Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher

Judy Bachrach and the Larry King Live show

I am new to the Wikipedia talk page, I hope I can do this appropriately. As a preliminary disclaimer, I am a dual Italian-American citizen.

I find the "Italian justice system" section of the article objectionable.

It seems strange to me that the opinions expressed by one ecclesiastic judge on the roots and principles of the Italian justice, as recounted by one reporter in the context of a highly opinionated Vanity Fair piece, have a place in this Enclyclopedia.

I watched the cited LKL show, and was appalled by Bachrach's description of the case, much more based on mostly derogatory anthropological observations on Italy and Italians in general than on the specific matter at hand.

It seems to me that this section is solely based upon highly biased, personal opinions that do little to provide a framework for understanding the case and its wider context.

Is this note the proper way to propose that this section be eliminated unless profoundly revised? I do not think that citing the lack of alternate opinions is sufficient justification to include in the article an undocumented fringe view of a matter as complex as a country's legal system.

Thank you, Giuseppe Bertini —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giuseb (talk • contribs) 10:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ciao, Giuseppe. I agree, the section merely reports tittle-tattle. - By the way, you can sign your name by adding four tildes. Rothorpe (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The section is actually factual, but I wonder why on earth this much room is given to two appearances of a single journalist... Averell (talk) 10:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, I will tag the section for bias. --Karl franz josef (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The "Inquisition" slur is repeated twice. This is biased and NOT factual. US Dept of Justice: "The Italian judicial system, based on Roman law and modified by the Napoleonic Code..." http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=106708 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.254.144 (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Seeing as the suspects have their own infoboxes, surely Meredith Kercher should have one as well. After all, she is the victim, and as such merits an infobox.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Funny that, I added one nearly two years ago and it was removed by an editor that said we don't do that thing! Swings and roundabouts on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.68.26 (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the victim should have an infobox as each of the two suspects and the convict do. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Judicial analysis of the Rudy Guede conviction

Please forgive my inexperience with wikidom,which I so greatly respect.

I wish to provide a reference to a document written by Judge Paolo Micheli, who presided over the fast track trial of Rudy Guede. It is my understanding that it is a requirement of Italian law for a judge to provide within ninety days of delivering a verdict a written explanation of his reasoning in arriving at his decision. This type of document may be called a "motivazione" or "motivi della decisione" and is found at http://www.penale.it/page.asp?mode=1&IDPag=750. As the hard evidence of the murder of Meredith is disputed and source material for the evidence for the most part difficult to establish, it would seem valuable to include this resource. Dottore Micheli's detailed analysis is, of course, in Italian. I counted 71 "Page Dn" clicks to reach the end. I have read the google translation in "botEnglish" in its entirety and found it to be very helpful in detailing and analysing the facts of the case. In the trial of Amanda Knox and Rafaele Sollicito I see a large cultural bias expressed generally by the American media; I have been following this case from its inception in various Italian newspapers (not without their own bias).

I ask that you consider including this document reference as essential to the subject: the murder of Meredith Kercher... (and may she rest in peace) —Preceding unsigned comment added by George langur (talk • contribs) 16:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Italian justice system section is all POV - request delete!

This is completely and utterly reprehensible. And is arguably contempt of court in any jurisdiction in the world. It has two two sources: Judy Bachrach and John Q. Kelly. So the criticism is singular and from a reporter (not a legal expert) and a lawyer not connected with the case.

It's egregious and cynical and has just one purpose to smear the Italian Judiciary. Likewise just because this section is referenced from two named sources does not make it correct in assumptions. It's Fringe theory and based on complete lies. Yet the lies are given undue providence and the "real" facts are tagged onto the end.

Just reading it makes my toes curl.

