Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Lead

I think the current lead goes into a lot of details that an average reader would get lost reading. I think we need to have a bit more of an inverted pyramid style, so the very first part has the most important parts right away. Those important parts would be that Kercher was murdered, Knox and Sollecito were accused, convicted and ultimately exonerated, Guede was also convicted but there is no doubt of his guilt, media circus. The stuff about staged break in, legalese, etc. can all just be covered in the full article. DreamGuy (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Rewriting an article of this size can be, speaking from experience, a very time-consuming and arduous. If you'd like to do it, I don't think anyone will object, but they probably won't help out much either. It's not like the old days on WP anymore, when it was easier to get people to help out with significant article improvement. Cla68 (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It may be worth exploring whether or not to start from the version of the article after the rewrite following the last exoneration. The current version is so problematic that I gave up on it long ago.LedRush (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this article deserves revision, if only because for the most part it is another take on the Amanda Knox article. However, I will not venture to make substantial revisions to this article while the relatives of the victim are reeling in the knowledge that the Italian judicial system has thus far declared that the one convicted murderer did not act alone and that all the prosecutors' other suspects have been exonerated. Perhaps when Italy’s Court of Cassation has made its reasoning public, that would be the time for a major revision.

Whether the convicted murderer had accomplices or not, I’ll add that a lot of people have got away with murder. That’s not much consolation for Meredith Kercher’s family, but it shouldn’t reflect unduly on those who have been named, shamed and exonerated.

As for justice, only God knows. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

JoeMCMXLVII, That the 'Italian judicial system has thus far declared multiple attackers is wrong. Knox, Sollecito and Guede were arraigned before judge Micheli in Sept 2008 to decide if they should be sent for trial. The prosecution charges against Guede were clearly framed to implicate Knox and Sollecito as the primary offenders because although all three were charged with acting together in the murder, Guede was not charged with having a knife or faking a break in. Guede opted to be tried Mechelli heard the prosecution's case that Knox Sollecito and Guede had committed the murder, and in the same Oct 2008 ruling found Guede guilty and sent Knox and Sollecito for trial. Micheli's report followed the prosecution in almost everything. It ruled out Guede might have been a lone killer who had got in by simply knocking on the entry door at 11pm and attacking Kercher when she opened it to him (she knew Guede as a pal of her boyfriend) and then faking a burglary to mislead investigators. The 2015 Italian supreme court decision means the aforementioned scenario is most certainly not ruled out.Overagainst (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy, I don't agree we can say Knox and Sollecito were accused, convicted and ultimately exonerated in the lead before mentioning Guede. Guede was long ago found to have committed the murder and exhausted his appeals. This is a BLP for Knox and Sollecito who were never convicted in that sense, and the international publicity and criticism over their prosecution is the main notability of the case.Overagainst (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

User:LedRush Guede had a different type of trial and his conviction was made definitive years ago. Knox and RS were never definitively convicted (convicted in the US sense) and exonerated only in 2015. As the article is about the murder and not AK's travails it really should not have all very much about Amanda Knox in it. Unfortunately there were people who insisted on emphasising that she had been "convicted"implying it was in an analogous sense to being found guilty of murder in a US jury trial, and there was a need for balance. Now that Knox and Sollecito are definitely acquitted the AK part of this article can be greatly condensed.Overagainst (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Except that reliable sources still tie Knox inextricably to this case. The article should reflect that. Otherwise you're POV-ing. 86.42.95.224 (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I hate the lead. Tell the narrative as best as possible, and fill in the details later on in the article. "On (date), (victim) did x, y and z with persons a, b and c and next day their body was discovered.173.192.170.71 (talk) 05:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Patrick Lumumba

Details on the false accusation of Lumumba seemed to have disappeared from the article, so I readded them. Saying that Knox was "exonerated" is not true; her conviction over her false accusation of Lumumba was upheld by the top court. I've added a note on that in the article and in the intro. Cla68 (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Being ruled innocent instead of not guilty for the murder sure sounds like exoneration to all the people who aren't guilters. DreamGuy (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

I've finished copyediting Murder of Meredith Kercher. I have a question about just one sentence. It's this sentence, which appears in the section Murder of Meredith Kercher#Alarm raised:

• Subsequently, the Polizia Postale arrived, having already traced two mobile phones found in a garden near to Via della Pergola 7.

There's something wrong with this sentence. It's definitely not clear. Did the police trace the two phones to residents of Via della Pergola 7? Or is the sentence not saying to what address the phones were traced, and just saying that the garden was near Via della Pergola 7? I read in another section that those mobile phones belonged to Meredith Kercher, so perhaps they did trace the phones to Kercher's address. Which one do you think it should be --

A. Subsequently, the Polizia Postale arrived, having already traced two mobile phones found in a nearby garden to Via della Pergola 7. [ = traced the phones to that address]

B. Subsequently, the Polizia Postale arrived, having already traced two mobile phones that had been found in a garden located near Via della Pergola 7. [ = traced the phones, but not saying to whom or to what address; just saying the phones were found in a garden, and the garden was near that address]

If the second version is correct, it's a little odd to say the police traced the phones but not say to whom or to what address the phones were traced. I think it should probably be Version A, but the source needs to be checked. Corinne (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

If memory serves, it's A. I suspect it may be clear in an earlier version. Rothorpe (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

10:53, 1 Dec 2007 is the first mention of one of the phones being registered to Kercher. It's sourced to the Times, which is closed to me; perhaps you know how to get at the source. Rothorpe (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

My memory is the phones were in a garden, but the garden was not nearby. It would be easy to determine the owner of the phone and find the address for a long time resident. In any event, the phones would trace back to K, and K's address could be found. It is probably not anything unusual; people lose their phones all the time. Glrx (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable source says phone is Filomena's but used by K. Also suggests just one phone found although K used two. Glrx (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Michelli report / Google translate:

On the morning of November 2, 2007, at different times, the owners of the house located at Via Sperandio 5- bis Perugia rinvenivano two mobile phones in the private garden of the property, and so they turned to the Postal Police of the capital for report the incident (including with respect to the coincidence of having received, in the hours before, a strange threatening phone call that feared the presence of explosive devices in the bathroom, later revealed as the fruit of the imagination of a kid). Effettuate le verifiche sul primo dei telefoni in questione, l'utenza della relativa sim card risultava appartenere a tale RF, domiciliata in Via della Pergola 7: un equipaggio della Polizia Postale si portava dunque presso il recapito accertato, ma - in luogo della R. - vi riscontrava la presenza di altri due giovani, l'americana KAM (che risultava occupare un'altra delle stanze dell'abitazione) e il di lei ragazzo SR. After performing the checks on the first of the phones in question, the use of its SIM cards appeared to belong to the RF, its headquarters on Via della Pergola 7: a crew of Postal Police is then carried to the address found, but - instead of R. - I responded to the presence of two other young men, the American KAM (which resulted occupy another of the rooms of the house) and her boyfriend SR.

0.9 km

Glrx (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murder of Meredith Kercher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151208103857/http://www.agi.it/cronaca/notizie/bocciate_le_indagini_su_meredith_cassazione_giusta_assoluzione-201509071629-cro-rt10157 to http://www.agi.it/cronaca/notizie/bocciate_le_indagini_su_meredith_cassazione_giusta_assoluzione-201509071629-cro-rt10157

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)