Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher

Restored omission: Police released Guede days before murder

11-Feb-10: The article has been re-expanded to note that Rudy Guede had been caught with a large stolen knife (16-inch, 40-cm) inside a closed Milan school on 27-Oct-07 (5 days before the murder) with a laptop PC reported stolen 14-Oct-07 from a Perugia law office burgled with a rock breaking an upstairs window. The Perugia police were notified Guede had the laptop, plus a cellphone also stolen from the Perugia office with the broken window. However, Guede was released by the Milan police, and not transferred to the Perugia police, as testified by the two Perugia solicitors (attorneys) at the Knox/Sollecito trial hearing on 26-June-2009 and by the school director 27 June. Hence, the reports of Guede holding a woman's watch, a hammer, a stolen knife and stolen property from a prior upstairs-window burglary could be confirmed by Milan police, Perugia police, and the 2 solicitors (lawyers Palazzoli and Paolo Brocchi) whose PC, printer and mobile phone were stolen on 14-Oct-07. I regret these major events had been omitted from the article, even until late December, while the details had been in major news reports in June 2009. The details are not rumors, but rather, confirmed by Milan police, Perugia police, Judge Micheli, and court testimony of 3 professionals. See source "Knox Trial Witness Points Finger at Guede" by Ann Wise (Rome) 26Jun09, web: ABCNews. -Wikid77 23:49, 11 February 2010

Deleting the Defense Side of the Story Will Violate NPOV and BLP

This proposal to substitute a one sided, pro-guilt/pro-prosecution article, drafted in virtual secrecy mostly by one or two people, for the far more balanced article that currently exists--and which dozens of people have contributed hundreds of hours to-- is simply outrageous!!!

I don't agree with the way this is transpiring at all. This new proposed substituted article is highly POV, and was drafted behind closed doors by editors who all agree with one another. Meanwhile, there is unwelcoming, sometimes hostile and bullying treatment of those who do not hold similar views. All editing should be done out in the open, with fair and equal opportunity for everyone to participate. That means, editing should be done on the article page, not some page that people clicking on here don't know about. This is not a procedure that is consistent with the Wiki policy of having articles open for everyone in the world to participate in.

No one group "owns" this article or Wikipedia. By removing almost all the info that supports the defense side of the story, the proposed article is clearly unbalanced. The reader will come away with the view that A and R are certainly guilty, although that is disputed by thousands of people and no final determination of guilt or innocence has been made. The substituted article in no way complies with NPOV or BLP. I have contacted the Wikipedia Foundation because what is going on is in no way consistent with the rules and polices of Wikipedia. I have contributed financially to Wikipedia on the basis that all editors can contribute to an article, and that basic policies like NPOV and BLP are to be followed. But it seems that things are just getting worse and worse and worse with these efforts to block out the defense side of the story, or to make the defense side sound ridiculous, and now also trying to block any other information about Amanda Knox from being included in other articles on the website, and trying to get those with other opinions blocked or banned. There needs to be compliance with NPOV, BLP and basic fairness and respect for those with other views. Throwing away hundreds of hours of work of other editors, just because you don't want the defense side of the story included, is beyond unfair. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There should be no removal of this article, with substitution of a pro-guilt, pro-prosecution article, until someone at the Wikipedia Foundation approves of this. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not wish to comment on the alleged pro-Knox and anti-Knox factions, because that's a matter of opinion: I believe that no such thing as an anti-Knox cabal exists; you disagree. You're entitled to your opinions. However, I object to your claim that the new article was drafted behind closed doors. Since May 16, there has been, at the beginning of the article a rather visible template, informing all users of the drafting attempt, as can be seen here; and you've been personally notified on your talk page of said attempt, as can be seen here. You chose not to intervene. It's, once again, your prerogative, but you shouldn't claim that TMC-k and the others acted surreptitiously.

And, by the way, even if the draft gets moved to the mainspace, as I hope it will be, for I think it is a much better article than the one we have here, it's not set in stone. All editors can, collegially, edit it. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I note that people on here just got Wikid77 blocked for three months because he allegedly communicated behind closed doors, called "canvassing." Why isn't re-writing a whole article just with a group of people who all agree with each other, with no clear notice to the public what is going on or where this draft is located, or how they can participate, even worse? This sure looks worse to me, like some sort of Tag Team situation, even if it isn't exactly canvassing. I don't see why it is okay for a group to plan to remove a whole article behind closed doors, while what he did is so egregious you wanted him blocked for three months. In my opinion, this attempted re-write behind closed doors violates Wikipedia policy on openness. That is all I am going to say for now at this level. Have a nice day. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikid77 is not blocked; he has just been topic banned, you can read why here. Anyway, that's not the point, IMHO. The point is that the existence of the draft has never been hidden. Even as we speak there's a notice on this article, pointing there. If you wish you can edit the draft or wait for it to be moved and the edit it, here. Nobody is trying to approach this in a cloak and dagger fashion. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The notice at the top of the page reads "This article is going through a major rewrite which was outsourced to a subpage. You are welcome to assist by editing it." If you have not accepted the invitation that the Magnificent Clean-keeper left on your talkpage, I hardly think that you have grounds to complain on this page that the rewrite has been "drafted behind closed doors". Could you also attempt to explain the glaring discrepancy of your allegation that the draft is "highly POV" when it includes a section titled "Support for Knox"? Finally, for someone who claims that there is "unwelcoming, sometimes hostile and bullying treatment of those who do not hold similar views", it does not appear sensible to place misrepresentative and aggressive notices such as this on an AfD discussion page. SuperMarioMan 01:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, user Zlykinskyja was blocked for a month this morning. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What has happened to this page does not stand so we might as well begin mediation or arbitratiion. Anyone who has studied this case here and elsewhere knows there are two strong minded camps on this subject and almost no one in between. For a long time this page had been pretty fair -- I watched it but didn't edit anything. Now I come by and I'm sorry but those of one opinion have hijacked this page while nobody was looking. What we have now is not NPOV, not even close.PhanuelB (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, that the article was being reworked was explicitly noted at the top of the page, so assertions that some sort of conspiracy has been permitted to unfold without other people's knowledge is both inaccurate and a slur on the characters of the editors involved. Having examined the history of this talk page, I respectfully suggest that this topic has already generated enough personalised conflict and drama without a (second) attempt at mediation. SuperMarioMan 11:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest that you extend a bit of good faith - you might get off a better foot with other editors without suggesting that there is some sinister cabal that hijacks the article. And you're of course welcome to improve the article; maybe starting by specifically pointing out what makes this article so "far from NPOV". I find it pretty balanced, to be honest, and I agree with the change as IMHO the previous version was an incoherent mess. However, if you make a concise point, you might be surprised that it is actually possible to work constructively with many people here.

Much of the drama, in my eyes, came from the fact that some of the editors fell into a "us vs them" mentality and always assumed that there was an evil mob out to get them. They appeared to take any attempt to change from "their version" to something else as personal attack. Others lost their calm, too, things got nasty and good faith was lost on both sides.

As for the mediation - it appears to be a bit pointless as this point, as some "key players" are currently blocked (and thus cannot participate) or may have moved on. In other words, at the moment it would make only sense if you required mediation - having already decided that you find it impossible to work with the other editors here. However, if any of those (now or after an unblock) requested another mediation, showed a willingness to work constructively and to recoup some of the good faith that was lost, it would be a way to go.

If the drama flares up again, Arbcom may be the final result. However, remember that an arbcom case wouldn't deal with the content issue at all, but with the behaviour of the editors. Averell (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia website (ArbCom) is fully empowered to deal with content issues.PhanuelB (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

They will look into content disputes, but they won't make content decisions, which they state quite clearly. Anyway, this is kind of premature and I only brought it up to remind editors that no "higher power" will make decisions on how the article should read. Averell (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

One of the reasons that his article is poorly written (more on no NPOV later) is that the first paragraph doesn't properly sum up why the case is important. This is a fundamental of good writing, at least as it was taught to me. There is only one reason that this case is news: the questions about whether an American exchange student received a fair trial. And the story is big news (Italy's trial of the century) because of widespread, credible allegations that the trial was a "kangaroo court", a "public lynching", and a "railroad job from hell." It is an outrageous violation of NPOV that a small group of editors are determined to see that this article should not state this obvious truth. Young adults die tragically everyday from natural causes, accidents, warfare, and criminal acts. It's not world news. A modern day Salem witch trial, as alleged by the New York Times, is news.PhanuelB (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

So, you would like the introduction to state that the case is primarily important because there are credible allegations that Knox' didn't receive a fair trial? That controversy is certainly part of it (and it is mentioned) in the intro - but it'd be in the news even without it. I can only speak from the point of someone living in Italy at the moment, but it seems that the importance of this gets blown out of proportion. Yes, it still pops up in the news every now and then, but it is certainly not "world news". And even though the case made news here, those news rarely touch the controversy you mention. When they do, it is reported as an American sentiment. I also don't see a "pro" or "con" camp - most people I know are just disinterested, and otherwise they'd probably say that while there is some evidence it isn't quite clear if the accused are guilty. Outside of Britain and Italy the case is hardly news at all, being reported as sideline news at best. I can't tell anything about the US because I'm not living there, so I can only take what the American editors report. Frankly I'd love to hear the opinion of an American editor who is not "into" this case, to see if its really that world-shattering over there. Averell (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

To be a bit more constructive: How would you propose to change the first paragraph, concretely? Averell (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of you could be helped tremendously by some exposure to the writing of Hemingway. You need to write simple sentences. The number one thing this article suffers from are the one hundred repetitions of the statement that Knox and Sollecito maintain their innocence. Say it one time. Everyone gets that they say they're innocent. Say it one time and let it go. And whatever there families say is totally irrelevant. Did you ever know of a murderer who didn't have a mommy going around saying that the murderer couldn't possibly have done it? Whatever the Knox family thinks is irrelevant to this article.