The Italian justice system has been criticized by American reporter Judy Bachrach. Bachrach quoted an Italian ecclesiastical judge, who is not employed in the Italian legal system, in an article about Knox for Vanity Fair magazine. The ecclesiastical judge claimed that the Italian justice system “stems from the Inquisition and also from medieval law. [It] is based on the supremacy of the prosecution. This nullifies the fact – written in our constitution – that you’re innocent until proven guilty.” Bachrach did not seek out an alternate opinion.
On October 18, 2009, Bachrach appeared on a broadcast of CNN's Larry King Live which featured Knox's parents. Bachrach claimed that in Italy “the ordinary person is considered guilty until proven innocent. Italy's laws are direct descendants of the Inquisition.” On that same King show, John Q. Kelly – a prosecuting attorney in the civil trial against OJ Simpson – commented on the Italian Justice system in relation to its treatment of Knox and Sollecito. He said that “it's probably the most egregious, international railroading of two innocent young people that I have ever seen.” (Kelly does not represent anyone involved in the Kercher trial.) King did not feature any experts in Italian justice on the show to provide a counterbalance to Bachrach or Kelly.
The Italian judiciary system is derived from Roman law and Napoleonic code. The Constitution of Italy, article 27, reads "The defendant is not considered guilty until final judgement is passed"; in article 111, that "Guilt shall not be established on the basis of statements made by anyone who has freely chosen not to submit to questioning by the defendant or the defendant’s Counsel ad litem".
It is also a fact that Italy has a very complex legal system with three levels of courts: First Grade Court, Appellate Court and the Supreme Court, the "Corte di Cassazione". A defendant can appeal to all levels of courts including the Supreme Court in most cases. In comparison, the legal system in many other countries (e.g. USA) features much stronger filters between the appeal trial and the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, it shows what happens when you have amateurs doing this stuff, when you include quotes like this “it's probably the most egregious, international railroading of two innocent young people that I have ever seen.” How can the source say that, are they trying the case, NO! It's for the court and the jury to decide. Kelly is also implying impropriety, collusion and dishonesty on the part of the Italian Judiciary. The case is still active and that's contempt of court.

This whole section should be deleted forthwith, as it's arguably WP:FRINGE (only two cited proponents), dubious (the quotes are based on personal conclusions - and not established facts) and it's entirely NPOV.

It's ironic WP has strict rules on Living Person biographies regarding libellous material but nothing concerning contempt of court actions while legal trials are still being held!!!

I therefore recommend for these reasons stated that this section should be deleted forewith.

[Besides if you want hypocrisy; before you start to smear a country's legal profession, is it not better to start with one's own first? Maurice Clemmons, the man who is alleged to have killed those police officers in Washington state was released by the US legal system after only serving a few years of a 35 years sentence. To me that suggests the U.S. judicial system has serious issues of its own]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.68.26 (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

clearly not neutral --Frukko (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Again: I'm all in favor of cutting that section down as it's not utterly relevant. However, it deserves at least a fleeting mention, since it seems to have been in mainstream media and has potentially reached millions of people. Also, it is not required in Wikipedia that each section is "neutral", NPOV means only that the whole article presents all (relevant) points of view equally without giving preference to one. It is also not required that a source is neutral or (in this case) qualified. That said, I'll chop a good part out of this now. Averell (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I am tagging the section for bias.--Karl franz josef (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Article clearly biased in favor of defendants

One of Wikipedia's guidelines for articles is the neutrality of the author. This article clearly favors the defendants and, in particular, Amanda Knox. If someone wants to write on this subject, fantastic. But please revise to reflect more of the prosecution's evidence that supports its case. For example, there was a knife found at Sollecito's apartment with both Knox and Kercher's DNA. Also, Knox has changed her story so many times, it would be impossible for anyone on the jury to believe anything she says. I don't know if Knox and Sollecito are guilty or innocent. But the author(s) of this article seem to. They are not journalists and this contribution has serious flaws. -SeriousFred (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been supporting wikipedia financially but I won't do so in the future. They should finally hire some professional editors. Every other article of a defendant in a serious crime while on trial gets a hideous pr whitewash in favour of the defendant. This is a joke and it has to stop. People running wikipedia now for better or worse have a very responsible position, the have to respect that. To all the editors here: Congratulate yourself for whitewashing another article. Also the attacks on the italian judicial system are ludicrous. Who the heck do you think you are criticising a nation's penal system, a nation that is far more historical than the old U.S. of A. and arguably more cultured to. As soon as a U.S. person is standing trial abroad a huge pr machine goes in place, which is all good and well by some, but that doesn't have a place in what is claimed to be a world encyclopaedia. The accused here should actually be thanking her lucky stars because if she had been found guilty in most states of the United States she would have got the death penalty. 21:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.58.44 (talk)

