Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher

Some food for thought about the media coverage

This interesting article talks of the media coverage of the trial, especially of the shift in the British Tabloids to a more "pro-innocence" stance. This could be useful in several aspects of the article.

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2011/09/22/news/amanda-knox-long-strange-trip-may-begin-end-tonig

Actually, as the final arguments begin, the quality of the reporting, and good overall summaries of the trials, are popping up.LedRush (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

As it stands the "Media Coverage" section is five paragraphs of how horribly Knox was treated by the media, so any acknowledgement that there was a shift to a more pro-defence POV would be an improvement. However the suggestion that this change occurred recently, rather than years ago is the opinion of Steve Shay, not a statement of fact. Brmull (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

And in addition to the dozens of articles calling the case controversial, we see that the case is called controversial even when the media isn't talking about the case. http://travel.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/travel/36-hours-in-perugia-italy.html I think it's almost time to officially change the name of the trial to the "Controversial Trial of...".LedRush (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

"The controversial murder trial of the American Amanda Knox" is not the same as "The case is controversial". The case encompasses many additional things, including the conviction of Rudy Guede, which is so far not controversial (although that may change if Knox and Sollecito are acquitted). Brmull (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually it should be "the murder trial of the controversial american amanda..."- the adjective should be close to the noun it qualifies. OR, something like "the trial of the controversial american amanda ... for the murder of the meredith ..." should be clearer. I presume that all the controversy is with the american... and this is uncontroversial. Also the controversy exists only in the media (should be clearly mentioned) and the judicial process is free from controversy.

chami 15:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ck.mitra (talk • contribs)  

What you wrote makes absolutely no sense to me.LedRush (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The conviction of Guede is uncontroversial, but it adds extra controversy to the case as a whole that the person with clear DNA linking him to the crime (etc. etc.) got a lighter sentence than the people a lot of outside commentators say should have been released as soon as Guede was linked to it. DreamGuy (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is called "Murder of Meredith Kercher" and not "Meredith Kercher murder case" because there is more than one trial. If we were to use the phrase in question it would be appropriate to say "the cases are controversial". But, as several people have pointed out, the phrase is so vague as to be meaningless, and any attempt to narrow it would necessarily be inadequate. The current wording is much better, although "divergent" might be more encyclopedic than "polarized." Brmull (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If someone has made the argument that the term controversial as used in the context of describing wither the Knox trials or the other trials is vague, I've missed it. It's also pretty silly. It is quite precise in its meaning. Furthermore, the old language made it even more precise when we went into specific aspects of the case which were controversial. It seems disingenuous to delete statements which make a sentence more precise, and then call the result vague.LedRush (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This article [1] has a good summary of how the case is perceived in the US. "The American student has won sympathy from many in the United States, where she is widely seen as an innocent abroad who fell into the clutches of an unfair justice system."LedRush (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is also good regarding the media coverage [2] "Bongiorno noted that the prosecutors have tried to counter press reports that have highlighted problems with the DNA evidence against Knox and Sollecito and the growing sympathy in the Italian media for the defendants. Bongiorno called the media the prosecution's "boomerang," since press reports during the 2007 investigation and the 2009 trial were so negative towards Knox and Sollecito." Of course, references to the first sentence and the characterization of the "boomerang" would all be directly attributed to Bongiorno.LedRush (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You changed "medieval" to "unfair"! The original is funnier. Anyway the first clause is okay, but the second clause has that troublesome opinion-word "widely" again. Nadeau said today that when she asks Americans about Amanda Knox, the most common response is "Who?" The ABC News quote is okay as long as it's all attributed to Bongiorno. But can we have some balance? Mignini said he'd never in his career heard of a TV network flying in supporters in exchange for interviews. Ghirlanda owns Corriere and his relationship with Knox and her friend Madison is well documented. Nadeau and others have extensively reported David Marriott's attempts to control the media message. One media outlet even printed an email from IIP offering to arrange an interview with Dr Hampikian. Is none of this stuff notable? Brmull (talk) 08:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind posting your source? Why is it a big deal if an interview with Dr Hampikian was arranged? Aren't all interviews arranged? The reports about Marriott have been a joke. The claims of a "PR Supertanker" are a farce that you appear to have bought in on. Marriott must be one powerful guy to be able to control every major news network in America! BruceFisher (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

My "clauses" are direct quotes from the articles: pure copy and paste jobs. Judging by your first comment, one article may have changed (a problem with non-print stories). Anyway, other information would be acceptable if notable. I think Mignini's comments in the closing may be warranted, with Bongiorno's response as above (seeing as they both talk about the media coverage). The piece below is truly staggering. I'm sure our British friends won't like it, but if you read until the end you can tell the author at least did some research and investigation. It supports that Guede was known to use knives (in crimes) and to engage in activities similar to those he engaged on the night of the murder (no, those activities don't include murder). I've heard it before, but to see it in Time like this really hits home.LedRush (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yet another article. This one is odd as the CBS correspondent calls the case against Knox a "farce" [3]LedRush (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Speaking informally, in most countries when there's a highly publicized story of one or more tourist/s getting accused in "a vacation country" - a part of the world seen as picturesque but not up to the home country of tourist and reporters in judicial or economic standards - accused of a really grave and violent crime such as rape or murder, the popular media will strongly tend to side with "our kids" against the "medieval justice system" or inept/corrupt police of said backpacker country. That kind of slant is a reflex with those who sell the story at home (and in the international arena, plus sometimes including upmarket, highly serious newspapers), not just with US tabloid media, and the reporting tends to make eyes at the police work or judicial competence of those southern hobbits. How dare they accuse one of ours of such a foul felony!

That kind of dynamic is plainly visible in many stories of this kind and it could be discerned in the Maddie McCann story too, although that one never led to a really sustained court case. The media, semi-scripted by the McCann couple, insinuated that the Portuguese police were incompetent or ill-natured and the McCanns, at the same time, used the hubbub around the case to avoid cooperating with the police. Like the Knox family, they had good media connections and the Knoxes clearly have huge resources to throw behind the campaigning in the media. Having said that,. I agree "widely" in the quote is a weasel word and the perception of this murder story in the U.S. no doubt varies a great deal depending on what kind of people you'd ask.Strausszek (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Separate article needed for Amanda Knox

She has been cleared of this horrible crime. It's unreasonable to redirect her name to the murder of Meredith Kercher. Countercouper (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Lumumba is suing her for defamation on the grounds that she pointed him out as the killer at some length. That trial hasn't begun yet I think. And I wouldn't bet big money on the Kerchers definitely *not* filing an appeal, even though they have so far taken the stance that they have faith in the Italian police and courts. Either way, I agree Knox should have her own article but it shouldn't be a fan page or hagiography.Strausszek (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Check out the deletion review on Amanda Knox talk page.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that the Kerchers have standing to appeal, that would come from the prosecutors. Tarc (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It's possible that we could re-title it as Trial of Amanda Knox. For Casey Anthony, the article was originally at Death of Caylee Anthony until it was moved during the trial. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe Death of Caylee Anthony was the original title of the article and has not been changed, although some have tried unsuccessfully to create a "Casey Anthony" article. Shirtwaist ☎ 01:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

[4] it was moved just after the trial concluded on July 7 and moved back on July 11 because people were deleting pertinent information since it didn't fall under the trial. "Death" is appropriate for Caylee's case, but not for here. Kercher was clearly murdered, it was not an accidental death, suicide, or manslaughter case. Yet I think "Meredith Kercher killing" is...doesn't sound right, either. People on DRV are saying that it's a BLP violation to have now-acquitted Amanda Knox redirect to a "Murder of Meredith Kercher" article, but I can't figure out what new title we could move to. hbdragon88 (talk) 08:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The question for her own article should be "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented" I think Amanda Knox should have her own article as her notability has built up over time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree that the article should be moved to Trial of Amanda Knox as suggested. A murder is not notable in itself, it's Knox' trial that's notable. Mocctur (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I know you are talking in respect to WP standards, but try not to say that a trial is more important than the taking of a person's life.... Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hear, hear!
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 05:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sephiroth, Mocctur is talking about notability per wikipedia standards, not importance. He is undeniably correct in his point, and your inappropriate lecturing doesn't add to the conversation.LedRush (talk) 06:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to the ongoing deletion review for those intrested: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 3#Amanda Knox - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget Raffaele. Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Issymo (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Knox is the more notable one. The case wouldn't get media attention outside Italy if an Italian was tried for murder in Italy. There are no films or books about Sollecito. Mocctur (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Knox has not been cleared, or found innocent. The conviction has been found to be legally flawed, and has been overturned. That is all. She could still be - probably is- guilty.

Actually she and Sollecito were found innocent (“formula piena” is the legal term). I know it's mind-boggling to some of us from common law countries, but it's true. Brmull (talk) 06:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead Misleading

Rudy Guede, a resident of Perugia, was convicted on 28 October 2008 of the sexual assault and murder of Kercher. His fast-track conviction was upheld, and he is now serving a sentence of 16 years, reduced after he incriminated Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian student, and Amanda Knox, an American.[1]

Reference 1 although a new article is misleading because it says "Rudy Guede, an Ivorian drifter with a criminal record, was also sentenced in October 2008 to 30 years in jail for taking part in Kercher's murder." There is no mention of his sentence being reduced to 16 years on appeal.

It implies his sentence was reduced because he incriminated the others, but they had already been arrested and found guilty. Also where does it say his sentence was reduced because he incriminated the others.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-12-22/world/italy.kercher.murder.american_1_amanda-knox-meredith-kercher-raffaele-sollecito?_s=PM:WORLD

Says the reduction was "The reduction was based on technical calculations prescribed by the Italian penal code, he said." The reduction was a standard reduction at appeal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/22/rudy-guede-sentence-kercher-murder

Says "Guede's lawyer, Walter Biscotti, said his client's sentence had been cut after his youth and lack of criminal record were taken into account. The appeal court had reduced Guede's sentence to 24 years and cut one-third off as is custom when defendants opt for a fast-track trial, said Francesco Maresca."

The others were arrested before him and had already been convicted before his appeal. The lead gives the impression that their trial followed (and was caused by) his "incriminated" them.

Kwenchin (talk)

Basis of acquittal

The basis of acquittal is a key part of the legal case. I visited this page to add a clear short summary based on an explanation of key points. The list looked reasonable, was reported on BBC news, and also seemed neutral, hence edited in. It got taken out.

