Talk:Amanda Knox/Archive 1

Notability

I have created this article because of the current international notability of Amanda Knox and her role in the murder of Meredith Kercher. The Agence-France Press, the Guardian, the Times of London and American news sources like The Seattle Times and KOMO TV have all carried the story, so I believe this would qualify under WP:N. Please comment here or nominate for AfD and I will leave my reasoning there. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds 05:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• If Amanda is released without charges being filed, I will self-nominate this article for deletion. Cumulus Clouds 01:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Being a PCO, the 3 COULD get a Minimum of 15 years, with a maximum of 2 life sentences in the UK, if treated by Italian authorities they likely would be charged with a smaller sentence.

• I don't know what a PCO is and nobody has been charged yet so it would be very difficult to speculate on what would happen if they were. Cumulus Clouds 16:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you even read WP:N?

"A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews does cover topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage."217.42.13.38 (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• This article has already cleared AfD. You don't need to belabor this point any further. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

An editor has alleged this article violates the criteria for NPOV and that "the page seems an apology of Ms Knox. and why do not the other suspects deserve a similar treatment." I don't believe this is sufficient reason to tag this article, since the absence of articles about other suspects does not make this one nonneutral in itself. I have tried to maintain a neutral balance of sources and information in this article, but if I have failed to do so I invite other editors to add further material and to bring disputed material to the talk page for discussion. Cumulus Clouds 18:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Also, this page needs categories and I don't know which it would fall under, I would ask that somebody please place it in the appropriate category. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds 18:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What about trying to establish un-biased, factual biographies? I'm sure that there would be plently of people willing if the chance was given. I am all for neutrality, but I think that the Meredith Kercher article (well, for obvious reasons) paints too unfavorable a picture of Amanda in particular, which should be rectified immediately. Of course, that is just my humble opinion, but I think that giving more background information is vital in establishing the truth. Though justice for Meredith is what ultimately what ought to happen, I still think that eliminating any future injustice to Amanda and the others through the accurate portrayal of their personas and the proliferation of truth is necessary. What exists now is insufficient, in my opinion.
Your thoughts? Alexkorbonits (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Until a de facto dispute is discussed on this talk page, I am removing the NPOV tag. Thanks for your excellent work, by the way. --Tony Sidaway 19:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Insertion of uncited material

The insertion of the information concerning the police's interception of Knox's mobile phone call to Sollecito cannot be included in the article without a source. It violates WP:BLP and must be removed immediately. Simply placing a fact tag after it does not satisfy the requirements of the policy, either. I will continue to revert this material under the provisions of WP:3RR/Exceptions until a reliable citation is found. Cumulus Clouds 00:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

yes it can, todays evening standard, with the text message, 'tonight meredith dies'... 2 days before she was killed, by the way i am the PCO (Police Constable Officer, the all 3 / 5 people involved could seriously get life for this, as they meant to kill her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dext37 Fielding (talk • contribs) 14:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, that all qualifies as WP:OR and can't be included without a source. Cumulus Clouds 16:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2841412.ece Please reinsert all the deleted insertions to reach a neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.29.116.142 (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• That article doesn't support any of the allegations you're making. If you continue to attempt to insert unsourced POV material into this article, I will ask that it be protected. Cumulus Clouds 18:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

They modified the article. I should provide you a screenshot but it would be a copyright violation. You can see here the cache page http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&hs=Rct&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=raffaele+sollecito+phone+call&spell=1--87.29.116.142 19:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, the cached article still can't be used as a source since The Times isn't publishing the material you want to cite. Cumulus Clouds 19:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's part of the official Judge's 18 pages report http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=Q4HHQ3DFJTDEXQFIQMGCFF4AVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/11/09/wkercher509.xml

• I've included that report, but cited The Times, only because I happened to find their version first, though it's identical to the Telegraph's. Thank you for providing the link, though. Cumulus Clouds 20:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you help to improve also the Meredith Kercher page? There're lots of insertion to verify.--87.29.116.142 19:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• I will try, all these citations makes tedious work though. Cumulus Clouds 20:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Merging?

I've compared this article with Meredith Kercher. They share several parts, and talk about the same issue, so why not merging them into a Meredith Kercher assassination article? (The title is absolutely tentative). --Angelo 17:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Merging them into a single article makes sense to me, however the event spans two different continents, with people on both sides of the Atlantic sharing somewhat different interest in Kercher's death. While The Seattle Times, Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other Seattle news outlets have been hesitant to indict Knox, English publications like The Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph and The Times have run front page stories pointing the finger directly at Knox. For this reason, it remains a sensitive issue for the two concerned parties and this is why I originally created Amanda Knox as a separate article. If community consensus wants these merged, however, I will work to adapt all the sources into the appropriate context. Cumulus Clouds 19:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't have to indict anyone, what we have to show here is just documented and verifiable facts, as Wikipedia adheres to the neutral point of view. By the way, what about the Italian point of view? (the news is still in the headlines here). By the way, I doubt both Knox and Kercher are notable enough to stay here, as they fail WP:N (namely, they do not have enough significant coverage addressing their own lives, and the subjects are known only because of the assassination events). --Angelo 19:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• I would disagree in both cases, both Kercher and Knox had their lives meticulously scrutinized by the press. This article actually cites several of the articles where Knox's past writings and relationships have been detailed in the international news media. In regards to the Italian point of view, the only reason that I haven't been as dilligent in placing Italian sources in this article is simply because I can't read that language. I would be interested to know what their viewpoint is, but I've been relying on English sources which interpret their position in their own articles. If you can read Italian, I would be very excited about expanding sections -either in this article or the merged version- with Italian sources. Cumulus Clouds 20:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If Meredith Kercher hadn't been killed, I doubt their lives would have been scrutinized so much. This is a classic case of people notable only for one event. About the Italian press sources, I might read and translate them, but I can't ensure you I'll find enough time to do it. --Angelo 21:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well, with respect to that policy, I will certainly vote for a merge. Cumulus Clouds 00:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely they should be merged under the event "Meredith Kercher case" voice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.18.187.203 (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have performed this merger and this article is now redirected to Murder of Meredith Kercher. If I have made an error or if the merger was premature, please feel free to revert my changes or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds 04:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  Good call. Thanks. --Tony Sidaway 07:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Fine. --Angelo 08:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

redirects, part 1

I was about to write that I am so surprised that the article was never written but now I see that it was written and deleted. Oops. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I was able to make the article a redirect when I see several people have already edited it. I don't want to vandalize so what should I do? AFD? Wipe out others edits to make a redirect? Do nothing? Improve the article? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It depends what you think ought to be done with this article? Should we move it to "Murder of Meredith Kerchner" or something similar? PatGallacher (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason for AK to have her own article, I've redirected it to the MK case and requested protection. If AK manages to do anything else noteworthy then maybe, until then this info belongs on the main MK page (baring in mind the content of this page was a carbon copy of that from the MK case page). raseaC^{talk to me} 01:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Support the redirect to Murder of Meredith Kercher. It isn't so much an ethical BLP issue, but simply there is nothing to say about this person which would not belong in the article on the case. If there is sometime later - fine then.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirect target

It seems likely to me that a user searching for "Amanda Knox" is looking for information about the case she's associated with. Redirecting directly to the section on the murder article about Knox is confusing, since it leads to reading about Knox's role without first introducing who the victim is and the circumstances of the case. (The discussion above also seems to indicate that the redirect should go to the article; there's no mention made of redirecting to that section.) I therefore suggest that the redirect be changed to target the article and not the specific section. Propaniac (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No. When I was searching for "Amanda Knox", I expected to find an article about Amanda Knox. Amanda Knox is a person, not just a suspect associated with a murder. The person and the murder must be kept separate from each other. Think about Santa Claus: when I'm searching for "Santa Claus" I am looking for Santa Claus, not Christmas.{Mbrennwa (talk) 09:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)}

unprotection, page protection, etc.

This page is currently protected to keep it from being created as a distinct article from Murder of Meredith Kercher. There's no consensus for creating it as a distinct article. Per WP:BLP, WP:BLP1E, etc there should be a strong consensus for creating it as an independent article. Otherwise, leave the redirect in place. tedder (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just want to clarify: is this supposed to be a response to my comments above? I'm not saying there should be a separate article; I'm saying the redirect should go to Murder of Meredith Kercher instead of Murder of Meredith Kercher#Amanda Knox, because the latter doesn't properly introduce the basic elements of the case and is likely to be confusing to anyone who doesn't already have a pretty good idea who Amanda Knox is. (I'm sorry if I misinterpreted and you weren't addressing me at all.) Propaniac (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Tedder is referring to the fact that the page was protected to avoid recreation but has since been unprotected 'as per request' (although I'm not exactly sure where that request is). I can understand your argument for redirect to the Meredith Kercher article and not specifically the Amanda Knox section and would support such a change. However, I am absolutely against re-creation here, there is absolutely no rationale for a stand-alone article. raseaC^{talk to me} 15:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I was referring to the full-protection on the page, not to your comment above, Propaniac. I can see the confusion though! tedder (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I've reprotected this (after chatting with NuclearWarfare to avoid WP:WHEEL. As has been discussed here, any creation of Amanda Knox as an article in itself should be at Talk:Amanda Knox/Draft. tedder (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Good call Tedder however, I do agree with Propaniac's reasong for changing the redirect target above so unless there's any major objection could you go ahead and do that? raseaC^{talk to me} 18:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Works for me, especially because she's ledeworthy on that page. tedder (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

It appears that the page has been upprotected so that a bio can be attempted (although I see no reason how one can be created that would stick to WP:BLP unless AK has done a lot of stuff we're unaware of). It appears that a slight majority are in favour of a redirect so I think it would be a good idea to give the article (if it is, indeed, created) a few days to see if there is anyway it can be made on the right side of WP:BLP and then give it an AfD (athough with a rationale of redirect not right out deletion) so that we can get a proper concensus on this. raseaC^{talk to me} 15:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps creating the bio should be done at Talk:Amanda Knox/Draft, since any incomplete attempts at Amanda Knox will get immediately seen by a lot of people. tedder (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with that. If there's going to be a lot of editing over a short space of time it's going to be pretty god-awful for some of that time so a subpage is probably not a bad idea. raseaC^{talk to me} 15:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Restoration as full article

On 9 June 2009, the redirect as "Amanda Knox" was changed to become a full article, based on coverage of her 2nd trial (on charges of defamation of the Perugia police). At this point, the media coverage about Amanda Knox has surpassed WP:ONEEVENT, due to multi-year events:

• 3-6 November 2007: Investigation & arrest after the murder.
• 12 June 2009: Amanda Knox testified in Perugia, that she was pressured/hit and never heard Kercher scream.
• 16 December 2009: Donald Trump states Amanda Knox is innocent and says to boycott Italy.
• January 2010: Amanda Knox is charged with defamation of Perugia police.
• 1 June 2010: Amanda Knox starts defamation trial.

