without compromising WP:NPOV or WP:VERIFY, maybe we should just leave it be for now. As for the article being "poorly written", maybe User:John can offer some helpful suggestions on how it could be better written, rather than simply offer criticism - this is after all not a forum but a discussion on how to improve the article. -- Jodon | Talk 14:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I am removing the neutrality tag as nothing actionable has been raised in this discussion. I invite concerned editors to change the article if they feel that a greater degree of neutrality can be achieved. Binksternet (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Changes were made. But they seem to pretty one-sided. For instance adding 2013 Daily Beast article by Barbie Nadeau as source, removal of sourced text from Motive section on prosecution theories, and adding argumentative POV commentary in rebuttal of text about what Knox's defence lawyer said. Siamesekat edit summary 'Removed irrelevant and biased information that is provided out of context; added additional information about motive'. Siamesekat's changes to the lede were longer lasting although they removed mention on the criticism of the press coverage of Knox, and a brief summary of appellate trial judges' rationale for the acquittals and their criticism of the prosecutions case. In my opinion all that was highly relevant, notable and well sourced. The recent edit summaries on changes to lede by 98.85.72.174 - along the same lines as Siamesekat's, say "(Succinct intro.) & (Generic media criticism not relevant to intro", and have again taken both those subjects out the lede, and turned it into an mystifying uninformative 'intro'. I think the lede should make clear that Guede was tried and found guilty of Kercher's murder at his own trial; he exhausted his appeals, and is currently serving a sentence of 16 years. Then the lede can briefly give an account of the two-stage trial process that Knox and Sollecito opted for and that eventually freed them. The judges rationale for freeing Knox and Sollecito - explaining the lack of evidence connecting them to the crime or to Guede - lets the reader know why they were freed. Not mentioning those things is not telling the reader a big part of what makes the subject notable, and what the article is about.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section"The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many people only read the lead. Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, but the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at content that follows. Instead, to invite reading more the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view;" Overagainst (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Citations

What are these Dempsey and Follain sources? The first instance of the citations just have a name, year, and page number, which is not acceptable citations in any format. Succeeding citations can do just that, but the first citation needs to make the source findable. Would whomever is using these sources please amend their first citations to be full citations? (Dempsey is cite #1, Follain's first is in or near the top 10.) --69.209.52.48 (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It is acceptable Wikipedia style to name reference books at the bottom but in the footnotes section just above refer to the books only by author as is the case with Follain or author and year as is the case with Dempsey. Also, in the article text, Dempsey is introduced with a wikilink to her biography Candace Dempsey, so the reader should already know who she is. Follain is not similarly treated in the article text but the citation style is not wrong. Binksternet (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

WHY IS KNOX'S CRIMINAL RECORD NOT MENTIONED BUT GUEDE'S IS?

KNOX WAS ARRESTED JUST A FEW WEEKS BEFORE THIS MURDER FOR SOME BIZARRE AND POTENTIALLY MURDEROUS ACTIONS AT A COLLEGE CAMPUS. A LITTLE BIT OF INTEREST DON'T YOU FEEL(NOT *THINK*). GOOGLE IT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.85.234 (talk) 02:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

On 30 June 2007, two months before leaving for Italy, Knox received a citation for a noisy party and paid a fine. Know was not arrested. This was a municipal offense like a parking ticket and not considered a crime. --Footwarrior (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Mention of the channel 5 documentary that showed an individual climbing the wall deleted?

86.135.237.121 added a sentence about the channel 5 documentary that contained some video of an individual climbing in the window that the police originally may have believed couldn't be used as an entry point.

Darkness Shines deleted it with a note to take it to the talk page.

Why was 86.135.237.121's edit deleted? There seems to be considerable evidence beyond the video that is not mentioned in the article currently that the window was broken from the outside and that it could have been used as the entry point for the crime. Davefoc (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Knox segment way too long

Is it me or is this article a bit too long. I don't think that the Knox segment needs a separate heading for each part of the case (14 subheadings!), for example having a heading that just states that the police announce her arrest is a bit of a waste. Surely some of these can be amalgamated together. I mean do we really need separate headings for both writing a statement and than withdrawing it? Surely we can merge them. Mishka Shaw (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

You do realize that Knox has her own separate article, right? Perhaps some of the information here can be shifted over to there. 24.47.141.254 (talk) 06:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Some details are required for understanding the context of what happened.(The less essential ones are omitted. For instance, Sollecito's prior arrangement to take Jovana to the station that night which she called at the house to cancel at 8.40pm seeing both Sollecito and Knox and the issue of how Guede could have had it communicated to him).

Those multiple headings are subsection headings, and without them the article would be very difficult to follow. There was an important shift in the case against Knox and it would be very confusing for the reader not to break it down and unpack it a bit. When Napoleoni was arguing for arrests after interrogating Knox she cited the text to Lumumba saying 'see you later' as proof Knox had an arrangement to meet Lumumba on the night of the murder. When police announced the arrests the Perugia Chief of Police said the case was solved. Then, when Guede was substituted for Lumumba, the text did not mean that any more, and Knox was accused of the murder with someone else who was black , but who neither she or Sollecito had never texted or called. How can that be merged without confusion? Overagainst (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• This article is nearly TWICE as large as O. J. Simpson murder case (160k vs 90k). I tend to agree, that is just a bit too long! Eaglizard (talk) 16:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Well yes, people want to add things. Knox has no notability apart from her involvement in this case, and the case has limited notabilty without her. Yet they created a seperate Knox article. I agree it's too long but so is just about every other article including featured ones. WP:SIZERULE says over 100K is too long, and content should not be removed just to reduce length. The 'Summary of prosecution and defence arguments' section is basically repetition.Overagainst (talk) 10:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I have taken some 30k of stuff that was repetition and excess detail.Overagainst (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Revert, why

Can Overagainst please explain the removal of content? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

And I just reverted again per BLP, this is a SPS, per BLP it cannot be used. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Whole sections were repetition or execess detailOveragainst (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I stomped on any decent edits, but the first one was cos of this, we do not remove an entire section, which is sourced, cos you dispute if there were witnesses. The second due to the SPS. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

There are complaints the article is oversized, which I have thought myself. Whole sections were repetition, like the prosecution and defence arguments section. There were also excess details that added nothing within some sections. It was convoluted. I'm trying to make it more readable. There was too much detail about campaigning and individual media stories. Namechecking all of them is not making for an encyclopedic article.

I avoided touching the refs in some sections as it can mess up when that source is refed more times subsequently. I did not add that SPS as it seeems to be site and did not know it was there, I have no problem with it ceasing to be linked to to or used as a source. What ref number is it in current version?

The witness subsection was a bad idea. It contains something I put in, but I've found the the source where I thought I'd read it does not support it (about the black man seen running or hurrying down street). Can't find a ref for it basically. The man who appeared for the prosecution (as article says in appeal section the appeal judge noted he was a heroin addict) saying he saw Sollecito, Knox and Guede together was a witness for prosecution. But a section called 'witnesses' before the trial section giving "Antonio Curatolo, a homeless man"'s testimony af seeing them all in the street together would be quite sensational repetition. Sollecito has always insisted he had never met Guede, and Knox said Guede was not any acquaintance of hers at all. Curatolo is mentioned in the prosecution section and in the appeal section. It's a fair point about the woman said she heard a scream and heard (not saw) people running in the street in different directions should not be disappeared from the article. I should have added that to the in the prosecution section where the prosecution case is outlined, before taking out the witness subsection Overagainst (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

This was not a BLP revert as the www.beforeyoutakethatpill.com PDF (Massei Report) is in both versions, before and after the reduction edits by Overagainst. As far as I can tell from this diff, Overagainst reduced the information pointing to Guede's checkered past, and removed some phone calls made by Knox and Sollecito. Let's concentrate on that aspect, not a notional BLP aspect. Binksternet (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

And that site is a reliable host then? I doubt it, I have self reverted, and would ask Oa to remove it when he restores his other changes. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, All we know for sure is that the report was heavily criticized by the re-trial judge for using the the word 'probably' a lot. Anyway I'll remove it. I think the 'report' is a bootleg translation of an official document written after the guilty verdict at first trial by the senior Judge and his assistant (they vote in 'jury', senior judge has 2 votes, assistant judge has one, they sat on the jury in effect with a handful of citizens who had one vote) report. So it could be see as somewhat self servingly painting the two as guilty. And as it has been superseded by the report of the trial of the second degree which acquitted both, it may well have some BLP implications. Especially as they are having a third trial which is currently running, and will go on for several months.