I'm not sure why it was removed. The revert was on the unlikely grounds of "shoehorning in... text which implies the acquittal was a fix or dubious", but this is clearly incorrect considering the first 5 items cited in the original article were:

• Reasonable doubt instilled over the quality of DNA testing and forensic evidence
• "A few" crime scene errors "successfully portrayed as generalised incompetence"
• No convincing proof of Knox's presence
• No credible motive
• Unreliable witness (Curatolo had admitted being a heroin addict)

(Source and original list)

Removing this sourced balanced information is unhelpful for understanding of the legal outcome. Reinstate? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the edit, but suspect that the issue here is that the source gives the guesses of a freelance journalist (and doesn't pretend otherwise) rather than the actual reasoning of the court, which will not be released for a few months. --FormerIP (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Until that report comes out, the best we can say is that "jounalists/legal experts have speculated that the reasons for acquittal were...". I'm not saying there is no place in the article for that, but it doesn't seem like something I am very comfortable with.LedRush (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Source is more credible than that - it's the author of a book on the case speaking to the BBC, rather than speculation by a frelancer. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the source is fine. It's a question of not giving the impression that those are the actual reasons, rather than the opinions of a journalist (or author, fine). I also think there's no need to rush that type of content. There should maybe be an "opinions on verdict" section or something, but using multiple sources giving different perspectives. --FormerIP (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, when we have more opinions and analyses of the verdict we should do that. But even if we have just one, if it seems fairly neutral it's useful and relevant to add. In this case the points seem balanced, some relate to flaws in evidence or process, some describe factors related to how cases proceed in Italy, some refer to PR and social factors. The text is by an author on the case, and is published by a reputable media source. I think this can stand, although as time goes on, more will surely be published in RS. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed similar content for the reasons stated above: it is opinion stated as fact. I could just as easily include Nancy Grace's opinion that it was a miscarriage of justice and state it in Wikipedia's voice. Furthermore, the court has already stated its reasoning: there was no credible evidence. Brmull (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Erm, citation needed. --FormerIP (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Brmull, you had no valid WP reason or right to unilaterally remove that section, simply because "you don't like it". Or because you think it's just mere "opinion" stated as fact. What you miss for some reason is that contextually it's part of defense arguments and IS SOURCED. There was no real solid valid reason to remove that. Otherwise remove other sections too, in that area, to be consistent, that deal with defense arguments and issues. You're incorrect when you say it's just "opinion stated as fact". These were all documented points and facts. How was "no DNA in bedroom", for example, just an "opinion"? If you don't like the wording, then MAYBE MODIFY that, per WP policy and recommendation. The WP recommendation is NOT to totally delete a whole section that you don't like, even though it's sourced, because of MAYBE questionable "wording". But the recommendation is to modify or tweak, NOT to remove. But the overall point is there. The criteria is this: was everything in that section true or correct?...and is it all SOURCED? Answer to both questions is Yes. Removing a whole section willy nilly, without valid reason, or making up reasons that are not really true, is arguably vandalism, or at the very least "I Don't Like". Again, the thing is sourced, and is a matter of public court record, and is documented, and again, in context was part of defense arguments, and should be mentioned in the article...in the overall sections dealing with the trial and case and defense. It's true and sourced, and was part of the defense. And WP should reflect that. End of story. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not the end of the story just because you say it is. As the person who added new content it's your responsibility to justify why it should be included. By your reasoning I could put anything I want into the article that I think is true and I think is sourced. We are having a discussion now about whether it is appropriate to include speculation on the reasons for the acquittal at this time. Several people including myself believe it is not. Mr. FT2 just had an essentially identical edit removed pending discussion, so to leave yours and to remove his makes no sense. Brmull (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand, but again, you incorrectly asserted that it was mere "opinion". And with this point, you didn't answer the question, like how, for example, was "no DNA in bedroom", just an "opinion"? As well as the other points stated? These were confirmed factual points, that went way beyond the New York Post or USA Today "opinion". And these points were brought out by the defense. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Former IP: "there is no evidence" - Judge Hellmann. Brmull (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Slightly poor use of Google translate there. "Amanda e Raffaele possono anche essere responsabili della morte di Meredith, ma non ci sono le prove" = "Amanda and Raffaele may also be responsible for Mereidith's death, but there is not the proof". Hardly the same as "no credible evidence and also not a quote from Hellmann but part of the journalist's write-up. What Hellmann actually says is "La nostra valutazione è che non è stato sufficiente l'impianto accusatorio ma indubbiamente gli elementi c'erano" = "Our evaluation is that the prosecution case was not sufficient but parts of it were undoubtedly valid". --FormerIP (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

These are real people we are talking about. They are now free and have been unequivocally acquitted, like it or not. Slanting this article to make it look as though there is something dodgy about the acquittals could have real-world consequences for them. Please let's be responsible about this. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We maintain a neutral viewpoint, which is non-negotiable. Would you rather misrepresent the trial result? The trial findings were what they were. We represent that honestly and faithfully. Undoubtedly the findings are nuanced - they do not say all evidence was fake or wrong, they do not say all evidence was valid and upheld. They say this evidence stood up well, that evidence did not, and the parties are therefore according to Italian law acquitted. And that's exactly how we should report it so a reader can gain a genuine understanding. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian with a similar quote. Hellmann said slightly different things in different interviews, but it's a 530.1 acquittal. That means no convicing evidence. Brmull (talk) 02:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

In the interview you linked to above, Hellmann says is was 530.2. --FormerIP (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

So it does. Thanks for pointing that out. Obviously Hellmann is confused because when he read the verdict he said "for not having committed the crime" which is the language for 530.1 Brmull (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone keeps reinserting a bullet point list of reasons for the acquittal. I agree that we should have a section which discusses the reasons for the acquittal, but I think it should be based on the Judge's report and not on the speculation of pundits. Until the report is released, I suggest we simply stick with what the presiding judge (and what the other judge and lay judges) said about this. If we want to talk about the media reaction to the acquittal, that's fine. But that should be in the media section, completely separate from a section discussing the stated reasons of the court.LedRush (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Your comment shows clearly what I've been saying, that you just don't understand the point here. It was NOT ABOUT the judge's reversal, but rather about DEFENSE ARGUMENTS...mainly. It was NOT ABOUT the media's reaction the acquittal, or their guesses, necessarily. (sighs...) It was about what the defense argued. And the general "problems" with the "evidence" against Amanda Knox. That's not just a "pundit's" opinion, but things that were documented and stated ALREADY. It's not speculation that these were (I'll say it again, so you can maybe finally get it) DEFENSE DEFENSE DEFENSE arguments. And the section that you kept uptightly removing was CONTEXTUAL to that matter. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I have an idea. Why don't you find some sources that back up what you're saying, and place the suggested language in the discussion page so we can talk about it. Also, could you please try and engage in discussion civilly? Your drama doesn't help your case, nor do your repeated personal attacks.LedRush (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

??You keep whining about civility, but what you keep doing here does not make that easy. You just said "why not find some sources"?? Ok, I'll repeat: OTHER SOURCES WERE FOUND... You said here just now "find some sources that back up what you're saying". What do you mean exactly? I found two other sources today, that I placed nicely (it took work, that you just rudely removed and didn't care about obviously), that "backed it up". If you had an issue with the "New York Post" thing in the beginning, if you saw my edit comments, I said I agree in a way, and then found two more (so far) sources substantiating what was stated in the points there. So again, I'll ask, what did you mean by "find some sources"? Did you see what I placed there before you hastily reverted again? Two more sources were found. Did you not even notice that? Or maybe those sources were somehow not good enough? Just curious... Hashem sfarim (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The sources I saw did not substantiate the specific claims made in the bullet points. Why not take the get the sources (and any others you want) and create a new section here which pulls directly and exclusively from those sources?LedRush (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Then you weren't looking carefully enough, because those two other sources DID substantiate (hence why I got them the first place!) those couple of bulleted points there. Not sure how you missed it. Unless it's as I said on your talk page, you're just not honest, and, for whatever reason, you just don't like that section or those points on there. And just use front excuses to get rid of it. Conveniently. Human nature. I wanna give the benefit of the doubt. But those sources made those couple of points clear. And even if they didn't, the WP policy is to modify something, not necessarily totally get rid of it. But as I said, I can't reason with a person who is being blatantly dishonest about things. It just doesn't work. Those two other ref sources clearly confirmed those points, yet you said they didn't. I could prove it to you, on here, by copying and pasting things, etc, showing it, but at this point, it's not worth the trouble, cuz I'm sure you'll find something there somehow that "doesn't confirm" it anyway. Those bulletted points were not made up by the NY Post, or any other news organization. They didn't concoct them, but got them from documented things in the case, and defense arguments. And in context to that part of the article, it IS relevant...and informative. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that. Hashem sfarim (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

If you spent the time you used to make personal attacks while petulantly whining about your edits instead making an actual argument with proof here, you'd probably have something in the article by now.LedRush (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice dodge. You didn't answer just how those two sources did not confirm those couple of points there, but just asserted so. Why would I even find and put those sources there in the first place then, if they had nothing to do with at least two of those bulletted points? Obviously it was backing it up. Let me ask you, is it maybe because you have something against the idea of a list or bulletted points, in general? (I'll expect another evasion...and crowing about "personal attacks"...or maybe just crickets...but it would be nice to have an answer...two those two questions. How exactly did those sources not back anything up? And do you have something against bulletted listings etc?) Hashem sfarim (talk) 04:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Tell me how this did not confirm this bulletted point that was there:

Other knife: DNA on another knife found at Raffaelle Sollecito's house had such a slight presence it could not be ruled an exact match to Kercher.[119]

"Two experts argued that DNA evidence found on the knife used to kill Kercher and on her bra clasp was unreliable and contaminated by poor handling."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/02/world/europe/knox-appeal-explainer/

That was one of the sources put in, that I doubt you really checked carefully. But how exactly does that not confirm the point? That's CNN. I mean, New York Post should have been enough, as that is a reliable source, but you claimed that all those points was not found in the article...not understanding that it was NOT on the website, but on the physical hard copy news paper. But even after the CNN page ref, you still question and remove the whole thing. And ignore the obvious relevance with defense arguments. Hence why I say that THERE'S NO REASONING WITH A PERSON LIKE YOU. I knew that basically from second one of seeing your words. I'm waiting for more dodges now from you and more whines about uh "personal attacks" while ignoring the actual specifics and clear proof that I just copied and pasted and demonstrated. Hashem sfarim (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I have some doubts about bullets. The body of the article previously did not have bullets. What makes these points more worthy of being bulleted than anything else in the article? Secondly, we know from painful experience with this article that partial lists are contentious. Someone will want to add to the list. Someone else will want to substract from it. If there was a way to phrase this information that wouldn't be a magnet for controversy I'd be in favor, but right now I just don't see it. Brmull (talk) 05:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Even if that's true, there's nothing in WP policy that forbids bullets or listings. Listings are easy reading and informative, and generally appreciated by readers. Quick reference, etc. And again, the thing was sourced, and accurate. Those things should be paramount. NOT whether they sometimes can attract controversy or attitudes. Hashem sfarim (talk) 05:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. Bullet lists are awful. They dumb down the encyclopedia. We have a template specifically against lists:

DreamGuy (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of the acquittal and release

This section needs to be reviewed. It relies on two sources NY Post and Reuters Article. Both are reports of an interview that one of the judges gave to an Italian media source. If you read the NY Post article it emphasises that the judge thinks the original trial was politically biased because she was American. If you read the Reuters article it suggests that Italian judge thinks that essentially she did kill her. Obviously these are two slanted interpretations of one interview.

The Wikipedia article is drafted to represent the views of the NY Post, not Reuters.

Maybe it would be better if an English version of the interview could be found, failing which I think this should be removed as it is not apparent which version of the interview is more accurate. I certainly don't think it is accurate to just pick the NY Post's version of the interview and portray it as what the Italian judge said.