This article would certainly benefit from the attention of a professional writer. It will attract many readers and editors who are severely biased. For over two years, the British media has had a strong tendency to assume Guede, Knox and Sollecito guilty and the US media to assume that Knox is innocent. That, along with many people's bias for their own countrypeople, makes many of those interested in this case have strong views / biases about it. We need to present a fuller case so that the reader can gain a better idea of what actually happened. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Media portrayal - Independent quote

The quote from the Independent is excessively long. In general we summarise not quote. More importantly a quote of this length seems likely to breach copyright. I am inclined to replace the quote with a short summary but would welcome views, first. TerriersFan (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Bold edit to the Media section

I did a bold edit to the craptacular "Media Portrayal" section. I was full of unnecessary details, newspaper quotes that were beyond any sane definition of fair use (yes, that makes it a copyright violation) and opinions of all people who might have one on that case. Just because one gazillion articles were in the newspapers, that doesn't mean we have to mention them all. The trick is to highlight the main lines of the debate without getting bogged down. I hope that the tone is also more neutral now and that it helps to take care of the POV accusations. Averell (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Who is Judy Bachrach?

Last time I checked she wrote for Vanity Fair which is not akin to the Harvard Law Review. I don't think she is credible to pass judgement on the Italian Justice System, no more than an Italian judge is credible to quote on fashion. The fact that this article has been reduced to vanity fair reports comparing the inquisition to the italian justice system is another sign of what a sad place wikipedia is turning it. Again, congratulate yourself editors that this article read like a gossip column by the american defendants pr machine. Brilliant work. 149.254.58.44 (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Vanity Fair is a reputable magazine that routinely covers politics and culture as well as fashion and entertainment.--Gotophilk (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• It doesn't matter that Vanity Fair is a reputable magazine. The section under discussion is biased due to the inclusion of Bachrach's opinion. If no opposing opinions are included, we are not following the accepted tenets of neutrality. Simply saying that no other sources can be found (which they can be) is not acceptable for an article of such current moment. The consequences of not appropriately addressing this problem will be the removal of said section. --Karl franz josef (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It does matter that Vanity Fair is a reputable magazine. 149.254.58.44 claimed that it's not; that's the point I was responding to, not the substance of the article. --Gotophilk (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that there are no "opposing opinions" as far as I see. If there had been a public outcry over her opinion, we would have to include that. But as far as I can see, there was none. If the world doesn't bring counter-arguments, it's not our job to create them. (Of course, if you find the public outcry, include it!). However, the only reason for deleting it would be the argument "it's not important enough". The arguments "she isn't right", "she isn't qualified" or such don't count. Averell (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• We aren't in a position to be arbiters of whether each particular source is biased or not. Our task is merely to represent all points of view, one of which is represented in the Vanity Fair piece. Blowfish (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• Really, could where the bias is? The section reports that there was both "pro" and "con" media coverage and (to me) the tone seems pretty neutral. And yes, we report that this Bachrach compared the Italian justice to the inquisition; the reason is that she said that, and that she said that in front of millions of people. The article reports just that she said that, not that she's right. Nor is she presented as the only voice on the case (both of which would be NPOV). However, the article is not about the Italian justice system, and I don't see any reason to include a lengthy discussion on Bachrach's view of and qualification to comment on the subject. Averell (talk) 08:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
• I think this particular paragraph should be deleted because it is of no consequence and is actually wrong. The Italian justice system is not "adversarial" like the USA system but "inquisitorial" and descended from Roman Law and the Napoleonic Code. In other words the judiciary doesn't balance the arguments of the prosecution versus the defence, rather it inquires into all evidence to seek the truth (although the appeal courts have now incorporated the "adversarial" system). To say that a defendant is "considered guilty until proven innocent" is just plain wrong. One reason that there might not have been a "public outcry" is possibly the fact that outside the USA not many people have heard about this woman. To assert that the Italian legal system is descended from the Inquisition is nonsense and insulting. Please remove this paragraph. rturus (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