The question hinges on whether we accept the website owner, Doug Bremner, as a topic expert. His expertise is in psychiatry and radiology, specifically on depression, suicide, PTSD and the drug Accutane. Otherwise, the question relies upon whether you think that Bremner is hosting a false or true version of Judge Giancarlo Massei's 2010 report. The article currently refers to the report eight times, in each case linking to Bremner's self-published website where he is hosting the document. This Seattle PI article talks about the Bremner-hosted document as being an effort by a dozen respected individuals including professional translator Peggy Ganong who collaborated on it to give the best possible translation of a technical Italian legal document. This UPI report repeats the Seattle PI story about a team of translators working on the Massei Report. I think what we are looking at is a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I took out parts of the text about the socialising at Via della Pergola, Guede's early life and adoptive family, numerous telephone calls made to family and various police forces. Some had complained the article mentioning about unrelated charges some female detective are facing and description of Knox's girly hobbies, so I took those out too. The main thing taken out was a long section on the original trial which was duplicating more recent text in the article. Also sections on media and pro Knox campaigns that were exhaustively elaborating what had already been summarised, and tangential related civil matters. The thing is still going on, and will be for years. The latest is the female assistant prosecutor is up on disciplinary charges related to the animation that was shown in court. If it wasn't pruned down now, it would be approaching 200K in a few months.Overagainst (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Dark, there was a real BLP issues expert on this. I don't know Doug's or others' opinion writing was ever linked to. I suppose the report link was acceptable for the article originally because it was a PDF of a translation of an Italian document by qualified people, hosted as a courtesy link. The other things on that SPS (which I've agreed it is) were unlikely to be objected to by Ms. Knox while Doug was campaigning to get her out of the Italian prison where she was spending her early twenties. Living people other than Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito may well object to what Doug's own opinions on his site are so the position has changed from all perspectives. The link definitely should be removed now I agree.Overagainst (talk)

Biographies of living persons

It has been established that that particular edition title doesn't have BLP issues and you can show me where this has been established? If not it should not be on the reading list. I will tell you frankly that I have become skeptical of claims issues have already been thrashed out in old discussions. Overagainst (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

"Do we have to rehash the month/years of discussion????". No Magnificent Clean-keeper, we don't. That is an old edition of the book and discussion of it before the acquittal of Amanda Knox is now worthless. The title and ISBN identifies a specific edition of the book which can't be in the 'Further reading section' of an article for BLP reasons. If you don't take it out, I will have to do it.Overagainst (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Knox segment appears complimentary and biased

The segment comes across as though written by a family member or by Knox, herself. Particularly, passeges such as:

"According to Candace Dempsey, Knox's friends saw her as energetic, athletic, and kind, a pacifist hippie who loved making cakes and jam, doing yoga, playing soccer and guitar, rock climbing and cycling.[53] Burleigh writes that, while Knox appeared to be a confident young woman, she was known by friends and family to be averse to any kind of conflict, and believed in the importance of positive thinking. She had grown in recent years into an attractive woman, and had become a compulsive diarist. All these traits, Burleigh writes—including her bubbly personality and tendency to practise yoga stretches at inappropriate times—contributed to her downfall in Perugia, making her more reticent flatmates critical of her, and the police suspicious."

are unnecessary, minimally helpful and based on hearsay, not facts. I feel they offer a slanted perception to a reader looking to understand the facts in the case and draw their own conclusion. Wikipedia is not a PR venue for Miss Knox and her supporters to present a flattering image of her.

I will disclose here that my suspicions about the writing of this article comes from personal experience with Miss Knox and her supporters meddling in discussions about this case on other blogs and forums in which I am a contributing member. This may make me, too, biased so I leave it up to this community to make appropriate judgement.

Thank you. navkat (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

By my way of thinking it's fine to draw on a book as the source for mentioning how others assessed aspects of a person relevant to the context of their behaviour, as it relates to the article. I hope you are not serious about the rest of your comment. Overagainst (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is far from being neutral, many sentences are written in a way that not only portraits Italian Public Safety authorities as inadequate but also as deliberately corrupting evidence ("Police computer analysts, who destroyed Sollecito's computer while examining it" instead of using a more neutral "Sollecito's computer broke while Police computer analysts were examining it") and, last but not least, reporting plain lies (like "In early 2013, Lorena Zugarini and Monica Napoleoni were suspended from duty for two months pending investigation of charges of abuse of office, including destruction of property and death threats, in an unrelated case" while the linked article reports a "debate with ex-husband in juvenile court, damage suffered by a psychologist and unauthorized access to police database" - there is no report of destruction of property or death threats). More than an encyclopedia article, in many sections this looks like a gossip magazine story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.207.101.112 (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

In her book, Amanda Knox says she did not meet Guede, that the only time her and Sollecito and Guede were ever in the same place together was in court. Yet this website says she met him in October, prior to the murder.

To be neutral, this article needs to state: "According to [fill in the person's name] Amanda Knox met Guede in October; according to Ms. Knox, she never saw him prior to court."

I have yet to see a neutral page on Wikipedia, regarding controversial events. I am a newspaper reporter. If you want to be neutral, ALL statements need to say: "according to..." or "says [so and so]" or "..., he said," etc. That's neutrality. Anything else is bias.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.54.96 (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Before she was arrested, when police asked about visitors to the cottage Knox did mention someone who was almost certainly Guede and who was there and met Kercher, but the description was very vague so Knox didn't really remember him beyond that he was South African and played basketball. Guede didn't use his real name and told the basement boys he was South African. Overagainst (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Correction I don't think she denied ever meeting him, she said she barely knew him. I have not got that book, but I suspect you are mistaken as it was Sollecito who insisted he had never seen Guede apart from in court. BTW Guede went to the same pub as Kercher a lot, and knew her by sight. Overagainst (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The IP seems to be arguing the lack of use of "according to" implies POV pushing or lack of neutrality. The IP user fails to realize this would be unencyclopedic to add "according to" at the beginning of every sentence or to "all statements". Any sentence that uses a source carries the implication that the sentence used is already "according to" that source. It is a given. Its very easy to click on the reference link given to see the source (unlike newspapers). The omission or deliberate exclusion of sources is what I would consider bias, not the omission of "according to". -- Jodon | Talk 18:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

It has been established that that particular edition title doesn't have BLP issues and you can show me where this has been established? If not it should not be on the reading list. I will tell you frankly that I have become skeptical of claims issues have already been thrashed out in old discussions. Overagainst (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

"Do we have to rehash the month/years of discussion????". No Magnificent Clean-keeper, we don't. That is an old edition of the book and discussion of it before the acquittal of Amanda Knox is now worthless. The title and ISBN identifies a specific edition of the book which can't be in the 'Further reading section' of an article for BLP reasons. If you don't take it out, I will have to do it.Overagainst (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Crime scene photo

The Italian police picture of the crime scene, complete with Meredith Kercher's blood, doesn't add anything to the article in my opinion, and it is rather ghoulish. I think it should be removed.Overagainst (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of removing it, the page or section could come with a warning that it contains a ghoulish picture. I personally don't think its ghoulish because Meredith's foot isn't even showing in that one (like in others I've seen). By the way I think you're doing a fantastic job on this article during the last week or so. Are you getting any sleep?!? -- Jodon | Talk 21:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Number of attackers

Can editors of 13 and 15 jan get together to decide about incorporating those refs or not? Thanks, Super48paul (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The text "Kercher, aged 21, was found dead on the floor of her bedroom. The autopsy showed that she had been attacked by more than one person" is reffed to the source "Math on trial. How numbers get used and abused in the courtroom, Basic Books, 2013, p.64. ISBN 978-0-465-03292-1. (Fourth chapter: "Math error number 4: double experiments. The case of Meredith Kercher: the test that wasn't done." There is nothing about the autopsy on Meredith Kercher in that book, so it is a false reference. The book actually gives a statistical argument for questioning the reasoning of Judges at the second degree trial for not ordering a re-test of the knife. You can read a NYT article by the author of Math on trial in which he gives the argument of the book in relation to the 2nd degree trial and the decision not to order a re test of the knife. HERE. The book is ignoring certain things to make a technical point about statistics. The judges did order a review of the methods used in the original test on the kitchen knife, so although they they did not order a re test they did take steps to establish the reliabilty (or as the independent experts concluded, unreliabilty) of the original test . Moreover if there had been cross contamination in the police lab a retest might not have been more reliable (because it might pick up the contamination again). By the way, In Nov 2013 the results of a re test of the knife from Sollecito's kitchen found no trace of Meredith Kercher's DNA New Amanda Knox trial: No DNA match to victim on knife, expert tells court

The other reference for the above bolded text which has been inserted in the article twice is "Supreme Court report - 9 September 2013]". The ref is a primary source in Italian (linked from a self published site) for "The autopsy showed that she had been attacked by more than one person ". There are reasons to doubt it can say that as what is on Wikepedia on the Supreme court in Italy strongly suggests it does not make those kind of pronouncements on the intepretation of evidence. See section Italian criminal procedure "it is possible to appeal to the Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) only on issues of the interpretation of law, written briefs are either accepted, meaning the case is sent back to the appeals court for retrial, or rejected" . Also Court of Cassation (Italy) "The Court of Cassation cannot overrule the trial court's interpretation of the evidence but can correct a lower court's interpretation or application of the law." So they don't decide what the evidence shows, they granted the Prosecution request for another trial of the second degree. Overagainst (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

One could understand your point of view but you must realise that we do not have access to the original documents from the pathologists and must rely on documents from journal articles, books and judicial documents. Provided that they are clearly cited, it is absolutely fine. 128.178.197.62 (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC).

Different pathologists gave different opinions in court as to what the autopsy indicated. The defence called pathologists who said it was impossible that the long knife from Sollecito's kitchen (the one the recent re-testing could find no DNA of Kercher on) inflicted the fatal wound, as the prosecution said. Defense pathologists said the injuries suggested a single attacker. So you would have to cherry pick to rely on one view from 'pathologists'. To have the article say in Wikipedia's voice: "The autopsy showed that she had been attacked by more than one person ", I think at the very least you need to provide a quote from the source (the 'Supreme Court report - 9 September 2013') where it's explicitly saying "The autopsy showed that she had been attacked by more than one person " or words to that effect. Overagainst (talk)

As you suggested, I directly quoted the Supreme Court in the reference note: "[...] the diverse morphology of the wounds, their number, and their distribution led to the conclusion that there was more than one attacker. [...]" (longer explanations of the different facts supporting the conclusion are provided in the document cited). 128.178.197.62 (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC).

Who came to that conclusion? If it was the court, we should say so. If it was the medical examiner, we should say that.LedRush (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

No one has disputed that the book Math on trial. How numbers get used and abused in the courtroom is a false reference for 'more than one attacker' as I explained above, and yet instead of being removed it has now been added as a ref for 'more than one attacker' to the lede as well!

What is now ref 1, 'The Translation of the Supreme Court report - 9 September 2013' is a self published source and a translation. Not only is it a SPS, according to the translation disclaimer it was done by "regular posters on the Perugiamurderfile.org message board". That is, those who might easilly be characterised as activists on a partisan website dealing with the case.