The matching of the knife

Currently, the article says, "The knife matched one of the three wounds on Kercher's neck." This was introduced by this edit which is entitled "Neutral tone". However, the statement lost neutrality in that edit. As currently written, it implies that the knife matched the wound in the same way that a fingerprint matches a finger. However, that's not true. That's not how that kind of matching works. Any knife of the same size and shape could have made that wound. Some number of knives with different sizes and shape could also make the wound It is conceivably possible that that knife could have inflicted that wound. However, a simpler explanation is that all three wounds were made by the same knife, as stated in this reference (94).

The issue is that the wound in question does not give a lot of evidence as to the nature of the knife that made it. It could have been made by any number of knives. The previous wording was "could only have made" which was more accurate. The knife did not make the fatal wound nor a third knife wound. The prosecution acknowledged this with its two knife theory. It conceivably could have made one of the wounds, but there are other, simpler explanations. "Matched" is neither accurate nor neutral (although it is shorter and more concise). I don't insist on the "could only match" wording, but the wording should indicate that the knife could have made the wound without indicating that it did.

I'm not commenting on the rest of the edit at this time. I introduced the "could only match" wording and am confident that something like it should be retained. Given the removal of the other exculpatory evidence in that edit (the statement used to be in a list of statements with the same general purpose), a more accurate and neutral wording might be "The knife could not have made two of the three wounds." Both the prosecution and the defense agreed on that.

Possible alternative paragraph, "Knox's DNA was found on a kitchen knife, recovered from Sollecito's flat, and Kercher's DNA (although not from her blood[42]) was found on the blade.[43] The knife could have made one of the three wounds on Kercher's neck, but not the other two.[44][20] The prosecution suggested two knives, while the defense argued that all three wounds were made by another knife.[94] At trial, Knox's lawyers argued that she used knives for cooking at Sollecito's apartment.[45]" Mdfst13 (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Think the main change you talk about to "The knife could have made one of the three wounds on Kercher's neck, but not the other two.[44]" is okay, but the other two changes are not. The word "necessarily" should stay in "not necessarily from her blood". The source tells us that the knife tested negative for blood, but this does not mean that the DNA sample was not from blood, it just means they couldn't tell what it was from (it was a very small sample). "The prosecution suggested two knives, while the defense argued that all three wounds were made by another knife" does not seem to be supported by the source (I am looking at the right one - The Telegraph, right?). Common sense says the statement itslef is likely to be true, but in general I think we should keep "defence said this but prosecution said that" to a minimum anyway. --FormerIP (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd also be in favour or removing "(although not from her blood[42])" altogether. Too much detail. --FormerIP (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Remove the "detail" that the knife alleged by the prosecution to be the murder weapon was tested for blood and came up negative? If it didn't have blood on it wasn't used in a stabbing incident. And if they cleaned it up with bleach, there would be blood in the sink or drain pipes. Competent police forces always examine drain pipes BTW. If ever there was an example of the warped efforts to violate NPOV that define this page, this is it.PhanuelB (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Phanuel, "came up negative" does not equal "didn't have blood on it". Furthermore, even if we could be sure there was no blood on it, this would not equal "wasn't used in a stabbing incident". There was some kind of organic material from the victim's body on the blade of the knife. The negative test result means nothing more than that we can't say for sure that the sample found was blood. It may have been skin or muscle tissue, for example, but this would still be consistent with the victim having been injured by the knife. In any event, I support the removal of that sentence, because it doesn't contain any information which is useful to the reader. We are not supposed to be providing information for amateur sleuthing here but, even if we were, I do not think that this negative test is a material factor in determining whether S's knife was or wasn't used in the murder (and, clearly, the court did not think so either). --FormerIP (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe just maybe some will begin to see a pattern here. When there is no DNA in the room, then it's because Amanda cleaned it up. When the knife doesn't fit, there must have been two knives. When Rudy's DNA, and not Amanda's or Raffaele's, is found everywhere, it must have been Amanda directing Rudy to do everything. When they can't find Amanda's fingerprints in her own room, it means that she was cleaning up evidence elsewhere. When a semen stain is found underneath the victim it must have been from before the crime. And now when scientific testing for blood indicates that no blood was present then it doesn't mean that no blood was present. The idea is that you go where the evidence takes you, not where you want to go regardless of the evidence. By the way, in democracies courts of laws are accountable to the public. In virtually all cases this scrutiny can be called "amateur sleuthing." It is more difficult in this case because of the lack of public access to the trial record. That is why the words "Public lynching", "kangaroo court", and "railroad job from hell" as stated by multiple commentators on news segments broadcast to much of the English speaking world belong in this article. That is but one of many reasons this page is devoid of NPOV. PhanuelB (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that this article should go "the way the evidence takes you". It should go with recording the known facts about the murder, together with a brief summary of the trial and its outcome, as reported in reliable sources. It should not be an attempt to re-try the case based on any editor's interpretation of what they imagine the evidence to show.   pablo_hablo. 17:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It is historical fact that this trial is being called a "kangaroo court", a "public lynching", and a "railroad job from hell" by commentators from the most important media outlets in the western world. The effort to leave this out of the story is historical revisionism at its worst. Go to the articles on the Salem witch trials, the Sacco and Vanzetti case, and the Rosenberg trials. They record opinion about the case and they very much examine in considerable detail whether the trials were fair. Also note that the first paragraphs sum up why the case is historically important. PhanuelB (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Salem witch trials, eh? A trial on suspicion of witchcraft is never going to be fair, certainly not by modern standards. I must check on this article in 300 years or so to see why or if it is, by that time, 'historically important'. What are your sources for the quotations you mention above?   pablo_hablo. 21:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That's right, Salem witch trials. Tim Egan writing in the New York Times asks, "what century is this? Didn't Joan of Arc, the Inquisition and our own American Salem witch trial teach civilized nations a thing or two about contrived sexual hysteria..." The sources were fully specified in my original edit. The first thing that any encyclopedia article needs to say about this case is that it is being condemned in unprecedented language by neutral commentators chosen by the most important media outlets in the world.PhanuelB (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There is already a sentence in the lede saying that, and an entire section about Knox's supporters and what they have said. The last thing the article needs is to become a repository of random commentator's opinions. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. We report facts, not opinions derived by our editors from other sources - that's a violation of WP:SYNTH, which is policy, and will be removed wherever it is seen. As for the quotes above; they don't belong in the article because they're from POV sources (Ciolino, Kelly). If such language had been used by multiple reliable sources, rather than reported in a few sources, then there may be a claim to do so. For similar reasons we have not reported some of the allegations against Knox, i.e. her supposed bizarre behaviour during questioning. If we included everything that had been written about the trial the page would be too long to view. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact history often documents the opinions of society. Black Kite is just deleting verifiable facts that disagree with his/her editorial viewpoint. Public criticism of the trial is news and it is a fact. John Q. Kelly, Paul Ciolino, Judy Bachrach, Doug Preston, Tim Egan, Peter Van Sant and others were chosen to provide neutral commentary. Black Kite doesn't like what the commentators choosen by the most important media outlets in the world are saying so he/she is re-writing history to make sure that the readers of this article don't find out about it. The disregard for NPOV is breathtaking.PhanuelB (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to point out where I have "deleted verifiable facts". I have only edited the article a couple of times, and that was to remove unsourced information. I would suggest that making things up to support your viewpoint is not the greatest idea in the world. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; the edit history does show that the edits in question were done by FormerIP. Also fair was my belief that your words above were taking credit for the deletions. Besides, there is a stated intent to do precisely what I'm talking about in the event that somebody else doesn't do it for you. The verifiable facts were that commentators on CNN and CBS called the trial a "public lynching", a "kangaroo court", and a "railroad job from hell."PhanuelB (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There are verifiable facts that a lot of people said a lot of things about the case, both for and against Knox and the validity of the trial. However, since we're not a newspaper, and since the article doesn't have infinite length, we can't include them all; and we certainly can't cherry-pick quotes that agree with us. Also, some of them are clearly POV - the Kelly quote was from the Larry King show on which he appeared with Knox's parents ([1]) - so he was hardly going to say she was guilty, was she? I did look for "kangaroo court" in reliable sources but found only this article in which someone who I presume is you contributes at the end; really, you can hardly complain about NPOV here in that case. Black Kite (t) (c) 05:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a verifiable fact that some people say the Holocaust happened and some say it didn't (Ahmadinejad on LKL no less). Historians, including the editors of Wikipedia articles, make educated decisions on which events, statements and facts are more important than the others. The documentation for "kangaroo court" (LKL, Judy Bachrach, 5-Dec-09) has been previously provided. John Q. Kelly was chosen by LKL to provide neutral commentary on the Amanda Knox case. This obligation was not compromised because he appeared on the same show with the Knox family. He has appeared on LKL on other subjects and specifically stated that he did not know the Knox family. One of the reasons that there is no NPOV in this article is that we have an administrator (Black Kite) with an agenda.PhanuelB (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are trying to relate Holocaust deniers to those who disagree with you here, I would stop that right now because the only outcome of it will not be helpful to your ability to edit here. As for myself, an administrator who has edited the article a few times out of thousands of edits of the article is clearly not someone with an agenda, but in reality an administrator who is trying to point out to you why you cannot include - per Wikipedia policy and consensus - the material you are arguing for. I have no particular interest in this article or subject, frankly. However, I would appreciate it if you stopped - now - attributing attitudes to me that are completely false. In the real world and at Wikipedia we call that "lying". Do I make myself clear on both points? Black Kite (t) (c) 21:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not alleged that anyone here is associated with the evil of the Holocaust and my paragraph did not say that. The point is that NPOV does not have to be half way between what two people are saying. The example of Ahmadinejad (an elected leader of an important Nation) refusing to say that the Holocaust happened exquisitely illustrates that point. As we all know the Holocaust happened, period. The point is relevant because editors here are refusing to allow into the article the reality that the most important by far commentators in this case are using extraordinary language to condemn the trial. For the moment this page is dominated by those with an agenda. I don't see how anyone can deny that in good faith.PhanuelB (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Equally, one could argue that if there is indeed an "agenda" of many editing here, perhaps it is to ensure that the article isn't again used - as it was previously - as a political football by those wishing to portray Knox as an innocent convicted unfairly. The fact that some people think that the trial should be condemned is mentioned in the article already. That is exactly the way the article should be. It clearly needs to be said again; Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper or a vehicle for the opinions of agenda-driven commentators whichever side of the "argument" they are on. Purely because the article must be factual does not mean that we have to include everything ever written about it; that would be ludicrous. As for your point about NPOV not being between two viewpoints; that's a straw man. WP:UNDUE applies here; we do not give additional exposure to people, whether they be Holocaust deniers or commentators on the Knox trial, purely because they shout the loudest or are in the public eye the most. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying not to get too involved in discussion here, because I contributed a lot to the new version of the article, but I must just correct one point. PhanuelB speaks of "the lack of public access to the trial record". Unless I have misunderstood the point, this is quite wrong. The trial record has been published in full and runs to over 400 pages. I agree that "in democracies courts of laws are accountable to the public" and, in the case of Italy (a democracy), this includes publishing the complete rationale for the court's decisions. Bluewave (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The trial record cannot be published under Italian law and that is an important element of this case that belongs in the story. Exactly two documents are available on the Internet: the 427 page Motivation Document, and the so-called Judge Micheli report. This is not the trial record. Does anyone else have trouble understanding this? I have not seen even one trial document in its full unaltered form on the Internet. See the case of Carlo Parlanti, an Italian in jail in California who many Italians feel is innocent. Documents from his case, chosen by the defense, can be downloaded without charge from websites advocating his innocence.PhanuelB (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems like I'm having trouble understanding! When you speak of the trial record, are you expecting that the courts will publish a compete transcript of the entire proceedings? If so, I agree, that this has not happened. But, following each of the court hearings, the courts have published their findings in some detail. As you say, Massei's report on the Knox/Sollecito trial runs to 427 pages. I think Micheli's report of Guede's trial runs to over 100 pages. There are plenty of other democracies (eg England) where courts are not required to provide anything like this level of accountability. However, even if there were complete transcripts of all the court proceedings available to us, that would make little difference to the article, because they would be primary sources. Bluewave (talk) 08:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a fundamental lack of understanding here of the importance of public access to the trial record, a concept fundamental to all democracies. The right is there so that the public can see for themselves if judicial decisions have been arrived at properly. It doesn't end with the Massei/Micheli reports, it begins with them. Trial records include many things: evidence exhibits, trial testimony, motions, court opinions, jury instructions. There are sound reasons that some documents can be sealed. The issue in this case is the prohibition of the publication of documents.PhanuelB (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, Phanuel, I am not sure what you are expecting of the Italian courts, but there do appear to be transcripts of hearings on the internet, as well as phtographs, CCTV footage, video from the flat and other evidence presumably released by them. Large parts of the K and S trial were on TV (try YouTube), and journalists seem to have had a lot of access to both the defence and prosecution lawyers. So there does not appear to be a strong case for saying that the Italian authorities were overly secretive about allowing material into the public realm. Secondly, there also does not seem to be a very strong case for saying that access to such material is a "concept fundamental to all democracies", since many (democratic) jurisdictions (the UK has been cited above as an example) withold material on the basis that this protects the democratic right of the accused to be tried by a jury of their peers and not to have their trials or appeals compromised by newspaper reporting. Pretty please can we get back to dicussing reliable sources rather than our own opinions about the Italian legal system. --FormerIP (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There are no official court transcripts on the Internet. There are not large parts of this trial on Youtube. The distinction is important because so much of the public information in this case is based on Internet blog hearsay. The British system is careful not to release information prior to trial but in the end the trial record is public knowledge. The most "reliable source" for what happened at trial is the trial record. PhanuelB (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If the trial record cannot be published under Italian law and if that is "an important element of this case", then presumably there will be a number of Reliable Sources that make this point. --FormerIP (talk) 10:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