Please note, I am not trying to involve myself in this debate of whether she did it or not - I am only concerned that there is an obvious unprofessional bias being reflected in the Wiki article as it stands. I would raise the same concern if it reflected the Reuters article. Perhaps if it must be included as content, something could be mentioned that different interpretations of the interview have appeared in the English media? (Connolly15 (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC))

One problem is Judge Hellmann has given a number of interviews to the Italian media each of which is slightly different. Brmull (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed Nancy Grace comment on acquittals. The woman is a rabble rouser who never met a defendant who wasn't guilty. I don't see that adding her inflammatory comment helps readers understand anything. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually Nancy Grace did find a defendant who (she thought) was not guilty. Martha Stewart. Grace thought Martha was basically innocent. Nancy Grace is a joke. So in any WP article, her name should always be used carefully, sparingly, and in only certain contexts. Hashem sfarim (talk) 07:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The New York Post bases itself on an interview of the Judge with the newspaper 'La Nazione' (but has a wrong link to a news piece which has no interview), while the Reuters article bases itself on the interview of the Judge with newspapers 'La Stampa' and 'Corriere della Sera'. The section definitely needs to be improved.Tinpisa (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The new version is a big improvement, thanks. (Connolly15 (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC))

(reset indentation) Since the original interviews of the Judge are in Italian, they have only been partly quoted by the English press. I tried to introduce the other details by translating them from Italian to English in accordance with WP:NOENG. They have however been reversed. I quote from WP:NOENG: Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. From my understanding of the text, Wikipedia does trust Wikipedians to translate. Or am I mistaken? Need a clarification please. --Tinpisa (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes we can use a source in foreign language for facts (if there is no English language source available) and translate it into prose. What we cannot do is translate a quote by ourselfs as this is a matter of interpretation of the original.TMCk (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for the clarification, TMCk! I could have never known these finer points, as there is nothing written in WP:OR#Translations and transcriptions or in WP:NOENG, giving this fine difference between using foreign language facts vs quotes. Thanks once again. Maybe, the policy also needs an updation! :-). Have a nice day. Tinpisa (talk) 06:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi TCMk! Unlike you, I am still learning at Wikipedia. I need your advice on why you undid revision 454415965, where you commented: Sorry, but you need a source for the English translation. See wp:OR. Per WP:OR#Translations and transcriptions, Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research. I have also been told that although the WP:NOTENG section of Wikipedia:Verifiability has been reworded from time to time, its intent has remained the same for several years. This, for example, is the text from the end of 2007. This clearly says: Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation. I had placed the sources of the Italian newspapers La Nazione and La Stampa (which are fortunately still there on the page). So inpite of placing a clear citation of the non-English sources, and faithfully tranlating it, you undid my post. You first mentioned that the reversal was since my post needed a source for the English translation as per WP:OR. Then you said that we cannot do is translate a quote by ourselfs as this is a matter of interpretation of the original. But WP:OR even allows spoken words, not just sourced material. You also undid my post about the Supreme Court ruling judging Guede as one of the assasins, saying Appeals: ce. That's already a given; He was convicted for the murder. Obviously, he was convicted for murder, but the Supreme Court of Italy recognised the fact that there was more than one assasin i.e. Guede was not the only one. This is totally different from being the only assasin. After the acquittal of Knox and Sollecito by the Appeals Court, this has a very different meaning. I only brought the fact to light (no original research here), but you removed it. Was there something I didn't understand. I would like to request you to please tell me how I was wrong on both these posts? Thanks. Tinpisa (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right on this one Tinpisa. I'm not aware of any policy which distinguishes quoted speech from other forms of editor-translated text. I also think the Supreme Court's ruling in Guede's case is notable and relevant. Brmull (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You (Tinpisa) certainly are right that WP policies and guideline don't prohibit translations of quotes from another language although you didn't go by the book and neither did I as it appears. Though there are limitations of how much quotes should be used in a single article and your last edit where you found the same quote you previously translated yourself [The translation from the Reuter's source quite varies from yours if I may point this out] is much better of course but you made a mistake by continuing quoting the article's prose w/o attribution which is a copy-vio. I don't have the time but maybe you could rephrase it into some personal prose, your own writing I mean by this. The way it is now can't stay. In the future please keep in mind that translations [and translations of quotes should really be addressed more thorough in the police and guidelines] from reliable English sources are preferred so editor's translations should be a last resort. This is of course in part my opinion in reading WP guidelines and policies.TMCk (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi TMCk! I expected a more mature response from an experienced Wikipedian. (I'm just a newbie.) Obviously, all of us are fallible (if we arn't, we'd be Gods). I've made many mistakes on Wikipedia (you can see my talk page), and probably you have too. We should admit our mistakes, learn from them, and move on in life. I don't have much time too, and this is perhaps my last post on this page, but I don't think your comment that the way it is now can't stay is justified. I request you to improve the section and the article. I also don't understand your phrase by continuing quoting the article's prose w/o attribution. I was the one who added all the sources in the said section (except the NY Post source). Anyway, I would request you to consider the matter closed as Wikipedia is no place for anger or ego! Tinpisa (talk) 07:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Split apart sections of the article into Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito

I have seen this proposed here early and now in the DRV there should be an article for the trail of Amanda Knox and Raffaele, it currently is notable enough for a stand alone article. Please place Support or Oppose and your reasoning behind your choice about this issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe wait for the outcome of the DRV first before starting random articles?TMCk (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Support but agree with TMCK also. The difficulty is a bit of vagueness in the DRV discussion. Not clear how many editors want exactly what. I don't think there should be an AK article, but I also don't think there should be multiple new articles just to keep everybody satisfied. The more articles there are, the more difficulty is created for readers. So I would support this split if it gets consensus and resolves the issue. Titlte should probably be "Trials of...", though. --FormerIP (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I dont know how you could put the whole trial under Amanda Knox though, her boyfriend was tried as well so even if there is an article on Amanda Knox a short summary of the trail can be placed there with a link to the main article. There is no rush for this split though I am throwing the idea here as I have seen it pop up alot and support it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

For sure the whole trial shouldn't be in an "Amanda Knox" article but here on this one, unless or till it's getting too big and a section fork would be warranted. Right now we're not at this point yet and I don't see one in the future unless of course the media keeps on bringing more due material to incorporate.
My point: We're fine at the moment as we still have plenty of space for more content in this article where all due weight about the trial should be. Guess we'll see in the next weeks while watching the media reporting if we need to fork off some content for space and also if a "Amanda Knox" bio is warranted. There is no rush though as there never is one on wiki.TMCk (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Add: This article already is mostly of Knox's and Sollecito's trial (Guede is barely mentioned in comparrison).TMCk (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I generally agree with TMCk. Breaking up the MoMK article and the Knox/Sollecito trial would be messy and basically gut this article. Breaking out a Knox article would have the dual effect of providing an article which our readers frankly expect to exist, plus give us the opportunity to move over (and possibly expand) the coverage of some ancillary trials and info on media coverage of Knox, allowing this article to stay more on its actual topic. Win-win!LedRush (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It was just a matter of time.TMCk (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Support new article. Most readers of MoMK want to know the details of the crime, not paragraphs and paragraphs of useless back and forth about two people who were ultimately found to have nothing to do with it. Brmull (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Support - It seems obvious that the specific Amanda Knox matter, situation, case, and trial is stand-alone and notable, and copiously sourced. Hashem sfarim (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

On what grounds I don't know. Yes, the media focused on Knox in this murder case but especially since she was officially cleared of the charges we ought to be very careful not to attach her to the murder by writing a POV fork article about how "they wronged her" and neither one that places doubt on her innocents. Same for Sollecito BTW. "Most readers want to know the details of the crime"? We don't include every undue/fringe etc. content out there to WP. That's the presse's job if one might say so. At the moment there is not much to add and not much to remove from this article and certainly not much to be moved to any other potential article. It'll show in the near future if that changed. So till then: Just show patience.TMCk (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What's undue/fringe about taking the sections about the Knox/Sollecito trials and putting them in a new article? True, that article is probably going to be a permanent POV wasteland just like it is here at MoMK. But I'd like to see a quality, NPOV article at MoMK and that will never happen as long as the Knox POV war rages here. Brmull (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Support This article is greatly needed. Now that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have been acquitted the trial needs its own article. They are no longer part of the Murder of Meredith Kercher. The MOMK article will also need a huge overhaul.Issymo (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Acquitted subject to appeal, they remain part of the murder of Meredith Kercher until such time as they are deemed not guilty by law, which is not until after the final appeal. I agree that we should proceed as you say, but only after the decision of the final appeal. (Connolly15 (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC))

• Oppose, all these individuals came to public attention for one reason - the murder of MK and its direct aftermath/consequences. While some were acquitted and some convicted, and the trial is a large part of that topic, I think it better explains events in one article. If there is too much we need to say on the trial (or any other aspect really) for a single article then we might use summary style but I'm not seeing that right now. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hardly, the arrest, retainment, trial, conviction, appeal and release took 4 YEARS of constant media attention. They have been acquitted and have been proven to have nothing to do with the murder. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito's OWN story is one of wrongful imprisonment. Just because it started with the Murder of Meredith Kercher does not make it ABOUT the murder. It is actually its own story. There is an abundance of information for a seperate artical, actually, there is much more information about the wrongful trial and conviction then of the Murder itself. More importanly, it has nothing to do with the Murder itself.Issymo (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We aren't here to publicize "stories" or to support causes. There is a difference between how Wikipedia (as an encyclopedia) covers a topic, and how news and media cover it. That it took 4 years is completely irrelevant - a matter that took 4 years can still easily be covered as one topic. An article is quite capable of covering a murder and its aftermath, and saying that some were acquitted and others were not. Please consider how other articles work and approach this one as an encyclopedia article. ""Person X was wrongly imprisoned and got acquitted" is not by itself a good reason to split an article. The "trial" section is a well balanced length. The article is a reasonable length for something of this profile. There isn't presently more that needs to go into it. And the trial has everything to do with the murder of course. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

"And the trial has everything to do with the murder of course". No, it had nothing to do with the murder and everything to do with a wrongful conviction.Issymo (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This is basic cause and effect. The "wrongful conviction" was a result of the trial. The trial was about the murder. The evidence at the trial and appeal was all evidence related to whether or not the defendants were the murderers. Most murder articles cover the events, the evidence, and the trial. They cover the trials resulting from the murder whether or not the defendants were in fact found innocent, because the trial is part of the event's encyclopedia coverage. If there is an excessive amount then summary style may be used for a sub-article, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is now looking to be tangential to the Murder of Meredith Kercher, and information on Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito excessively outweigh information on Kercher, her circumstances, murder, murderer and the convicted murderer's conviction. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were the accused in the Murder of Meredith Kercher, and the trial was a result of being the accused. Had there been no murder, there would have been no trial. All the facts discussed in the trial pertained to the case of the murder of MK. The fact that the accused were wrongly charged and have now been aquitted, does not make the case notable. There are hundreds of acquittals around the world - an encyclopedia needn't have articles for each of the trials. The fact that there was a trial by media is secondary. There have been many other cases with excessive media attention. What could be done, perhaps, is having a redirect to the relevant section in the article Murder of Meredith Kercher.--Tinpisa (talk) 07:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Late comment:The MoMK article is remarkably similar to the Caylee Anthony case (the accused were acquitted by the jury in both cases, both cases attracted a lot of media attention, and public sympathy). Just as splitting the Caylee Anthony article was not justified, so is it for the MoMK article. Tinpisa (talk) 07:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support Just because this event caused another, doesn't mean they need to share the same article. It's got standalone sources now that separate it from the murder, even if the two events are heavily related. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Still oppose - most complex events have sources that discuss different aspects or one aspect but not others. The trial is completely connected to the murder. It wouldn't matter who was acquitted or how high profile the event, we're an encyclopedia - we don't artificially split apart events and their direct consequences, or put a crime in one article and the trial of its suspects in another article. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What does being an encyclopedia have to do with artificially splitting apart events and their direct consequences? If sources treat them separately, we give them separate articles. And we do have sub-articles as well for a reason (e.g. Adolf Hitler and Sexuality of Adolf Hitler). – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "sources treat them separately"? Every report I've seen about Knox has always been within the context of the murder case and vice-versa. The fact that the two events are so inextricably linked means it would make no sense for a source to mention one without also mentioning the other. There is nothing "separate" about Kercher, Guede, Knox, and Sollecito, they're all part of the same event and none of them rise to the level of notability of the trial and aftermath (which is why I think everything belongs under one banner, "The Trials of Knox"). In this case, a source choosing to focus on one aspect of this event does not make that aspect "separate" to the extent that a separate article is called for. Shirtwaist ☎ 19:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose at the moment. I agree that splitting would gut this article of content. I would suggest that once the final appeal is concluded and guilt or innocence is conclusively determined some of the content on this page dedicated to the trial and the aftermath could be transferred to a new trial article if they are ultimately acquitted. This article could then be reshaped to reflect a partially unsolved murder (if one accepts that there were multiple assailants in the murder). I don't think that this should happen before the final appeal is decided - if the acquittal is overturned on appeal they will ultimately in the eyes of the law be guilty of the crime and IMHO it would be appropriate to maintain the information in this article. (Connolly15 (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC))