@Averell, Blowfish, Gotophilk. Are you joking? What universal opinion? Do you think that the italian and european media go along with that trash that their system is based on the inquisition in the sense that it presupposes guilt? Of course there is disagreement with this opinion but no one really bothers with some american media to even reply to them. What is that garbage? I feel furious to even have to waste my time discussing this. That is why wikipedia should hire some professional editors. As I asked in the title of this discussion, who is this woman, on what authority does she speak? Because she is not reporting a fact, she is expressing an opinion, she is making a judgement? Does she have the authority to pass this judgement, of course she does not.

I am sick and tired of some wikipedia minders not making any sense and yet having their way here. I will delete this preposterous quote, If you want to re-instate it you should ask for consensus because it is clear a lot of parties consider it unacceptable here. And they those who do find it merits a place here are the usual hangers on with the agenda.

Let me sum up here the reason I am deleting it: The author of that quote in that american magazine does not have the authority to make a value judgement on a legal system because she lacks the background and expertise in Italian law. Moreover this is not a reputable publication to pass judgement on legal issues, because the don't have the gravitas or the expertise for that. If they were merely reporting a corroborated fact that would have been another issue, but they are not.

And let's not beat about the bush here, this is clearly put there to discredit a whole legal system, just because some American sociopath decided they would kill abroad for a change instead of their natural habitat which is the United States famous for having the highest obesity and crime rates in the world. And just because of some misguided patriotism a whole legal system has to be discredited based on a quote by some unknown on a U.S. rag.

The above three parties I mentioned please don't bother replying here, instead open a consensus vote because some of us here actually have a life and don't know how to. In any case I do not think your positions here are worthy of further response and I shall not respond to you. 149.254.56.40 (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see the page has been semi locked so I wont be able to edit it. The morons here will have their way as per usual. I am off. Enjoy this piece of crap that wikipedia has become. 149.254.56.40 (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

All 11 counts?

Can someone find a credible link that states each count that both Raffeale and Amanda were charged with and can someone post this in the article? I keep revising when people type " GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS OF MURDER". Because whoever writing this is an idiot.... murder is ONE of the counts as is theft and sexual assault...but I didn't have time to write down what Wolf Blitzer said about the other ones on CNN. If someone could find this and post this...that would be nice. Thanks. WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The CNN article http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/04/italy.knox.trial/index.html states she was convicted on all counts excluding theft —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.67.167 (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidence?

It's hard to get a sense from this article what actual evidence there was against Amanda Knox. Ideally, I'd want to be able to understand both points of view from this article, but I'm not sure that either is all that well explained. Blowfish (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