From what I can gather, in the document the Supreme court starts by outlining the reasoning of the original trial, before moving on to give the reasoning of the second trial or Hellmann appeal court. In the last section of the document starting on page fifty-three in a section headed 'Legal analysis' the Supreme court criticises the reasoning of the Hellman appeal court trial on a number of points in giving what will be the grounds for granting the prosecution an overturning of the verdict of the Hellmann court. . The quote "but the diverse morphology of the wounds, their number, and their distribution led to the conclusion that there was more than one attacker." appears on page eight of a hundred page document and well before the Supreme court are giving their analysis. As the tense of the phrase "led to the conclusion" would suggest, it seems to me that the Supreme court were outlining, not their own thoughts, but the reasoning of the initial trial that found AK and RS guilty in this early section of the document. I don't think the phrase "led to the conclusion that there was more than one attacker" was the Supreme court itself saying or ruling on whether there were one or more attackers. All in all, that quote is quite dodgy. Overagainst (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The quote is fine if you do not over-interpret it. It is not said that court decided what happened, as you seem to mean. The court did not examine the body. It is the judicial documents relating the conclusions from the inquiry (i.e. the autopsy).

By the way, the facts detailed in the document explain well the conclusion that there were more that one attacker. And the latter explain why the justice initially sentenced three of the suspects for murder (although the judgement is not definitive for two of them).

144.85.164.231 (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC).

It's from a SPS. It's just the conclusions of the initial trial as outlined by the Supreme court, not any kind of judgement as to the facts of the case by the Supreme court. You might as well quote the judges at the first trial.Overagainst (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It's stating things in Wikepedia's voice to say "The autopsy showed that she had been attacked by more than one person ". It is not properly attibuting the conclusion that there was more that one attacker. LedRush has already explained that to you. 'The autopsy' is neither an expert witness's opinion or a court, even if it was, we can't make a contentious assertion that the autopsy "showed" something about the number of attackers as a fact.Overagainst (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, but I thought that the supreme court also concluded that there were multiple perpetrators, but that Knox and Sollecito weren't among them (or that there was insufficient evidence that they were among them). If that is the case, we need to properly attribute this opinion to them and not state it as a fact.LedRush (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Following your comments, I replaced "showed" by "concluded". You're welcome to suggest a better formulation if you have ideas on how to improve the article - but please do not simply delete referenced information. 128.178.197.63 (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC).

Our friend from Switzerland is being discussed at WP:3RRN. I have made the case that User:Mendisar Esarimar Desktrwaimar is editing anonymously through several IPs. I have argued that Mendisar Esarimar Desktrwaimar is edit warring through these same IPs. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ledrush, My impression is that the Supreme court ruled that the Hellmann court's reasoning in its written decision gave too little weight to some arguments by the prosecution, but that does not mean the Supreme court ruled those prosecution points were correct. The Supreme court's function is not to rule on what the facts of the case are IFAIK, and defense pathologists disputed the prosecution's interpretation of MK's wounds.

128.178.197.63, about your edit, which your have now put in the lede as well.

1) What is now Ref 2 is a false reference and I don't understand why you're continuing to try and add it without any attempt at arguing with what I said above about it not containing what you've purported.

2) It is not even proper English to say the "autopsy concluded ". More importantly the view that there was more than one attacker needs to be attributed to the state pathologist or the prosecution, because it was challenged by pathologists called by the defence.

3) It's sourced to a translation by an SPS.

4) The onus for basic things like making sure an edit is properly worded, sourced and attributed is on the one making it, if the edit gets reverted and they don't correct problems before trying again, then it probably will continue to be reverted. Overagainst (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Sollecito

Sollecito was not in court at the time the verdict was read on 30th January 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.100.48 (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You are correct and I've taken that part out. This article states "Sollecito was in court Thursday morning, but he didn't return for the verdict."
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Knox segment appears complimentary and biased

The segment comes across as though written by a family member or by Knox, herself. Particularly, passeges such as:

"According to Candace Dempsey, Knox's friends saw her as energetic, athletic, and kind, a pacifist hippie who loved making cakes and jam, doing yoga, playing soccer and guitar, rock climbing and cycling.[53] Burleigh writes that, while Knox appeared to be a confident young woman, she was known by friends and family to be averse to any kind of conflict, and believed in the importance of positive thinking. She had grown in recent years into an attractive woman, and had become a compulsive diarist. All these traits, Burleigh writes—including her bubbly personality and tendency to practise yoga stretches at inappropriate times—contributed to her downfall in Perugia, making her more reticent flatmates critical of her, and the police suspicious."

are unnecessary, minimally helpful and based on hearsay, not facts. I feel they offer a slanted perception to a reader looking to understand the facts in the case and draw their own conclusion. Wikipedia is not a PR venue for Miss Knox and her supporters to present a flattering image of her.

I will disclose here that my suspicions about the writing of this article comes from personal experience with Miss Knox and her supporters meddling in discussions about this case on other blogs and forums in which I am a contributing member. This may make me, too, biased so I leave it up to this community to make appropriate judgement.

Thank you. navkat (talk) 04:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

By my way of thinking it's fine to draw on a book as the source for mentioning how others assessed aspects of a person relevant to the context of their behaviour, as it relates to the article. I hope you are not serious about the rest of your comment. Overagainst (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is far from being neutral, many sentences are written in a way that not only portraits Italian Public Safety authorities as inadequate but also as deliberately corrupting evidence ("Police computer analysts, who destroyed Sollecito's computer while examining it" instead of using a more neutral "Sollecito's computer broke while Police computer analysts were examining it") and, last but not least, reporting plain lies (like "In early 2013, Lorena Zugarini and Monica Napoleoni were suspended from duty for two months pending investigation of charges of abuse of office, including destruction of property and death threats, in an unrelated case" while the linked article reports a "debate with ex-husband in juvenile court, damage suffered by a psychologist and unauthorized access to police database" - there is no report of destruction of property or death threats). More than an encyclopedia article, in many sections this looks like a gossip magazine story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.207.101.112 (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

In her book, Amanda Knox says she did not meet Guede, that the only time her and Sollecito and Guede were ever in the same place together was in court. Yet this website says she met him in October, prior to the murder.

To be neutral, this article needs to state: "According to [fill in the person's name] Amanda Knox met Guede in October; according to Ms. Knox, she never saw him prior to court."

I have yet to see a neutral page on Wikipedia, regarding controversial events. I am a newspaper reporter. If you want to be neutral, ALL statements need to say: "according to..." or "says [so and so]" or "..., he said," etc. That's neutrality. Anything else is bias.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.54.96 (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Before she was arrested, when police asked about visitors to the cottage Knox did mention someone who was almost certainly Guede and who was there and met Kercher, but the description was very vague so Knox didn't really remember him beyond that he was South African and played basketball. Guede didn't use his real name and told the basement boys he was South African. Overagainst (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Correction I don't think she denied ever meeting him, she said she barely knew him. I have not got that book, but I suspect you are mistaken as it was Sollecito who insisted he had never seen Guede apart from in court. BTW Guede went to the same pub as Kercher a lot, and knew her by sight. Overagainst (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The IP seems to be arguing the lack of use of "according to" implies POV pushing or lack of neutrality. The IP user fails to realize this would be unencyclopedic to add "according to" at the beginning of every sentence or to "all statements". Any sentence that uses a source carries the implication that the sentence used is already "according to" that source. It is a given. Its very easy to click on the reference link given to see the source (unlike newspapers). The omission or deliberate exclusion of sources is what I would consider bias, not the omission of "according to". -- Jodon | Talk 18:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The entries for Knox constantly refer to an apologist tome 'The Fatal Gift of Beauty' by Nina Burleigh and as such has no place being used for citations as there seems to be no sense of balance in her work, it is unashamedly pro Knox. I am deeply concerned over the description entries and what seem to be excuses for Knox as they seem to be very npov, in fact many of the media citations seem to be American rather than international in nature, surely we need a global take on coverage? Twobells (talk) 09:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Prosecution appeal section and introduction are confusing/confused

The first sentence in the section "Prosecution appeal" says: "In March 2013, the Court of Cassation, Italy's supreme court, granted a prosecution appeal, and set aside the judgement of the appellate trial that had acquitted Knox and Sollecito, ordering Knox and Sollecito to be retried." Nothing, however, is told us about the start of any retrial. Instead, what we learn is: "On 30 January 2014, after 12 hours of deliberation, the judges in Florence reinstated the guilty verdicts against Knox and Sollecito for the murder of Kercher in 2007." If this was a new trial, one assumes that there would have been a NEW verdict, not the reinstatement of a previous verdict. Whoever writes about a matter such as this should have legal training or at least have what is written reviewed by someone who has legal training.

The short third paragraph of the introduction makes even more confused claims, stating: "On January 30, 2014 Knox lost the appeal of her conviction at that retrial: the lower court's guilty verdict was affirmed sentencing her to 28 years in prison...." Again the writer seems not to know the difference between an appeal and a trial and, therefore, winds up conflating the two. Legal expertise is needed here. Wikifan2744 (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

(See relevant section of the article), "An appeal to the second grade, which is similar to a trial de novo where all evidence and witnesses can be re-examined, is absolutely guaranteed.[38] With conviction at the second grade, it is possible to appeal to the Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) only on issues of the interpretation of law; written briefs are either accepted, meaning the case is sent back to the appeals court for retrial, or rejected, in which case the verdict is final and the individual receives a sentence"." As I understand the trial of the second grade in Italy is not what would be called an 'appeal' in the US at all, it is a new trial. I agree 'reinstated' is the wrong word because it was indeed a new verdict as you say. Overagainst (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Rudy Hermann Guede's age in 2004

In the first part of the opening paragraph of the section "Rudy Guede," quoted below, the numbers don't add up. If Mr Guede was born in 1986, as stated, then his age could not have been 15 in 2004. Either the 2004 date or "aged 15" must be wrong.

