Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher

Edit request from 80.3.25.236, 9 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} <--At trial the shopkeeper's testimony was contradicted by the testimony of workers who were also at the shop at that time.[63] -->

<-- At trial, a shop employee testified that she did not see Amanda -->

The reference is wrong. The correct reference is the Massei Report. Only one employee said she did not see Amanda Knox. Only one employee testified she didn't see Amanda. (of course, she can't "contradict" she can only say she didn't see her.) Please edit; this is not only incorrect but an attempt to alter the record.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.25.236 (talk • contribs)

I had a quick look for other sources (newspaper articles) to see what they say on this matter. There are lots of references to the shopkeeper who spoke for the prosecution, but I couldn't find a reference to the shop employee who spoke for the defence. The Massei report certainly mentions them and I agree with the anonymous poster that our wording seems odd. A shop assistant can only testify that they didn't see Knox, which is not the same is "contradicting" the person who says they did see her. The original poster seems to have offered a proposed new version of the text but put it in a hidden comment. I have taken the liberty of deleting a '!' from their post to make this visible. I hope this is what they originally intended. If not I apologise! Bluewave (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that edit, Bluewave. The relevant part of the Massei report is p 83-4 in the English version [1], which seems to suggest that having "workers" in the plural is wrong. The use of "contradict" is obviously also not in keeping with NPOV. --FormerIP (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Rereading my post, it looks a bit garbled. When I said that the Massei report mentions "them", I meant "them" as a singular pronoun, not implying several people. Also when I mentioned my edit of the IP poster's comment, all I did was to change "<!-- At trial..." to "<-- At trial..." so that the text above was not hidden. Hope that's clearer! Anyway, it looks like FormerIP has edited the article to correct the error. Bluewave (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

With that taken care of, there's no more need for the edit requested template. :) Banaticus (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

On Nov. 19, 2007 the shopkeeper was asked directly by a police officer if he had seen the suspects on the morning of the murder and he said no. Should we mention that the witness changed his story? --Footwarrior (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you please provide the source for this statement.TMCk (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

[2] It doesn't say he was directly asked if she was there, but it does say that police questioned him and he did not mention Knox coming into the store that morning. It seems he came forward a couple months later at the urging of reporters.LedRush (talk) 04:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

So, are we ok with adding something, or not?LedRush (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for Footwarrior to provide a source for his statement above. Yours doesn't do that and I'm not sure what you want to add to what is already there (statement of the shop-keeper and worker).TMCk (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Um...I've provided a source that basically says the same thing. We'd add something that says what the source says (not what Footwarrior stated). Is that generally ok, or are there issues? Perhaps I should just be bold and add it?LedRush (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, in the source, it states that the other coworker testified that Knox didn't come into the store (not that the worker didn't see her), and, therefore, that testimony does contradict the owner's testimony. We should add that back. Please note, we have no problem stating that the alibi's were "contradicted" in this section when we are talking about prosectution evidence.LedRush (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll try from start. Footwarrior asked "Should we mention that the witness changed his story?" but apparently there is no source that would support such statement. Not saying anything on one occasion but on another is not changing his story. Now the article already includes both, the owner's and the worker's testimony (made in court I guess).
"A Perugia shopkeeper testified that Knox had gone to his supermarket at 7:45 on the morning after the murder, at a time when Knox was, according to her account, still at Sollecito's.[62] A worker in the shop testified that she had not seen Knox."
What exactly would you like to change/remove/add?TMCk (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the other witness testified that Knox was not in the shop that morning (not that s/he didn't see her there). That is a direct contradiction. Furthermore, we could add something like: "Though the shopkeeper did not mention Knox entering his store the morning after the murder when he was first questioned by police," in front of "in court he testified that Knox had gone to his supermarket at 7:45 that morning, at a time when Knox was, according to her account, still at Sollecito's."LedRush (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just read through the section of the Massei report about this. The judge noted the fact that the shopkeeper had not mentioned Knox when first questioned and he (the judge) seems to have investigated the shopkeeper's credibility. It says, amongst other things "It was discovered that Inspector Volturno did not ask Quintavalle [the shopkeeper] if, on the morning of November 2, he saw Amanda Knox in his shop. He was asked – so Quintavalle recalled - about purchases made by Raffaele Sollecito. Mr. Quintavalle did not say anything about having seen Amanda Knox on the morning of November 2, 2007 in his shop because he was not questioned about this...."