the article is incorrect. There is physical evidence against her. See: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/04/knox.evidence/index.html ... her DNA was found on a knife found in her boyfriend's apt. which also has the DNA of the murder victim on it. The article is wrong on two counts because this is considered the murder weapon. The article has some obvious bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.112.2 (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The knife is the only physical evidence against her. It contained not only Amanda's DNA and Kercher's DNA, but also Sollecito's DNA. This is not surprising since the three of them were together at times. The fact that DNA from all three people are present on the knife indicated the knife wasn't cleaned. Hence, luminol could easily identify blood on the knife (as it would even if the knife had been cleaned). But no blood was found. Hence it's not the murder weapon. This is further corroborated by the fact that the knife didn't match Kercher's wounds or the outline of the murder weapon found at crime scene. All other evidence against Knox involved Sollecito's DNA or boot print at crime scene, as if she's guilty by association. Kercher was raped, and then silenced by her rapist. Guede's semen was found in Kercher. Three people can't rape and kill someone unless the victim keeps coming back to life to be raped and killed again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.133.151 (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There's still things in the article that are left unsaid - though I don't know if this is to do with the editors or the Italian judicial system. For example, the print found in blood was described as matching Sollecito's shoe, but that this was then contested by the defence. The article then just leaves it at that. Was it then conclusively proven to belong to his shoe? The outcome? The prosecution wouldn't have just left it there. ArdClose (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there is much more evidence that was presented during the trial. For example: When did Sollecito and Knox arrive at the house where the murder had taken place, and when did they call the police, and did they call the police at all, or only after the postal police had arrived? I remember that this and other questions were discussed on Italian TV, such as in Bruno Vespa's political talk show Porta a porta on RaiUno. Unfortunately, this is not just a murder case, but also an example for bad journalism. Lots of journalists reported about all kinds of things, such as the presumably medieval Italian justice system, or about Knox' parents, but hardly anyone took the time to actually concentrate on and examine the facts and the evidence (or lack of). Even yesterday, on Larry King Live, the case was "discussed" for one hour, without ever mentioning the facts leading to the arrest and conviction of Guede, Sollecito, and Knox. But of course there was time enough to have a friend of Knox tell the world for several minutes about how nice and sweet a girl Amanda is. At least then the host (it wasn't King, but someone sitting in for him) could have asked the friend whether incriminating a completely unrelated person (Lumumba) would also be part of that sweetness. We obviously have to wait and see whether at least after the trial there might be a chance for serious reporting on the case. I'm going to check Italian media for more material and possible sources. --Catgut (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

i agree it is a bad story, personally i think the italian justice had some clues, like when the article says knox implicated herself for being at the crime scene(having apparently otherwise denied that and not informed the police). also it is quite impossible to forget what you have done a whole evening from smoking marihuana, that is pretty hard even on alcohol. so alcohol is either used or remained unmentioned, a problem i have with this is the conviction of guede, an apparently traumatised kid, the problem i have is that if two other people get convicted for supposed accomplicy and incite, he just has the more credible excuse for clearing the ground. and also when he gets a heavier punishment. my personal suspicion is the italian justice does not usually convict 3 people to such long terms over 1 murder, so here is where the element of xenophobism shines through wich clouds our view on what really happened. next i think the blackmailing option her family allows raises suspicions about how they usually deal with legal issues.24.132.171.225 (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you ever smoked a joint before, but if you are a serious stoner remembering what happened even a day ago is difficult, even if it's important. Your responses to stressful situations will also be questionable, but in a wierd stoner way..logical. Like covering your ears when you hear your flatmate screaming. I think the level of her smoking should be mentioned in this article if there's any information about it.. seeing as it was used in her defence. I mean did she have a little joint or a gigantic bong? Did she smoke weed? If so, what type? The crappy stuff that you get off bums or the really strong GM strains from amsterdam? How often did she smoke? Did she do blowbacks? Did she inhale and hold it? What if it was dipped in acid for god's sake?? 86.42.206.219 (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

A high proportion of the media coverage of this case is biased one way or the other. Readers of this article want to work out if they really did it or not. There is so little about the evidence for anyone reading this to work that out. If evidence such as a footprint is disputed, what is the truth of that matter; what ruling was made on that and why? Was the knife the murder weapon or not? Whose knife was it? If it was kept in the kitchen and used by all those living there, then DNA from them would prove they used it, but that could be just from normal kitchen use on food, not necessarily from using it to kill Kercher. There is little about independent witnesses; did any disinterested parties see any of those convicted at or around the time of the murder? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Separate pages for murders, victims and suspects/convicts?

Can we consider spinning off separate pages for the principal players? If Street Fighter characters can have their own page, I think real, and currently newsworthy, people should not be consolidated into one messy umbrella article.