PhnauelB, I'm struggling a bit to understand your rationale here. Surely, the "trial record" is available in its entirety to Knox's legal team in Italy, as they will be using the "trial record" plus all of the evidence, testimonies, and so forth to build their appeal. The appeal process itself is taking 10+ months, and I would think that as long as Della Vedova et al has this information, I don't see it as an issue that the rest of the public may not have the same access to detail while legal proceedings are ongoing. Jonathan (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Defense access to the trial record is not the same thing as public access.PhanuelB (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a non-issue. Please bring some sources into it or else stop. --FormerIP (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

PhanuelB, you confuse me when you argue both sides of the issue. Did the courts provide too much information to the media, as you argued earlier, or were they too secretive, as you seem to be arguing now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Issues surrounding the release of information by authorities should be understood clearly by all those who seek to participate in this page. It's basic stuff. As an example police in Peru released hotel video showing Joran van der Sloot entering a room with a woman and leaving the room without her. Powerful stuff. Society probably benefited from that pre-trial, accurate information. In Amanda's case police virtually made their case by selective release of pre-trial information, much of it false and known to be false. So out of court release of evidence can be justified in some circumstances but is generally discouraged in democracies. Such pre-trial leaks should not be confused with the trial record which includes motions, opinions, evidence, and much more. The motivation documents is a small part of the trial record. Legitimate reasons exist for the sealing of some documents -- dignity of the victim, privacy or minors, safety of witnesses, etc. Outside of the Motivation document, not one trial document in its full unaltered form is available on the internet where those of us who study the case can see it. This is the exact opposite of the United States. Those on the TJMK web site (the presumed point of origin for those who control this page) do have documents provided to them by the prosecution but they state that they cannot publish them because of Italian law.PhanuelB (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is the TJMK website, and how is it relevant here?   pablo_hablo. 19:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here I start again: I must state beforehand this is going to be a WP:TLDR moment.
Seriously, article 114 of our Code of Criminal Procedure states:

Template:It1. È vietata la pubblicazione, anche parziale o per riassunto, con il mezzo della stampa o con altro mezzo di diffusione, degli atti coperti dal segreto o anche solo del loro contenuto. 2. È vietata la pubblicazione, anche parziale, degli atti non più coperti dal segreto fino a che non siano concluse le indagini preliminari ovvero fino al termine dell'udienza preliminare. 3. Se si procede al dibattimento, non è consentita la pubblicazione, anche parziale, degli atti del fascicolo del pubblico ministero, se non dopo la pronuncia della sentenza in grado di appello. È sempre consentita la pubblicazione degli atti utilizzati per le contestazioni. 4. È vietata la pubblicazione, anche parziale, degli atti del dibattimento celebrato a porte chiuse nei casi previsti dall'articolo 472 commi 1 e 2. In tali casi il giudice, sentite le parti, può disporre il divieto di pubblicazione anche degli atti o di parte degli atti utilizzati per le contestazioni. Il divieto di pubblicazione cessa comunque quando sono trascorsi i termini stabiliti dalla legge sugli archivi di Stato ovvero è trascorso il termine di dieci anni dalla sentenza irrevocabile e la pubblicazione è autorizzata dal Ministro di grazia e giustizia. 5. Se non si procede al dibattimento, il giudice, sentite le parti, può disporre il divieto di pubblicazione di atti o di parte di atti quando la pubblicazione di essi può offendere il buon costume o comportare la diffusione di notizie sulle quali la legge prescrive di mantenere il segreto nell'interesse dello Stato ovvero causare pregiudizio alla riservatezza dei testimoni o delle parti private. Si applica la disposizione dell'ultimo periodo del comma 4. 6. È vietata la pubblicazione delle generalità e dell'immagine dei minorenni testimoni, persone offese o danneggiati dal reato fino a quando non sono divenuti maggiorenni. Il tribunale per i minorenni, nell'interesse esclusivo del minorenne, o il minorenne che ha compiuto i sedici anni, può consentire la pubblicazione. 6-bis. È vietata la pubblicazione dell'immagine di persona privata della libertà personale ripresa mentre la stessa si trova sottoposta all'uso di manette ai polsi ovvero ad altro mezzo di coercizione fisica salvo che la persona vi consenta. 7. È sempre consentita la pubblicazione del contenuto di atti non coperti dal segreto.

The relevant sections are §§ 3 and 7. The former states that, when there's been a trial (as opposed to a special proceeding), the records and the images contained in the file of the trial (that is to say, all evidence gathered during the trial and which the Judge based his decision upon) can be published. All records contained in the prosecution's file (that contains the results of his investigations and of those carried out by the defence - and that the Judge of the trial never gets to see), on the contrary, can be published only after the second-instance judgement has been rendered. The latter states that to publish the content of all records that are longer secret is permitted. (And what has been used during the trial, by definition, is not secret). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 02:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Salvio: I think there's more to it than that. As a challenge I'd like to see the Jury Instructions, Cristian Tramontano Statement, Complaint, Response to Discovery Request for fsa file and Interrogation Evidence. They must be the full unaltered document with court stamps. Anything I get goes on the internet without limitation.PhanuelB (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Phanuel, please find an appropriate forum somewhere else on the Internet for this. The purpose of the talkpage is to discuss improvements to the article, not our pet threories about the inadequacy of a particuar country's criminal justice system. --FormerIP (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that the only reason we are here is because the Perugian justice system is on trial. Young adults die tragically every day and they don't write books or make documentaries about it. The historical revisionism perpetrated upon this page by the present editors violates every principle of Wikipedia and will be challenged every inch of the way. The allegations by the most important commentators who have examined the case that this trial was a "kangaroo court", and a "public lynching" cannot be systematically removed by those who disagree with that commentary.PhanuelB (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

As FormerIP says, if you wish to find a forum on the Internet to push your opinions about the trial, Wikipedia isn't the place for it. We provide an encyclopedic media which deals strictly with facts, not opinions. Your first post here and your insistence that the commentators who are convinced of one side of the POV are "the most important" (in reality, most of the world has never heard of them) will only convince other editors that you are only here to push a particular POV, and as such it is unlikely that you will be able to insert your opinions into what is currently a very neutral article. WP:GREATWRONGS and WP:TRUTH are essays, but they are very relevant to this situation. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The Perugian justice system isn't on trial. However, if there is any evidence that due process rights have been denied in the name of expediency (ie "kangaroo court" behaviour), the Perugian court could be put on trial. In the first instance, the defence could appeal to the Court of Cassation, and I believe that they could do that right now, without even waiting for the appeal to a lower court, if there was evidence that the Perugia court had acted at all improperly. Furthermore, the defence could take the case to the European Court of Human Rights. In that case the Perugian justice system would indeed be on trial. If and when that happens, the article will need to reflect the facts. Bluewave (talk) 08:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

PhanuelB, Also, keep in mind that your opinion that the "Perugia justice system is on trial' is in direct contradiction to the US Department of State. They monitored the trial in its entirety and do not support your opinion at all. Your unsourced statements are more appropriate for a blog that has less rigorous fact-checking and sourcing requirments. They do not belong in an encyclopedia, there is no way that any editor's opinion could trump the unassailable statements made by the one entity that matters in terms of monitoring this trial: the US State Department.

MR. (IAN) KELLY: Well, I don’t have any indications to the contrary. I do know that our Embassy in Rome was very closely involved in this. They visited Amanda Knox. They have monitored the trial. They were present, I know, on Friday. Consular officers were present. I think at this point right now, it – the trial ended on Friday. We’re also looking ahead to the next step in this, which is an appeal. I guess she has 45 days to appeal her conviction to the court of appeals. And during this period, of course, consular officials will stay in close touch with her and with the family, and continue to monitor and provide assistance to both her and her family.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2009/dec/133266.htm Jonathan (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

CNN HNL, Larry King Live, CBS, and the New York Times are among the most important news sources in the English speaking world. Their commentators have called this a "kangaroo court", a "public lynching" and, "a railroad job". Along with the FACT that the Washington Press Corp is asking the secretary of state what she plans to do about this means they think the Perugian Justice System IS on trial. I know of no other non-political case in post war Europe where the US Secretary of State is being asked by the media if she will act. These are verifiable FACTS that the current editors of this page are determined to suppress. This is a violation of NPOV. The fact that trial might at a later date be challenged in the European Court of Human Rights is irrelevant.PhanuelB (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the knife

Previously (I just made an edit), the article said, "Apart from the knife, there was no forensic evidence, such as DNA, hair, fibre, blood or skin, directly indicating that Knox had been in the bedroom where Meredith Kercher was sexually assaulted and murdered." I disagree with the inclusion of "Apart from the knife" in that statement. I edited it out once, but it was reverted. The thing is that the knife does not indicate that Knox was in Kercher's bedroom during or after the sexual assault. I tried simply removing the statement, but the change was reverted. Even if you accept that the DNA on the knife was from Kercher (although that is disputed), there was no evidence that it occurred at the time of the murder. The knife itself has no evidence linking it to the bedroom, only the disputed DNA that might link it to Kercher. I've tried another revision, better explaining the knife and how it links Knox and Kercher. The rest of that statement is simply a rewording of what is said in the reference. The "[a]part from the knife" is a rewording that confused the original meaning. The original statement does not make the claim that the knife linked Knox to the bedroom. My (new) revised version, "The only forensic evidence linking Knox and Kercher is a knife (found in Sollecito's apartment), but Knox had legitimate reasons to have touched the knife (explaining her DNA, e.g. using it to prepare dinner at Sollecito's[47]) and the evidence identifying Kercher's DNA is disputed." Mdfst13 (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thank god. Zlykinskyja is back. I missed you dear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The DNA on the knife is mentioned in the citation already included, so no additonal citation needs to be included. The question of whether any DNA evidence links K to the murder scene is one of POV. Per the decision of the court, it does, because a murder weapon was found with her DNA on it. There is an alternative POV, which goes contrary to the findings in the case, that this was not the murder weapon and so no link is established. However, per WP:NPOV and WP:RS#Statements_of_opinion (the source is an op-ed), the article should not state this as if it were factual. --FormerIP (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The citation is not needed to establish the presence of DNA on the knife. The citation is required to establish that the knife indicates that Knox was in the room (which is what the current version of the sentence claims). The citation for that sentence clearly states that there was no evidence connecting Knox to the room. If the author had felt that the knife connected Knox to the room, then they would not have been able to make the unequivocal statement that they made. I don't believe that anyone can find a valid secondary source claiming that the knife established presence in the room. Thus, any claim that it does is either original research or synthesis.

The knife was not the murder weapon (as per *both* the prosecution and the defense theories). It is clearly established that the fatal wound was caused by a different weapon. Thus the prosecution theory that there were two knives, one of which made the fatal wound (and another wound) and the other of which made the indeterminate cut. The defense theory is that a single knife made all three wounds, and the forensic evidence is consistent with that (although it does not establish it; two knives or even three could have been used).

Also, even if you accept that the knife was used to cut Kercher, there is nothing about the forensic evidence relating to the knife that indicates that she was cut by that knife in that room. The knife was not found in Kercher's room but in Sollecito's apartment. The knife does not link Knox to the room. Any statement about the knife should be moved out of the sentence, "There was no forensic evidence, such as DNA, hair, fibre, blood or skin, directly indicating that Knox had been in the bedroom where Meredith Kercher was sexually assaulted and murdered." and into its own sentence. Mdfst13 (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The relevant phrase there is "I don't believe that...". What you do or do not believe is irrelevant to a neutral encyclopedia article. What your theories about the murder contain, are irrelevant. We only report on the facts about the case (i.e. what happened during the trial, and the result of trial and/or possible appeals). Anything else is synthesis. As I've said to PhanuelB above, if you want a forum to expand on your theories about Knox's innocence or otherwise, there are plenty of venues on the Internet. Wikipedia is not one of them. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. That's why I want the "Apart from the knife" removed, as it is synthesis. The knife does not indicate that Knox was in the room. The source citation does not include that conclusion (in fact, the source was claiming the opposite, that there was no forensic evidence indicating that Knox was in the room). Either someone should demonstrate a valid secondary source that explains how the knife indicates that Knox was in the room, or the synthesized conclusion that the knife indicates that Knox was in the room should be removed. Lacking such a citation, we should remove the conclusion about Knox's guilt or otherwise and only report the facts. The facts are that there was no forensic evidence in the room that indicated that Knox was present. The lack of such evidence does not make Knox innocent. It is purely a fact to be considered.