"Rudy Hermann Guede (born 26 December 1986, Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire) was 20 years old at the time of the murder.[172] He had lived in Perugia since the age of five.[173] In Italy, Guede was raised with the help of his school teachers, a local priest and others.[174] Guede's father returned to Côte d'Ivoire in 2004. Guede, then aged 15, was adopted by a wealthy Perugia family.[173]"Wikifan2744 (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Wikifan2744 (talk) 05:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Probable error under heading "Italian criminal procedure"

The second sentence under the heading "Italian criminal procedure" reads: "After the trial of the first grade (primo grado), if convicted the individual is referred to as defendant or accused (imputato)..." This appears to be at odds with what is stated in the article "Italian Code of Criminal Procedure" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure>, which explains at citatiion [9]: " So far, there is, technically speaking, no defendant yet, because an indagato (suspect) becomes imputato (defendant) only when summoned to appear before the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing." In other words, according to the article on Criminal Procedure, the "suspect" becomes the "defendant" long before being convicted at a trial of the first grade. Wikifan2744 (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Wikifan2744 (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC) Wikifan2744 (talk) 05:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I think on a staightforward reading the article conveys the facts: that the individual continues to be referred to as defendant or accused. I don't think it indicates they only start being called that once they are found guilty.Overagainst (talk) 10:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2014

The paragraphs includes this statement: "...the tramp Curatolo who testified to seeing Sollecito and Knox in the Piazza Grimana on the night of the murder was a heroin addict..."

This must relate to an earlier event of "Curatolo" giving an eyewitness account. However, neither a "Curatolo" nor such an eyewitness account

Logically, the event must be reported before reflecting on it. So, the event needs to be included (or the reflecting statement needs to be removed).

I cannot edit it because I am not a registered user.

180.183.244.88 (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done I have also removed the name of the tramp, as it does not appear in the cited source -- Diannaa (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Where did "sex game gone wrong" go?

Every time there's news about Knox, the press dutifully digs up the "sex game gone wrong" story that was advanced by prosecutors. The article used to acknowledge (perhaps too many times) that the prosecutor had said this, and IIRC, it even pointed out that the prosecutor had unsuccessfully advanced the same theory in a previous case. But now the "sex game" story isn't mentioned in the article at all, and I don't see any discussion in the archive as to where it went, and why. I came here looking for it because after reading a CNN article mentioning the theory, I wanted to find out whether the prosecution was still relying on the theory in the third trial, or if they abandoned it, or what. —mjb (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the sex game theory was dropped by the prosecution in the latest trial and they put the main emphasis on something that was a secondary motive at previous two trials, namely, Kercher was murdered after arguments about 'cleaning'. The two Italian flatmates testified at trial 1 they did all the housework that would be understood as cleaning in the flat (that came up because the court wanted to know about whether bleach had been used in the hall). According to Follian p35 it says one of Kercher's English friends said Kercher had confided she was embarrassed about how to bring up with Knox that she wasn't flushing the toilet after using it. Knox testified she was unfarmiliar with Italian toilets not always taking everything away when flushed, but that it was no problem once Kercher had spoken to her about it. However at the latest trial, according to more than one source, the prosecution advanced a theory about Kercher complaining to Knox that GUEDE had not flushed the toilet. See here and here)I don't understand that at all, because Guede was never in the upstairs flat before the night of the murder, he was in the walk-in basement only, on two occasions. One time the basement boys found him asleep on the toilet which was unflushed. I am not sure that this toilet thing being about Guede is correct. I suspect reporters may be confusing evidence about the unflushed toilet containing faeces and toilet paper with Guede's DNA on it that was found after the murder with the evidence that Kercher spoke to Knox asking her to make sure she flushed the toilet properly. Overagainst (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

At any rate, since the "sex game slipping out of control" theory has a)been up front in the earlier trials and reviews, and b)has clearly helped fuel the interest of some of the public, not least through the innuendous and imprecise nature of what was said in court and in the media (was it a bondage game? some kind of knife play?) it should at least be mentioned clearly in the sections about the earlier trials, though probably not in the lede. 83.254.151.33 (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The prosecution case at first instance posited a sexual assault not initially intended as a murder, rather than a "sex game". "Sex game" is an invention of tabloid journalists. I'm not sure that the article needs to mention it at all, but if it does then this should be clear. Formerip (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree the wording came from the tabloids (as so much else in the coverage of this affair) but within the context of the trial "sexual assault" and "sexual game/play gone wrong" probably overlap a bit. The court would not have seen it as any priority to theorize about precisely what intentions the perpetrators/roommates/the others had when things started. Researching the intentions at that point would have been vital if it was a rape case, but Kercher had been found dead, rape or sexual assault was never going to be a main point of accusation in itself and it wasn’t even clear exactly who had been in the flat on that night.

Courts normally don’t bother to make loud, overt pronouncements such as “he’s a liar”, “they have been trying to insinuate themselves with strangers and passing acquaintances all the time”, “X is a recurrent rapist” if those statements as such are peripheral to the court process and the trial. Tabloids on the other hand love those kinds of statements and often do not understand why courts refrain from making them. So if the court used the term, “sexual assault” fine, let’s use that, but the kind of actions they were suggesting may have been close to what the tabloids implied by talking of “a sex game gone wrong”. 83.254.151.33 (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps. 'Sex game' that got out of control is perhaps the wrong way to describe the tenor of what the prosecution alleged, once Guede was substituted for Lumbana, but it was not an invention of journalists that the prosecution said Knox had orchestrated an assault on Kercher by Guede that became a sexual "game". That was the prosecution theory by 30 November 2007 when a panel of 3 judges decided to keep Knox and RS in prison, and the judges largely endorsed Mignini's reconstruction of the murder which indeed did suggest Knox had orchestrated a sexual assualt on Kercher by Guede and RS. At the first trial Mignini gave his reconstruction of the murder to the court on 20 Nov 2009. He said "Rudy returned from the bathroom and joined in the assault--there's a competition between him and Raffaele to please Amanda...Rudy does all he can to win Amanda's approval" [...] "By now its an uncontrolled crescendo of violence and a sexual game"(Follain p343). Overagainst (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not a description of a "sex game" as most people would understand it. They weren't playing spin-the-bottle. It's possible that the prosecution might have likened it to a game, but that's not the same thing and probably not very relevant to the article. If it is considered relevant, it should be properly sourced and explained. Formerip (talk) 13:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how we can know the prosecutor's words meant something else, let alone try to explain what we think he actually did mean (or should have).Overagainst (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. "Sex game gone wrong" would be an interpretation - and a plainly incorrect interpretation - of anything actually claimed by the prosecution. If we want to explain anything that actually was said, then we can do that, but we also need to consider whether it's actually important to the article. Formerip (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Quoting the words the prosecutor used is not an interpretation. And what Mignini said at the trial was in many ways a continuation of what the prosecution originally claimed: that the murder happened becuase an attempt by Lumbana and Knox to inveigle Kercher into having sex with Lumbana escalated into violence when she demurred. Matteini (the judge who remanded AK RS and PL in custody) accepted that theory and according to Follain p159 she wrote explaining her ruling that: 'the three atackers, especially Amanda and Rapaele, wanted to "experience some new sensation"' So actually there is quite a lot of support for the prosecution having advanced the idea that there was a "Sex game gone wrong", and being reluctant to give up that tack. Mignini knew what he was doing when he used the words 'sexual game' in court.Overagainst (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree, Mignini's view of roughly what he thought had happened is clear from what he said, and that line became a mainstay in the case advanced by the prosecution. It's now been discredited and abandoned, but the article ought to be plain that it was present in the first few years - this element contributed a good deal to both the confrontational atmosphere and the feverish interest in the story in news media and social media. 83.254.151.33 (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Formatting

The heading "Prosecutions" contains subheadings for Knox and Sollecito, but not for Guede. Guede has his own heading? Shouldn't they all three be all together under "Prosecutions"? GreaseballNYC (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Guede was tried seperately from Knox and Sollecito and as I understand it his status under Italian law is different to theirs. Knox and Sollecito subheadings make sense as they had their own trial. Overagainst (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

In what way is his status different to theirs and why should it affect the structure of the article? TwoTwoHello (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the section on Guede should be moved under Prosecutions (his Prosecution sub-section could usefully be renamed Trial). I would suggest putting it before the Amanda Knox section where it would seem appropriate chronologically. TwoTwoHello (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

TwoTwoHello, As I understand it Guede has exhausted the appeals process. In a year or so Knox and Sollecito will have too, but at this point they do not have the same status as Guede. It should be obvious as Raffaele Sollecito does not have the staus of definatively convicted as he is still a free man in Italy while Guede is in prison. Hence Guede currently has a different status in Italian law, and he was tried seperately. I dont see a problem in making the section heading sizes the same for all who were tried.

I have thought about changing to make the Guede section first myself. However the notable events and arrests unfolded in relation to Knox and Sollecito initially with Guede only becoming part of the picture later. Would it not be confusing for the reader to bundle everything together Knox Sollecito Lumbana and Guede chronologically, while putting Guede first? It is true the structure of the article does not cover the trials completely chronologically. However I would point out there was a lot of controversy about mentioning the trials and and sentences in the sequence they occured because after Guede seemed to accuse Knox and Sollecito was given a large reduction in his sentence after AK and RS were found guilty at the first trial. A lot of people objected to that being mentioned in any account of the trial of Knox and Sollecito. (Guede went on to explicitly accuse Knox and Sollecito in a letter the prosecution read out at the second trial).Overagainst (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, Overagainst. (User Whitesquire already jumped the gun and made some edits in this vein. I'm leaving those edits in accordance with WP:GOODFAITH and inviting them to join this conversation.) I've renamed the Prosecutions/Guede/Prosecutions section to Prosecutions/Guede/Trial, per TwoTwoHello's suggestion, though.

Let's all try to avoid major structural changes to this article before moving forward together.  :) GreaseballNYC (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

While we're working on this section, shouldn't Prosecution_appeal be at the very end of all three defendants'? The subsection applies both to Knox and Sollecito. GreaseballNYC (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is clearly about both Knox and Sollecito. It should be followed (or merged with) the Prosecution appeal successful. The New trial should similarly be moved, as it too is clearly part of the ongoing prosecutions. TwoTwoHello (talk) 10:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Knox is "illegally in her own country."