When the media covered Knox on trial for defamation of the Perugia police, rather than any action involving the 2007 events about Kercher, then clearly, WP:ONEEVENT no longer applied. It is a spurious argument to claim there would be no notability if "there had been no murder", as if saying a serial killer would be non-notable if the first murder didn't happen. A notable event cannot be "undone" to make a notable person non-notable. So, yes, Amanda Knox is notable for multiple events receiving broad, persistent coverage, and qualifies for a separate article as a "notable person" beyond one event (with notability beyond WP:BLP1E). -Wikid77 (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD on restoring text

I have initiated a WP:BRD cycle by restoring the prior sourced text of the article. At this point, text cannot be deleted, or extensively reworded, without discussion here to reach a consensus about the wording of that text. Please note that, per WP:NOTCENSORED, text cannot be deleted, even if considered as objectionable according to some users' religious beliefs. Per WP:AfD, this article cannot be blanked during the Article-for-Deletion discussion. Users should explain, below, why they think that information should be removed, or reworded, in the article. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• "Objectionable according to some user's religious beliefs"?? What on earth are you on about? I explained my revert quite clearly in my edit summary. You really need to read WP:POVFORK, you know, before you go spraying Wikipedia shortcuts around. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Per wp:AFD:

"Do not message editors about AfD nominations because they support your view on the topic. This can be seen as votestacking. See Wikipedia:Canvassing for guidelines.

Seems like you missed that [1] [2] [3]. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Obvious POVFork, Coatrack.

The article is now an obvious Coatrack - while it purports to be a biography, it's actually about a trial. It's also a total violation of WP:OR - synthesiszing multiple primary sources in a unique way. The version that I and others worked on, enshrined in perpetuity here is so much better it makes me reconsider !voting delete in the AFD. The article as it is now is an embarassment. I'm not going to edit war, but I wonder why Wikid77 is not topic banned yet. Hipocrite (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I must admit (as a keep !voter) that the article is disappointing. The way I see it, Amanda Knox is getting some sort of celebrity/notoriety status by the various editorial comments that claim her innocence and, to some extent, this is what makes her notable in her own right. Appearing on Oprah, being discussed on the pages of The Guardian and The New York Times, the references to the Italian justice system (not to mention the references to Americans daring to denigrate the Italian justice system!), that sort of thing. However, as the article currently stands, none of this appears in it but rather, as hipocrite points out, all we see is a replay of the murder trial itself. Disappointing. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Even as a "redirect" voter, I have to admit that there is a possibility (whilst slim) that Knox sneaks past BLP1E, but this article is merely a coatrack for some in the US to attempt to whitewash this person as a victim of some sort of corrupt foreign justice system. That's not what Wikipedia is for. If people want to campaign on behalf of Knox, there are plenty of places to do it out there. Just don't do it here; Wikipedia is not advocacy. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This page needs to be unprotected and recreated

There needs to be a biography here. The reasons the page was previously deleted are no longer valid.

• Amanda Knox has been the subject of a biopic starring Hayden Panettiere as Amanda Knox: The Amanda Knox Story. How many people who have biographies have been the subjects of high-profile biopics and have been portrayed by one of the world's most famous actresses?
• She has been a public figure for the duration of several years, and the subject of extensive global news coverage for years, in addition to books, a film about her etc. The coverage does not only focus on her involvement in the Kercher affair, but more so on her personal story, alleged injustice by Berlusconi's Italy, as well as events that are not directly part of the original case/trial.
• As a search term, Amanda Knox has been a popular search term for several years, regularly with thousands of searches each day. Yesterday for instance, there were over 28,000 people who looked up the page "Amanda Knox" that currently doesn't exist, 28,000 people who expected to find a biography here[4]. On average, there were over 5,000 people each day this month. Cawalt (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Should contest deletion at WP:DRV: I follow your reasoning, about the new film being a 2nd event, for Knox's independent notability. If Knox had fallen into a canyon, survived to tell, with a film made about that survival, then the production of that film would likely be a notable event. Hence, the new film, "Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy", provides the background to allow a separate, dedicated bio-page article titled "Amanda Knox". The 28,000 pageviews, on 21 February 2011, supports the notion that thousands of other people also think Knox is notable enough to have an article here, so you have presented an irrefutable argument. At this point, the next step is to contest the prior AfD at WP:DRV, to allow a discussion to determine how the new article will be structured. More later. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Done. -- samj _in^out 21:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Edit protected}} This redirect is currently placed directly into redirect categories rather than using redirect templates. It is also in a container category rather than the appropriate subcategory. Please replace the page content with:

#REDIRECT [[Murder of Meredith Kercher]]

{{This is a redirect|from person|printworthy}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Knox, Amanda}}

Thank you. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

unprotection request

Subject is highly notable, please unprotect users want to create article - Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I support unprotect and a creation of an Amanda Knox article.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Likewise, I was surprised to find the absence of biographical content here and consider it highly inappropriate for the woman's page to redirect to a murder she has been acquitted of. -- samj _in^out 21:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Incidentally I suggest picking up this version, removing the AfD template and scanning for any potentially libelous content would be a good start. -- samj _in^out 21:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• I want to sign off on this too. It makes no sense to redirect her article to a crime she's been acquitted of. Countercouper (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Make your voices heard on the deletion review below.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I've disabled this request, since a deletion review is ongoing and that is the correct venue for the matter. Ucucha (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review

I have asked for a deletion review of this article. You might want to participate in the deletion review. -- samj _in^out 21:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've also cleaned up the latest version and added the acquittal here: User:SamJohnston/Amanda_Knox. -- samj _in^out 21:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Good work.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I feel that an article for Amanda now is acceptable as her notability has been built up over a long period of time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: redirect - Amanda Knox

Reconsideration seem appropriate?

http://news.yahoo.com/amanda-knox-free-italy-isnt-really-pleased-214010786.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.96.106 (talk) 05:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Article recreated

The result of the deletion review was vacate, resulting in full protection being dropped to semi. As an uninvolved editor my main concern was to see a neutral biographical article for this verifiably notable subject, but that doesn't mean I necessarily want to create one myself. To that end I've recreated a minimal stub and would suggest this be developed without reference to the old version and with minimal reference to the murder of Meredith Kercher (so as to avoid creating a POV fork). I'd also suggest being careful to use only the most reliable of sources so as to avoid wasting editors' time discussing and cleaning up (as this article has been a time sink in the past) and in particular to avoid potentially libelous statements per WP:BLP. -- samj _in^out 15:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggested outline for article

• Lede
• Early Life, education, etc. (this is standard for just about any biography)
• Murder of Meredith Kercher. This would be a summarized version of the events surrounding the murder.
• Muder trial and appeal. A brief summary of the main case (perhaps merged with the events surrounding murder).
• Other related cases. This should expand upon the cases in the MoMK article, allowing those to contract.
• Portrayal in Media. A survey of how the media has portrayed Knox in the Press. (this would focus on portrayals of Knox, not about the case. The MoMK article would talk about the portrayal of the case, not the individuals.
• Public reaction to Knox. The disparate and differing opinions/camps regarding Knox.
• Portrayal in Popular Culture. This could also include references to the biographies, books, TV shows, and films about Knox.
• Life in prison. Similar to the Mendoza brothers. There have been tons of article about this, though I'd imagine this section would be very brief
• Life after acquittal; (TBD)

Any thoughts?LedRush (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for getting a start on this. Looks good except that I'd be wary of content forks of the MoMK and (proposed) trials articles. Obviously the related cases would need to be covered here but the actual murder and trial she was acquitted of should have no more than a paragraph each, if that, with {{mainarticle}} links. -- samj _in^out 23:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• 100% agreed.LedRush (talk) 00:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing of her early life is of interest per BLP & privacy, just so you know. Might be best to shift most of the content to a "trial of" article to avoid most of the BLP issues & avoid the risk of a fork. I don't like the portrayal sections either - again undue issues extant, and I am not sure if we have any good scholarly sources that summarise the material (i.e. rather than it consisting of "X paper said...", which is bad). If you keep it short and sweet though it sounds ok. I'd not mention anything about "events surrounding the murder" or the trial other than a brief timeline.

i.e.:

• Lead
• Murder of Meredith Kercher
• Related Cases (though as related cases, all the same thing)
• Public Image (covers all the portayal)
• Appeal & Release

Thoughts? --Errant ^(chat!) 16:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It is clearly not a BLP violation to have an early life/education section commensurate with other articles on living individuals (meaning it must be brief without mention of playing in flowers). Also, the main trial must be summarized briefly with a redirect to it. No more than a short paragraph. Finally, there is much media attention and information about Knox's life in jail, including a book of interviews with her there that doesn't cover the subject of the murder. Again, this information should be dealt as with in other BLPs. Ditto post jail life, though that section may be little more than a comment on her very public press conference.LedRush (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I added some basic uncontroversial facts to get things rolling. Hope you don't mind. Dougbremner (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've kicked off some of these sections with basic starter paragraphs. Westeros1994 (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Life as a student and later prisoner in Perugia, Italy

I added this section and some basic facts which need citations. Dougbremner (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Acquitted?