Comment: The article as it stands is unruly with info about the trials interspersed with discussion of forensics, etc. There is easily enough information about the investigation to fill its own article, just as there is enough about the trials to fill its own article. And while we don't have a crystal ball, unconditional acquittals in Italy are almost never overturned on final appeal. We are on fairly safe ground assuming this is the end of this case. Brmull (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support I suppose we usually don't have separate articles for crimes and the resulting trials, but I think that this is a bit of an unusual case. There was a murder and a conviction in addition to a notable media circus that led to an (apparently) wrongful conviction of others. I think that there's a strong case that there are two notable subjects here. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I think Amanda Knox should have her own article and that the users opposing that refuses to see the benifits of having a separate article for her. But if this is the closest we can get to that at the moment I support it.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Trial of Knox/sollecito article but I Support a Separate Amanda Knox Article - Breaking up the MoMK article and the Knox/Sollecito trial would be messy and basically gut this article. Breaking out a Knox article would have the dual effect of providing an article which our readers frankly expect to exist, plus give us the opportunity to move over (and possibly expand) the coverage of some ancillary trials and info on media coverage of Knox, allowing this article to stay more on its actual topic. Win-win!LedRush (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

A lot depends on what happens going forward with her. If it stays WP:BLP1E (for example, her life post-trial is some writings, book, interview, media stuff and basically all the direct aftermath of the case) then that can be summed up in a few sentences and added to a section called "aftermath". If it gets beyond WP:BLP1E and isn't just crystal ball speculation, I'd endorse a separate Amanda Knox article at that point because that would be outside the scope of the legal case. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

She is giving press conferences and interviews, so BLP1E doesn't apply. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that it would apply anyway (4 years is an awfully long event...she is originally notable for the murder, but her other actions (like allegations of sexual harrassment in prison, press conferences, interviews, etc.) are now independently notably, and it takes intellectual gymnastics to count this an one event. There is a lot of notable, biographical information about her that simply doesn't belong in a MoMK article.LedRush (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The idea of BLP1E is people who come to notice for one cause. The mediaattention is still, if you are dispassionate, all basically "noted for one event". There was a murder. People got arrested charged, and jailed, there was debate and outcry over the crime and trial, they appealed, were acquitted, and are now being asked to present their views and feelings to the media. It's all "one thing" - one event and its natural followthrough - from an encyclopedia viewpoint. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think your inclusion criteria is at odds with most of the BLPs in Category:Overturned convictions by country, and probably a lot of other categories. "people who come to notice for one cause" is a very loose rule, and is not one that we follow. It would require seriously responsible editorial judgment. Our editors are not qualified for that. This is why we follow an easier rule - "we cover what others have already covered." There is plenty of independent reputable secondary source coverage of Knox. I disagree that BLP1E should cover extended followthroughs. Instead, all of: (a) the murder, (b) the accusation, (c) the sensational prosecutor's case, (d) the trial and conviction and long incarceration, (f) the popular and vocal ensuing worldwide noise asserting a miscarriage of justice, (g) the appeal and overturn, are all separate events, and BLP1E does not apply. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

BLP1E does exists as a guideline with to ensure to that low profile individuals aren't given too much attention because of their role in one event. (From the policy: "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals.") Knox is not a low profile individual and therefore the guideline (which is loose anyway) doesn't apply to her. She seeks out the media attention to help her case and therefore the privacy concern is no longer an actual concern. That it takes intellectual gymnastics to view this as a single event is merely the icing on top. BLP1E simply doesn't apply here.LedRush (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Strongly support, and it should be "Trials of AK and RS". The trial - with its offshoots - is notable in a sense that stands quite apart from the crime - which is also notable though. It also has much wider (but more controversy-ridden) sources. Splitting out the trial/s (and perhaps moving the Amanda Knox redir there, but I have no trouble with setting up a separate Knox article either, she is achieving notability by now) would likely help improve the current article, heave off some of the edit warring and sensationalizing from here and make MoMK more focused on the circumstances of the crime and the initial, pre-trial inquiry. It would also save it from jolting every time one of the participants in the trial story gives an interview, writes a book (as Knox will probably do) or a new trial makes news (Knox's parents are due for trial in a few months for defamation, Guede might appeal, and there will likely be one more round of the main trial process, etc)Strausszek (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support  The prevailing view as of 3 October is that AK and RS were not present during the murder of Kercher, thus their story is not directly a part of the current Topic and the material here is currently too closely associated with Guede's story.  Also, the concerns of those that are seeing a need for a BLP for AK will be reduced by having an article title with the two words "AK".  It is certainly possible that AK will use this 15 minutes of fame to become individually notable, at which point we will also need to give her attention with a BLP, but right now she remains a "low-profile individual" and we don't want to encourage non-encyclopedic information such as her early life and her relatives.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify that this split does not depend on how "Amanda Knox" is redirected, the split is a function of the decision of 3 October, and will work well with or without a BLP for AK.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: A "Trials" article just needs to be created and it will inevitably be challenged for deletion, which on the basis of the above discussion will not get consensus. Then those editing MoMK can decide how much detail about the trials they want to leave here. Brmull (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I would rather this had waited till after the DRV, but it's a good idea nonetheless. The trial is a separate (although closely related) event to the initial murder and meets WP:EVENT by a long way. There's plenty of content to write a decent article, and it would provide a more logical redirect target for Knox and Sollecito. Reducing the amount of trial-related content in this article would be beneficial too, and in this way could be done without losing any information. 20:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the redirect of Raffaele Sollecito, there is no better target for that redirect than to create this new split.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: apparently we now have a boldly-created article Timeline of the Amanda Knox case, which may or may not affect any split of this page. I still think that a trial article is the way to go, and would suggest that maybe that article should be merged there. Others will no doubt disagree... Alzarian16 (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I see no immediate need to separate the trials from MoMK no matter what the result of the DRV. They are so inextricably linked that to do so would only result in a redundant article. The amount of information that now exists about the trials certainly doesn't call for a split on that basis. However, I do see the need to rename MoMK to "Trials of Amanda Knox and Raphaele Sollecito" and possibly reworking the structure. The trials and aftermath are directly related to MK, but outweigh MK's notability, which indicates to me that both MK and Knox/Sollecito (as individuals) were merely somewhat minor aspects of the main event - the trials. Since I don't believe Knox -clearly a low-profile individual as of now - in any way deserves a standalone article yet, and the MoMK details would more appropriately belong in an article mainly about the trials etc., the title change seems the best action to take right now. Shirtwaist ☎ 07:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

They would not be redundant. There is no reason to include any information about the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the MOMK artilce. A simple line that says they were originally convicted it was overturned with a link would be enough.Issymo (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Support This article would not exist without Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. It is time for Wikipedia to finally get this right. If Amanda and Raffaele had not been wrongfully convicted, none of us would have ever heard of Meredith Kercher. Meredith's name has remained in the media for the past 4 years because of the injustice committed against Amanda and Raffaele. Unfortunately people are murdered everyday. All of those victims do not get their own Wikipedia article. This is not my opinion, this is a fact. The story has always been about Amanda and Raffaele. Wrongful convictions cause insufferable damage to all involved. It shows no disrespect to Meredith Kercher to properly report on this case. Step back, look at the big picture and get it right this time. BruceFisher (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, hats off to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for making Meredith Kercher famous. --FormerIP (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't their choice. What a moronic comment by you. They had 1427 days stolen from them. Do you honestly think that you would have heard of Meredith Kercher if Guede was arrested the next day and convicted? Stop fighting about guilt or innocence. It's over. It's time to report the truth. BruceFisher (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

There we go again: Simply and plain forum opinions w/o any connection to WP policies, guidelines and standards applied. Party time or what?TMCk (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Support Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are now public figures whether anyone likes it or not. There should be a wikipedia entry for their (joint) trial and seperate pages from them as individuals. Dougbremner (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose both new article(s) and rename as neither Knox nor Sollecito are (yet?) notable for anything apart from this case. Also the victim's name in the title of such an article functions as a kind of tribute. Rothorpe (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is extremely notable. I should be its own article.Issymo (talk)

Unfortunately this page has attracted a few people who seem unfamiliar with how Wikipedia differs from most media. Maybe this will help. On this site, we don't give people their own articles just for being "public figures" or "celebrities" if they fit better into another topic and we don't write in order to present anyone's "story" as some suggest. We We consider events and their consequences as a whole rather than artificially splitting them, so people get a rounded neutral viewpoint. We write as an educational not a promotional site. If you read the O. J. Simpson murder case (another very high profile murder case with acquittal) you would expect to read a summary of the whole matter on one page, including its trial, aftermath and analysis, and if you check, you will find it so. If it helps, think of Knox, Raffaele and MK herself as simple data, unjudged points on a graph, or figures in a course case study or textbook (for this purpose). Ask what way best educates a student about that data. It may help. Another way to think of the difference is, which way of presenting the topic best educates and informs - not which way best meets the editor's personal views. It means connected items are often on the same page when that helps the topic be fully covered, clear, and minimize repetition. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

These are two different topics. The trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito should not be connected to the MOMK. They should be seperarte articles because they are seperate topics. The murder lead to the trial but the trial overwhelmes the MOMK information.Issymo (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