The judges have ruled that Amanda Knox is living "illegally in her own country." Can anyone shed light on this from an Italian legal perspective? What is their rationale? Did she sign documents prior to her release to this extent?

This seems to be outside of their jurisdictional bounds.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Despite what the article says about Sollecito being 'caught', he remains free and can go anywhere within Italy. I think we have to be careful about reading too much into translations of legal jargon. Overagainst (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe the judge said she was living legitimately in her own country, although this was not really a ruling, just an aside. Formerip (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Do we really have to put up with that silly story that Sollecito was 'caught' close to the border. He was in a hotel with his girl and had actually returned to Italy after he went over the border into Austria. BTW he was in the Dominican Republic (which has no extradition treaty with Italy) when the case started. Overagainst (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

On Sollecito, feel free to update. I entered that in an effort to give a neutral treatment to something that I felt would be inevitably entered into the article. That's certainly no stickler point with me.

Concerning the "illegally in her own country" part, I heard that in this video. Formerip, thank you for offering your translation above. Does that mean that the translator in the video is wrong? I admit that I'm at a disadvantage for not knowing Italian and it is confusing to me. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

My Italian isn't good enough to confirm it from the video, but if you Google Amanda Knox "legittimamente nel suo paese", you'll see it's what all the Italian press have reported. The interpreter has either misheard or got confused. Formerip (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

...leading to my confusion and this thread. :) Thank you for straightening that out.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Pretty good article, but could use more information on the trials

I've just properly read through this article for the first time. My general thoughts are that it's reasonably good for a summary of such a contentious and high-profile case. It's particularly good on laying out the background and series of events.

Where it's less good is on the sequence of trials and appeals, particularly the first trial. It would be nice to have set out more clearly the evidence advanced against Knox and Sollecito, and the evidence advanced in their defence. One thing which isn't clear at the moment, for example, is whether or not Knox and Sollecito gave testimony themselves in the trial, and if so what they said. (Indeed, there's remarkably little information in the article about Sollecito altogether, both for him and against him: a casual reader of this article could almost miss the fact that there was a second defendant besides Amanda Knox.)

The sections on the subsequent appeals and retrials could also be expanded: it would be good to have more information about why they came to the verdicts that they did.

I understand a major obstacle to the expansion of this article, and a reason why it is the way it is, is the language barrier: I expect most of the contributors to it don't speak Italian and rely on English-language sources, which inevitably focus more on Knox and the 'human interest' side, and have less information about the specifics of the legal case. Even so, I would think there has been enough English-language documentation of this case that more information on the areas I mentioned could be found. Someone elsewhere says that greater detail about the legal proceedings would be unencyclopaedic, but comparing this article to those on high-profile American murder cases (e.g. O. J. Simpson murder case, State of Florida v. George Zimmerman) suggests otherwise - it could easily be a lot longer.

Anyway, thanks to all those who have edited the article for their contributions so far - I just wanted to make some suggestions for improvement. Robofish (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Sollecito made statements but was not questioned in court on his evidence by the prosecution at first trial or last trial. I'm not sure about the second one one that he was acquitted at. As I understand it the recent guilty verdict was mainly due to the Italian supreme court having instucted the lower court as to the way circustantial evidence was assessed in a way that was so damaging to the defence it made for a conviction. Hellmann predicted it, as mentioned in the article. Overagainst (talk) 07:09, 5 February 2014‎ (UTC)

Prospect of Extradition

Is there any reason that Dershowitz gets his own section? Most commentators have said that extradition is unlikely or unclear, so why is the one voice that says it would be likely the only voice we have? Plus, there would be no extradition until another two appeals at least, right? We're talking years before this is an issue, right?LedRush (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Ultimately, if the convictions are upheld, extradition is going to become a political issue. With Knox having a wide support base in the U.S. and the case being seen as an example of kangaroo justice by many Americans, no politicians or administrators are going to cherish the prospect of having to sign the decision to send her in chains to Italy and twenty years in jail. There is a trade-off here and I reckon many legally trained people are aware of the issue being sensitive and uncertain for now, so they will be reluctant to talk. 83.254.151.33 (talk) 08:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Extradition request might happen early next year I believe. Re."Most commentators have said that extradition is unlikely or unclear". Legally I think it is clear Knox has no hope. "Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at American University in Washington DC, says that whether or not Ms Knox is extradited to Italy is a question of the request's legal basis and America's political interest in the case. [...]But Mr Vladeck thinks the US protection against being tried twice for the same crime - known as double jeopardy - doesn't apply in this case." Prof Julian Ku says he would be very surprised if she was able to avoid extradition through any legal objection such as double jeopardy, and all she can do is appeal for clemency due to the unusual nature of the case which is 'not compelling'. So there is no legal way, what is unclear is the political aspect. Vladeck and Ku think she has populous support, but they are not political commentators. If anyone could come up with a good loophole Alan Dershowitz could (one of his). Alan Dershowitz is a prominent scholar on United States constitutional law and criminal law, retained by the defence in the most high profile trials in the US because he comes through. For an overview on what is going to happen he is the best source because he is a slick defence lawyer, jurist, and political commentator. He understands the legal and the poltical angle better than anyone. And that would be why the BBC sought his opinion. You seem to think that bit that has been taken out about hundreds of mainly minority Americans in prison on less evidence than there is against Knox is nothing to do with extradition. Wrong. Dershowitz mentioned that (which I toned down BTW) because he understands the political angle which will be all important. It will be easy to generate a backlash just like there was against Natalee Holloway, just go and look at the way her article portrays her, and she was a murder victim. (I understand that the Innocence Project which helps those wrongly convicted people in the US has benefited from supporting Knox). It is in no one's interest for the impression to be given that the US would refuse to extradite Knox. So, Dershowitz understands the issues and is of the opinion the US national interest will require Knox to be extradited, if Italy asks. Overagainst (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yet, somehow the news reports that lawyers disagree with you. The old language was one sided and inaccurate.LedRush (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You cited only one person (who is no authority). Dershowitz is one of 3 professors of law in agreement that double jeopardy is not going to work. Here is another opinion Jacques Semmelman an extradition expert and former fed prosecuter, he says double jeopardy ain't in the the extradition treaty with Italy and so it does not apply to her trials IN ITALY. Anyway the Italian system is everyone gets two trials unless they opt for a fast track. The overwhelming consensus is there is no legal way to deny extradition. The uncertainty is over a political decision to refuse to extradite (by the State department) and no one has said that will happen, only that it could. So at the moment if we say anything likelihood is indeed that there will be extradition if Italy asks. Dershowitz's opinion (and the wording made it clear it was an opinion) is there because it represents the balance of opinion in America. In Italy "Most people in Italy would find it very difficult indeed to imagine the US authorities one day putting Amanda Knox on a plane and sending her back here to spend much of the rest of her life in jail". (Which might make it more likely that they ask IMO) Having the article give the impression that there is good legal opinion that US doesn't have to abrogate any treaty to deny extradition is misleading the reader. It is not true.Overagainst (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You opinion is uninformed and unsupported by news (or the law) on the subject.

• Will Amanda Knox Be Sent Back to Italy?
• Experts disagree over extradition for Amanda Knox
• Despite her murder conviction, Amanda Knox may never be extradited to Italy

LedRush (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

On questions that are strictly legal in nature, we ought to take only the most authoritative opinions, and we should be wary of random "legal commentators". Specifically on the issue of double jeopardy, it would be pretty extraordinary for this to be a legal grey area. Extradition has been happening for a long time and lots of countries allow for acquittal and subsequent reconviction. IOW Amanda Knox is not likely to be a test case. If our most authoritative sources say the law is settled in this area, then it almost certainly is, and extraordinary claims to the contrary would require exceptional sourcing. Formerip (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

But hasn't the US chosen to ignore Italy's extradition requests for Robert Seldon Lady?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't say so in his article, but if so then I imagine that there's a national security issue. If you can find a source saying that's relevant to this case... Formerip (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Bad comparison. Lady was/is working for the government, United States Intelligence Community. He sure gets special treatment due to his status and possible security implications for the US or at least his branch or our government. Knox on the other hand is "just another US citizen".TMCk (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

There is an agreement that NATO personel in Italy are dealt with in their own countries. see Cavalese cable car disaster (1998), but it is interesting that an Italian magistrate decided the offence was too serious in Robert Seldon Lady's case for US gov agency immunity to protect him.

The US seems to grant extradition requests very quickly even to countries that don't reciprocate because although I've read Italy does not extradite where the death penalty applies, and Italy does not extradite its own citizens according to a recent news story from the BBC here. I can't find a precedent for the US refusing to extradite. US gov site Frequently Asked Questions on the US-UK Extradition Relationship "The United States has not denied a single extradition request from the UK under the treaty; the UK has denied 10 requests from the U.S. since the treaty took effect [...]• Moreover, extradition requests from the U.S. to the UK have taken as long as 13 years to work their way through the UK and European courts. For extradition requests from the UK to the U.S. the subjects are in most cases extradited within several months".Overagainst (talk) 10:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

When Elisa Claps disappeared (was murdered) her friend Eliana De Cillis was tried along with another man and (the real killer) Danilo Restivo. De Cillis was found not guilty at the the first trial and the prosecution appealed successfully and she was convicted at the second trial. So it seems if Knox had been acquitted at the first trial (of the first degree) the prosecution could have appealed and re-tried her at that level. Quadruple jeopardy? Overagainst (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Lede link to Knox article

We should not link to link to the Wikipedia article titled 'Amanda Knox'. 1) it uses an activist SPS source. 2) The sources are almost entirely news reports, which tend to get things wrong. 3)The subject matter is quite nauseating in places: "In May 2012, Maxim named Knox in its 'Hot 100' countdown of 2012’s sexiest women.[55]". Even if the the linking to the goathaters underthebridge site was removed, I don't see any point. Amanda Knox is one of a number of alleged perpetrators and has no notabilty outside her prosecution in the MoMK. We shouldn't link to a page on her specifically Overagainst (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