I'm no law expert but is a judgement being overturned on appeal the same as an acquittal? (Re 'acquittal' in the lead.) --regentspark (comment) 23:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It's tough to say under Italian law. The first appeal is much more like a trial de novo in common law countries. However, I suspect that you're right and the current language is misleading. It should say that she was convicted and then found innocent upon appeal (innocent...not not guilty).LedRush (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I already changed it to the more accurate description of "her conviction was overturned".TMCk (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Italian law is completely different than US law, which is based on common law which derives originally from old England. In Italian law conviction is not attained until the second trial, therefore the accused are innocent until then. They are referred to as "imputato" which means accused. Therefore Knox was never convicted and found guilty. Italians understand this readily. Unfortunately they often have to rot (or sweat) in jail in the meantime. They are being held for "cassation" I think the term is. The first trial is primo grado which is best translated as "first grade" while the second is "secondo grado". Calling it an appeal is misleading as it seems like American appeals although confusingly enough the secondo grado is held in the Corte di Apello. The secondo grado is like a trial di nuovo where evidence and witnesses can be brought back in. The "supreme court" or Cassazione (Cassation) only considers violations of form or interpretation in camera, i.e. Mignini will have to write a brief and they will read it and consider it and if they find with him they will send it back to the lower courts for a trial di nuovo although the chances of this happening are very unlikely. I might add that the main injustice in Italian law is the slow process and lack of due process, and the large number of people exactly like Knox who spend years in jail although they are never technically "convicted" (as Knox was not). Italians are very cognizant of this and this is what is behind calls for judicial reform. Dougbremner (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine. Though you might be right, we still need RS's that say so.TMCk (talk) 03:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Italian Code of Criminal Procedure here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougbremner (talk • contribs) 11:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

This is an english language encyclopedia — use the precise terms in italian (where they will be understood) and the best available equivalents here. -- samj _in^out 14:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The current article is not accurate and the points of Italian law are relevant. She did not spend 4 years of a 26 year sentence in jail because she was never found guilty. She spent four years in cautionary detention, during which time she lost the first grade trial (primo grado) and won the second grade trial (secondo grado). In fact she was always referred to as "accused". The second grade trial conviction is required for guilt to be established. 99.110.189.111 (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but I think that a more detailed explanation including the Italian terms would be very informative in a subsection. Westeros1994 (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Added, btw the above about italian law was from me, and I have added a new section. Dougbremner (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

"Acquitted" is not the ONLY bone of contention here. We can dance around the question of whether a loss in the 1st round and a victory in the 2nd round constitute, as they would in America, a CONVICTION and then a reversal of a conviction, or, as is asserted, a failure (in Italy) ever to convict in the first place, but surely a paragraph beginning with "After Knox was found innocent of the murder ..." requires more support than an assertion that under Italian law she was somehow "never convicted". Even if you buy that Italian law didn't convict her (which could be true for all I know, depending on translation of words), what's the basis for saying she was "found innocent"? In American law you're never found innocent of a crime. You're found guilty, or not guilty, if it goes to jury-verdict. Please explain how it is that in Italian law the failure to convict is a finding of "innocence" as opposed to a finding of insufficient evidence for the long arm of authority to impose a punishment that would be unjust in the absence of guilt. That's a separate question entirely from whether she was "convicted and then reversed on appeal" or was "never convicted". In the absence of supplying this explanation of how Italian law "found her innocent" (as opposed to "not finding her guilty") please self-abasingly concede that she was NOT "found innocent", but was, merely, never found guilty (or was found guilty but had it reversed, depending on translation of words). 76.8.67.2 (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson 76.8.67.2 (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

There is a fundamental confusion here. If there is no conviction until the higher court approves the verdict of the lower, she was NOT wrongfully convicted at all. She was found guilty by a lower court, and as the higher court did not approve this, she was in fact acquitted of the murder charge. However what is not clearly stated is whether the higher court approved the convictions for "sexual assault and simulating a burglary at the first level".203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Judge quote in lead

I don't think this is appropriate. First of all, the judge said this in a conversation with the media and is not something that was said in the courtroom. Second, the judge goes on to say "But this is the truth in court, not the real truth. And that could be different". Signifying that, in this judge's mind anyway, the distinction is a legal one. And, this is just one judge from amongst a large panel (presiding or not). Either way, unofficial statements made to the media are hardly the stuff that should go in the lead. --regentspark (comment) 16:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It's undue in the lead, certainly. Could be good content in a larger section. --Errant ^(chat!) 18:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.LedRush (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Somewhere in the article body is reasonable. --regentspark (comment) 18:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

As it's a media quote probably better in the MOMK (or trial) article; on balance it seems a bit soapboxy, and we have better material to say the same. --Errant ^(chat!) 18:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I choose to agree with the Errant of an hour ago, and not the current Errant.LedRush (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think its being given undue weight in the lede. Its doubtful if it should be added here at all. - It needs expanding and explaining and then it would be very undue in this biography - remove it completely from here is my position - I removed it - please don't start this here, this is a simple life story not a guilty innocent soapbox - take it to the trial article. Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it would be better in a subsection. Westeros1994 (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be in a subsection, and other quotes from the original trial judge and Italian and American officials would improve the article. Westeros1994 (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You can say it three times if you like but it won't make it any more correct. This is not a fork of the trial article content. Off2riorob (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Please, no personal attacks. Westeros1994 (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please avoid that. I recommend as a new editor you take your time editing this BLP as it is highly contentious. It may be a good idea to restrict this article to a IRR condition. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand, mocking me and falsely accusing me of trying to create a "fork of the trial article content" is a personal attack. WP:NPA: "Rather than commenting on what is wrong with the article or talk page, they make a bad comment about the user, the person who wrote the comment. This is called a personal attack, and will not be tolerated. Personal attacks help no one." Westeros1994 (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstood me, your undue portrayal of attacks is unwarranted and a personal attack in itself - I suggest you drop it and focus on content. Off2riorob (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Your wording was clear and it is your false accusation of a personal attack that is unwarranted. Westeros1994 (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

No matter how many times you repeat your false allegations of personal attacks they will still be false and attacking in themselves. Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Off2rob, you were being a douche (unneccessarily antagonistic), please stop. Westeros, being a douche is different than a personal attack...stop whining and move on. Let the WQA's against me start....:)LedRush (talk) 04:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Calling me a douche is a personal attack, if you repeat it I will report it. Off2riorob (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Everyone chill out. Westeros, per my comment on your talk page, this is not a personal attack and calling it one is inflammatory wikilawyering — same applies for talking about content forks. Comment on the content, not the contributor. -- samj _in^out 12:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

This article should not be turned into a content fork of the trial content. Off2riorob (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You're preaching to the converted. -- samj _in^out 13:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that the quote should be in the lead. I don't think that the quote should be in the article at all as stated above, it was a quote to the media and not a statement in court. What I do think should be in the article is the distinction that the court made in their judicial code which is contrary to the statement that Hellmann made to the media. Their are two points about the judgement that are significant. One, that he released them immediately rather then hours later, secondly, the judicial code that they used: 533 instead of 530. 530 means that there was not enough evidence to convict, however 533 means that "the fact does not exist". No matter what the judge said to the media (it was probably just saving face) he had a choice and chose to use the code that stated no that there was not enough evidence but that they did not commit the crime.Turningpointe (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Errant, Off2riorob and others in the view that the quotation should not be presented in the lead section - hardly encyclopaedic. To me, its out-of-context positioning (as a one-sentence paragraph) almost has the effect of sensationalising the content of the introduction. It may be appropriate to include the statement in a relevant section of the article's main body. SuperMarioMan 21:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

In the long run the quote won't be seen as significant. I think he was basically saying that from the viewpoint of the law there was not evidence to convict, in fact not evidence at all (not just reasonable doubt), but in terms of "what really happened who knows" (i.e. possibly martians could have done it). It was a quote pulled out of context by the media. 99.110.189.111 (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC) Dougbremner (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"But this is the truth in court, not the real truth" implies that the finding of innocence is wrong — e.g. they were guilty. There are plenty of people who vehemently believe they were guilty and plenty who believe they were innocent — are we going to quote them all? Granted this was one of the judges but I'm unconvinced this (possibly slanderous) statement has any place in the article, anywhere. -- samj _in^out 08:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of what was exactly meant, the main issue to me is that it was a quote given outside of court, to the media. At least as written it sounded like a legal opinion or ruling (i.e. what he said when releasing them). Which is a neutrality issue too. All in all; a dubious choice of quote. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• The lede is a summary, so in general for all articles unless a quote is an accurate (and balanced) summary of aspects of the article it shouldn't be included.GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 14 October 2011

Please change Seattle, Canada to Seattle, USA. As Seattle is in the USA. See Citation 8

Yadernuk (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Canada has been removed. Off2riorob (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Trial and imprisonment

I added a reference for the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (see here) to address questions related to the writing being original research. Dougbremner (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah no... actually that doesn't address the concerns much - although OR is not the major problem, it feels rather synthy, especially as (suspiciously) none of the Knox related sources mention the criminal code. I think the information is poorly presented; and once again soapboxing about the issue. A simple description (that didn't mention the criminal code every sentence :P) is the way to go. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Especially as the prose leaps from moving to Italy to "She was put in prison" with little context or description (even if it is self-evident). Not good. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I tried an improvement. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The English was off in this, I corrected it and added a reference from the Seattle PI article about not being guilty until convicted in the secondo grado at the Corte Assize d'Appelo (I think technically Vogt is wrong about this, you are convicted after secondo grado because it usually does not go to the Corte di Cassazione unless someone wants to complain about technical problem or application of the law, when it is heard in camera, and if the court decides it is thrown back to appeals court for retrial, but no matter). Dougbremner (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you need a negative in there somewhere, because now she *is* guilty after the first grade (according to us :)). --Errant ^(chat!) 14:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Doug seems to be ignoring this; I am confused on whether there should be a negative in the prose - but it is my understanding she was *not* considered guilty after the first conviction (although that appears to have been stretched out from the legal defn. it is what the source says). As it hasn't been corrected I tried to do so --Errant ^(chat!) 09:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks good as written now to me. Dougbremner (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sales links and books and documentaries about her

I removed all the sales links and the not notable uncited tv programs - this is Knox's life story as written by us using reliable externals - its not a place to list links to promotional sales sites for every titillating paperback anyone has ever written neither every uncited tv program about the murder. Off2riorob (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Knox has been written about a lot. The list of books were only the ones published by independent publishers, and only the ones primarily about Knox (not primarily about Kercher). This section was labelled a stub...the only way for it not to be one is to add the books and shows I've added. If those aren't good enough, we shouldn't even have the section. Of course, that wouldn't conform to either the consensus of editors on this page or the purpose of Wikipedia. If you have a problem with a specific source, I suggest you discuss it here.LedRush (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I see you reverted back the amazon sales links with the edit summary , "(revert removal of sourced, notable content)" - I dispute your reason for re adding the disputed content when I clearly didn't remove a single WP:RS - notable content requires independent reliable citations that are discussing it to assert its notability, that does not include sales sites .. and you also replaced all the uncited content as well. Oh, well lets see what others say. In fact your whole addition here is a simple cut and copy paste duplication of the content from Murder of Meredith_Kercher#Further reading - begging the additional question - does any of it belong here anyway - its all about the murder not the person or if they're all about the person then they don't belong at the murder article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The books etc. are about the trial - so probably more logical/better there. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