If you studied the case, you would realize that the trial existed directly and only because of the murder. The people tried were tried directly and only because they were the accused of the murder. Like OJ Simpson, just because someone is acquitted or the trial overshadows the murder, is not ever a good reason to split. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"Ask what way best educates a student" Why ask that? Students are recommended to not use Wikipedia because it is not reliable. Can we stop the lectures now? We know how Wikipedia works. I am sorry that you feel it is "unfortunate" that we are here. BruceFisher (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not at all sure that all users editing here know how Wikipedia works. Some have edited nothing except this article and have little or no other experience of how articles should look. Others show complete misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about, wanting the "story" told and the like. A little (or very little) knowledge of editing norms and a strong personal viewpoint on the case is not going to lead to high quality neutral editorial judgment. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Why does Meredith Kercher have an article? BruceFisher (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Kercher does not have her own article; It's a redirect to this one, the murder case. Welcome to the real world.TMCk (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's time for this article to step into the real world. Let me rephrase my question for you to make it a little more clear. Why is there an article detailing Meredith's murder? BruceFisher (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Two reasons: it meets our inclusion criteria (passes WP:NOT and is surely evidenced to meet our general notability guideline), and also as an event it surely meets the criterion of our guideline on event notability as well. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how clogged up Wikipedia would be if every murder in the world was given an article? We all know why Meredith Kercher's murder has an article. It is due to the controversy created by two people being wrongfully convicted. All of the hype was caused by the fantasy created around Amanda and Raffaele. When you come to that realization then Wikipedia may begin to accurately present the information regarding this case. Until then, no Wikipedia guideline will help. BruceFisher (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I might just know, by now. You're saying that routine news isn't and shouldn't be covered, and I agree. But nobody is likely to assert that this case had just "ordinary" or "routine" coverage, and your "reason" why there is an article is blue sky. Bruce, you really do need to read our guidelines more carefully before commenting, because even after months of involvement, you just now showed two big misunderstandings about how Wikipedia works:

1. Whether the charges were dropped or whether it was a "fantasy" created around two individuals (as you describe it) really wouldn't matter. We cover or not based on "enduring notability" of the topic, because we're a reference work on events, not a media source for tabloids. Even a completely fictional matter like a hoax can be covered if it gained enough attention. Even if an event is "fictional" the attention it gets is not. Of course the murder is far from fictional, and the fact these individuals were the accused for it is also non-fictional.
2. "Accurate presentation" of information is based on reliable sources. These can change, but we write what they show now, not what you think they "ought" to show or what you believe they will (or should) show in future.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I know, I know, Wikipedia guidelines!! I have heard it all before. Instead of using common sense you always shout "Wikipedia guidelines." Stop for a minute and look at this case as a real live person, not a Wikipedia robot. The murder of Meredith Kercher would have never been given an article on Wikipedia if the controversy had not been caused. This is a fact that you are ignoring. This fact fits in well with your "guidelines." Wikipedia is not properly structured to handle cases like this one and does a great disservice to the public by attempting to do so. The number one search for Amanda Knox has provided misinformation about this case for 4 years now because of "Wikipedia guidelines." What makes Wikipedia dangerous is the fact that it is often correct, leading readers to believe that all content is correct. Now is the time to do the right thing. Amanda Knox has been found innocent, Not "not guilty," INNOCENT. Stop lecturing on Wikipedia guidelines and look at this case as a real live person. Detailing this case properly fits right into your guidelines. Unfortunately, Amanda Knox is the story. Meredith Kercher was made famous because Amanda Knox was dragged into the nightmare. This is a fact! Wikipedia is nothing more than a media guide when it comes to cases like this. All sources are media related. The media offers you all of the necessary information now to get this right. Now, get it right. BruceFisher (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think with that viewpoint you need to be writing for more subjective media (blogs, newspapers, magazines). The fact is that there has been significant attention (indifferent as to its cause), and AK was central to that attention (whether or not guilty or innocent). Wikipedia is a reference work. Our agreed aim is to summarizes published information neutrally and dispassionately, and to a large extent treating it all as data. In borderline "grey" issues we do allow for human considerations - we remove borderline biographies on request, we remove unsubstantiated claims and unbalanced biographical material, we can decide that some information really isn't central to the topic. But this case isn't any of those. Here, neutrality trumps virtually everything. If you cannot accommodate that or find it hard to adapt, then you may find it easier to pick a different topic. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Another Wiki veteran that has lost the ability to think on his/her own. if you honestly believe that "neutrality trumps virtually everything" when it comes to this article then you are simply unable to see reality. Wikipedia has not allowed an article for Amanda Knox because you claim that she is only significant because of Meredith Kercher's murder. You have it backwards! Meredith Kercher's murder is only significant due to the controversy caused by Amanda Knox's wrongful conviction. So far you have been completely unable to communicate as a human being. You have shown that your capabilities are limited to repeatedly reciting Wikipedia guidelines. This is not a healthy way to create good content. BruceFisher (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

With just a little effort, I think you should be able to refactor your criticism of FT2’s values-weightings and logic without being personal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have come to realize that no matter how I respond the results are the same so I have decided to just be honest. Even if you disagree with my approach, any clear minded person can see that I am right. BruceFisher (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

But you aren't right. Perhaps you have been too close to the subject to see this objectively. You state "You have it backwards! Meredith Kercher's murder is only significant due to the controversy caused by Amanda Knox's wrongful conviction.". When one looks back at the creation of this article on Nov. 12, 2007, there is absolutely nothing which professes anything about the innocence of Knox & Sollecito...nothing to suggest that they were incorrectly charged. In fact, the early version contains her confession. Same goes for the earliest version of the Amanda Knox article just six days after the murder (here it is). You may have missed the fact that it was the sensational details released by the Italian authorities which made this case notable (Satanic sex orgy gone wrong). Wikipedia does consider sensational murder details to be notable...like Black Dahlia. I don't believe there was a notable pro-innocence movement for Knox until some time later (When?). So, no, the murder was given its own notability due to the lurid details; not the people accused of the crime. That is why we have policies and guidelines lest more of these logic-skewed "clear-minded persons" decide to cast them aside.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 06:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You miss the point completely. You said: "So, no, the murder was given its own notability due to the lurid details; not the people accused of the crime" The "lurid" details came from descriptions of those accused of the crime. If Guede had been arrested early on as he should have been, there would have been no "lurid" details. It would have been just one of the many other unfortunate murders that occurred in the world. A woman was murdered during a burglary. It was not a complicated crime. The "lurid" details were all a fantasy resulting in the wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. I am right. Open your eyes and look at reality. Stop looking back for a "guideline" to throw back at me and look at the facts. BruceFisher (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Support Between web, newsprint and general media the trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were perhaps the most closely observed legal proceedings in history and there are many legitimate issues that emerged from them that were/are of paramount concern to the international community; the use of LCN DNA as an investigative tool to identify suspects being one example. Other issues, including the remarkable statement at the beginning of the appeal's proceedings and (one would assume) 'after' reading the report of the original trial judge, the appellate Justice announced that the only thing that was certain was that there had been a crime. In a process often cited as one that added unquestionable authority and credibility to the prosecutions case, evidence was obtained, admitted and accepted without rigorous examination as it progressed up the chain of procedural levels and finally to trials that were held specifically to prosecute Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. An article is needed to address the nature, mindset and history of the prosecutorial process as it wound it's way thorough these various levels of the courts. Without an examination of this process and the trials themselves it would be impossible to understand why justice for Meredith Kercher has remained elusive as well as how/why Amanda and Raffaele went from witness, to suspect, to criminal defendants who were imprisoned for 4 years before being exonerated in the strongest terms available to the court.Fancourt (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Amanda Knox no has a separate article after a long discussion. Perhaps this suggestion is no longer useful?..--BabbaQ (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Very useful. I think there will probably need to be two articles, one about the Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and another bio article about Amanda Knox. I think the priority should be on the Trial article and if she writes a book or something the bio article could always be created later.Issymo (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

'Support'I fully support splitting this article in to two sections, one for the Murder of Meredith Kercher and one for the Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Considering the controversy on this page alone the trial and appeal and ongoing news coverage of this process deserve to have their own coverage. While I fully support Merdith’s murder having its own page I think that it serves better to her memory to separate the pages rather that to muddy up her memory with travesty of justice that was the first trial. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have been exonerating in the first court of appeals and deserve to have the details of the opinion of this court told separately from the propaganda that that has dominated the MoMK article over the past four years. Turningpointe (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

See comments above. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and refrence work, not a newpaper, blog or promotion platform. We don't have articles to "serve peoples memory" and we don't make editorial decisions based on what will "muddy up her memory" or to fix up real-world issues such as perceived "travesties of justice". Sorry, but if those are what is asked for, it's the wrong kind of website to request it. Here we deal in neutral, impersonal, cited, reliably sourced, encyclopedic approaches. Factually, the murder and trials are part of the same stream of events, as with many other high profile trials and aquittals. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