I've already said that I'm fine with people reporting separately the existence of the knife. However, as things are, it's confusing. Look at FormerIP's statement that the knife was the murder weapon. That statement is false (by all theories of the crime, including those of both the prosecution and the defense in the Knox case), but statements like "[a]part from the knife" lead to that kind of confusion. The confusing portion of the statement should be removed. The knife should be discussed separately, either in a different sentence or a different paragraph. The sentence to which it is attached has nothing whatsoever to do with the knife.

Another possible alternate version: "There was no forensic evidence, such as DNA, hair, fibre, blood or skin, directly indicating that Knox had been in the bedroom where Meredith Kercher was sexually assaulted and murdered. All forensic evidence that was presented against Knox came from outside that room, for example, the knife (see above) that was found in Sollecito's apartment." This removes the synthesized conclusion that the knife proves presence in the room while retaining the explicit mentioning of the knife as forensic evidence. This statement reduces the confusion rather than amplifying it, as the current statement does. It reports the facts, rather than someone's synthesized conclusions. As stands, the current statement is simply non-factual. It should be revised to conform with the actual facts. Mdfst13 (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your edit, because I think that:

The only forensic evidence linking Knox and Kercher is a knife (found in Sollecito's apartment), but Knox had legitimate reasons to have touched the knife (explaining her DNA, e.g. using it to prepare dinner at Sollecito's)[omissis]

is all but neutral. It looked like yet another attempt at soapboaxing for Knox's innocence. I think that the previous version:

At trial, Knox's lawyers argued that she used knives for cooking at Sollecito's apartment.

although meaning the same thing is far more balanced.

As far as the "apart from the knife" thing goes, I really have no strong opinion and will be happy to go with consensus. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Mdfst, I think you're looking at the question the opposite way round to me. The source is an op-ed, so we need to treat it with caution in the first place (I think a lot of editors would be in favour of "don't use it at all, except for statements about the opinion of the author). Leaving that aside, though, what the author says, to paraphrase is: "There is no physical evidence linking Knox to the crime. Okay, there is the knife, but I'm discounting that". What is currently in the article is a fair version of that. It removes the editorial emphasis an POV of the original ("Niente, nada, nihil"), but that is a totally appropriate thing to do. What would not be appropriate would be to use the source to back up a misleading statement along the lines of "there is no physical evidence linking Knox to the crime", which is a misleading 50% of the relevant detail in the source. BTW, indicating that the knife links Knox to the crime is not synthesis or someone's original research, it is the finding of the court at the end of the trial. --FormerIP (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

PS I'd be totally in favour of revoving the sentence altogether. There is far too much he said she said in this article. --FormerIP (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting saying "there is no physical evidence linking Knox to the crime", even though it may be true. It's certainly disputed (obviously the prosecution says that there is and other sources say that it is not). I'm suggesting saying, something along the lines of "Limited physical evidence against Knox was introduced at trial, none of it was from the room where the body was found." This removes the questions of whether or not the evidence links Knox to the scene, as that is disputed. It retains the notice that there was no physical evidence of Knox's presence in the bedroom. I disagree with the statement that the current version is a fair summary. The current version implies that the knife is direct physical evidence linking Knox to the bedroom. However, the knife was not found in the bedroom. There is no forensic evidence indicating that the knife was ever in the bedroom. There is only a police theory, that says that Kercher touched the knife (disputed) near the time of the murder (disputed) and it in fact made one of the cuts on Kercher's neck (disputed). The only part of that theory that is not disputed by Knox's lawyers is that the murder occurred in the bedroom, and Guede may be disputing that. I'm fine with including that theory (and I think that it is already made elsewhere), so long as it includes the defense criticisms.

Without the "[a]part from the knife", we'd have that anyway, as the knife has multiple paragraphs of discussion. If you are insistent that that's not enough, then a new sentence should replace "[a]part from the knife" that eliminates the claim that the knife in some way establishes Knox's presence in the room and simply claims the knife as physical evidence that the prosecution theory used to link Knox to the crime. You haven't explained what you don't like about my more recent suggestion (with some slight revisions), "There was no forensic evidence, such as DNA, hair, fibre, blood or skin, directly indicating that Knox had been in Meredith Kercher's bedroom. The forensic evidence that was presented against Knox came from outside that room, for example, the knife that was found in Sollecito's apartment (see above)." That removes any attempt at dismissing the knife (what the cited source does) and only lists it as evidence used by the prosecution, without making any judgment on its value as evidence. It takes out the "he said, she said" opinions and leaves only the facts. Mdfst13 (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

"Limited physical evidence against Knox was introduced at trial" - this is your opinion. Who is to say what should be classed as limited? Clearly, there was enough to secure a conviction.

Knox's connection to the knife is not "just a police theory", it is the conclusion of the court.

I don't like any version which is slanted. There was enough physical evidence against Knox to convict, so to distort facts to try to make it look like the evidence was deficient is not acceptable.

You may think that you are just highlighting a true fact. I am not comparing you to one on a moral level, but you seem to be employing the same logic that holocaust deniers use when they point to the relative lack of physical evidence for gas chambers. The misleading implication is that there is a gap in the case, which there isn't. --FormerIP (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

"…The misleading implication is that there is a gap in the case, which there isn't."

That seems to me to be a personal conclusion and a strong statement for someone who doesn’t want to slant and distort the facts. There are many who say that Knox and Sollecito were convicted despite a lack of enough evidence. If we are going to stay neutral, how can we state as a fact either that the evidence was or was not sufficient for a fair conviction; or whether there is a "gap in the case"? Kermugin (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether there is or isn't a gap in the case is irrelevant. Unless we can cite reliable sources proving that there is, or isn't, we can't go anywhere near that type of opinion - it would be clear synthesis. There are many venues on the Internet for speculation of that type - an encyclopedia is not the place. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Replying to FormerIP's post above Kermugin's:

Who is disputing Knox's connection to the knife? I'm saying there is no forensic evidence of Knox's connection to the *ROOM*. What don't you like about "There was no forensic evidence, such as DNA, hair, fibre, blood or skin, directly indicating that Knox had been in Meredith Kercher's bedroom. The forensic evidence that was presented against Knox came from outside that room, for example, the knife that was found in Sollecito's apartment (see above)." What is slanted about it?

"Apart from the knife" is totally unacceptable as an attachment to that sentence. It is not factual, much less NPOV. It implies that the knife in some way links Knox to the room. It is especially egregious since it directly contradicts the cited source. What is your proposed alternative? I've suggested three now (four if one includes simply removing the misleading words). Mdfst13 (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

If the section is that problematic, and runs risk of violating WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, the obvious answer would be to remove it completely. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd be totally fine with taking it out altogether.

Mdfst, the slant lies in giving a misdirection to the reader. A statement such as "There was no forensic evidence..." appears designed to create doubt about the verdict in the case. Whilst it is appropriate for the article to reference the doubts of some commentators, directly trying to lay out the defence case is not appropriate. --FormerIP (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Black Kite, why not just fix the statement to be factual? It requires splitting into two statements, as one talks about evidence of Knox appearing in the room, see http://abcnews.go.com/WN/AmandaKnox/amanda-knox-murder-trial-evidence/story?id=9113616&page=2 for another reference. The other talks about other forensic evidence, specifically the knife. The knife is clearly forensic evidence, but just as clearly, it isn't forensic proof of presence in that particular room (what it does prove is highly disputed). It's only the conjoining of the two statements that makes it synthetic and non-factual. I remain fine with exploring alternative wordings. I have suggested several, which would seem to address the complaints that I've seen. I still don't understand why the current wording is unique in addressing such concerns. I would like someone else to take a try at a wording that fixes the factual issue and retains the statement about the lack of evidence in the room. Mdfst13 (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mdfst13; that sentence sounds kinda strange. I wouldn't say it's totally false, because if one believes the knife indicates guilt, it also indicates presence in the room, since that's where the murder took place.