(also; if copying content within Wikipedia please remember to cite this in an edit summary for attribution and to meet licensing) --Errant ^(chat!) 20:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the books about the trial and left the ones about Knox, as stated above. The list is not a copy from KoMK, though there is about a 70% overlap.LedRush (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

But you cut and copy pasted everything that you posted here from the murder article didn't you - you didn't write it yourself did you? Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I wrote some parts of the MoMK section (which I copied), and I wrote some new parts for this. If you want to tag something for licensing, go ahead. I'm not sure what the to-do is about.LedRush (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Which parts did you write as brand new content and which parts did you cut and copy paste from another location of the content you added here? Did you write this (uncited) content new today for this article Amanda Knox#Television Documentaries or did you cut and copy paste it from another article - ? Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The documentaries list I helped compile on the MoMK article, and copied a scaled down version here. It was the consensus of the editors at the other article (I believe) that citations for these types of lists were not necessary. I am agnostic on the issue don't care either way.LedRush (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest if you are agnostic about something you should avoid revert warring them back into a BLP when they are uncited. Please remove them. Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not agnostic about the inclusion of the information, merely the cites. Also, could you please be more polite? You constantly act like a petulant child looking to start fights at the drop of a hat.LedRush (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you either cite it or remove it. - its independently uncitable - just remove it and get it over with. Also - "You constantly act like a petulant child looking to start fights at the drop of a hat" - I suggest you stop looking in the mirror if you don't like what you see. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Firstly, please settle down with your unnecessary aggression and hostility. Secondly, it is cited, so it obviously isn't uncitable.LedRush (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for editing out your earlier inflammatory and hostile language.LedRush (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Firstly again - if you don;t like what you see in the mirror adjust your own behavior, secondly, as per firstly. - As per your opining about why I did something, I am well known for editing my comments please do not assume why I did it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't assume a reason. Please reread what I said and be more careful with your statements.LedRush (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't had the time to look at the books themselves but I don't see why we should include links to Amazon.com in the article. This is an encyclopedia, and links should be either to cited text from a reliable source or to external material that contains material that is useful. Linking to a book that is for sale is appropriate for a catalog, not an encyclopedia. --regentspark (comment) 22:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Amazon links are used in place of ISBN numbers where appropriate. They serve as a citation that the book meets the criteria for inclusion (meaning, not self-published).LedRush (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you want to bring this discussion to the MoMK page, where Errant participated in the discussions resulting in the inclusion of these links in the past?LedRush (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• - I opened a discussion at the reliable source noticeboard - Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Amazon sales links - Off2riorob (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for taking it there. My second question is: should we have this section at all? I can imagine listing books written by Knox but books about Knox should be used as sources for citing material in the main body of the article. I'm not sure what purpose a listing of books (and tv documentaries) serves (except to show that she's famous, which we already know since we have an article on her). --regentspark (comment) 22:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This is an article about Knox. Listing the books, documentaries and films about here seems like a no-brainer to me. Of course, we could expand the "media portrayal" idea and explain how each book/film/documentary portrays her, but that seems like overkill to me. A simple list converys to the reader the level of coverage the subject has received, informs the readers of the type of coverage she has received (one main purpose of the article) and is generally helpful to the reader to know the subject (another main purpose of the article).LedRush (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Your cut and copy pasting and duplicating of content from the murder article, some of which was uncited seems not to support your comments - basically imo all the content written about her is about the murder and as your cut and copy duplication shows, is already where it belongs, already at the murder article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Why is the level of coverage important? The purpose of the article is not to reinforce the fame of an individual. And, how does a list of books inform the reader of the type of coverage? One would have to write a summary of each book for demonstrating the type of coverage. A list of books seems rather arbitrary to me and, as far as I can see, is there only to emphasize that the person is famous. --regentspark (comment) 22:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Bibliographies seem generally helpful for the reasons I stated above, and seem to be not at all uncommon for articles of this type. The books help the reader know about the type of coverage by what the book purports to cover (whether conversations with her in jail, or even just something like "Amanda Knox and the others" conveys clear meaning to a reader). Also, the list doesn't need to emphasize that the person is famous, but it does help a reader understand the nature and scope of the subject's coverage in books/film. Seeing as even getting an article for Knox was an uphill battle based on notability, it seems even more important here than on the many, many other articles that have them.LedRush (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I have several of the remaining boooks; and they are all specifically about the murder/trial. Not about Knox. I'm dubious on the TV shows as well TBH, but that's for the next section. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of documentaries

Off2Rob has remained a class act and removed the entire section a mere two hours after tagging it as uncited and without letting anyone else chime in. So the question because, if I chase down the cites, do you agree that the section belongs? If people will be mindlessly obstructionist, it may not be worth the time.LedRush (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Suit yourself - if they are noteworthy and independent perhaps, perhaps not. Whatever - don't replace uncited content into a BLP again. - especially with the false edit summary you posted earlier of, "(revert removal of sourced, notable content)" - Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Um...so you want me to go through each and make the case for how noteworthy each is independently? And even if they are, you still might not support inclusion? Does anyone with something intelligent or intellectually honest to say have any thoughts on whether to include a fully cited list of documentaries about Knox?LedRush (talk) 01:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, you removed much cited content. Please try and be honest about that. However, I admit you are right that I restored some uncited content per my understanding of the rules regarding bibliographies based on when editors and admin (like Errant) allowed for such entries not to have citations in a bibliography. I am still not sure what the correct policy is, even though I know the correct way of getting at the truth is not the way you've chosen.LedRush (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You claim I removed - "much cited content" - was this independently cited content - or some sales externals that are now removed and not to be returned - and a couple of isbn internals that are not really cited content at all, but simply book references. - please present this so called much cited content that I removed...Off2riorob (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

isbn internals? what does that mean? isbn numbers should not be removed although THEORETICALLY I guess you could argue that amazon links are promotional sales although in the 21st century to deny that an amazon link is a major place holder as a unique identifier for a book is really antiquated thinking in my opinion, although, hey, that is just one opinion. I will be watching this site and any arguments that books, movies, etc, about Knox are not relevant to be listed on this page I will vigorously dispute. Dougbremner (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The books were correctly cited for WP policy on including books. But you already knew this as it was stated above.LedRush (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No they were not or I would not have had to remove all the sales externals would I. Off2riorob (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

So you're going to change your story yet again. Awesome. So now you are no longer arguing that each and every book that was listed did not have any cite at all, but that each and every one was incorrectly cited, and that you removed them all so that you could fix them? So strange.LedRush (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

To recap, you said that I made a revert with a "false" edit summary - implying I lied, not made a mistake. The edit summary said that I restored cited content. Of course, we both now seem to recognize that at least a substantial part of the information was cited. However, you seem to have taken the position that none of it was correctly cited, so that's why you had to delete it. This seems equally implausible to me, but logical consistency and constructive discussions remains elusive with you.LedRush (talk) 02:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)LedRush (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I restored the list of documentaries. These do not need reliable source citations. Dougbremner (talk) 02:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Umm, why not? At this moment they are totally unsourced; so there is no evidence for their existence. I'm not exactly questioning that they did happen but here are a few problems: "A Long Way From Home" doesn't mention Knox in the title, how do we know it was about her? How do we know the rest were broadcast? From which sources has this list been constructed. That is what is needed. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed them again as uncited. - they are worthless without verification. Off2riorob (talk) 11:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Errant, is there a policy reason that cites would be needed here but not on MoMK? I've asked the question over there as well...I simply don't know the correct policy on this, but I believed that the cites weren't necessary for the bibliography because it was merely a bibliography. That we had 3 admins commenting on the article, and sometimes even on the content of the bibliography, at the time strenthened that belief. If we always need cites to a bibliography, that's fine. They should be easy enough to get. If I do get them, would you support their inclusion here?LedRush (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

As they say, what happens in MoMK, stays in MoMK. (just a little joke) although unless things are so common as to be usual practice what has happened on one article if against policy and guidelines is not a reason to do it at another articles - its a matter of, if challenged as well. Also this is a WP:BLP and as requested by that policy, we should cite things to quality sources. One benefit of this, apart from the obvious benefits to the reader is of verification and investigation - citing them will allow us to investigate them and to see what they are about etc. I Personally see no benefit to them being duplicated here - they are all about the murder. Saying that if cited I won't remove them and a consensus may arise that they are worthwhile here - imo we could create a list of news pro grammes about the murder there are probably so many. I have added sources to a few of them at Doug's talkpage here. - User talk:Dougbremner#List of Documentaries on Amanda Knox - Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No, they need to be cited there as well. Bear in mind that the books are cited as existing, because their ISBN is provided & so we can look up & verify them. We need the same situation for the TV stuff as well, obviously. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob finished getting citations for all of the documentaries on my talk page User talk:Dougbremner. Any problems with posting them now? Dougbremner (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Is including a list of documentaries important, or is it more useful to note that she has been the subject of a number of documentaries? If you name some of them are you presenting an unbalanced view by failing to name others that were made? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Just as a note, I found a few citations as a show of good faith and User:Berean Hunter found the others. As I stated above, they are more useful to a reader if cited but I still don't support their inclusion here - they are all about the murder and are duplicated at the murder article. "and there were multiple news programmes about the murder" - really that is a surprise - WP:linkfarm - WP:ELNO and suchlike... Off2riorob (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking up the citations. I put them back per WP:BOLD and we can continue the discussion. Dougbremner (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

If the documentary's are about the murder trial and not actually about Knox then do they really belong here? The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Release