'Support' This is long overdue. As Bruce has said, the murder was a tragic but sadly all too common crime and is only in Wikipedia at all because of the inexplicable behaviour of the Perugian authorities who framed two innocent people when they had found the real murderer. The international furore following their villification of Knox and the consequential establishment of an innocence campaign is what makes the case notable. That is a fact. Far more internet searches are made for 'Amanda Knox' than for 'Meredith Kercher' because it is interest in the trial and coverage around it that drives traffic, not interest in the murder per se. NigelPScott (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Good, thanks.Issymo (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment How do we go about starting the new Trial artilce? One thing we could do is move over all the trial of AK and RS information from MOMK and just start from there. The new article will need new sections. Some suggestions: arrest, retainment, trial-conviction, appeal-acquittal, media impact. Issymo (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• • (Oppose any such creation). Such an article would be likely to be immediately replaced with a redirect back to here, as WP tries very hard to avoid internal content forks. The scope of an article on a murder case would normally include a review of investigations into the murder, and of trials that proceeded from those investigations -- because it makes a lot of sense to cover such tightly-related subjects all in the one place. (For example, consider the Murder of Rachel Nickell, which includes the trial and acquittal of Colin Stagg; or any other article you choose on a noteworthy murder). If a new article is not going to be dismissed immediately as just a content fork, you are going to need to make very clear what it is that the new article is going to contain that would differ from the treatment that would be expected at this article. Jheald (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ditto Casey Anthony. Shirtwaist ☎ 23:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I support the creation of a "Trial(s)..." article in principle (I prefer this concept to that of a separate biography on Knox). However, now that Amanda Knox is being expanded from a redirect, how will it be possible both to have a trio of articles by the names Murder of Meredith Kercher, Trial(s) of (Amanda) Knox and (Raffaele) Sollecito and Amanda Knox and to deal with the problem of content-forking? The degree of overlap between these three subjects is such that it will be difficult to avoid duplicating information with the existence of more than one spinout article (I have yet to bring the recently created Timeline of the Meredith Kercher murder case into the equation). I too would like to register my dissatisfaction with some of the "arguments" that have been made in support of this proposal - Wikipedia does not select article titles on the basis of how best to tell someone's "story", nor does this debate have anything whatsoever to with whether someone's memory is "served" or "muddied". This is an encyclopaedia, not a memorial. As for the notion that the murder itself is of little or no notability in comparison to that of the surrounding trials controversy, why is it that an article specifically titled "Murder of Meredith Kercher" has existed on Wikipedia ever since the murder occurred in late 2007 (i.e. before the controversy appeared)? Even without the notoriety that the affair has now, the article was kept at AfD in early 2008 (since then it has not been renamed). I think that FT2 hits the nail on the head with his "cause and effect" argument, and consider it far superior to pseudo-arguments that seem to have a lot to do with emotions and little to do with how Wikipedia actually works. SuperMarioMan 16:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The murder itself would have had no notability if two innocent people had not been wrongfully accused. If Guede was arrested early on as he should have been, the case would have received very little press. A woman was murdered during a burglary. This was not a complicated crime. If the authorities did not create the "sex game gone wrong" theory and arrest two innocent people to fit their fantasy, this would have fallen into the same category as all many other senseless murders that occur in the world. Does every murder on earth have its own Wikipedia article? BruceFisher (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Not really a question of "would have had no notability" - the article as titled "Murder of..." survived AfD (so, evidently, the subject was considered to pass the notability requirements) just two months after the murder occurred. To claim that the murder "would have had no notability" is to view the whole matter from the wrong end. Again, it's all about cause and effect. As to your closing question: obviously not, but when murder stories attract sufficient third-party coverage (which this one achieved in two months, even without the controversy that we know now), Wikipedia creates articles for them. SuperMarioMan 16:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• 'Strong Support' :The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. It’s time. The murder of MK and the prosecution and eventual acquittal of AK are two separate issues and deserve to be treated as such. Except for blatant obstructionism I can’t even imagine why this is considered debatable. Meredith deserves an accurate page dedicated to her untimely death. Amanda and Raffaele deserve a page dedicated to the facts of the flawed investigation and baseless witch trial that followed. The subject is not newsworthy because of Meredith Kercher; it’s newsworthy because it was a perversion of the law orchestrated by an out of control prosecutor. The Kercher family has said it themselves, Meredith has been forgotten. That’s to some degree true because in this story of an unjust crusade to punish an innocent young American woman, AK is the victim. Two crimes and two victims.. Two separate focuses.. require two pages . Tjholme (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• 'Strong Support' I agree with Tjholme. I see no reason why a "Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito" page cannot be a stand-alone page, which would leave the "Murder of Meredith Kercher" page free from all of the squabbling, which is not about Ms. Kercher at all, but about the investigation and prosecution and wrongful convictions. I think it's time to split the two subjects out to their own pages at this juncture. Jazz2006 (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It's about wrongful acquittals. Just thought I'd say so. --FormerIP (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were not found not guilty, they were declared INNOCENT in an Italian court. The court concluded that they had absolutely nothing to do with the murder. I like actual facts. Just thought I'd say so. BruceFisher (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support This is well known as the Amanda Knox case. This murder article should focus on what actually happened in the crime, the undisputed facts like the specific wounds the finding of the body, the time of death... and should act as a sub article for the Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito article. The fact is, Amanda Knox is about a dozen times more notable than everyone else in this case combined. And all of them are notable. The current structure is like having an article on Timothy Geitner with a section on the President he served under. CD-Host (talk) 04:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Apples and Oranges. There are many references (if not an entire section) to President Obama in Timothy Geithner, but if Obama was so integral to Geithner's story that he deserved a section devoted to him, as much as Knox's trials, etc. are integral to MoMK, then he'd get one. Shirtwaist ☎ 12:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Support new article, or move this article to Trial of Amanda Knox or a similar title. People are murdered every day, it's the trial and the media attention it received, not the murder in itself, which makes the case notable. Mocctur (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Rather than waste any more editor time on this discussion I'm going to be WP:BOLD and move the Timeline of the Meredith Kercher murder case to Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to give us a starting point (leaving the brief timeline as a section which can be separated out later if required). There is overwhelming support for the creation of a separate "trials" article and as User:Brmull noted, "readers of MoMK want to know the details of the crime, not paragraphs and paragraphs of useless back and forth about two people who were ultimately found to have nothing to do with it". -- samj _in^out 14:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Reverted. Our articles on murders are expected to cover the consequential investigations and trials that arise from them. A separate spin-out article is appropriate only if the material is not being covered in sufficient detail here. If such an article is necessary (and I am to say I am at the least dubious), then that is a separate matter from the Timeline of the Meredith Kercher murder case, which covers all the events that have evolved from the murder, and for which the balance of opinion on its talk page is that it should not be moved or re-purposed. Jheald (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said, "Ok so the timeline of MoMK is a> she was murdered and b> Guede went to jail for it. Meanwhile the trial of Knox and Sollecito kicked off and virtually all of the timeline events relate to this. In other words, a timeline article for MoMK would certainly not be justified, and the trials timeline is sufficiently concise as to belong in a section of a trials article. We already have the MoMK & Knox articles and will soon have a trials article — do you really think we need four articles for a single event? Is it worth more editor time discussing it? Do you really think a dedicated timeline article would survive AfD?". -- samj _in^out 14:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's see whether we do have a trials article any time soon, and then whether it survives AfD as anything more than a content fork of this article; and then we'll know where we stand to review the timeline article. Meanwhile, as I wrote above, the balance of views on the timeline talk page is that it should not be redirected or repurposed. Jheald (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

"Overwhelming support for the creation of a separate "trials" article"? There isn't even a clear consensus for that, let alone overwhelming support for it. Shirtwaist ☎ 20:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Until the actual case is resolved concerning Knox, having this !vote is premature. As Mignini has said there will be an appeal then Knox & Sollecito aren't necessarily out of the woods yet.1 If we truly knew that things are over concerning K & S and the case then that would make things easier to decide.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The current vote is 20 Support and 8 Oppose. It has been up for 10 days now so everyone should have had time to vote. This is clearly in favor of a new article. How do we get and Admin or someone to give approval to start working on the new article? There has been enough time for everyone to weigh in. The majority is clearly in favor of a new article. Lets move on this now. Issymo (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment What about this one [5]? Redirect to the new article? Merge with the new article? --Juanm (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Time of Postal Police arrival

I removed the 12:35 time for the arrival of the Postal Police. During the first trial, it was shown that the Postal Police arrived after the call to 112, not before as a time of 12:35 implies. --Footwarrior (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with that but a new cite is needed. Brmull (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't that heavily disputed? And since we know that the second trial came to different conclusions than the first, that change might not be such a good idea.LedRush (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

12:35 was the time the prosecution said the postal police arrived at the parking garage, before it was known that the CCTV clock was 10-12minutes slow. The revised time was 12:46 which put them at the cottage shortly before 1 pm, which is also when Filomena arrived. Sollecito's defence postulated an even later time based on an erroneous police log, but that didn't work because everyone agrees that Filomena & friends and the postal police arrived at the same time. This is all from the Massei report. Still haven't found another source. Brmull (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

We have been over this before in one of the nastiest fights I have ever seen on Wikipedia. The compromise that ended the dispute was simply to leave the time out. --Footwarrior (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's the postal police arrival demonstation that proved the Raffaele called the police before they arrived: http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/postale.pdf. Issymo (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox - the Untold Story

Does anyone have the information for this documentary to include it in the list on the article?LedRush (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

This article [6] seems to be a detailed version of the show (a transcript maybe?) I'm sure it won't please the guilters, but it provides a wealth of summary information for the article. However, it is obviously a pro-Knox piece, and like all of these articles it can't be treated like gospel.LedRush (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah here's a great line for the article: To Mignini, a staunch Catholic with a medieval mindset, Amanda Knox was a sinner who took part in a satanic orgy that resulted in the murder of an innocent. LOL. Brmull (talk) 05:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

For similar views, see the Prosecutor's Obsessions section in The strange ideas and enduring mysteries of the Kercher case by Peter Popham in the 9 October 2011 edition of The Independent.     ←   ZScarpia   14:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we are supposed to LOL at that. It seems to be an accurate summary. It sounds rather bizarre because it accurately describes someone with a demonstrated history of making bizarre claims. Mignini did indeed originally propose Knox as being a Satanist who killed Kercher in an Satanic sex orgy, in line with other similar accusations he came up with in previous cases. This is well documented in a ton of reliable sources. DreamGuy (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, "staunch Catholic" is a slur. If you don't believe me go to a Catholic blog and call someone a staunch Catholic. "Medieval mindset" isn't even a real entity. It's just an insult. There is no way to know if Mignini thought "Amanda Knox was a sinner" or that Meredith Kercher was an "innocent" because he never said anything of the sort. It's just a way of mocking him for being religious. And I've written extensively here about how the phrase "satanic orgy" originates with Sollecito attorney Luca Maori and should not be attributed to the Mignini. Apart from all of this, it's a (LOL) totally accurate summary. Brmull (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Mignini

We seem to be adding a section about Mignini. While in theory I think such a section may be warranted (and an article on him is certainly warranted), I am worried about the section becoming a repository for accusations about why Mignini sucks. This strays from the purpose of this article (the murder of Kercher) and can become a serious BLP issue. I've removed the section once because it was not supported by a RS, and while the new section is sourced, it still seems problematic. Does anyone have views on this?LedRush (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You're correct, it is problematic. There are a few pertinent facts about Mignini available, but this section as it is now seems to have an agenda. pablo 15:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it because of BLP & coatracking concerns. The Doug Preston material and tangential accusations have no merit here. It is off-topic as well.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The article does need a summary-style section on Mignini, as he was central to everything that unfolded. Trying to explain the sequence of events without reference to that centrality would be close to impossible. Whatever is written, though, should be sourced to current high-quality sources, not tabloid articles from a few years ago. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Giuliano Mignini has been convicted

OK well taking on board your suggestions we should mention as highly pertinent to an encyclopedic article, that at the same time as he was leading the prosecution of Knox, Mignini was himself being tried for abuse of his prosecutorial powers in another case If you don't like the ref because mention of Preston is not allowed ABC News, Sept. 30, 2011 Critics Say Controversial Knox Prosecutor Is Seeking Redemption that ref could be replaced by Amanda Knox prosecutor convicted (22 Jan 2010)

It has been widely reported in national newspapers that Mignini was convicted on those charges and given a 16-month jail sentence in January 2010; he is appealing as I mentioned. Daily Mail 24th January 2010, Amanda Knox's father welcomes jail term for Meredith Kercher murder prosecutor for 'corruption'

Here is what we could add - Mignini's own words quoted in a reputable source, surely not impermissible "Just before the final summing up in the Knox appeal began, Mignini discussed his handling of an older case, the "Monster of Florence" serial killer, and his belief that his investigation of the 1985 death of a freemason, Francesco Narducci, that he linked to the case was mysteriously blocked.

I have felt under attack ever since I investigated Narducci," he told the Guardian. "It all started there." The Guardian, Monday 3 October 2011, Giuliano Mignini: Knox prosecutor who believes he is the conspiracy victim— Preceding unsigned comment added by Overagainst (talk • contribs)‎11:16, October 14, 2011

Your 2nd source sums it up best: "While Mr Mignini's conviction has no direct bearing on the Kercher case,..." and as such is coatracking and off the mark here. This article is on the Kercher case and not Mignini. It shouldn't be mentioned and there are three of us so far which have stated these concerns.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have Mr Mignini himself quoted as saying the criticism of him is part of a pattern stretching back to his investigation of the Monster of Florence (where Mignini was investigating the mystery death of chemist Francesco Narducci found drowned in a lake near Perugia in 1985 and who Mignini seems to believe Narducci ordered the serial killings. [7])

The Guardian, Monday 3 October 2011, Giuliano Mignini: Knox prosecutor who believes he is the conspiracy victim

"The criticisms will have come as no surprise to a man who has strongly believed for years that opponents were secretly plotting his downfall.

Just before the final summing up in the Knox appeal began, Mignini discussed his handling of an older case, the "Monster of Florence" serial killer, and his belief that his investigation of the 1985 death of a freemason, Francesco Narducci, that he linked to the case was mysteriously blocked.

"I have felt under attack ever since I investigated Narducci," he told the Guardian. :::"It all started there."

The 16-month sentence he received for abuse of office last year after he ordered unauthorised wiretaps during the Monster investigation was a trumped-up charge that fit the pattern of persecution, he has argued.

Mignini continues to work as he awaits his appeal, which starts on 22 November.