But it really sounds almost surreal, like this you get the feeling the knife proves Amanda's guilt, and if that's already proven, then of course she was in the victim's room at the time of the murder. But the knife is highly disputed and therefore could be totally misleading here. The rest of the sentence after "apart from the knife" becomes almost irrelevant because the knife ("the murder weapon"!) is so powerful. Like, how is it relevant if there were no forensics of Amanda found in the victim's room, if the knife indicates she killed her all the same? So the point of that insert seems to me almost like an attempt to make these facts of the missing forensics in the victim's room meaningless, when they are actually quite powerful.

I see no need to mention the knife in this paragraph again, I suggest, instead of "indicating presence", just write what has been found or not found in the room, it's clearer then. Like this;

There was no forensic evidence of Amanda, such as DNA, hair, fibre, blood or skin, found in the bedroom where Meredith Kercher was sexually assaulted and murdered.[47] The only fingerprints of Knox which were found anywhere in the apartment were those on a glass in the kitchen sink. Knox's fingerprints were not found in Kercher's bedroom, nor her own bedroom.[48][12]

I know lots of people don't like that, but this is actually a fact, and an important one; there were no forensics of Amanda found in the victim's room, to water it down with the "apart from the knife"-part; I don't see a legitimate reason to insert that here, when the highly disputed knife is alreay mentioned and everyone can decide for themselves if that proves or indicates guilt and/or presence in the room. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aruu (talk • contribs) 20:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

And yet again - I think this is the sixth time I've mentioned this on this talkpage - people need to read WP:SYNTH. No wonder I had to ask for this page to be FP'd today. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The argument that there were no forensics of Amanda found in the room, is a nonsensical statement. Her DNA was found on the murder weapon. And Knox was convicted of Murder. You're not seriously saying that the murder weapon was never in the room? Because that is a ridiculous statement. The statement your trying to enter, is you trying to argue for Amanda Knox being innocent, and Wikipedia, for the millionth time, is not the place to argue for an imprisoned persons innocence. That is not what Wikipedia is for. Find another place to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

By saying "murder weapon" you're arguing for their guilt, we don't know if it was the murder weapon. There were respected experts who said otherwise… — There were no forensics found IN the room, the knife wasn't found in the room. If it is in fact the murder weapon, of course it has been in the room at some point. If it isn't the murder weapon on the other hand, it has never been in the room. Aruu (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC) (I'm not allowed to edit my own comment?)

She was found guilty by the judges in the court in Perugia. This is what wikipedia does, it reports what happened. The judges report, said the knife was the murder weapon. I'm sorry you don't think so, but wikipedia is not the place to argue what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It's quite the other way around (you're arguing what you think). If you think, the facts are what the prosecution said and the judges and jurors concluded, then the article could just simply say: Amanda and Raffaele together with Rudy killed Meredith in a Sex Game gone wrong under the influence of drugs on November second. Because that's what the judges said. There wouldn't be any need to include what the defense was arguing. Wikipedia has to be neutral, it has to report what they were accused and convicted of. What the prosecution was arguing and the defense side of the story. — And I didn't say it isn't the murder weapon, I said we don't know, if it is the murder weapon. --Aruu (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The facts on the ground in Perugia, is that it was the Murder weapon. That's what the judges decided. Wikipedia is an enclyclopedia. It reports facts, that are decided by others. You are not free to insert your personal opinion into an article. If Amanda Knox's conviction is reversed on appeal, then that will the fact. But this is not the page to argue for her innocence. That's one of the most basic editing facts about Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place for righting great wrongs. Wikipedia is not the place for arguing the innocence of prisoners. You can find a dozen websites on the internet where you can do that for Knox. You can't do it at Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Righting Great Wrongs Shortcuts: WP: GREATWRONGS WP:RGW See also: Wikipedia:Advocacy Wikipedia is a popular site and appears high in the search engine rankings. You might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case. We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can’t ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: what matters is not truth but verifiability. So, if you want to

Expose a popular artist as a child molester, or Vindicate a murder convict you believe to be innocent, or Spread the word about a theory/hypothesis/belief/cure-all herb that has been unfairly neglected and suppressed by the scholarly community, on Wikipedia, you’ll have to wait until it’s been picked up in mainstream journals, or get that to happen first. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. "Wikipedia is behind the ball - that is we don't lead, we follow - let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find NPOV ways of presenting them if needed."[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've no intention in prolonging this discussion, I've read you preceding contributions and it says enough for me. Your interpretation of what Wikipedia's role should be, is contradicted by the "Meredith Kercher"-article itself … --Aruu (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The simple fact is that Wikipedia is not the forum to argue for the innocence of Amanda Knox. And there is no question about Wikipedia's rules in this regard. If you do it, I expect you'll be banned from editing as all the previous editors that tried to do it were. Good Luck to you though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure this was just an honest mistake by MLauba and you can reinstate your edit. BTW, please remember to sign your posts.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for that, from the diff, I read it as if you had edited someone else's comment. My mistake. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Guede biography

I raised this subject previously, during the rewrite and it wasn't really resolved, so I think it's worth raising again. The biography of Guede says "According to Times Online, Guede was known as a small-time drug dealer, a drifter with a prior record of petty crime and drug offences who, according to some witnesses, harassed women and stole from their handbags." Although it is quite true, as proved by the citation, that Times Online said this, I think there are some issues that we should at least discuss.

• The bit about "according to some witnesses" doesn't give us any clue about who these witnesses might be. The piece was written at the time when Guede's trial was ending, but that trial had been held behind closed doors, with no journalists present, so the journalist is certainly not giving an account of something he saw during the trial. It really sounds like hearsay.
• The "prior record of petty crime and drug offences": I have trawled through all the accounts and can't find anything about Guede having actually been convicted of anything prior to the murder trial (I know there were a couple of run-ins with the police in the weeks before the murder, but Guede was released both times). This source[2] speaks of his lack of criminal record, which is at odds with The Times' account.
• The term "drifter" appears in almost every newspaper article about Guede. It's a great journalistic word, because it conveys a negative impression but requires no factual basis to support it and is virtually unchallengeable. I would argue that it is a very poor encyclopedic term, for the same reasons.

What do others think? Bluewave (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the first point. It seems like an unsubstantiated rumour, but on the other hand Guede doesn't have much of a reputation to be damaged. Maybe raising it at the BLP board would be the thing to do.

On the second point, think this should be removed. If there are conflicting sources about this then we can't report it, particularly taking into account BLP considerations.

Agree that "drifter" too vague a term for us to use in Wikipedia's voice, but if it is true that he is consistently so described then maybe we can say "often described as..".

Given that there seem to be multiple issues about the reliability of this source, perhaps it should not be used at all. --FormerIP (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, regarding the use of the word drifter in your third point ... perhaps this may be an instance of ambiguity between British English and American English? In the US, the term drifter is used to describe a person that does not own or maintain a residence; acording to this source, Guede actually had an apartment in Perugia:

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archives/179047.asp

Although perhaps it is journalistic license in referring to someone who drifts from job to job, which it how it is occasionally used in the US... does the UK have a different connotation for the word? Perhaps "unemployed" or "jobless" is more accurate? Although I suppose those two words can be used to describe Knox & Sollecito. Jonathan (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "drifter", the OED defines it as "A man following an aimless, irresolute, or vagrant way of life". So it sounds as if the British usage is a lot broader than the more specific American usage. Bluewave (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've done a bit more research into the sources about the allegations of drug offences and harassing women. This piece from the Telegraph[3] repeats pretty much the same story as The Times, but attributes the allegations to Abukar Mohamed Barrow, known as “Momi”. So it looks as though he is the witness and, in fact Barrow was lined up to testify at Guede's trial. However, in this piece[4] by Candace Dempsey, of Seattle pi, she writes "Abuker 'Momi' Barrow, a Somali who used to play basketball with Rudy [...] was supposed to describe Guede as a botherer of girls, a violent drug user and thief. But Guede's defense team once again rode to the rescue. Biscotti brandished a videotape recorded Sept. 17 by Studio Aperto of the Mediaset Group. He said the tape showed the witness negotiating with a reporter for cash to tell his tale. Reportedly (and rather confusedly), he'd also received 2,000 euro from La Nazione. Judge Michele threw this witness out." I suggest that, as this testimony was thrown out by the court, it should be thrown out by us too. Bluewave (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds sensisible. If we want to comply with WP:NPOV, the alternative would be citing the Timesonline article, then idenfiying the witness using the Telegraph article, then using the Seattle Pi article to discredit the witness. But that kind of "here is what a newspaper says" followed by "here is what is wrong with what the newspaper says" is exactly what the article has suffered too much of. Plus we are subject to WP:BLP --FormerIP (talk) 10:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if it was some really important aspect of the case, it would be worth going into the different sources and the chronology (I think The Times article preceded the throwing-out of the witness). However, to go into all that would seem to me to attribute undue importance to this aspect of the case. Bluewave (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I may be oversimplifying things here, but if the word "drifter" would be replaced with the phrase "Perugia resident" in describing Guede, I think it would be much more accurate and also neutral ... or would that be implying something that Wikipedia should be avoiding? Jonathan (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Issues related to Guede have been deliberately downplayed by the current editors because their agenda seeks to portray Guede in a better light and make it more plausible that Amanda Knox would have gotten together with him for a sex orgy. NPOV requires a more detailed discussion of Guede's criminal history. The fact that he might not have a criminal conviction is irrelevant because the evidence of his criminal acts is so compelling. These incidents are particularly important because he has no accomplices and it shows a past history of much of what happened at the crime scene. They also relate to the future section on the criticism of the police investigation. Three reliable sources:

1) Statement of Maria del Prato in TLC documentary (video 6 on Youtube.) He is discovered behind closed doors on her property armed with a knife. She describes him as a "dangerous person" and references the property stolen from the Perugian law office where the entry was the same as in Filomena's room.