Can someone please fix this section somehow? In its present state it reads like a soap opera (or the ending of a Bollywood film)--regentspark (comment) 14:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you be more specific (or less insulting)?LedRush (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't mean to be insulting so apologies if it came off that way. Do we have to use 'most urgent letters' and the comparison with the pope? And, the bit about the cheering inmates does, with due apologies but I can't find any other way to describe it, seem a bit soppy. I'm not even sure why all this is here, all this would be better in a celebratory piece about the person but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Anyway, I've said my piece and perhaps I am wrong so let's see what others say. --regentspark (comment) 14:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The cheering and headline are newsworthy in my opinion. Personally I think it is OK. Dougbremner (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It is all cited, and I remember the stories from the day. I think much information here will feel a little undue-y until we beef up the article as a whole. There is a ton of information which can be included in this article, but I just need to find the time to put it in. But I'll take a look at the section and see if it should be toned down.LedRush (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the content itself. I think the best way to address this is through article expansion. Is there an edit you think would addrss your concerns, or do you just think the whole thing should be removed?LedRush (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Uncontextualized, the content appears celebratory. The same material, perhaps sans quotes, would make sense in a section that discusses the obsession that the media had with Knox. But, if no one else thinks this stuff is out of place, then I retire bemused. --regentspark (comment) 20:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason this looks celebratory is because it is describing a celebration. Why don't we add something about the immediate reactions to the verdict at the courthouse (inside, mixed reactions; outside, mostly negative reaction with chants of "for shame") or something like that? That should add notable content and a moderating affect on the tone.LedRush (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Still kinda undue trial related - just summarise it, that's the best approach. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. Could you explain?LedRush (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Well - we are summarising her accusation, trial, conviction, appeal and release. I'm not sure that some quote about the cheering etc. really works as an adequate summary. I mean - we barely mention being acquitted. It is kinda cheerleading - as regentspark says, soppy. I think the paragraph is better replaced with something simple & clear. We had the same issue with the conviction section (which I reworked yesterday) which spent most of the time going on about Italian Criminal Procedure without explaining anything :) --Errant ^(chat!) 23:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I see. But that other stuff seems like it belongs in another article, while the stuff outside the trial belongs here. Of course, the stuff outside the trial would be covered in more detail than items detailed in other articles and summarized here.LedRush (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Umm; her release seems to be part of the "Trial" material, at least to me... we can't just cut off the trial article with the judges appeal decision and then jump over to here and wax lyrical about her last day(s) in Italy :) --Errant ^(chat!) 08:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Um, this is the place to give detail about what happens outside the trial, and another article can give detail about what happens within it. Of course, this article should summarize the trial, and the other article can give summaries of information left elsewhere. Your strawman is made of straw.LedRush (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, her life in jail, as being reported now by hundreds of news outlets, should be covered here, not in a trials section, as it has only to do with her (not Sellecito) and nothing to do with the trial.LedRush (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Convicted criminal

This article seems to ignore the fact that Knox was convicted for trying to frame an innocent man. Her 3 year sentence for that crime was upheld at the appeal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.25.145 (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Knox was convicted of falsely accusing someone else of the murder, a fact which sits very prominently in the current lede.LedRush (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The fact that Knox's "false accusation" of Patrick Lumumba occurred during her extended questioning and was in response to the police finding a text from him and suggesting to Knox that Lumumba was implicated might be included. The claim was that she had had no interpreter, food, water, or sleep for an extended period during the question. 98.125.250.89 (talk) 05:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

More sources

Here's an editorial:

• Patrick, Steven J. "Amanda Knox: A Terrible Crime…And Then Another." Seattle Post-Intelligencer. October 4, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but the source is "a seattlepi.com reader blog."TMCk (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, you are right!

It says: "Editor's note:

This is a seattlepi.com reader blog. It is not written or edited by the P-I. The authors are solely responsible for content. E-mail us at newmedia@seattlepi.com if you consider a post inappropriate. "

So we can't rely on that one.

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

IP editors

While the talkpage is protected IP editors can post here.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Book title

"Angel Face: The True Story...Killer..." I was suggesting a compromise. It is normal to refer to a book without including its subtitle. But I am quite happy to retain the full title. Rothorpe (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should change the title. At the end of the day, there is a book about Knox by this title, and it's not up to us to say if it's accurate or not. It is helpful to a reader to know this book is out there, regardless of its quality.LedRush (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The book i not even notable and has no place here. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It is, by far, the most (or second most, perhaps) notable book in the bibliography. While removing the entire bibliography would be an option, your constantly shifting rationales for removing a book you don't like are problematic. Hipocrite (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not contributor. There are no shifting rationals. If none are notable then none ought be there. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

He did comment on the content. I agree with him (except that I don't find the book as notable as he does...it's probably #2, maybe #3).LedRush (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Advertising books which are factually inaccurate are almost certainly an issue, I have tagged the article as factually incorrect. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, is it your contention that we're not allowed to mention the existence of factually inaccurate books? Hipocrite (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

No, but it is my contention that persons reading this article ought be aware that there is factually incorrect material being advertised. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

If you agree that it is not appropriate to remove the book (even though you removed the book), what is your preferred action? Why did you not propose that action, as opposed to aggressively tagging the article? Hipocrite (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

That is not what that tag is for. It is for articles that include factually incorrect information. The information here is correct - the book was published. We are not responsible for its contents. If the book is notable it should be mentioned whether it is fsctually accurate or not. Notability rests on whether it is mentioned in other secondary sources. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Were did I agree that it is not appropriate to remove the book? And I mentioned above that the entire section ought to go as none of those books are notable. I removed the fact tag, the article itself is ok, just that section, so I tagged it for bias. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You now alleged that the un-annotated list of books advances a point of view. What point of view is advanced by the list of books, and what should be done to correct that? Hipocrite (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC) Further, if your concern is about the book titles, what should be done about "Cold Blood: Life Behind Bars For Amanda Knox," the title of a documentary that is also an inaccurate title, as she will not be spending life behind bars? Hipocrite (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

We can't remove factually innaccurate books because if you looked hard enough probably almost all books would meet that criteria. Leaving the complete title in will help the reader evaluate the accuracy of the book on their own. The criteria for inclusion of books is not the editor's view of accuracy but the fact that it was published by a publisher with an editor with some editorial control. Just because Tina Brown was an atrocious failure as an editor on this one does not mean we can cherry pick the title out of the list. The best books on the case are not included as they are technically self published. No one is disputing the fact that Angel Face is full of inaccuracies. Your tagging for bias is really just a beef with the rules for citations of books in Wikipedia. Please remove the tag. Dougbremner (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, remove the tag, it's just a list of books. The full title is history. Rothorpe (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

• Removed tag per consensus here...which I agree with. That was a misapplication and not what the tag is for.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing Trial

Any reason why her (still ongoing) trial for calunnia against the Italian police is not mentioned? Surely relevant. Sources: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13423074 http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2011/0518/Amanda-Knox-trial-for-slandering-Italian-police-adjourned-until-November or http://www.cayleedaily.com/2011/05/amanda-knoxs-slander-trial-opens-in-italy/ (trial delayed until 15 November 2011)(Connolly15 (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC))

Your source is "Kercher Killer Amanda Knox..." LOL, not very reliable source since the court found she didn't kill her. I don't think it is that newsworthy right now since by "pushing it back" they were essentially deferring it they knew the outcome of the trial in the secondo grado. I imagine they will wait for the outcome of the prosecution to go to the Corte di Cassazione. So I wouldn't consider it to be an "ongoing trial," not really at this point. Just my 2 cents worth. Dougbremner (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Errr, yes, the title of the article is that because it was written before the appeal was decided (17 May 2011)?? It's the BBC, that's about as reliable as they come in the British media... and that may very well be why it was deferred, the charge is unrelated to the first case? It's definitely an ongoing trial. (Connolly15 (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC))

Well it doesn't show very good judgment to have a headline like that when the case against her by that point was leaky as a sieve as she was not 'condannato' under Italian law at that point but only 'imputato'. My feeling is that keeping up with the inevitable "postponements" won't be interesting until the Corte di Cassazione rules on the prosecutors petition on the murder case, but that's just my 2 cents. Dougbremner (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Lists of books and movies

I'm not saying what information should stay or go, but the book and movie lists as currently written are not how we do things. We need paragraphs and sentences. And possibly secondary sources. We should probably move those sections to the talk page, so we can reintegrate them correctly. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Edits

an edtitor is making mass reverts claiming there is a copy io. I hope he can revert only the vio and then explain it here. I will not revert until his concerns are addresses.LedRush (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There are two major items wrong with your contributions to the article. First, there is the copyright violation. Here is the text that was in the article (you didn't add it but you kept reinserting it): "ANSA's news alert announcing Knox's conviction being overturned was made in its most urgent level. According to Italy's national TV broadcaster, this last happened when Pope Benedict XIV was elected in 2005." Here is the text from the source: "ANSA, the national Italian news agency, issued news alert in all capital letters, the most urgent level. The last time that happened was when Pope Benedict XIV was elected in 2005, according to national TV broadcaster RAI." What really stands out in the copying of the source's text is "was made in its most urgent level", which is so strikingly awkward in English. As an aside, even if the material were paraphrased less closely to the original, I don't see why the content belongs in the article. It's hardly encyclopedic, it's more sensationalistic trivia. Moving along, the second problem is your insertion of the rescue tag. You can't just add a rescue tag because you feel like it. You have to satisfy the guidelines listed in the Instructions section at WP:ARS, and, in my view, this article doesn't meet those guidelines. And, more important, you must follow the instructions themselves: "As part of this tag's use, please comment at the deletion discussion on why this item should be rescued and how that could happen. Your input should constructively lead the way for other editors to understand how this item can be improved to meet Wikipedia's policies and likely benefits our readers." (bolding in original) You didn't do that. Finally, I don't like the other content changes, but my views on those changes would not justify repeated reversions.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is obviously no copyright violation, and the level of attention that the news received is obviously notable. But whatever, I'll further change the language (it has already been altered) to address your concerns regarding the "most urgent level". However, in the future, it is best to just make edits which change what you want to change. I've add in new cites, new sections and new information, and you've mindlessly mass reverted without any explanation on the talk page. That is disruptive and not helpful to the article.LedRush (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep the mindlessness to yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the sexual harassment accusations, I believe that's a BLP violation of the unnamed prison administrator based on WP:BLPSPS. I've raised this issue at WP:BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree these accusations, as currently presented, constitute a BLP violation (WP:BLPSPS. Here, subject has made claims about a third party, and in the article those claims are based entirely on a primary source. LedRush, since inclusion of the current content is doubly inappropriate under BLP policy, might you concede to remove it for now and replace it if/when the claims can be better supported? JFHJr (㊟) 18:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Based on LedRush's most recent edits, he doesn't seem to agree that the material violates BLP.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it gets worse, with new accusations in the article essentially sourced to Knox and her sister. We even use a gossip rag as a source, which says such dignified things like: "poor Amanda!" and "we’re shocked by the mistreatment she faced at the hands of the guards!" and "What do you think, HollywoodLifers — will Amanda be able to recover from her horrific jail time?". You'd think LedRush would be embarrassed to cite such a source.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