What you are suggesting is problematic. First, you should realize that the Amanda Knox article is already linked from the infobox. I added the wikilink in the article because it is standard to link to the first occurrence within text. Per WP:UNDERLINK, the article should be linked. The solutions involve correcting the Knox article but you can't isolate it. To do so, creates a POV fork. If you really believe that Knox isn't notable then you would nominate it for deletion but I'm not personally recommending that as I don't think it would fly.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The article has survived deletion attempts, and it seems very odd that we wouldn't link to it.LedRush (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a quite strange request you're laying out here, Overagainst. If we have an article on a person involved or even just mentioned here we link to it. No questions ask.TMCk (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:"Murder of" articles. Knox has never been accused of being a serial killer. It is clear cut Knox was not already notable for some reason. Her notabilty derives entirely from her prosecution for the murder of MK, whereby the MoMK article is the encyclopedic article on the subject of Knox to the extent that she is notable. The AK article's prurient reporting of comedian's remarks and sexy women lists shows it is unencyclopedic. And we spread this chancre by linking to it.Overagainst (talk)

Nominate it for deletion (you'll lose). You can't not link to it. (Also, you are just plain wrong about that article. There is notable information on the other trials, the books, the documentaries, etc. that is notable separate from this trial. Knox is notable because of this, but now her notability obviously transcends it. Just like many others in similar circumstances.LedRush (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

If you think there is a problem with her bio bring it up over there. Here on this page you have no point.TMCk (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Overagainst, you may want to read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Knox (2nd nomination) which has a community-determined consensus where notability is established. At the time, I opted for redirecting the article to this one but since then I would say that Knox has independent notability. Being the primary subject of an hour long interview with Diane Sawyer alone would merit that.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The link must be removed. The AK article ref 13 (www.perugiamurderfile.org) is an SPS,WP:BLPSPS. By linking to the AK article we link to the self published source, which is not permissible. The source is ref for text in Wikipedia's voice, which clearly insinuates a living person has committed murder. WP:BLPREMOVE "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP".

The stuff about sexy women lists and 'would you' 'humour' reads like it was composed by a community that uses a lot of Clearasil. WP:BLPSOURCES "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." It is contentious, because Knox is not a model or actress who might reasonably be assumed to have no objection to having materiel about what someone said about her sexual desirability in a Wikipedia article about her, because it was complimentary. Quite the opposite, the case against her learnt heavily on a purported ability to use her putative attractiveness to get RS and RG to commit murder. And now her looks are again being used against her because Americans are supposedly too entranced by her angel face (the title of a slimy film about to be released is Angel Face) to see through her. Dershowitz had quite a bit to say on that in the BBC interview, and media perception of the popular perception of her is going to come to the fore. To summarise, remarks about her looks are not encyclopedic, delinquently sourced and may be objected to.Overagainst (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Then you fix the Amanda Knox article but not try to sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist. I know that you aren't trying to assert that my edit of simply adding wikilinks is a BLP violation, right?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. Fix the Knox article. It is simply not a choice to not link to it.LedRush (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I happen to know the link to the Beth Holloway page was removed from the FA Natalee Holloway page, a featured article, that had three admins hovering over it, so it's quite wrong that it is not a possibility to remove such a link without deleting the page. A page may be linked but it's not entitled a link to the one it was spun off of. It seems to me that there should be work done on the AK article before it is linked to the MoMK. No 1 priority is the in-WP's-voice assertion about what the autopsy showed. But the AK page is, I think, full of things that are slanted and there are so many of then. For example from the top " She served four years of a 26-year sentence". (No she didn't she was held in preventative detention) "before the murder conviction was overturned " (It wasn't a conviction as it was only at the initial stage of the two trial process that she was convicted at while she was in Italy). Only with the recent guilty verdict is she is regarded as convicted under Italian law. The stuff about her book deals and speculation about what it was worth to her along with stuff about no one should profit from the murder is all blatant POV. Am I being told that all this type of stuff can be taken out and to go ahead and do it?Overagainst (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You've got my vote anyway. Based on what you've already done with this article I trust your work on that would be equally perspicacious. Jodon | Talk 22:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You can't expect a blank check here, (wrong venue), but by all means, move your concerns and possible article improvements to our Amanda Knox entry.TMCk (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Classic SYNTH

I undid this edit. WP:SYNTH describes why we cannot use sources like this. --John (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Well that sounds definite. So apparently there is no point in arguing. "In 1999 (Perugian) prosecutors charged former prime minister Giulio Andreotti with murder, he was acquitted at the initial trial, but the prosecution successfully appealed. At the second trial in 2002, Andreotti was convicted and sentenced to 24 years. The conviction shocked many Italians and resulted in calls for an overhaul of the justice system" The bolded text is a conservative paraphrase of the source, and article in the Guardian newspaper.Andreotti fights back over mafia allegations The Guardian, Friday 29 November 2002. I have no reason to think that the assertion of widespread dismay in Italy at that case Perugian prosecutors brought lost appealed and managed to get a conviction in is being misrepresented. Apparently it is synth because it's the mention of a fact unrelated to any charges brought by Perugia prosecutors over the murder of Meredith Kercher. However the 'masonic lodge of powerful officials commissioning murders' theory than a Perugian prosecutor took seriously in the Monster of Florence case was not thought unrelated enough to be synth in the article that we could not use. Perugia prosecuters said Andreotti had ordered the murder of Carmine Pecorelli and that is had been carried out by the man convicted of the Bologna massacre and his followers, with involvement of the head of masonic lodge Propaganda Due, Licio Gelli. So it's like a DA's office charging ex Pres Bush with having a journalist murdered by the people who did 9/11, and getting a conviction (both Andreotti's trials were in Perugia). I'm not going to attempt to put it back in. But I would be interested to hear what others think.Overagainst (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with the premise that Italy has a weird and dysfunctional justice system. But to include a source in this article it would have to talk about this in relation to the current case. A source from 2002 is unlikely to do this. --John (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I see the sense in that.book source, and The Seattle Times Italy still smarting over Amanda Knox acquittal Overagainst (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed.

The address was Via della Pergola 7. The location on the map seems to be on a neighbouring street. Richard Gill (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I've tweaked the coordinates slightly to avoid overprecision and to place them in a clearer position in the article, but the building they indicate clearly matches this BBC photo of the crime scene (included in the article's external-links section). You can't always go by the street labels on Google maps, especially with regard to little twisty streets in European urban areas. Deor (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

agreed - it is definitely the right location, and although the street naming is confusing it is the same on both Bing Maps and Open Street Map. Probably Viale Sant Antonio is a new road and has divided Via della Pergola into two segments - which helps explain why the police found it hard to find the villa. Jeremy Young (talk) 10:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikimania Conference session

Editors might be interested to know that there has been a proposal submitted to the Wikimania Conference in London 8 - 10 August 2014 for a panel presentation and discussion about the history of this article. Anyone who is interested in attending can indicate here: https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/History_of_the_Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher_Article

It is not yet known which proposals will be selected for the conference. NigelPScott (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Document all evidence?

Can we reasonably document all evidence? So much is missing here. Article does not talk about footprints found at the scene or mix blood in the bathroom. I'm sure there's plenty more missing, as I'm finding more and more as I dig on my own. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

'At the scene' would mean in Meridith Kercher's bedroom. There were no 'footprints there', just a number of bloody shoeprints (like the one the article mentions found beside a piece of glass fron the broken window) left by Guede. It is true that the police originally said said the shoe prints were Sollecito's but "Sollecito's own family made up the shortfall in police work by scouring the country for the sneaker that matched the bloody footprint at the crime scene, a Nike shoe but not, as the police maintained, one that matched Sollecito's Nike shoe. Eventually, Sollecito's uncle Giuseppe found an out-of-stock pair of Nikes in a sales rack with the same swirly pattern on the tread, and emphatically not the shoe that Sollecito owned" see here. It was ruled the shoeprints were not Sollecito, by the supreme court I think. It was much the same story with the footprint on the bathmat. You're turning up old news stories I think. Anyway it's not encyclopedic to try and document all the evidence. Overagainst (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It should state whether all evidence is presented or not. The article makes no indication of its intention in that regard. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 05:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Lumumba

Did Knox ever pay the judgment to Lumumba for falsely accusing him of the murder? The article doesn't say that I could find. Cla68 (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

She's appealing that verdict.98.209.42.117 (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there a source for the statement that Amanda Knox raised the alarm?

The article says that "The alarm had been raised by one of her flatmates, Amanda Knox". Does that statement need a source? My reading of the trial transcript translations suggests that was not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.102.197 (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Books

I want to make it clear that I do not care if my book is posted on this article. I am here to point out how biased the editor was when removing it. It was brought to my attention that an anti-Amanda Knox group was gloating over this edit on their forum so I decided to come take a look. It is sad that after all these years, this article continues to be controlled by biased editors.

My book is titled: "Injustice in Perugia - a book detailing the wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito"

Here is the comment about the edit: Binksternet (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 599393738 by 210.94.201.41 (talk) rv... no need for self-published book by someone trying to leverage the case for personal gain)

Binksternet boldly accuses me of trying to leverage the case for personal gain. Why?