Mignini has claimed Douglas Preston, the US novelist who challenged Mignini's theories about the Monster of Florence, is masterminding a US press campaign against him over his handling of the Knox case. "It's all Preston," he said.

So it was unsurprising that Mignini should add a touch of conspiracy theory to his summing up in the Knox appeal, claiming that "our judicial system has been subjected to a systematic denigration by a well-organised operation of a journalistic and political nature"."

So to repeat. I'm not the one saying it is relevant Mignini is. Mignini is on record as claiming that the criticism of his conduct up until now including criticism of his conduct in the prosecution of Knox stems from his investigation into the death of Francesco Narducci. So it is highly relevant that although he thinks he did nothing wrong in the either the Knox or the Narducci cases he was convicted and sentenced to prison for what he did in the Narducci investigation. Overagainst (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually think it should be mentioned. But then again, it already is elsewhere in the article. I just don't think we need an entire section of the article devoted to bashing the guy on things that have no direct bearing on the case.LedRush (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Mignini isn't a Wikipedia editor (AFAIK) so he isn't saying that any of this needs to be in this article. This subject matter is tangential to the article subject...let alone BLP concerns. I would also like to hear what other editors think based on policies.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Certainly WP:UNDUE to grant this more than a brief mention. It would be better suited to an article about the Trials or an article about Mignini. If the extended content is included anywhere it would be important to note as a counterpoint that active prosecutors are often under investigation in Italy. Brmull (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like an indipendent article for Giuliano Mignini has been created yesterday --Juanm (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

BLP would apply to statements which are disputed or and/or not correctly sourced but it is has been reported in Europe and America that Mignini has been sentenced to prison for abuse of his powers.

Re. "This subject matter is tangential" Someone who comes to the Wikipedia article has a right to expect to find relevant information which was reported by the major newspapers covering the Murder of Meredith Kercher. Well the major newspapers covering the case have reported on Mignini being convicted and sentenced as part of their coverage of the case. These are not opinion pieces I am referencing but mainstream reporting of the case of the Murder of Meredith Kercher which is what the article is about. Information about Mark Fuhrman is relevant to the 'O. J. Simpson murder case' article and ought be included there as it is they are. The fact that undisputed information about Mignini was not an issue or aired in court during the trials does not make it irrelevant. In any other country it would have been impossible for someone facing the charges he was to be in charge of a prosecution because in the minds of most people it is highly relevant. That's why is has been reported by the papers covering the case: because people think it is very far from being tangential. Overagainst (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• (After edit-conflict) That kind of content about Mignini belongs in his own article which is linked from this one if a reader wants to know more about him. The editors who wish to add such content should do it over there where it is not non-related and undue weight.TMCk (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

TMCk, did we just agree again? This is getting frickin' crazy. I'm starting to get scared.LedRush (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It is getting to be that season. Next, you will be agreeing with Tarc & John.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It's nice to know that you think mentioning this convicted felon is undue weight. However, this isn't really relevant to whether reliable sources have discussed these issues concerning the man in connection to the case. Would you like to delete all the information about the innocent woman in the article next, given she had nothing to do with the 'Murder of Meredith Kercher'? Nevard (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that as the legal processes take up such a large part of the article we should mention as highly pertinent to an encyclopedic article, How about this

"At the same time as he was leading the prosecution of Knox, Mignini was himself being tried for abuse of his prosecutorial powers in another case, in Jan 2010 he was given a jail sentence which he is currently appealing against."

Not mentioning these pertinent and widely reported facts would be rather misleading as to the equivalence of the position of prosecutors in Italy. Brmull, while it is indeed relatively (relatively compared to other western countries) common for Italian officials even prosecuters to be under investigation it is not, as far as I know, common for prosecuters to be convicted and sentenced to prison time. And it has been widely reported in coverage of the case. Overagainst (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

How did Mignini's conviction factor into the trial/appeal? Was that part of the decision? Opinion pieces from what may otherwise be reliable sources may indeed be irrelevant. They may be excluded at the consensus of editors...so yes, WP:UNDUE and a variety of other policies may trump the fact that sources are publishing opinion pieces. If it didn't factor into the final (so far) decision in the appeal then it is undue in this article.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

"How did Mignini's conviction factor into the trial/appeal?" Knox said at her trial that Mignini watched as officers slapped her around the head during the 14 hour interrogation. She was then charged with slandering a man who was about to be sentenced to prison time for abusing his power - by accusing him of abusing his powers. And she would have been back in the news being tried for slandering him convicted and given yet more time if it wasn't for the DNA review finding that the DNA evidence was worthless. Are you seriously suggesting that fact of the prosecutor being sentenced to prison for abuse of powers had no bearing on doubts about the conviction and the Italians' ordering of an independent review of the DNA evidence by a couple of Europe's leading forensic DNA experts (who happen to be Italians). I am puzzled why you think it is so irrelevant to the the subject of the article that it should not be mentioned. Telegraph Amanda Knox prosecutor convicted Daily Mail Amanda Knox's father welcomes jail term for Meredith Kercher murder prosecutor for 'corruption' Overagainst (talk) 19:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Knox did not say any such thing about Mignini at her trial. Now that the elation over the acquittal has settled down a bit it's time to start demanding that statements be verifiable again. Will you please source or retract that statement? Brmull (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

"'Do you remember? Do you remember? And then boom! On the head,' Knox said, mimicking the slap in court" Raffaele Sollecito says the polce hit him. Oh, and Lumumba also says the police hit him . The article says "Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini was in the room conducting the contested interrogation where the misconduct by officers was alleged.[71][72]"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Overagainst (talk • contribs) 12:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

So, Mignini's involvement and conviction in another case doesn't factor into this one. The only part of the section I removed which applies to this article is "The case was led by Giuliano Mignini."
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits made in the last two days by one editor

Is there anybody here who does not have a problem with those edits in regards of style, MOS, POV, BLP concerns, undue weight, removal of content, etc.?TMCk (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Among other things I am concerned that there is overweighting of the views of Nina Burleigh, who was featured in the NYT for having crossed the line from journalist to advocate. If I started lifting POV from Angel Face and dumping it en masse into the article, I think some people would have a problem with that. Brmull (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with Brmull and as TMCk points out...I have concerns that the editor seems to have an agenda.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
  • To clarify my point and intend, I think a set-back to the last good version (in my opinion the one from 14:19, October 13, 2011) is in order and then work it up from there.TMCk (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree and I had been contemplating something similar as this editor does not seem to have a handle on some of our policies. Her looks don't matter concerning this article and is a clear violation of NPOV. As an example, editor is laboring under a misunderstanding that if it is in reliable sources that this gives carte blanche to include.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The "ugly duck" edit is just the tip of the ice berg and shows that the editor either has an agenda as you said or just no clue about how to edit WP.TMCk (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm an occasional visitor these days, but my 2₧ - there does seem to be a problem. Anyone discussed with the editor? pablo 00:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Not that I know although they tried pushing another POV before (see thread above).
::For now, is there any agreement to roll back those edits as I pointed out above?TMCk (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing all of this, I'm inclined to agree with the need for a large-scale revert. I found this edit particularly odd: in it, a line of text was changed so that it ended up reading "Knox's lawyers argued that DNA evidence was wrong and citing a 47-day delay in retrieving the samples." So the DNA was just "wrong"? In what way? SuperMarioMan 01:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The Observer, Sunday 24 July 2011"Soon after she was chosen to review Stefanoni's work on the Knox case, Vecchiotti claimed that documents had been withheld from her. The final report, co-authored with Stefano Conti, bemoans the scant detail Stefanoni used to back up her findings. After discovering there was no DNA left to check on the knife or the bra clasp, the experts retraced the steps taken by Stefanoni, concluding that the DNA trace of Kercher on the blade was so weak it could not be reliably matched – or was at best the result of contamination – and quoted Stefanoni admitting in court she should have double-tested her result to be more convincing. Stefanoni claimed she had no need to repeat tests since the experts for the defence were on hand to witness her work. "And it was good enough to show it was Kercher's DNA," she said. "A small amount, but good quality.""

She not only destroyed any possibly of replicating the results. She did not have any detailed records of what she did. That is egregious and, I'm afraid, very suspicious. Scientists, above all forensic scientist are taught to keep records of their results at every step.

Experts dismiss DNA evidence as Knox nears end of murder appeal"The expert witnesses employed for the review, Carla Vecchiotti and Stefano Conti from La Sapienza University in Rome, testified that the tiny quantity of DNA available was not sufficient for reliable analysis. They also said there was no trace of blood on the knife identified as the murder weapon.[...] Dr Vecchiotti insisted that her review had revealed serious failings in the original forensic evidence. She said investigators had "evaluated a quantity of DNA that no one in the world would try to analyse".[...] Kercher family lawyer, Francesco Maresca, questioned the new defence evidence in relation to the original analysis of Ms Kercher's bra clasp said to contain Sollecito's DNA. Dr Vecchiotti replied that it contained too many different traces to be reliable, noting that apart from the victim's DNA and that of Sollecito, she had found small traces of at least 16 other people; including herself – presumably as a result of contamination. "Anyone's DNA could be on there," she said tersely.Overagainst (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Revert all pending further discussion. Brmull (talk) 02:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"I is not they, as anyone can see from checking my contibutions over the years. I have not edited or tried to edit this page before a couple of days ago. Some of yesterdays editing was poor and weakly referenced I'll admit. Taking that on board I'll try to stick to check-able (ie online) news reports of court proceedings from reliable sources. That is going to be easy as the case has been covered from day one. I'll suggest an edit here and seek consensus from now on. If refs are referenced national news organisation such as the BBC or newspapers' reporting of court proceedings please give reasons for why my edit does not faithfully paraphrase the information in my source, if that is your objection. I will try and support my proposals with good sources. Matters of fact are not POV.Overagainst (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You have to consider the substance, too though. Phrases like "had grown from a teen ugly duckling ... into an unusually attractive young woman ..." are inherently POV, even if referenced to a 'news' source.  pablo 18:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Point taken, don't mention looks. They affect the way someone is perceived though.Overagainst (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Rudy Guede section

Rudy Guede section I propose altering the following text (I note there is much text in the section for which the only reference is -^ Burleigh 2011, pp. xxvi–xxvii ! If Burleigh's book is being objected to as a source then this vital section is going to need a lot o new ones, preferably those that can be easily verified)

"He was sentenced in October 2008 to 30 years' imprisonment, reduced on appeal in December 2009 to 16 years.[33]. At his appeal, he alleged that Knox had been in the apartment at the time of the murder, and that he had heard her arguing with Kercher.[34]"