All of the information was sourced by the IBT. Yes, I threw in a supporting cite from a tabloid article, but you could have just removed that citation. Try and keep your arguments on point.LedRush (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There are hundreds of articles making these claims. Is the problem with the sources or the claims? Also, I don't know why everyone keeps on removing far more than what they claim needs to be removed in the edit summaries. The HIV information has been out there for years and is not a new claim. Also, what BLP violation did the announcement of the release meet. Please be more careful with edits. These mass reverts seem more disruptive than policy based.LedRush (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been very carefully explained here by me and by others what is wrong with the material. No one is interested in what other articles do. The HIV material isn't as problematic as the other assertions because it doesn't appear to be presented as an accusation only by Knox or her sister. When you add as much as problematic material as you do, you shouldn't be surprised when editors revert everything. If you were more careful in the first instance, it wouldn't be necessary. You can't expect other editors to do your work for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing has been carefully explained. And if you have an issue with a sentence, discuss that sentence. It makes no sense to delete Knox's relationship with the lawmaker, the reporting of her HIV, the leak to the press, or any of the other information based on BLP grounds. It appears that the only BLP issue is based on the statements about sexual harassment by prison officials, which has been picked up and sourced to CBS news, the IBT and numerous other cites. Why don't we leave in all that other information and then have a discussion why the dozens of articles which report on the other sexual harassment (including Nina Burlegih and the LA Times are not good enough? If people honestly want to make the article better, it is just as simple to delete a sentence as it is a section.LedRush (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

BLP Concerns

I've readded some of my edits, taking Bbb's comments regarding the tabloid citations and the wording around her friendship with the Italian lawmaker into account. I've then reverted the information regarding Knox's statements regarding sexual harassment. I've started a thread about whether this constitutes a BLP concern on the BLP noticeboard, though so far no one has responded. Rather than duplicate conversations, would it be better just to keep the conversation over there?LedRush (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Conversation here [5] LedRush (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I have some issues with the material. Largely with how it is worded, as it broaches (for me anyway) the line between neutral reporting and POV. Detail:

• Furthermore, prison guards forced her to have unwanted sexual conversations.; worried about this presented as a statement of fact? Does it still come from her? I don't have Burleigh & am not sure if it supports it with other corroboration.
• Knox has stated that during her time in prison she was sexually harassed and intimidated by prison officials.; the above sentence should be incorporated here to clarify the form of sexual harassment (it does not appear she has made claims of physical harassment as far as I can see). Perhaps Knox has stated that during her time in prison she was sexually harassed and intimidated by prison officials via comments and unwanted conversations about her sex life and sexuality.
• They coerced her into creating a list of her former lovers, then leaked the list to the media.; kind of explosive, and definitely "coerced" is analysis. I worry the source we use for this is quite weak to present it in our voice (I'd argue something so strong needs to be well sourced and the opinion of an expert or a review etc.). Perhaps it would be better to stick to the facts; Soon after arriving in prison, following a blood test, Knox was told she was HIV positive. Officials prompted her to write a list of previous lovers, which was later leaked to the media. Subsequently she was told the test had been mistaken. - this also handily lets us note how they "knew" she was HIV positive, and doesn't leave us guessing (i.e. did they pluck it out of thin air? etc.)

My 2p anyway. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've made your third change (substantially in the same form). For your second suggestion, I believe it is unnecessary as the explaination of how it was sexual harassment immediately follows the sentence. Your suggestion plays down the alleged harassment as it was not merely comments but the fact that protocol was breached in order for her to be alone, either in her cell or in an administrators office, when the conduct occurred. The first statement is referenced in Burleigh's book, but I don't know to whom she sources the information. It is also reported by CBS and IBT, though it is unclear if their only sources are Knox or not. Regardless, it seems highly likely that the sources are from Knox. I don't see a problem with the language as it is, but I'll attribute it to Knox.LedRush (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If that is the case it does need to be attributed to Knox. I still think the language needs to be tightened (lots of Knox makes it hard to chug through) but technically it all stands up now. Thx. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC brmull's (my) alleged conflict of interest

I would like to get a wider consensus on this since I am being effectively banned from editing by SlimVirgin. Please comment at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher Thanks and I will out no one who participates! Brmull (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I was also accused of WP:Conflict_of_interest by Connolly15 and addressed it there. Dougbremner (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate party on occasion of Meredith's anniversary

I think this behaviour must be mentioned in the article http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/11/01/amanda-knox-slammed-for-partying-on-eve-of-anniversary-of-meredith-kercher-s-death-115875-23528935/ 93.41.199.220 (talk) 09:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this to be in a section entitled "thing the tabloids in small islands get pissed about completely without reason"? section of the article? Is Knox supposed to never again go to a Halloween function? How stupid is this?LedRush (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This was one of the reasons why I was against the creation of this article. People will try to use it for all the wrong reasons. The gossip article implies there was a party but has not substantiated it...instead it is about an inappropriate costume choice ...and they didn't carry the picture. The ones to blame, if anyone, are the media.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Made up to sell "news"papers, I think. There will be many more of these no doubt. pablo 15:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Watch out for those blimey pirates! The Mirror fails to mention that on appeal it was found that no break in existed! So they mention the conviction in primo grado with no mention of the secondo grado, and they quote John Kercher as if he now has free reign to comment whenever and whereever he wants. Dougbremner (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The only reason TO MENTION this is how the tabloids have influenced the public perception of this saga. For blimey's sake, she did NOT go on hallowe'en as a cat-burglar. The Tabloid, paparazzi obtained picture shows her dressed as a Seattle Sounder (soccer) supporter, with a french curly mustache and goatee of her favourite footballer on the team. To note this on Wikipedia would be to note the Tabloid influence in inflaming the public against an innocent person. She's a flippin' soccer supporter!70.70.220.246 (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Including that bit of information really is not fitting. These british news sources (and I use the word news loosely in this case) are extremely bias and slanted. She did not ask for the paparazzi to follow her around on halloween. If that never happened the Mirror would not have had an article to write. This wiki page mentions that she has not been well received by the british press. Wikipedia is not a tabloid and including information like that is not fitting for wikipedia. The page should be as non-bias as possible. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

But this IS a notable fact that the tabloids have done this to her from the beginning. That is a NPOV fact. Some websites list these myths of Amamda Knox's "behaviour", turning so called cartwheels in the police station when in fact she was doing basic yoga after sitting and waiting for a couple of hours.... this a verifiable, notable fact the way the Tabloid press created a Foxy-Knoxy myth (that one came from her time as a school-aged soccer player) and other highly charged stuff. These british news sources ARE part of the story which got here where she was. Then they had the gall to say that it was the pro-Knox PR machine which had her acquited!70.70.220.246 (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, there are reams of printed and online crap to sift through, published in at least three countries by various parties, with varying motives. What to include, what not to include? It's certainly a tricky area. pablo 20:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Does anyone know her ethnicity? If so this could help to more effectively categorize the article. i.e. "Category:Americans of _____________ descent". --MusicGeek101 (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

German, per Follain. Brmull (talk) 04:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a priority, and not something that should be added unless self-declared. pablo 13:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a big deal, but for the record here's the full quote from her full-sister Deanna: "Here we are, of German descent, sitting behind this gun. We're proud of our German heritage." Brmull (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

included that category on the page. If any online souse says anything then we should include it in the article. --MusicGeek101 (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, I find it really strange that this should be considered important, for any article. My own 'descent' would have almost as many hyphens as known ancestors, and means precisely nothing to anyone else. But have at it.  pablo 20:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Pablo in regards to the importance (for most articles) but more so, before we add Knox to that category it should be mentioned and sourced in the article itself. BLP and sourcing policies need to be followed so I will remove the cat for now and ask editors who have the source on hand to add her heritage to the article's prose with reference (incl. page #). Thanks.TMCk (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It always seems to me that adding these categories is in itself undue weight - the relevance escapes me. But as you say, it needs sourcing. pablo 22:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I won't remove the info, but even if sourced in the main article, I don't see that this helps the article that much.LedRush (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, when you say "main article" you mean this one. Right? If so, this issue might or should be determent by consensus.TMCk (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
BTW, I removed the cat earlier while pointing to this talkpage conversation.TMCk (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I did mean this article and I did know you deleted the category. I'm not sure that we would need consensus before putting this in the main article with a cite, but obviously if you (or someone else) delete it, we would. This whole issue gets a big "meh" from me. If it's in there, I don't see the harm, even if there is at best only a marginal improvement to the article.LedRush (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed the cat as I pointed out further above in this thread pending sourcing. Further, since some editors incl. me have concerns about undue weight for this article the best way to go is usually discussion and reaching consensus in this regard so that at the end there is no doubt as of the importance and of course no edit warring coming up for this minor issue.TMCk (talk) 01:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
PS: I don't have a problem with the source for an uncontested statement of fact.TMCk (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Grado translates to degree not grade

The article speaks of the court of first grade and court of second grade. This should be edit to correct name which the Court of First Degree and the court of Second Degree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.91.198 (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

In this specific case it would be better to call corte di primo grado as court of first instance, and corte di secondo grado/corte d'appello as court of appeal.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

This second translation looks good to me, please make the changes leaving the original Italian in parentheses. Dougbremner (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Judge Heavey

In late 2008, a number of Seattle-area residents, including lawyer Anne Bremner and King County Superior Court Judge Mike Heavey, founded the "Friends of Amanda", a support group to raise money and awareness.[25] Heavey was later admonished by the Commission on Judicial Conduct for violating Washington state's Code of Judicial Conduct for his letters on official court stationery to members of the Italian judiciary on behalf of Knox

Mentioning Judge Heavey's role in FOA without mentioning the judicial conduct violation is like saying "Kanye West's mom died after an operation" without saying "the surgeon lost his license as a result". Judicial commission sanctions are a big deal. Googling "amanda knox" heavey conduct, gets 122K hits, while "amanda knox" heavey -conduct, gets 119K hits. It's not NPOV to omit this. Brmull (talk) 07:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we modify the para to make it clearer as follow:Judge Michael Heavey, a judge at the King County Superior Court, Seattle, attempted to influence the Italian judiciary in favour of Knox by writing three letters to them on official court stationery, and attempting to use the prestige of his office. He later admitted to the wrongdoing, and was admonished by the Commission on Judicial Conduct for violating Washington state's Code of Judicial Conduct. This would put things in an NPOV perspective, IMO. Tinpisa (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

And LedRush, I think you should have discussed the re-deletion of the sentences on Judge Heavey's admonishment on the talk before proceeding with the second revertion. You could also have put forth your objection to the phrase on the MoMK talk page (from where I copied and pasted the entire section). IMO, it is incorrect to try to force one's way through. Thanks. Tinpisa (talk) 12:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Tinpisa's rewording is a blatant POV issue. Mentioning it at all is WP:UNDUE and possibly a violation of WP:BLP. Per policy, possible BLP violations should be deleted and only reinserted when there is consensus that the info should stay in.