So the court was satisfied that the witness was reliable - had not mentioned Knox because he had not been asked! It also says "witness Ana Marina Chiriboga, at the time an employee in Quintavalle’s shop, said that Quintavalle asked her whether that morning she had seen Amanda and Chiriboga answered no." I don't see that as contradicting him. Bluewave (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ugh...I just had a long response deleted. Oh well. The gist of it was that I'd still like to add something because I believe both the sequence and the substance of events is highly relevant to a reader. I agree that even though we have a source that supports the "contradict" language, we have another which doesn't support it, so we should leave it out unless a majority of sources support the language or a source points to the actual testimony (the difference between affirmatively stating that Knox wasn't there and merely stating that she didn't see her there). I'll try to put a modest proposal together, but it probably won't happen immediately.LedRush (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added the following:

However, the shopkeeper did not initially tell police that Knox had been in his market that day, and first informed police of his recollection several months after the crime occurred.

As stated above, I think the sequence of events and the substance of the statements is important. However, I've tried to ensure that there is no inference that the shopkeeper was asked about Knox (and said she wasn't there) by not mentioning the initial interview that was conducted by police. All my statement says is that he didn't tell police day 1, he told them several months later. That provides important timing information but does not imply any incorrect facts (for example, that police asked him about Knox day 1 and he said she wasn't there). Anyway, I've tried to be mindful of the concerns raised above.LedRush (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's see what others think about this, but my own opinion is that drawing attention to something that didn't happen does sound like we're making a point that it should have happened. I'd favour something like "However, the shopkeeper was not initially asked if Knox had been in his shop that day, and only informed police of his recollection several months after the crime occurred". Anyone else have a view? Bluewave (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand the sentiment completely, and originally tried to work something like that in, but it became bulky. How about: "However, during the initial police interview the shopkeeper was not initially asked if Knox had been in his shop that day, and only informed police of his recollection concnerning Knox several months after the crime occurred."? This uses your general formulation, but adds back the idea of an initial police interview (which I had deleted so as not to imply that the shopkeeper had changed his story- that's not an issue in this formulation.) I've also added "concerning Knox" for the same reason: so as not to imply he changed his initial story.LedRush (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Bluewave, I've gone ahead and made that edit...would you mind putting in the cite from the Massei Report after the comma?LedRush (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yes I'll find the cite, but can't right now - I was just sneaking a quick look at Wikipedia in between some real-life responsibilities....like my wife's birthday! Bluewave (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. I've added a ref to page 76 of the Massei report (it's p.84 in the translation). Bluewave (talk) 10:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Giacomo.brunoro, 14 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Add in a "book section": Jacopo Pezzan e Giacomo Brunoro, "Amanda Knox And The Perugia Murder", LA Case, March 2011, ISBN: 9788890589614

Giacomo.brunoro (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note: Audio-book; ISBN doesn't appear to exist.TMCk (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The name appears to be "Amanda Knox And The Perugia Murder: Italian Crimes"LedRush (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Information checks out, title is listed on Amazon.Com. Added to book section with proviso that this is an Audiobook.Shearonink (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Open Letter