To be honest, I think maybe Amanda Knox should have her own given the amount of coverage she has received, but I'm not sure that she'd be found to be notably independent, that is, have notability other than being involved in this murder. I know what you mean about Street Fighter characters, but basically that's the nature of wikipedia at the moment and there's loads of people that clamour to keep articles like that and on dungeons and dragons and stuff. Stupid really, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS basically says that even though they have those articles which probably aren't notable, you can't neccessarily have others Petepetepetepete (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is not (and should not be) about the people, but about the crime. The crime is noteworthy and the people are only noteworthy in their relation to the crime. We would have never heard of any of them if not for the murder. Also, I don't see that the article is particularly long or messy in a way that would require it to be broken down in separate pieces. Averell (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to give a separate article to anyone involved in the case; none of them have any notability outside the case. Guede committed crimes previously, but none of them are notable. Knox receives more media coverage than the others - because she is pretty. However, she is still not notable outside this event. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, none of the individuals involved are notable other than being a part of this event. No separate articles seem required. SGGH ^ping! 16:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Less inflamatory article title

I suggest the article be called "Meredith Kercher murder case" or "The Meredith Kercher murder case" As it is the article suggest a description of the actual murder in perhaps a step by step basis and is more salacious. Hunter2005 (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No. The article is about the crime, and the title is in line with other articles about such crimes, as Murder of Robert McCartney.

There is no doubt it was a murder; plus three people have been found guilty of it. The title is fine. Modest Genius ^talk 11:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Knox is from?

The lead states Spencer, Indiana; her section further down the article states Seattle both in the section and infobox. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I just Googled the words "Amanda Knox Spencer Indiana" and the only match is this article. All the news reports are saying she's from Seattle, so that's what it should say here unless someone can find a reference that backs this up. It's possible I suppose that she was born in Spencer, Indiana and moved to Seattle. Whatever the case, however, as the information is not referenced I'll change it to Seattle. Thanks TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn’t generally put murder cases on its front page news

I guess the reason behind this story being there is because it involves an American, and this created something of a media storm. I should imagine that anyone else other than the Americans/British/Italians may find this slightly bias. Let’s say it involved a British person killing another British person, it certainly wouldn’t make the front page, because it certainly wouldn’t create as much media attention. But let’s just say it’s because of the intense media coverage that surrounded the warped and frankly hideous actions of Amanda Knox and also the scrutiny of her personal life, as well as the horrible campaign started up by a bunch of bible basing right wing Americans to try and get Knox freed based on nothing other than “She’s an American, we have greater rights!” cliché. And then theres the dubious Italian police coming under scrutiny too… All in all, I think this story does belong on the front page due to the mass media coverage and nothing else. Owell. --Sushi Shushi! (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's gone. --Sushi Shushi! (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume good faith just may apply here. From my own standpoint the nature of the crime, ages of persons involved and that it was an international case invovling different countries may be the reason that it was initally placed within In The News. You can't assume that every American Wikipedia contributor is pushing an "America First" agenda or all we'll end up with here are endless arguments and debates.Shinerunner (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It was removed due to objections on the In The News discussion area. SGGH ^ping! 16:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Shinerunner that is utterly false I was not talking about American Wikipedians, but the coverage in the media and that alone. Please retract your comment. Also, I have just clarified my comments to make them more clear and you should have no trouble in understanding them now. Instead of just accusing me, you should of just asked exactly what I meant. --Sushi Shushi! (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if I mistook your remarks and have struck my comments. However, I've recently seen a number of very harsh statements by some editors regarding contributions from American Wikipedians. The way your original statement was worded (to me) fell into that type of comment.Shinerunner (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, and sorry I should have worded it better, my bad. There's no bias on the page form what I can see. It was sorted out (Checked the edit history). All is well. Thanks. (The media really have pissed on this case, that's for sure)...--Sushi Shushi! (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, I'll be sure to ask for clarification from now on. Sometimes I just can't believe what people will post on here.Shinerunner (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Feces/faeces

The British spelling is faeces. I added this comment before but somone deleted it. 86.42.206.219 (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I take that it was you who removed two comments form the above discussion. Please don’t do this as it constitutes vandalism. Your original comment was removed because it wasn’t added to the talk page properly, and that was clearly explained in the edit summery I left. --Sushi Shushi! (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

What? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.244.21 (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Appealed?