I believe this to be a BLP violation because he is not very well known nor a public figure, yet we are trying to list every handslap he received to discredit a position he took. It has little relevance to Knox and adds nothing to the article.LedRush (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that we are discrediting his position by mentioning the facts about what happened. This is one of those that falls under the notion that if we are going to mention this then we need to complete the story. Either omit Heavey totally from the article (if as you say he is not very well-known) or tell the tale correctly. His admonishment is expected when one reads about what he did. If Heavey is left in, then I'm in favor of leaving the admonishment in. This is not a BLP violation because it isn't going to cause Heavey damage.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how this is part of any story except ones made up of the hate-Knox-at-all-costs club. This language grew from that club doing everything they could to dirty-up the image of anyone who criticized the trial: whether journalists, politicians, scientists or other criminal experts. It's quite sad, really. And, how could advertising about an admonishment that most people wouldn't know about not damage Heavey?LedRush (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Then you must be in favor of deleting any information about Heavey within the article? This one won't be staying in the article without it. I'm not from the Knox-hating camp but I do see the need to finish through on what was started. If Heavey is mentioned then the admonishment will be as well. To omit the admonishment is a misrepresentation of the facts and skews the truth. Heavey's constituents already know what he has done and being mentioned here won't affect him. So far, the consensus is to keep it in but we should wait and let others discuss before doing anything else. That includes the mention in the MoMK article.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You are not from the Knox hating camp? LOL!! Berean Hunter do you want to hold hands and sing Koombaia (sp?) Tinpisa's description is convoluted and WAY too much info for a person who does not meet WP criteria for notability. I would advise noting the letter and a single sentence about whatever action was taken for using official letterhead, and nothing more. Disclosure: a relative was co-signer with Heavey of a later letter to the US government about the case. Dougbremner (talk) 02:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No...I'm not a Knox hater and no, I'll pass on the rest of your offer except that I may agree that we could minimize the Heavey material. Doug, I began to look at this case for the first time in March, I believe, with no preconceived notions about guilt or innocence of the (once) convicted. I've never been either pro-Knox or anti-Knox.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear LedRush, I think it is very important to keep the sentence. It brings out how convinced and concerned an American Judge from Knox's hometown was about Knox not receiving a fair trial in Italy, that he enthusiastically wrote letters to the Italian judiciary, before he realised he had inadverantly crossed the line, and reported his actions, and was admonished. Tinpisa (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess I see all that as irrelevant (WP:UNDUE and a possible violation of WP:BLP.LedRush (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

With all editors except you wanting to present a complete picture about the Judge, and you wanting to keep it out, I strongly feel that you are incorrect in repeatedly editing the article (and now the MoMK one) per your view. Per WP:UNDUE if you are able to prove that this view is held by an extremely small minority, it could be omitted from Wikipedia; otherwise no. Tinpisa (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd cut the whole paragraph; it's not really related to Knox, but to the trial and her imprisonment. And we detail it in the MOMK article. It is not biographical and has no place here. Please remember this is a biography --Errant ^(chat!) 20:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see an entire "Support for Knox" appeared at some point - from which this relates. I'd cut it all as irrelevant to her biography, this is what I thought would happen - content forking of the worst kind.. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Book Deal

The BBC is reporting that Amanda Knox has retained a lawyer to represent her in negotations with publishers (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/16052501). Probably worth inclusion in this article? (Connolly15 (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC))

Another good article. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/05/amanda-knox-raffaele-sollecito-working-on-book-deals/ I'm trying to think about how or if this should be included.LedRush (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, perhaps could wait until she actually signs a deal? Will be lots of articles then. In somewhat related news Raffaele Sollecito has also signed up with a Seattle agent to represent him (http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2011/dicembre/03/Sollecito_firma_per_libro_negli_co_8_111203028.shtml). According to the article they may EVEN translate it into Italian some day if there is enough demand... yikes. (Connolly15 (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC))

Ah sorry! I just realised your link mentioned this, my mistake! (Connolly15 (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC))

Anyone know what's going on with this (Knox arrested again?)

http://kxoradio.com/news/local/2553-not-a-good-christmas-for-amanda-knox.html

The above article seems to indicate that Knox was detained while trying to visit an inmate. I smell shenanigans, but thought I'd ask. It seems to me that, if true, this would garner many more headlines. Seeing as it hasn't been covered much, even if true it would be undue until news sources give it coverage.LedRush (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree we should wait until more adequate coverage comes up. Even then, if it is for minor infractions it may not merit mention (unpaid tickets?). Just curious, Led, do you have some advisories sent to you via email when news pops up about her? That was pretty quick response. I haven't been able to find this on any other news outlet so far.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe that arrest pertains to a black female of same name.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I often check googlenews for information when I read a story on a specific site (just to check the coverage). Once in a while as I'm on the site, I check up on some stories I've been following for awhile, including Knox.

Also out of curiousity, how did you learn it was a different Knox - googlenews still only has the one story.LedRush (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Well it isn't what I'd call a reliable source, but <dot>com/cache.aspx?q=amanda+knox+arrested&d=71337389849&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=cdc8c379,2540eb0b this cached view of a retort to the news story on gather.com states, "This sounds like disinformation. The online database I saw listed an arrest for a different Amanda Knox, a black female.Don't repeat disinformation."

I tried finding the same database but no luck so far. I'm inclined to believe it until more sources carry the story to the contrary. If it is a mistake that radio station looks like idiots.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

KXO doesn't say they are talking about "the" Amanda Knox. They are covering local news and it just happens that the name is not unique to one person.TMCk (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It would clearly be misleading then. If the other Amanda Knox wasn't notable then they have done a disservice by failing in their diligence to point out that this isn't the Amanda Knox. I don't see where they cover every arrest in their area so it can't be argued that this is what they were doing.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on. They are a class C station, comparable to a small town's local paper and a writer that might not know of "our" A.K. or just never gave it any importance anyway.TMCk (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The source is me. You had to put in the correct county, which was the same as the radio station's. Another issue with VINE 2.0 is that it only lists the offender release date for a limited period of time. If you search now, there is no result. This was a joke that got out of hand, it seems. ValkoWhite (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC) ValkoWhite

life after prison

Some interesting information (and some not-so-interesting gossip). http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2082375/Amanda-Knoxs-post-jail-life-On-Skype-Raffaele-Sollecito-parents-debt.html?ito=feeds-newsxml and http://630wpro.com/Article.asp?id=2367859&spid=37719

LedRush (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Appeal of slander charge

Knox is appealing her conviction for slander.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-02-07/amanda-knox-slander-conviction/53000788/1

LedRush (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Glaring omission

The article needs to be expanded. It makes vague mention of how international media fabricated stories about Amanda Knox, something which happens all the time and generally goes unnoticed by readers. We owe it to Amanda Knox to print what those published inaccuracies were and who was responsible for publishing them. Please add this detail to the article. ~Tony — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Interro (talk • contribs) 15:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Even as a supporter of innocence, I do not think this point is consistent with Wiki policy. At best someone could point to NPOV sources which assert this, and of course there should be NPOV sources which assert the opposite if there are any left.70.70.249.154 (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 March 2013

Delete "wrongly" from "wrongly convicted." This is an attempt to victimize her. She was not acquitted. The appeals court determined the initial trial was improper. The American equivalent of overturned on appeal.

This entry comes across as intended to exonerate her in the press not as a factual rendering of events.

174.24.85.86 (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: While I agree that "wrongly convicted" is editorializing, a conviction that is overturned on appeal can be properly described as a "wrongful conviction". I have instead changed the lead sentence to read that Ms. Knox was "wrongfully convicted" and added a wikilink. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

If the case will be reopened after today Corte Suprema ruling, I suggest to reformulate the whole leade section. Actually, the only one that was awarded for wrongful imprisonment is Mr Lumumba. --Grifomaniacs (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, I did not know "wrongfully" could be used like that. It seems to me as too open to reasonable misinterpretation to make sense though. "wrongfully" or "rightfully" sounds for all the world like editorializing. Anonywiki (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Prison Life

The prison life sections starts with jail, then continues with prison. Which is it, prison or jail? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.74.123 (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It says she was in jail before her conviction and prison afterward, which I believe is the usual distinction. What I'm wondering is whether she'll be extradited to Italy for her new trial or whether she'll be tried in absentia or what. Angr (talk) 05:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

She will be asked to be present at (least during the key moments of) the process and if she will not come, she will be tried in absentia. A request for extradition will be eventually filled if she will be convicted.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 10:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:CrystalLedRush (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Missing Facts

Where is she now, in Italy or somewhere else? Has she been re-arrested? Will she/has she been deported to stand trial? How about double jeopardy? Are the charges for the new trial the same or different?24.152.130.45 (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Read the article and maybe her bio to get the answers for your questions. It's really all there.TMCk (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

"Foxy Knoxy" has comment "dubious"

The statement that the British press refered to Amanda Knox as "Foxy Knoxy" has a dubious comment above it, despite a reference to an article using the term. Furthermore, a quick google shows the term in widespread use (mainly by the Daily Mail). Request that the dubious comment be removed.

90.222.19.103 (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the contention here is that she had the nickname long before the British press picked up on it. Not 100% sure but I just remember reading or hearing that somewhere.

Note the tagged phrase reads: "She was given the nickname "Foxy Knoxy" by the media." (my emphasis). --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 11:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I clarified the statement per source and removed the tag.TMCk (talk) 13:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks TMCK for taking care of that and to the others who contributed various tweaks. Well done. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 16:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2014

On January 30th 2014 Amanda Knox and Sollecito were convicted for a second time for the murder of Meredith Kercher. 131.109.225.35 (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The article has been edited to reflect the court's decision.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Double Jeopardy

I am not sure why there is a mention of the American rule of double jeopardy here, as it would not be applicable to Knox had she been tried in the United States: when a conviction is vacated by an appellate tribunal, the retrial does not violate that rule. The mention of this rule in her case appears to be a PR move, at best. Ulpian (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

What? In the US she would have gotten acquittal and not "conviction vacated by an appellate tribunal". I believe that would qualify for "subsequent prosecution after acquittal" which is double jeopardy.