It seems to me that the this text should be enlarged upon. Changes to his story between the trial and the appeal are difficult to follow here as it is not specifically stated that Guede said at his trial that Knox was not there at all. Moreover the different jail terms are similarly run together in one rather confusing (to me at least) sentence - "He was sentenced in October 2008 to 30 years' imprisonment, reduced on appeal in December 2009 to 16 years.[33]" It's difficult to follow. Why can't we have two short sections or even paragraphs. One about Guides trial and another about his appeal. Why have so much about Guides background and scoot though his conviction and appeal in a couple of lines? If this has to be covered in a couple of lines they need to be clearer, one sentence for the trial and another one for the appeal. Here is my suggestion- "At his trial Guede said that Knox was not in the apartment at all on the night of the murder, he was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment. At Guede's appeal he maintained his defense that a man had killed Meredith Kercher while he was out of the room but altered his story to claim Amanda Knox was in the apartment and had been arguing with Meridith, the court reduced his term of imprisonment to 16 years." That's clearer.Overagainst (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I can't see any reason to object to Nina Burleigh as a source. She's a reputable journalist, and her book is a good source of material. But I have no objection to your suggested addition. I agree that it's clearer. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Slim, her book is but one book and her Knox-as-feminist-martyr view is WP:FRINGE. I've read hundreds of books and articles and I can tell you this view is not representative. And the proposed text: "At his trial Guede said that Knox was not in the apartment at all on the night of the murder [WP:V - GUEDE DIDN'T SAY THAT], he was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment. At Guede's appeal he maintained his defense that a man had killed Meredith Kercher while he was out of the room but altered his story to claim Amanda Knox was in the apartment and had been arguing with Meridith, the court reduced his term of imprisonment to 16 years. [WP:SYNTH - FALSELY IMPLIES A CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP]" Brmull (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

At his trial Guede said that Knox was not in the apartment at all on the night of the murder [WP:V - GUEDE DIDN'T SAY THAT],". That is no more significant an objection than complaining that he spoke in Italian so we must use that too in quoting him. It does not have quotes round it so the fact he did not use those words exactly is neither here nor there . At Guedes trial he most certainly did say that Knox was not in the apartment at the time of the murder . His story was that he believed Meredith Kercher and himself were alone in the apartment as they were having a romantic liaison together in her bedroom, he went to the toilet and she was killed by a male intruder while he was out the bedroom. At his trial Guede never claimed to have seen Amanda Knox or heard the voice of Amanda Knox in the apartment or anywhere else at the time of the murder. He testified to seeing and hearing one man only. Guides said Knox was not there at his trial. Here is an except from a Daily Telegraph journalist Nick Squires's report on the conviction of Guede "Guede had always claimed that he was in the house because Miss Kercher, a Leeds University exchange student, had agreed to have sex with him after the pair had met at a Halloween party the night before. A post-mortem examination on Miss Kercher's body confirmed that there had been sexual contact between the two, but was inconclusive about whether it was consensual or not. He said he went to the bathroom because of stomach pains, then heard Miss Kercher scream. Guede stumbled out of the bathroom and confronted a lone intruder, a man who he claimed looked like Mr Sollecito".

At Guede's appeal he maintained his defense that a man had killed Meredith Kercher while he was out of the room but altered his story to claim Amanda Knox was in the apartment and had been arguing with Meridith, the court reduced his term of imprisonment to 16 years. [WP:SYNTH - FALSELY IMPLIES A CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP]" WP:SYNTH relates to facts which are not connected appearing one after the other. The account of Guede's appeal mentions the basic facts, at his appeal Guide did not change his defense, he altered his story only to say that Amanda Knox was in the apartment and arguing with Miss Kercher. The result of his appeal was that his sentence was cut from 30 years to 16 years. Are you trying to insist that the sequence of events (ie Guide's testifying at his appeal then receiving the results of his appeal) should not be described in the sequence in which they happened. How can you say that Guide's testimony at his own appeal is irrelevant to the results of that appeal? Overagainst (talk) 09:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Brmull, that Knox was attacked in the particular way she was because she's a woman is not a fringe idea. Carole Cadwalladr, for example, makes the same point here in The Observer. You wrote elsewhere that Nina Burleigh's book should be viewed with scepticism because she's a radical feminist, but there's no evidence of that, and even if she were, it would make no difference. She's a good journalist, an adjunct professor of journalism at Columbia University, and used as a source by the mainstream media. In addition, her book was published in 2011, and we should be using the most up-to-date high-quality sources.

Which books about the murder have you read and would recommend?

Regarding SYN, material is only a WP:SYN violation if no source can be found for it, but the sources do make the connection between Guede suddenly accusing Knox in 2009 and having his sentence almost halved. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That would seem to be making the case that they aren't reliable sources then. His sentence being reduced had nothing to do with his testimony that implicated Knox & Sollecito. It was reduced because he elected to have a fast track trial 1 and because he apologized to the Kercher family.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

He didn't apologise for murdering her, the apology related to his claim of not being responsible. Guede still denies he had anything to do with it. So he apologised for not saving her from the killer. I am Dracula and I will drink your blood Overagainst (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That is irrelevant to my point. The court and not Mignini reduced his sentence because of his apology.ref Any sources which are implying that Guede's sentence was cut because, as SlimVirgin has suggested, he accused Knox will have made arguments for their exclusion from this article as being unreliable. This was a court decision and not a deal with the prosecution.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

So in Italy you can maintain your innocence while 'apologising' for not saving the life of the young woman you have been found guilty of horribly murdering and sexually assualting and they will take 14 years off your sentence. Pull the other one. The prosecution can raise objections or decline to raise objections to the defence submissions. They obviously didn't actively press for the sentence to be upheld. Giude will still be in his thirties when released. Quite possibly he will get out sooner. Mignini would have dragged him back on another charge and had time added on, he doesn't release his grip. He was going to try and get a few extra years added on Amanda Knox's sentence, how old would she have been by the time she got out then? Some doctor drew blood (hope the needle was cleaner than the CSI's gloves) and they told her she had HIV, then they sold her cofidential medical infomation to the newspapers and trawled throught her diary for things to use in the media. They put her in a cell with an aggressive lesbian, probably hoping for another payday from the media. She'd have been dead in a few more years in that jail,Take a look at Knox today He destroyed 20 families with his delusions in the Narducci case, persecuted for imaginary ties to the Monster of Florence case. As Preston said "Mignini's malicious and completely unwarranted accusations ruined many lives and impoverished the defendants and their families," Now the Kerchers have been impoverished by the expenses involved in attending and being legally represented in never ending trials of their murdered daughter's friend . He'd drag Knox back in even now but he sits still for Guede to get a ludicrously lenient sentence? No. Overagainst (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Bearean, you are arguing that the court knocked 14 years off a murder sentence, because the convicted killer refused to accept his guilt and would only apologize for failing to summon help. Anyway, we have to stick to the sources, and they do make the link between Guede suddenly accusing Knox and shortly thereafter having his sentence almost halved. We can describe that using in-text attribution. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Slim it's well-known that Angel Face and Darkness Descending are anti-Knox books and the others are pro-Knox. If you want the latest, John Follain's Death in Perugia will be published next week. Based on previews it looks to be more on the anti-Knox side, so it might be a good contrast to Fatal Gift. Brmull (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a good idea. Which of the books have you read yourself, so that I know which sources we have in common? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Guede had a fragment of glass from the window wedged in his shoe

Rudy Guede is jailed for 30 years "The key point of evidence against Guede was a bloody handprint on a pillow in Miss Kercher's bedroom which bore his fingerprints. A fragment of glass from a broken window was found wedged in the tread of his shoe, and his shoe prints were found in the house." Is the fragment of glass from the broken window embedded in Glede's shoe significant enough to be mentioned ? Overagainst (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

He threw his shoes away in Germany so it in not possible to prove there was glass wedged in his shoes. Issymo (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

True, but he fact that there was a small piece of glass on the bedroom floor was discussed in secondary sources and deserves to be mentioned. Brmull (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There was a small piece of glass embedded in a print made by the sole of Rudy Guede's Nike 2 Outbreak tennis shoe on the floor of the bedroom. Meredith murder suspect Rudy Guede is an 'easy target' for accusations, say his lawyers. by Nick Pisa in Rome, 25 Oct 2008. "On Friday Sollecito's legal team said that a glass fragment found embedded in Guede's shoeprint at the scene proved that he had broken in. " He got a fragment of glass from the broken window wedged in the sole of his shoe as he came in, then the glass left the shoe to become embedded in the print made by the sole of his shoe as he walked inside the bedroom. Numerous shoe prints were found matching Guede's Nike shoe. Of course there was not a single shoe print matching any of the shoes which police had took from the houses of Knox and Sollecito. Guede claimed he did not break the upstairs window in the third bedroom of course but 5 days earlier, he had been caught afterhours in a Milan shool, with a laptop computer and mobile phone stolen from a law office burgled with a rock breaking through an upstairs window. Overagainst (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

In Angel Face (p. 166) Nadeau says that no one was ever able to explain the glass on the floor, and speculates that it was from a liquor bottle. The important thing is to stay neutral or provide attribution, i.e. "Sollecito's legal team said...". I would favor simply saying that glass was found and the source was not established. Secondly, while it is technically true that none of shoe prints matched shoes found in the possession of Knox or Sollecito, a shoe print in Meredith's bedroom was found to be "compatible" with Knox. Brmull (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Forensic evidence

"Prosecution witnesses stated that the knife could have made one of the three wounds on Kercher's neck.[56][96] Carlo Torre, a professor of criminal science based in Turin,[97] hired by Knox testified that all three wounds originated from a different knife that had a blade one quarter the size of that recovered from Sollecito's flat.[98]" I propose altering this text to "Carlo Torre, one of Italy's most renowned forensics experts,(ref sourceCNN Wire Staff September 24, 2011) testified for the defense that all three wounds originated from a different knife, one with a blade one quarter the size of that recovered from Sollecito's flat."

"Knox's fingerprints were not found in Kercher's bedroom, nor in her own bedroom."[48][100] Unless someone can cite a reliable source for the absence of (viable) fingerprints (not smudges) of Miss Knox in her own bedroom being significant it should not be presented as if it is evidence of wiping fingerprints. If the court heard forensic or other evidence that fingerprints had been wiped away or testimony that someone could clean their own blood and fingerprin­ts leaving only Rudy Guede's fingerprin­ts in such a way that it could not be forensically detected that the surfaces had been wiped please cite it. Overagainst (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that as evidence of wiping fingerprints. You are attempting original research with that and no source is necessary to refute your assertion.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm glad you can see it is not significant, as isn't relevant either "nor in her own bedroom" can be deleted. Overagainst (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It may or may not be significant as it is just stating some of the facts in the case. But please don't attempt to draw conclusions by putting words in my mouth as I didn't say any such thing as you imply.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

"Investigators argued that a break-in had been staged at the flat, partly because the window seemed to have been broken after the room had been ransacked.[101]" I propose changing this to "The prosecution argued that the window had been broken after belongings had been disturbed proving that the burglary had been staged. Overagainst (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

DNA

I think the all the main DNA evidence, (ie the bra clasp as well as the knife) should be mentioned. Also, the court appointed independent experts were more critical of the DNA evidence than warrants calliing it merely 'flawed', their criticism was unqualified. The Observer, Sunday 24 July 2011 " The report claims Stefanoni ignored international DNA protocols, made basic errors and gave evidence in court that was not backed up by her laboratory work, rendering the knife and bra strap worthless as evidence". There is support here for saying flat out that the DNA evidence suposedly incriminating Miss Knox and Mr. Sollecito was 'worthless'. Flawed is significantly weaker than warranted by the extraordinarily severe criticism which the report makes about the DNA evidence Overagainst (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Citation clutter

For future reference, when adding newspapers as cites, we only need byline, headline, name of newspaper, date of publication, and link if available. People have been adding access dates (only needed for websites you think might disappear), locations (only needed for unknown publications), name of publisher, and the newspaper's issn and oclc numbers. Also, it's best to avoid citation templates because they slow down load time, but if they are used, there's no need to fill out all the parameters. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)