Leila Schneps and Coralie Colmez added this case to their book "Math on trial" in the attempt to sell books. Amanda Knox brought far more attention to their book than it would have received otherwise. The Meredith Kercher murder case has no place in a book about math. Why are these authors not accused of leveraging this case for personal gain? In fact, why aren't all authors accused of trying to leverage the case for personal gain? Have the other authors made a profit from their books? Why not simply say that the book is not allowed because it is self-published? Why did the editor feel the need to take a cheap shot? Just curious. Bruce Fischer (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann

I believe the latest opinion from Judge Hellmann should be added to this article.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHnzUiTavzU

In an interview with CNN, Judge Hellmann states that Nencini’s ruling is “the result of fantasy,” According to Hellmann, “the Florence appeal court has written a script for a movie or a thriller book while it should have only considered facts and evidence.” Hellmann goes on to state boldly once again that there is no evidence to condemn Knox and Sollecito. Bruce Fischer (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

As long as it is made clear that it is solely the opinion of a retired judge who is familiar with the case and not an opinion of any legal standing, knock yourself out. We generally avoid sourcing to youtube though, so use the Daily Mail. Tarc (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

What was the point of your comment tarc? A person that was the lead judge in one of the Sollecito/Knox trial makes a statement about the subsequent trials and you make a dismissive comment like that about the suggestion to add mention of it to this article? If you can't see, regardless of your view about this case, that this is highly relevant and absolutely should be mentioned in the article, I suggest your level of bias should serve to immediately disqualify you from editing this article. Wikipedia articles, from my perspective, are not designed to provide a soap box for partisans on either side of the issue and your post above suggests that this is exactly how you intend to use this article. --Davefoc (talk) 04:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Another "Friends of Amanda" coming out of the woodworks, I see? I merely pointed out that, if presented in the article, it should be framed as his personal opinion and not a legal one. Nothing more. Tarc (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not recommend the Daily Mail for anything. The interview was conducted by CNN. Judge Hellmann is a little more than "Familiar" with the case. He is the Italian judge that declared Amanda and Raffaele innocent and sent them home. I should not edit this article. I am making a recommendation. Bruce Fischer (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I came here to make the same recommendation. I think the opinion of the judge who ruled that Knox was innocent would be relevant.

"Claudio Hellman, the judge who tossed their convictions, has lashed out at colleagues.

"The Florence Appeal Court has written a script for a movie or a thriller book while it should have only considered facts and evidence. There is no evidence to condemn Knox and Sollecito," said the judge in a scathing statement obtained by CNN."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/01/us/amanda-knox-interview/ LedRush (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

This article is more detailed. I think the suggestion that the judges who presided over the case have only a personal opinion and not a legal one is quite absurd under the circumstances. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/10144454/Italian-judges-attack-decision-to-retry-Amanda-Knox-and-Raffaele-Sollecito.html LedRush (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Books, part 2

"The Forgotten Killer" should be on the books list. Douglas Preston is a well respected NY Times best selling author. I added the book and it was removed by Tarc. Tarc stated: #1 Anyone can publish eBooks via Amazon Digital Services, #2, the "Guede is the real solo killer" angle has now been officially refuted by the Italian courts, so this now falls under the "conspiracy theory" category, which we do not need.

This is false. Tarc is using the Italian Court system as the judge of the content of the book. Tarc has failed to realize that the process is not complete until the Italian Supreme Court finalizes the verdicts. Nothing has been "officially refuted" by anyone. Tarc's extreme bias is glaring. Bruce Fischer (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

We don't need to place fringe books by self-published authors into an article's bibliography. If it was released by a legitimate (i.e. real) publisher, that would be a different story. The fact that the subject matter is akin to an OJ Simpson-esque If I Did It is just icing on the cake, seeing how the official court position is that Knox herself that delivered the coup de grâce. Tarc (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for freely exposing your extreme bias Tarc. I expected nothing less from you. Bruce Fischer (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Bruce, WP usually doesn't allow self-published books. Cla68 (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I understand that to a point Cla68. This is a unique case where a well known and well established NY Times best selling author has published a book.

Of course Tarc could have simply stated that Wikipedia does not allow self published books, but instead Tarc decided to make a ridiculous comparison to Oj Simpson's "If I Did It." There is absolutely no comparison. A group of well respected experts came together with Douglas Preston to analyse this case. Tarc has once again failed to realize that the case has not been finalized by the Italian Justice System. The same two people that Tarc wishes to condemn were also declared innocent by an Italian judge in an Italian courtroom, and both were released and went home to their families. This has been a long drawn out process in Italy. Tarc should keep that in mind when falsely claiming that the Italian court has "officially refuted" the lone attacker theory. Nothing is finalized. The defense arguments should not be veiwed as a "conspiracy theory" and the argument should definitely not be made by a Wikipedia editor that is currently editing this article. In my opinion, Tarc has shown extreme bias and should not be anywhere near this article. Bruce Fischer (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Well-respected by who, your injusticeinperugia.com crowd? Pass. Your addition was problematic for two reasons, that's all there was to it. Focusing on one is a bit of a strawman. Tarc (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you even bothered to look at the authors of the book? Leave your bias aside for 5 minutes and read the list of people involved in the book. Your sarcastic remark about my injusticeinperugia.com crowd shows your true intentions once again. Take a look at the distinguished people you are attempting to smear with your snide remarks:

DOUGLAS PRESTON is a journalist and author who has published 25 books, nonfiction and fiction, several of which have been #1 New York Times bestsellers.

JOHN DOUGLAS, who served as special agent for the FBI for twenty-five years, is the Bureau’s pioneer of behavioral profiling and modern criminal investigative analysis. He authored the landmark study of incarcerated serial offenders that ultimately led to the FBI’s operational profiling program.

MARK OLSHAKER is an Emmy Award-winning filmmaker and New York Times bestselling nonfiction author who has worked closely with many of the nation’s leading experts in law enforcement and criminal justice.

STEVE MOORE retired from the FBI following a 25-year career as a Special Agent and Supervisory Special Agent. During his tenure, he ran Al Qaeda investigations for the Joint Terrorism Task Force in Los Angeles, and later headed the investigation of terror attacks against the US throughout Pakistan and Asia. Steve has received multiple awards from the US Department of Justice for his successful US and overseas investigations, which ran the gamut from bombings to school shootings, anthrax threats to kidnappings and murders to international terrorist organizations.

Please tell me that there is someone here with some common sense that can see that the book in question is written by well respected people. I would suggest that Tarc read the information on the links that he provides in an attempt to educate me. The suggestion that my argument is "a bit of a strawman" is absurd. I acknowledged both points that Tarc made. I did nothing at all to create a strawman argument and I took nothing that Tarc said out of context. Tarc is openly biased. Unfortunately that has been a problem here for years and Wikipedia doesn't seem to care. Jimmy Wales got involved at one point and was mocked by the biased editors that control this page. That's when I knew this article would forever remain hopeless. Bruce Fischer (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

To User:Tarc and User:Cla68: There is simply no policy that forbids self-published books categorically, as you can see here WP:SPS (and perhaps already were aware of). Wiki policy says that self-published books are reliable "when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Considering Mr. Peston has had true crime books and articles published by Simon & Schuster, Smithsonian Magazine, and others, as well as the fact that the other authors have considerable expertise in law enforcement, I am struggling to see why the book doesn't deserve a mention on this page. mikeman67 (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The small quoted paragraph then goes on with: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."
Note: The bolding is not mine here.
Also, the book doesn't even give much room to Preston [let's assume for a moment that he would pass the "inclusion test"]; It has about seven authors sharing 80 pages, six of whom are non-notable/unreliable.TMCk (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Tarc and Cla68 on this one. It's a self-published book that you're wanting to add in a BLP article. That's a no-no. See WP:BLPSPS. Ravensfire (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Tarc should step away and move on to other things. Tarc's comments clearly show that Tarc is extremely biased. Tarc is also misrepresenting the current status of this case. Ravensfire, I understand that you have cited a Wikipedia guideline. Please tell me why "Math on Trial" belongs on this article page. The book is about math. The authors added this case to the book simply to help sell it. This case has nothing to do with math. One of the authors is a regular poster on an anti-Amanda Knox website. You are accepting that book simply because it has a publisher. And you are rejecting NY Times best selling author Douglas Preston because he chose to publish himself. Everyone here should be well aware of the fact that Douglas Preston can get a publisher anytime he wants. He is a very well respected proven author that has no problem getting published. He has also joined other well respected people in writing "The Forgotten Killer." I think we all know why "Math on Trial" is on this article page. The editors controlling this page are friends with the anti-Knox crowd that supports the authors. Just read Tarc's comments to gain an understanding. Bruce Fischer (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Ravensfire, you cite a guideline for living persons. The focus of this article is not a living person. "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person." Please tell me how this is relevant. We are not discussing Amanda Knox's article here. We are discussing Meredith Kercher. Bruce Fischer (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Bruce - read WP:BLP again. The entire thing. Are living people involved? It's not, of course, that the book tries to prove the innocence of a living person. Nope - it's just about non-living people. Yup, that's it. Ravensfire (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The reasoning is flawed. The book discusses the murder of Meredith Kercher. That just happens to be the focus of this article. To claim that other living people are involved is silly. Also, why is "Math on Trial" on this article page? Look, I am biased as well, and therefore I have stayed away from editing this page. I only brought up the book to show how ridiculous all of this is. The article should be managed by non biased editors. People like Tarc and I should not edit. Yet, Wikipedia encourages Tarc to edit because Tarc edits other extremely important topics like Justin Bieber. The funny thing is that the biased editors are so angry that they cannot resist posting their thoughts when editing. Read Tarc's comments here. Read the comments by Binksternet about my book. The bias is glaring. Bruce Fischer (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Based on the evidence at hand, I certainly think she did it, but apart from that I do not have a vested interest in the case or the person one way or the other. I don't write books (as you do) on the subject, I don't run/participate in a web forum devoted to conspiracies and minutiae (as you do) of the case. Having an opinion on a subject (i.e. me) is not the same as having a conflict-of-interest (i.e. you) with a subject. I flit to a variety of articles, mainly WP:BLPs, that have issues, even to dear ol' Justin Bieber's for a brief time. A serious subject such as this deserves and requires us to present solid, scholarly sources and bibliographies; not tabloids, not self-published eBooks. Tarc (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You wrote: "I don't run/participate in a web forum devoted to conspiracies and minutiae(as you do) of the case." There is no truth in that statement. But the fact that you made that statement tells everyone here that you do have a vested interest in the online debate surrounding this case. If you had no interest, you would have no clue that I own a forum that discusses wrongful convictions. You have intentionally misrepresented the forum because you dislike it. Please do not insult the intelligence of anyone that may read this discussion. You have made your position very clear. You cannot possibly make an argument that the author's of "The Forgotten Killer" are not "solid, scholarly sources." Go ahead, give it a try. Embarrass yourself. Can anyone answer the question regarding "Math on Trial" that I have posted numerous times in this discussion?Bruce Fischer (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