Extradition won't likely happen.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

People aren't acquitted by appeals courts. The judgment of the trial court (i.e., a guilty verdict) is vacated. Then they are tried again. There are literally thousands of American examples of this.24.108.128.204 (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• As I suggest in my post in the ""Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2014" thread, unless and until there is an extradition process that raises the issue, any reference to a comparison with US double jeopardy is a speculative irrelevance which has a POV undertone. DeCausa (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2014

Under: “Retrial See also: Murder of Meredith Kercher#Prosecution appeal Unlike the United States, Italy does not absolutely prohibit double jeopardy—the retrial of acquitted persons for the same crime”.

This is a misleading and incorrect statement, Please remove and replace with the following text:

The European Convention on Human Rights, (to which Italy is a signatory and accepts the Seventh Protocol of Article 4), states:

“No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State”.

Knox has never been finally convicted or acquitted and will not be so until the Supreme Court finally confirms the judgment of her latest appeal, (Guilty), handed down on 20th January 2014.

Only thereafter would double jeopardy apply in the case of Knox.

Therefore, Italy, (in common with the US), accepts and abides by the “double jeopardy” principle.

Mealer (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Nope. It's certainly not "in common with the US"; in the US, once there is a not-guilty verdict at any level, be it trial court or appeals court, that's it. It doesn't matter what a higher court thinks of the earlier acquittal. The EU and the US have a different definition of double jeopardy, and under American law, what has just happened is the very epitome of double jeopardy. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You're forgetting that intermediate level appeals courts in the United States don't issue not guilty verdicts, they vacate convictions. New trials of the person who benefited from the judgment happen all the time. Literally thousands of examples exist.Ulpian (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Double jeopardy is not applicable in this situation at all; Knox was found guilty in the first trial, an appeals court threw that out, then the original finding was upheld this week. That's not even "double jeopardy" were this to take place in the American legal system. Tarc (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The point is, as far as I understand Italian law, that a verdict (in either direction) is not a final verdict until all appeals are exhausted; or, of course, if no appeal is filed within a certain time limit. What is missing here are sources to back up such potential content.TMCk (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Two points that need to be mentioned: Why is there no mention of Rudy Guede, who was named as accomplice, and has admitted to his role in the murder. I don't wish to trivialise this, but it's like Santa's sled without working without reindeer.

The second point relates to the misunderstanding of "Double Jeopardy" in this case. All verdicts are subject to confirmation by higher courts in Italy until you reach the Court of Cassation. The acquittal was provisional, and a higher court refused to confirm this, therefore there was no "Double Jeopardy" as she was never acquitted in the first place.80.111.155.138 (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Too much WP:OR going on in this thread. Let's just stick to what the sources are saying. In any case, this edit was exactly right - comparison with double jeopardy in the US is irrelevant per se. The reference to it here appeared to be a POV way of disparaging the Italian legal system. If it does have a relevance, it will be through how it plays out in any extradition. At the moment, that discussion is WP:CRYSTAL. So I don't see any point in this discussion unless and until there is an extradition process and if double jeopardy comes up in that process. By that time some more thoughtful and well informed RS than now will have emerged. DeCausa (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Almost every article says that extradition would be unlikely because of double jeopardy or that experts disagree as to whether extradition could happen due to double jeopardy. Are people saying that they don't want mention of this at all, or has the past mention just been too POV?LedRush (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

As I said earlier above, there is no applicability of "double jeopardy" here. This is little different than an appeals court tossing a decision out the door and ordering a new trial. Tarc (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You can say that, but you're wrong. A judge may agree with you that double jeopardy doesn't apply, or a judge might disagree with you. American legal experts are conflicted on this. But double jeopardy is where the fight will happen.LedRush (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no "fight" only media speculation. Before this is even an issue there will be an appeal in Italy and then an extradition application is to be made. There is nothing for this article at present. DeCausa (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that when actual legal scholars are listened to rather than the Nancy Graces of the media, you'll find that I am quite correct, but really, that's neither here nor there. Even for the sake of argument that what has happened in the Italian legal system is analogous to "double jeopardy", that is not an impediment to Knox being extradited. We do have a treaty with Italy that covers this sort of thing, you know. The only viable option is an appeal to the Sec. of State to deny an extradition request. Tarc (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the treaty covers this and a judge initially (or the state department at the end) will make a decision on this under the treaty. The decision will be based on the treaty itself, which doesn't allow extradition in cases where double jeopardy isn't respected. "Extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been convicted, acquitted or pardoned, or has served the sentence imposed, by the Requested Party for the same acts for which extradition is requested." As I stated, the argument will be whether the "acquittal" was enough like an acquittal referenced here (i.e., a double jeopardy issue). It's ok that you're wrong as you've probably been listening to Nancy Grace, but it's silly to pretend that you're right. The fight will be based on double jeopardy (at least initially...if Knox were to lose that the fight would be on patent unfairness in the process). But it's fine if people don't want to include any speculation at all as this won't be an issue for a year or two.LedRush (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, when this may actually be relevant in a couple of years time you two can pick up where you left off. DeCausa (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Fans of Amanda(tm) have been camping these articles for years, and I can't help but rebut the misstatements and distortion of reality that they deploy in defense of the subject. Knox’s acquittal was not finalized by Italy’s highest court; this wasn't a "second trial" in the sense that it is being warped into. Tarc (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is making that point. This is simply a discussion about the nature of the "acquittal" and why whether it qualifies as "double jeopardy" under the treaty will be the first and main point of contention in an extradition decision. A point that you were wrong about. Some of the difficulties in understanding the case are due to the very different system of justice that Italy has, but some are clued by ignorance and people pushing an agenda, regardless of the facts.

The extradition point has been brought up a huge amount in articles on the trial and Knox, so I think we would be well within bounds to mention it here, but I'm also fine to just leave it out as it won't become more than an academic debate for some time.LedRush (talk) 04:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Just because there is speculation in the media about hypothetical issues concerning a future event that may never take place, it doesn't follow that it is encyclopedic per WP:CRYSTAL. An encyclopedia article should not be a news summary, and certainly not a pundit summary DeCausa (talk) 07:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

An acquittal does not qualify as "double jeopardy". Period, full stop. Even if it did it wouldn't matter since the extradition treaty doesn't prevent extradition on those grounds. The US sent a man back to Turkey in 1995 after his initial acquittal for rape was re-instated on appeal. Barring an 11th-hour miracle by Sec. Kerry, Miss Knox is Italy-bound as soon as they file the papers, and since we're leaning heavily on Russia and others to help us get Snowden back on US soil, putting up a stink about Knox would fairly hypocritical. At some point all of this will be article-worthy, but it will have to wait for the talking heads to chase the next attention-getting squirrel and for the actual legal experts to be more vocal. Tarc (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong. Period. Full Stop. The treaty does prevent extradition on these grounds. The only question (and it is a question) is whether a US judge/state dept. would view the Italian "acquittal" to fall within the US/Italy treaty language I cited above (I have bolded it as you seem to be missing it), or if Knox would get any traction with a judge/state dept. with an argument of manifest unfairness. This is so simple, and so uncontroversial, it should be shocking to me that someone could fail to understand it. But your history shows an unwillingness to admit mistakes or to look at an issue involving this case objectively. And seeing as the conversation is done regarding inclusion in the article (for now anyway), I'm not sure why you need to bring this up again. Anyway, I'm done. Have your last word.LedRush (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it prevents nothing of the sort. I have no further use in interacting with someone so closely enamored of the subject that they have to blatantly distort a simple truth to try to win an argument. Good day. Tarc (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Since someone still can't drop the stick, I'll have to return to point out that the now-bold part protects a person who was acquitted here in the US, not elsewhere. For example, if an American citizen killed an Italian national on US soil, was found not guilty here but a later trial in absentia in Italy found the person guilty, the US would be well within their rights to decline an extradition request. Tarc (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, it covers both situations. The main question is whether the Italian "acquittal" was an acquittal under the meaning of the treaty. Some legal scholars say yes, others no, other say they don't know.LedRush (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it does not, otherwise no nation would ever have to respect another's sovereignty. Just "well, those laws ain't our laws", and off they go. Tarc (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "... by the Requested Party ...". That would be the United States in this case, Italy being the "Requesting Party". Having been convicted, acquitted or pardoned, or having served the sentence imposed, by the United States would clearly be a reason to deny extradition, as in the hypothetical presented by Tarc. Prior actions by the requesting party, Italy, are not covered by the portion quoted. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I was just about to post the same thing re. the "requested party".TMCk (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Even Dershowitz, who has publicly said extradition would be allowed in this case, disagrees with your analysis on the treaty and the issue of double jeopardy: "And the extradition treaty's reference to double jeopardy may not be binding in some cases, [Dershowitz] said. "In the United States, generally, when you appeal a conviction, you waive your double jeopardy rights, and we permit retrials of people who have had their convictions reversed, at least on procedural grounds," he said."LedRush (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Whatever you say about Dershowitz is besides the point. The above responses from several editors point out the misunderstanding or most likely just the misreading of your bolded quote. I had to read it twice to catch the "fine print" myself. So can we please put at least that part to rest know?TMCk (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as even legal commentators that agree that double jeopardy wouldn't stop extradition in this case admits that it is an issue that a judge will address...no.LedRush (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit Amanda Knox Retrial

Please Edit Italian judges order retrial for Amanda Knox in murder case CNN News Yahoo News 182.178.67.210 (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The introduction is contradictory. It refers to "Knox's retrial ...Knox lost the appeal of her conviction at that retrial" It is either an appeal or a retrial, it cannot be both.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not think you understand the Italian justice system, which fuses those two elements in a second-level court review. (I am a law professor licensed in two jurisdictions). I am reinstating those edits.24.108.128.204 (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The current edit is absurd. It should just read "known for being a suspect in a murder case." I understand this does not sound glittery, but that's what she is. Ted Bundy does not have all his appeals listed. Knox may be sexually attractive to Americans, but she is just a suspect in a murder case, nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.89.1 (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Facts

They don't have bail in Italy. If Sollecito has been definitively convicted of murder and sentenced to 25 years, why is he walking around free in Italy eh? Overagainst (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Good question. I was wondering that myself. Could it be that "guilty" in this second tier doesn't mean "guilty" until the appeals process is exhausted? Jodon | Talk 11:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)