2) Statement of Nathan Abraham in CBS 48Hours Documentary. He talks of Guede getting in a knife fight with a bartender.

3) Statement of Frank Sfarzo describing his conversation with Cristian Tramontano. Guede was caught robbing Tramontano's residence and brandished a knife in his escape. Police were contacted.

The above are primary sources but are appropriate for use here because Italian law does not permit public access to the trial record.PhanuelB (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've read part of your first sentenced: "Issues related to Guede have been deliberately downplayed by the current editors because their agenda seeks to portray Guede in a better light..." and didn't read/listen any further. This is NOT a forum or blog where you can throw wild accusations around against editors you seem to disagree and if you don't adhere to our rules that you should be aware of as this is not your only account (and therefore you must have some experience with WP-rules) you'll have a hard time to be taken seriously and in the worst case scenario might even get blocked for misusing WP as a forum and battlefield. Please stop this approach now so we can really work together and you can make a difference. It's up to you to choose.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

PhanuelB, I was discussing whether the word "drifter" is an appropriate encyclopedic term for Guede and also whether the article should or should not include some allegations against him that were published in several newspapers but were based on statements by someone who was thrown out of court. I believe this is exactly the kind of content discussion that is appropriate for a talk page. To get from this to the allegation that I'm trying to "make it more plausible that Amanda Knox would have gotten together with [Guede] for a sex orgy" would take an extraordinary leap of [bad] faith. This accusation against me is quite offensive: in future, please try to stick to discussing the content. Bluewave (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

PhanuelB, this statement "The fact that he might not have a criminal conviction is irrelevant because the evidence of his criminal acts is so compelling... is self-contradictory and exactly why this information needs to be kept out of Wikipedia. Jonathan (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Guede's history of criminal acts and the police inaction are all fully supported by reliable sources. The significance of the police inaction is addressed in the TLC Documentary -- a primary source. The TLC documentary and the two 48 Hours segments (both primary sources which put Perugian justice on trial) have been carefully omitted from the list of television documentaries by the current editors because they do not support their agenda.

No one knows what "drifter" means so it's probably not a good word to use. The TLC documentary uses "petty criminal" which is accurate. "Drifter" implys an extended period of time. The reality with Guede is that his life was spiraling downward over a relatively short period of time. I hesitate to enter into that debate over a single word because it might imply an endorsement of the legitimacy of the rest of the article.

Guede's history of "girl bothering" is fully documented in the TLC documentary. At least two of the books (and maybe all of them, I'll have to look) verify his small time drug dealing. I have also seen statements by people who knew him that verify this. Let me repeat that the information on Guede has been ever so carefully worded to diminish a criminal history that very much bears on the plausibility of any involvement by Amanda Knox.

The "our rules" that "we" will abide by are Wikipedia's PhanuelB (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Phanuel, your opinions about Guede and other editors are not really the issue here. Bluewave raised some specific concerns about a particular source. Do you have anything to say about this source? --FormerIP (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"Issues related to Guede have been deliberately downplayed by the current editors because their agenda seeks to portray Guede in a better light..." All I've seen is Guede being portrayed as a Murderer of Meredith Kercher. I don't see how anyone could see that as "better light". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Citations in Micheli Report

Ref the following footnote

"^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj "Judgement 28.10.2008", Dr. Paolo Micheli, dep. 2009-01-26, Court of Perugia Italy, trial of Rudy Hermann Guede, (Google Translation, Italian to English)Translate.google.com, Italian webpage: Penale.it . Retrieved 2009-12-11."

All 36 items that depend on the above citation do not meet WP:BOP and are not properly sourced. No page number is given for any item as required by WP:BOP. The source is not in English and cannot be understood by the audience. The translation tool above only does a poor translation of a portion of the document. Even in English, the above is a reliable source only to show what is stated in the court opinion. Because of the level of criticism of the trial, the the Micheli Report can only be used on a case by case basis as a reliable source for assertion of fact.PhanuelB (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

There where discussions about how to handle the "Micheli report" before as it does not have page #'s. I'll try to find and post links to the previous and now archived discussions sometime tomorrow (unless someone beats me to it). The basic idea proposed (by me) was to add a (Italian) phrase to the citation that would make it easy to find the section in this 400+ pages trial record for readers and for editors. Also it is a primary source, it can be used (Italian language or not) for some instances and for sure when it can be backed up by reliable mainstream press coverage or, in some instances to discredit some sources as unreliable if they're contradicted by this official report. Also, most weight should be given to what RS's reported from the report when there is no contradiction. See wp:verifiable.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Verification is indeed difficult when this reference is used and in some cases statements are made citing this report that are inaccurate. For example, the statement "Sollecito made two calls to the Carabinieri military police, reporting a possible burglary", cites the Micheli Report. The time of these calls are in the report, but the report doesn't state that Sollecito reported a burglary. Transcripts of that call indicate he reported a possible break in, blood, a locked door and a missing roommate. If we need to use a trail judgement as a source, the Massei Report from the trail of Knox and Sollecito is a better reference. It is also in Italian, but has page numbers making it possible to point directly to a specific place in the report. Footwarrior (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't think there is a case for saying these cites fail BOP. The fact that it is in Italian is not a problem per WP:NONENG, and the lack of page refs is because the source is an HTML document without page refs.

However, there are genuine difficulties in verification. I think MCK's proposal to quote the Italian in the footnote is a good one, provided this can be done succinctly. Large chunks of Italian in the footnotes would be unsightly, so in many cases, maybe we should just quote enough text to facilitate a search of the webpage for the relevant part.

If there are discrepancies between the report and the article, then these should be corrected (Footwarrior, are you able to quote the relevant material regarding the phonecalls?).

Footwarrior: the Massei Report would be an excellent source to have at our disposal, but it does not appear to be available online, as far as I know. Do you know different? --FormerIP (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The transcript of Raffaele's first 112 call I remembered seeing turns out to be a blog, and thus not considered a reliable source. I am still trying to find a proper source for a transcript. We can however reference the Massei Report for the times of the calls:

At 12:51 and 12:54, Sollecito made two calls to 112, the Italian emergency number.

This also seems to be a good source for the contents of the call: "h12.51.40 Raffaele Sollecito chiamava il 112 per avvertire i Carabinieri del presunto furto nella stanza della Romanelli" ("Sollecito called 112 to inform the gendarmerie of the alleged theft from Romanelli's room"). --FormerIP (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NONENG makes no provision for the use of un-translated non-English quotations. A link to the Google translate site which as we all know barely works with Italian does not meet the express requirement of side by side text in both languages. Wikipedia's recommendation of putting lengthy quotes in footnotes or the talk page will not work here. The editors may want to create a new Wikipedia page dedicated to translated passages of documents relevant to this case. Since most reliable secondary sources on the case question the legitimacy of the tribunal, I will need an area where exact translations of passages from the Massei and Micheli documents can be posted and agreed upon. In the absence of specific side by side translation, the Wikipedia rules are clear that the above citations must go..PhanuelB (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've got no objection to editors using their userspace to store translations if they want, but there's nothing to oblige editors to follow a higher standard than the guidelines ask for. The guideline says: "When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote, or to the talk page if too long for a footnote." That's the procedure we should follow.