So there's "no truth" to saying that you run a web forum devoted to this case, yet in the next breath you say "I own a forum"? I think you're getting a bit tongue-tied there, but I'm aware of your forum because it was once mentioned by you in a debate here a year or so ago. Perusing the archives we find the line "I am certainly not here to promote my website", so that answers that tangent. Interestingly, after reading some more of the archives just now, I am reminded that Knox supporters have tried to pull this stuff before, e.g. here and here, trying to get non-notable self-published books into the article. Tarc (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not tongue tied at all. Maybe you are having trouble comprehending what I am saying. You misrepresented the forum describing it as a "web forum devoted to conspiracies and minutiae." That is false. Please tell me where I was tongue tied. You conveniently leave out your sarcastic comments when trying to claim that I tripped up. I am very clear in my writing and you are clearly dishonest in yours. You have also neglected to comment on the fact that you attempted to smear the distinguished authors I posted above. Like I said above, you cannot possibly make an argument that the author's of "The Forgotten Killer" are not "solid, scholarly sources. Excluding these distinguished authors simply because you disagree with their opinion is damaging to Wikipedia. Sure, you will mask your bias by painting a broad brush with Wikipedia's guidelines, but it will not hide your position here. I still have not received an answer as to why "Math on Trial" belongs here. It appears the only reason is that it has a publisher, making the Wikipedia guideline being enforced here against Douglas Preston look pretty silly. And just to add another note, the reference you make regarding my website refers to my website Injusticeinperugia.org, not the discussion forum that you are choosing to mock. The forum is a completely different website that you would have no knowledge of if you were not part of the online debate surrounding this case. Lets stop playing games. You are not looking good here.

I just looked through the links you posted above, and sure enough, I found you to be one of the people arguing with Jimbo Wales when he made his concerns about the editors of this article known. But of course, you have no agenda here!

Jimbo wrote: "Tarc, I just don't know how to talk to you about this. You don't seem to be hearing me. I'm trying really hard to understand you, and if you're saying something correct, I am not hearing it. You talk about "the conspiracy notion that tehre was a cover-up, a frame-up, or a case of police incompetence or rush to judgment regarding the current convicts". My point is that reliable sources contradict you on the point that at least some of these things are a "conspiracy notion". Yes, there are conspiracy theories in the world, crazy ones that make no sense, etc. JFK assassination theories - the example you gave - are a good example. But there are also cases, lots of them, where there are legitimate objections to convictions, cases where there are cover-ups, frame-ups, police incompetence, rush to judgment. So I'm not getting where or why or how you feel justified in calling the work of literally dozens of reliable sources calling this particular case into question, for reasons that - even if we don't agree with them in the end - don't seem particularly wild or crazy - "conspiracy notion"s that need to be minimized in the article. We have to follow the sources, and the sources are quite clear. If all you are saying is that some people who have edited this article in the past have been unreasonable, well, sure. On all sides. But you seem to be arguing for more than that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC"

Jimbo suggests following the sources. You would rather keep sources that you don't like off the page. But, I know, you are just an honest Wikipedia editor. :) Bruce Fischer (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo's meddling in the article was an unfortunate and intrusive affair, long since past. He attempted to get the articles to give credence to your person p.o.v. ("Knox is innocent", "Italian police are inept", "cover-up", etc...), but as we now see in the court's rulings, those were just smokescreens, wishful thinking, and a bit of white-knighting. As for "following the sources", that is what we are doing now; the sources are abandoning the Knox-is-innocent campaign like rats fleeing a sinking ship. This is really beginnging to diverge form the original topic here, which was the attempt to insert links to non-notable, self-published books. Are we done with that now? Tarc (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Haha, yeah, you have no interest in the case! Right! Do you think Judge Hellmann was a white knight? Why do you ignore the court ruling that declared Knox and Sollecito innocent and sent them home? Thank you for talking here. Every time you type, you tell us all that you have an agenda. You should not be editing this article. You wrote: "the sources are abandoning the Knox-is-innocent campaign like rats fleeing a sinking ship." Do you care to clarify that nonsense? The recent media has done nothing but report on Judge Nencini's report. You wrongly assume that the case is finalized. Judge Hellmann is speaking out about the current ruling. I guess you just see him as a "white knight" right?

Judge slams Amanda Knox conviction report : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHnzUiTavzU Bruce Fischer (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Tarc, you have completely ignored the arguments made regarding "The Forgotten Killer" and instead you have decided to expose yourself once again as a biased editor with an agenda. Please make an argument that the author's of "The Forgotten Killer" are not "solid, scholarly sources. Please make the argument that Douglas Preston is non-notable. How about John Douglas and Mark Olshaker. Give it your best shot. If these authors are not distinguished enough for Wikipedia then no one is. Bruce Fischer (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I impugned the book itself, not necessarily the author(s). Self-published is self-published, that's all there is to it. Tarc (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I wrote that the authors were well respected and you responded: "Well-respected by who, your injusticeinperugia.com crowd?" You were hardly discussing the self-published aspect. Your reasoning for rejecting a NY Times best selling author is incredibly weak, and common sense should prevail here. Bruce Fischer (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Is the "books list" intended to be a further reading section, or a bibliography (i.e. "Works cited")? Currently, it is presented as the latter, as a subsection of "References". From what I can see, the Preston book has not been used as a source for any of the statements in the article (probably because it is a very recent release); therefore, it does not warrant a place in the bibliography. It may or may not be suitable for inclusion in a FR section. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 21:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not see "Math on trial" being used as a reference for anything in this article. Can you point me to where I should find that? By the way, hello SuperMarioMan. You are mentioned in my second non-notable self-published book "Finding Justice in Perugia". I was attracted to your name of course. :) Bruce Fischer (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know when Math on Trial was added to the list. It's possible that it's being used as a general source (like The Italian Legal System: An Introduction), but more likely that whoever inserted it was confused about the list's purpose, believing that it was further reading. I'm sure that the article had a FR list in the past, and I'd support re-establishing it. Unless someone can show which broad sections of the article they are referencing, I endorse moving Math on Trial, Waiting To Be Heard and Honor Bound (none of which have any specific page citations) to a separate list. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 00:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like a plausible solution. I see no logical reason to keep "The Forgotten Killer" off of a further reading list. The author is a NY Times best selling author. Bruce Fischer (talk) 08:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

My revert

Moved from User talk:HelenOnline § Murder of Meredith Kercher

 – Moved from my user talk page. HelenOnline 11:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why did you feel the need to revert the information posted in regards to the above topic? As both statements were legally true. Amanda Knox was found GUILTY by not 1 but 2 high courts in Italy and is wanted on charges of murdering Meredith Kercher. Her current whereabouts in the US are unknown, due to the extradition order placed by the Italian courts to the US supreme court. Was Wiki not the place for truth? and not just a biased opinion of a Knox fan??????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleetzy (talk • contribs) 10:56, 29 May 2014 UTC)

@Fleetzy: As stated in my edit summary "rv undue, rv unsourced" (incidentally you should try adding one if you don't want your edits reverted), I reverted your edit for the following reasons:

1. I removed Amanda Knox's name from the opening sentence as Knox was not the only person tried and found guilty of the murder (there were three of them and all their details are already covered later in the article lead). Emphasising her name, and her name only, in the opening sentence is what we call undue emphasis violating Wikipedia's core neutral point of view policy.
2. I removed your unsourced statement that "Knox has subsequently refused to return to Italy and currently is in hiding in the USA." as it violates Wikipedia's core verifiability policy. Wikipedia content is based on verifiability, not truth. We take this policy especially seriously when talking about living people.

Please note that suggesting another editor is biased, especially without presenting supporting evidence in an appropriate forum on Wikipedia, could be considered a personal attack which is not allowed on Wikipedia and could lead to sanctions against you. HelenOnline 11:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It is verifiable...[2] & [3] for starters... --Nozzer71 (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The entry states that Knox & Sollecito were exonerated and that the court went out of their way to proclaim them innocent with nothing to do with the murder. This is untrue. Knox & Sollecito were acquitted under paragraph 2 of article 530 of the Italian Criminal Procedure Code, which is an "insufficient evidence" acquittal, which the court were not legally authorized to do as they were viewing the case on its merits, which had already been covered at their trial and appeal. The Supreme Court only had the legal authority to send the case back to a lower appellate court as they could only rule on points of law, such as a legal, procedural or systematic error that occurred at their trial/appeal. They were actually in violation of article 620 & artice 617 by acquitting. Wikipedia should strive for accuracy whenever possible and with respect, accuracy is not being observed or applied in this entry. (Jimjoneskoolaid 28/07/15 17.32)

Weasel words

I have tagged a sentence with weasel terms. The ruling did not come as a surprise to everyone, so it is someone's POV and referring to unnamed "experts" is a classic weasel technique. Someone else removed it as "biased nonsense". Rhowryn has seen fit to restore it without tags without addressing the issues raised. HelenOnline 08:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

1) The only person "surprised" in the particular source cited is Kercher's mother. 2) Even if a source uses weasel terms, it does not mean we can. We do not follow the lead of the news media, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. HelenOnline 08:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. My objection was that the news article did provide source, but I did wonder who they were referring to as "legal experts". I reverted the removal mostly out of objection to the edit summary of "biased nonsense", which itself isn't exactly a pinnacle of non-bias. Rhowryn (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Autopsy

In the section Autopsy, the final sentence makes no sense. How are the reviewers disagreeing? If Lalli meant that there was no sexual motive, being instead robbery or something else, this needs to be made clear so the reader can see why they disagreed with him. Akld guy (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)