Um, the (appealed)note in the info box needs to be removed until April 2010 and it is not guaranteed that an appeal will be allowed. Under Italian law the convicted felon cannot appeal for a minimum three months after conviction. [1]Twobells (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Twobells: What is the standard for appeals? Is it that you must present an appeal with some merit or novel issue of law or it will not be heard, or is it that only a select few appeals are heard? Do you know the percentage of appeals that are successful? PilgrimRose (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

An appeal is always allowed under Italian law and is always heard. The appellate trial in Italy is basically a new trial in which both teams can present their case anew. As for the 90 days period this is the maximum amount of days the judge has in order to file the explanation for the verdict (but he can file it as soon as he wish). An appeal is possible only after this explanation document has been filed. By the way also "convicted" is wrong as technically speaking she's still regarded as innocent under Italian law (at least until all the possible appeals are exhausted). I'm sorry I've no reference in English since US based media didn't care too much to explain to their readers the strong differences between the two different criminal law systems. --78.12.158.220 (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Drugs

"Like Knox, he admits to having smoked marijuana on the day of the murder." She says earlier in this wikipedia article that she smokes hashish. Please clarify! They are not the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.226.129 (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Most probably it is cannbis resin as this is the most common form of cannabis in Italy, also I've only heard american media report she had been smoking marijuana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.141.219 (talk)

Absolute mess

This is an absolute mess. Wouldnt it be better if we just had some facts about amanda knox under that heading and all the stuff concerning the investigation under that specific heading. There no mention of Ms Knox changing her story and being caught lying by security cameras and the whole deal with ms knox being spotted outside a supermarket at 7:30 buying cleaning products when she claimed to be sleeping. These are all proven facts which should be mentioned.

Earlier versions of the article went into great detail about the evidence but biased editors have removed most of it: "I have culled the long lists of evidence recently inserted, as they were basically big blobs of less important information." and on this page, pre-11:21, 5 December 2009, a lot of evidence was tidied up by SilkTork.

This whole wiki article reeks of bias and should be sorted out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.141.219 (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

How about providing PROOF that she bought cleaning products? like a link to back up your claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.17.233 (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

How about THIS http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/5028729/Meredith-Kercher-murder-A-new-hole-appears-in-Amanda-Knoxs-alibi.html now.... on your way —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjorn I. Clever (talk • contribs) 11:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Judy Bachrach paragraph

I would like to propose the deletion of the paragraph in which Judy Bachrach gives her opinion on the Italian justice system. First of all, the quote used has almost nothing to do with the evidence of the case and only addresses Bachrach's opinion on the Italian justice system which, I believe, doesn't have a place under the specific titling of this section: "Media Portrayal." By "media portrayal" it is inferred that it is media portrayal of the murder of Kercher, not of the Italian justice system which is a derived argument. While the paraphrase does mention that Bachrach has investigated the "contradictions in the case," the outcome of her research is missing. Finally, I don't believe that Bachrach, as a journalist for Vanity Fair, has the appropriate standing to comment on the Italian justice system; certainly not to a degree to be included in a WP article. I believe we should all attempt to approach this article in a rational manner and put our own personal feelings of the case aside which is our job as editors of a presumably "neutral" encyclopedia. I would like to hear others' feedback before changes occur.--Karl franz josef (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph in question mentions a judge, but does not state his name. If this info is to remain in the article, his name should be stated. If Bacharach is notable, she should have her own article. If not, why should so much of the Media portrayal section be about what she said? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 10:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• The judge quoted in the Vanity fair article is "ecclesiastical judge Count Neri Capponi" - in other words, not a judge involved in criminal or civil law, only in matters of the Roman Catholic church (which would obviously have inquisition precedents). Therefore this is either a deliberate attempt by Judy Bachrach to discredit the Italian legal system or an example of her complete lack of understanding. If you actually read the article in question you can make up your own mind about this sensationalist and frequently erroneous piece, obviously aimed at a certain USA market. rturus (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It also claims that in Italian law "the ordinary person is considered guilty until proven innocent". This would clearly be in contravention of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights which states that "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". It is nonsense to suggest that the entire Italian legal system is in contravention of European law. Bluewave (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sub section media coverage on national basis?