This blog post likely deserves some attention. My interest is simply in making sure that this entry accurately reflects what reliable sources have said and that no reliable sources are omitted based on anyone's agenda in either direction. I'm posting this notice on the BLP noticeboard and the talk page of the article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the article should reflect reliable sources. But a blog post? One on a site which perhaps less than neutrally describes itself as ‘INJUSTICE IN PERUGIA: THE WRONGFUL CONVICTION OF AMANDA KNOX & RAFFAELE SOLLECITO’? And a post to such a blog which, when you click on the list of signatories, advertises ‘Zoosk: World’s greatest dating site’? Surely the kind of stuff an encyclopedia should turn up its nose at, rather than waste its time over. Ian Spackman (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I consider it our greatest honorable trait that we are always willing to take another look, always willing to review our work, and always willing to accept criticism. The post raises several quite straightforward objections that deserve to be answered with real answers, not jeers.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but exactly which objections require real answers? As for jeers, how about their ‘mostly European’? Ian Spackman (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That a critic doesn't live up to our standards is not our concern. We can and should rise above that. One concern that I have is the claim that reliable sources that indicate reasons why one might be skeptical about the verdict in Amanda Knox' case have been systematically omitted from the article. I do not know yet if that claim is true, I merely point out that we should always be willing to explore such concerns thoughtfully. Another concern is whether or not our citations accurately reflect underlying sources. There is never a reason not to reassess such things, and to bring in more eyes to make an evaluation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The topic has been the subject to innumerable blog wars since the murder occurred, and many people in the blogosphere have tried to influence the Wikipedia article to match their beliefs. I'm a bit shocked that Jimbo would link to a piece that would be immediately deleted as an attack page and severe violation of WP:BLP if it were reproduced here verbatim. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The blog post raises legitimate objections. "Legitimate" in the sense of being the kind of objections that deserve to be taken seriously, not necessarily objections that we would agree with upon closer investigation. I'd love to see people here addressing those objections rather than attacking the blogpost.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo, there's 27 Archive pages here. Do your own research. You will quickly note that nothing in that petition is new or hasn't been brought up here before, including the attacks on various editors who do not share the point of view expressed in the blog. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps that was true at one time, but more recently editors who come in here looking to make changes which they believe will be more neutral but which the small and dedicated group of page watchers feel is too pro-Knox, the attacks all seem focused on the new editors. This post even has hints of it.LedRush (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I should be blamed partly. I brought this blogpost ( came up on my wikipedia google alert) to attention of Jimbo. Neither of us are aware of the context and history of the article or subject. But innocently thought it may bring the attention of subject matter experts on this -- Tinu Cherian - 16:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

A search on ANI , BLPN or NPOVN for Amanada Knox or Murder of Meredith Kercher will turn out a massive amount of prior discussions, with much on user conduct. A common thread however is that comments on content by uninvolved parties always express surprise that the article actually is neutral. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Editors interested in some of the back history can study Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Murder of Meredith Kercher for a small snapshot sample of what this is all about. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• An internet petition with all of 60 signatures? Hmm, I am not seeing the compelling need for the founder to get involved here... --John (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • A petition doesn't matter. Number of signatures doesn't matter. Getting it right is all that matters. I accept input from all kinds of sources, and we should always be willing to take another look.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This post cannot be used because it is not a Reliable Source for anything at all. I agree that the article should be edited "correctly", but that means we should follow WP policy and get reliable sources to back up specific suggestions on how to change the article.LedRush (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, talk about a rapid response squad. I generally agree that the article has a slight bias built in. This bias is perpetuated by being overly hostile to any potential editor who has a potential skepticism regarding the guilt of the accused (which in itself is probably a reaction from so many unsubstantiated edits which do not conform to WP policy from pro-Knox editors). This ensures that only editors with the "right" views on the case edit the article. Some examples of this bias are found in an over-reliance on the Massei report, the characterization of Knox supporters and her family's activities (the blog was right about that), and the muted criticism section regarding the trial. Obviously, though, the blog post cannot be used as a reliable source for anything at all, but I wish they would have made more specific edit requests with citations to reliable sources...and perhaps even came to engage in the editing of this article in conformity with Wikipedia policy. Although the article in its current form is not perfect, it is not broken either. It is generally fair, and the editors generally try to adhere to wikipedia policy in editing it, something that cannot be said for many editors who come here specifically to make the article "more fair" for Knox.LedRush (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you generally, but I think that the article has more problems than that. I just read the entire article from top to bottom, and I have concerns that most serious criticism of the trial from reliable sources has been excluded or presented in a negative fashion. I recommend reading all of this (it is long) and taking particular note of the sections "PhanuelB's Reliable Sources". Compare that to what appears in the article. I have drawn no firm conclusions, but there is enough here to warrant careful examination.

An additional concern, about which again I have drawn no firm conclusions, is that this edit led to a block. I just now personally ran checkuser and found nothing; I invite more experienced checkusers to follow up on my exploration. I am merely raising questions, not putting forward conclusions - at this time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)