Incidentally, a while ago I did some translation of extracts from Michelli, which are availble here: User:FormerIP/Michelli. --FormerIP (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess "citing" a source means to me that somebody can actually see a "quote" from it. Anyway it doesn't matter because the sentence you choose gives me the right to request the quote and I hereby assert that right.PhanuelB (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there any information in particular you feel may be inaccurate. It would be good to highlight your main concerns, or you might have a long wait. --FormerIP (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm starting a section below to go through the cites one by one. --FormerIP (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, PhanuelB, that you are so opinionated about so much of this court case whilst being neither able to read, or obtain a translation (other than Google's, which for more than the odd phrase is worthless) so much of the case documentation. Does that tell you anything about your own sources of information?   pablo_hablo. 22:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I can read it but it takes work. All you have to do is search for names and words of interest. On an item by item basis we can agree that some items are undisputed. Just say which ones. There is way too much detail above. Example: who cares where the police had Guede's prints on file? I still think it would work better to have a dedicated page to translations related to this case. There isn't room here for what has to be done and it's not permament. I also have passages that will need agreement. Creating a dedicated page is allowed as Wikipedia is generally open about thinking outside of the box.PhanuelB (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Italian and English text from Michelli

until at least about 8:30 pm, when Knox and Sollecito turned off their mobile phones.

l’unico dato significativo risultante dai cellulari è la mancata operatività di quello degli imputati a partire dalle 20:40 circa della sera del 1 novembre

the only significant information resulting from the mobile phones is that the accused persons had them turned off from approximately 20:40 on November 1

Inaccurate time to be changed in article. --FormerIP (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Kercher was murdered in the apartment at around 11 pm.

il Procuratore della Repubblica e la Polizia Giudiziaria procedevano a ricostruire i movimenti della ragazza nelle ultime ore di vita, muovendo anche dalle ipotesi formulate dal C.T. medico-legale in punto di epoca della morte, da collocare a distanza di non più di 2 o 3 ore dall’ultimo pasto consumato, e verosimilmente da intendere avvenuta intorno alle 23:00 del 1 novembre 2007.

the Public Prosecutor and the Judicial Police proceeded to reconstruct the movements of the girl during the last hours of her life, starting from the hypothesis formulated from the medico-legal CT as to the time of death, which was placed no more than 2 or 3 hours after her last meal, and understood to have occurred at around 23:00 on November 1, 2007. --FormerIP (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Knox and Sollecito were standing outside

Effettuate le verifiche sul primo dei telefoni in questione, l’utenza della relativa sim card risultava appartenere a tale R. F., 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 K. A. M. (che risultava occupare un’altra delle stanze dell’abitazione) e il di lei ragazzo S. R..

After performing checks against the first of these phones, the user of the sim card was intentified as FR, who lived at Via della Pergola 7. A detail from the Postal Police then took it to the address, but - instead of R - we find that there are two other young people there, the American AMK (who occupied another room of the dwelling) and her boyfriend RS..

This doesn't seem to say they were outside. How important is this?--FormerIP (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

and told the police that the premises had been burgled, that a window had been broken and that there were drops of blood in several rooms

Secondo quanto rappresentato all’Isp. BATTISTELLI, la K. ed il S. avevano dunque rilevato la presenza di macchie di sangue in alcuni dei vani dell’appartamento, in particolare in uno dei bagni, nonché tracce di un apparente furto (anche se nessuno dei due riferiva di aver notato che qualcosa fosse stato effettivamente rubato) proprio nella stanza della R., dove c’era un vetro infranto e un grosso sasso in terra.

As it was represented to Inspector Battistelli, K. and S. had detected the presence of blood stains in some of the rooms in the apartment, in particular one of the bathrooms, and signs of an apparent theft (although neither of them said that they noticed that anything had actually been stolen) in A.'s room, where there was broken glass and a large stone on the floor. --FormerIP (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The communications police investigated the upstairs flat, finding blood in several rooms, a bloody footprint in the smaller bathroom, an unflushed toilet in the large bathroom and blood near Kercher's locked bedroom

Ne derivava, anche nei giorni successivi ed a cura di personale del Servizio di Polizia Scientifica, una capillare attività di sopralluogo, da cui risultava che:

Over the following days, under the care of officers the Department of Scientific Policing, an extensive inspection was carried out, which showed that:

- subito dopo un piccolo disimpegno dinanzi alla soglia, si accedeva a un locale adibito a soggiorno-cucina, dove si repertavano alcune impronte di suole di scarpa e piccole tracce di sangue; - sulla destra del soggiorno vi era la porta della camera occupata dalla M., all’interno della quale non si rilevava alcunché di significativo, mentre in una prima stanza da bagno, adiacente a detta camera, il water si palesava non scaricato, con all’interno delle feci e della carta igienica;

- Next is a small hallway by the door, then you enter a room with living room and kitchen, where there found some impressions of shoe soles and small traces of blood; - At the right of the residence there was the door of the room occupied by M, in which nothing significant was found, while in the first bathroom, adjacent to that room, the toilet had clearly not been flushed and had a stool and toilet paper in it.

tenendo a sinistra la soglia della camera della R. e a destra quella della M., si apriva uno stretto corridoio (dal quale si accedeva ad altre due camere e ad un secondo bagno) sul cui pavimento venivano repertate altre impronte di calzature e tracce ematiche;

after the door of R's room and to the right of M's, opened a narrow corridor (leading to two bedrooms and a bathroom) on whose floor other shoeprints and traces of blood were found

Prints appear to be near, rather than in, the bathroom. --FormerIP (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The window in one of the bedrooms had been smashed, with broken glass near a large stone in a bag on the floor

Il davanzale interno ed esterno della finestra è cosparso di frammenti di vetro di varie dimensioni, presenti anche all’interno della stanza. ... Sul quadrante anteriore del pavimento ... è una busta di carta ... contenente capi di abbigliamento ed un sasso della misura di cm. 20 x cm. 15 x cm.

The outer and inner windowsill is covered with glass fragments of various sizes, which are also present in the room. ... On the near part of the floor ... is a paper bag containing ... clothing and a stone sized 20 cm X 15 cm. --FormerIP (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The door to Kercher's room was forced open and the police found Kercher lying beneath a duvet, soaked in blood, with pools and smears of blood around the room. The area was secured for investigation.

Dinanzi alle cautele degli Agenti della Polizia Postale, che non ritenevano di poter arrecare danni ad una proprietà privata solo sulla base di quanto evidenziato, era l’A. a prendersi la briga di sfondare la porta a calci, ma non appena fatto un passo all’interno della stanza, si ritraeva con orrore notando sangue in gran copia ed un piede nudo - evidentemente di un corpo inanimato, riverso sul pavimento - sporgere da sotto una trapunta. Si trattava, come subito dopo accertato, del cadavere della K., che presentava sul collo una vistosa ferita da arma da taglio. L’Isp. BATTISTELLI, a quel punto, inibiva a tutti i presenti di entrare nella camera, e faceva intervenire i colleghi della Squadra Mobile.

Given the cautious attitude of the Postal Police officers, who felt that they could cause damage to private property only on the basis of some evidence, it was A. who took the trouble to kick down the door. But as soon as she stepped inside the room, she drew back in horror, noticing a large amount of blood and a bare foot - evidently that of an inanimate body, lying on the floor - protruding from under a quilt. It was, as was soon established, the body of K., which bore a conspicuous stab wound in the neck. Inspector Battistelli, at that point, prevented all those present from entering the room, and brought in colleagues from the Mobile Unit. --FormerIP (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Documentaries

Administrator Black Kite has deleted additions I made to the Books and Documentaries section. The ability to link to YouTube had been previously discussed and approved of by a neutral administrator, Amalthea. The links were fully compliant with WP:ELNEVER). Due care was taken to avoid copyright infringement.

1) CBS has agreements with YouTube as evidenced by YouTube pages that display both logos. The CBS videos in question were uploaded over a year ago. Because of the corporate alliance, it can be assumed that CBS is aware of any CBS content on YouTube and provides tacit approval for its use.

2) The NBC Documentary links to an NBC site.

3) The TLC Video was uploaded by TLC itself as evidenced by a TLC YouTube page that displays the TLC logo.

4) The videos in question are reliable secondary sources which designate the Perugian tribunal as a "Public Lynching", a "railroad job from hell" and, a "case based on lies." The TLC video is a reliable secondary source that questions whether police incompetence in not arresting Rudy Guede in Milan played a part in Meredith Kercher's death.

5) I pose the following question: If the concern was with copyright infringement and not content, why wasn't just the link removed with the name of the documentary left in place?PhanuelB (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Phanuel, it sounds like you want the videos linked to because they provide a particular slant, rather than because they give an all-round, balanced picture. You can understand why this might be questioned, surely? --FormerIP (talk) 02:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The Channel 4 one ([5]) is clearly a copyvio. CBS does upload their own shows (here's an example), but both the ones you linked to - this and this - were uploaded by someone else and are thus copyvios as well. You can not "assume that CBS is aware of all content on YouTube" - that is a ludicrous idea - you'd have to source a comment from CBS stating this. The NBC one is clearly OK because it's their own page. The fifth link doesn't work. However whether or not they're copyvios, they shouldn't be linked to directly anyway - if they're needed to source something you should just use {{cite episode}} anyway. The reader doesn't need to be sent to a YouTube video to see a short quotation. More importantly, as mentioned before, the videos are not reliable sources that the Perugian tribunal is "a case based on lies" or anything else. They are only a reliable source that some random media commentator said that. Whether those quotes are notable enough to be in the article is a different question and one that was dealt with on this talkpage a few weeks ago. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

There was a request for a third opinion on this page, even though I see at least three active editors here. Either way, I agree with Black Kite's reasoning above. YouTube videos are not WP:RS, and especially when they're not posted by the company itself. As to the NBC one, well, it seems that that would be better used as a reference somewhere than just a random external link at the bottom. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)