One of the problems in finding a neutral position for this article based on suitable reliable sources, is the editorial position taken by each countries media. In the Italy three people have be found guilty under a fair justice system; in the UK, our tabloid press have exploited the seedier side of Knox's reputation, which has been semi-legitimised by the broad sheets; and in the US, various commentators shocked that any legal system could find any American guilty of such a heinous crime have been overly vocal. Hence, trying to find a neutral position amongst differing supporting sources and media angles will be improbable.

The facts of the case are that a young British lady was murdered in Italy, and so far an American lady, an Italian man and an Italian resident African have been found guilty and sentenced under an Italian legal system. The problem in writing that is in: the lack of clarity in the time lined story of how the murder happened (a continual police and prosecutor problem during the whole trial); the three different editorial positions taken by each countries media. To me this suggest that part of the articles coverage should be in highlighting the differing editorial positions taken by each countries media, other wise the differences and numerous re-writes can never be consolidated. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I would also say the Italian media has been doing pretty much the same as the British media in that response. --Sushi Shushi! (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

BIAS/POV Issues

Someone placed both Bias and POV tags on the article, and incorrectly didn't start a debate section on the talkpage - so happy to start one. Problems seem to be (add to the list where you feel appropriate):

• No clear timeline or inclusion of evidence
• No clear coverage of the court case, or debate within
• Bias/POV against the Italian legal system
• Bias on overtly debating Knox's innocence having been found guilty
• Bias/POV on debates around Italian legal system through over exposure of Judy Bachrach article and US media exposure

There is also a tone of anti-Americanism, but this is presently conflicted and potentially balanced by overt tones of Knox's innocence post conviction. It seems to me in summary at present, a reader could get a more neutral point of view by reading the talk over the article. --Trident13 (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

That looks like a pretty good summary of the problems with the article. I read the article and felt it told me very little about the case but a great deal about people's (editors') points of view. By contrast, I read an article about the case in today's Sunday Times which set out the events, evidence and personalities involved, very clearly and without obvious bias. Bluewave (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with both of you. The invesitagtion/trial sections need more developement as well as the Bias/POV problems. Also, the main focus on Knox over the other defendants is unbalanced as well.Shinerunner (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be more focus on the actual evidence. The amount of attention to Knox doesn't seem unreasonable however, given the amount of interest that she individually has garnered in multiple countries. In Italy she has been demonized (justifiably or not); in the US she has been lionized as a saint (despite very little reporting of the actual evidence against her). Because of the attention given to Knox, there should at the very least be a discussion of her portrayal in respective countries, and accurate representation of the evidence against her as well as claims of innocence. Blowfish (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. However, undue weight should not be given to Knox's claims of innocence: it is not unusual for someone convicted of a serious crime to continue to proclaim their innocence, especially when there is an appeal pending. It is worth noting her claims, but they should certainly not be given more weight than, for example, the verdict against her, which was the result of a lengthy examination of all the evidence by the jury. We need to be a bit careful not to make the article look like a retrial by Wikipedia editors. Bluewave (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Something seems missing from this article

I've just looked through this article, and I think it's actually at a reasonably high standard given the amount of attention it's been under. However, something seems to be missing: it doesn't have a clear statement anywhere of why this is a notable murder case. It states that it received a great deal of media coverage from multiple countries (which it did), but doesn't really say what it is about this murder that made it so interesting to the media. Perhaps it's difficult to do that without violating No original research, but I feel that to be properly encyclopaedic, this article needs some sort of explanation of why this was such an important story in the first place. Robofish (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"The case received heavy media interest." Rich Farmbrough, 15:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC).

Notability is sort of a meta question-- its discussion belongs on the talk page rather than the article page. As to why this particular subject is notable, it's because of the volume of coverage over a sustained period of time. That's what notability requires. Blowfish (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)