Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Not notable

Is this fox news? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The AfD template is malformed, I recommend you edit it according to the instructions given if you want to open a second AfD, otherwise you may use the {{subst:prod|reason}} template, whichever you prefer. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
It has received massive international media coverage, and still does. Therefore it is notable. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


hahahaha could someone either correct or delete? (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please check your dictionary ;). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


Is it appropriate to call this page "...Murder..." when no charges have been brought, there is no apparent motive, and everyone suspected denies involvement in the killing? Since her killing is supposed to have taken place during 'violent sex play', is it not quite possible that it was accidental and will eventually lead to manslaughter charges, rather than murder? It seems to me the article is prejudging an ongoing investigation, which is hardly appropriate for an encyclopedia. I suggest the word 'Murder' in the title be changed to 'Death' or 'Killing'.Quelcrime (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Well it would be very hard to argue a case for manslaughter when the evidence suggests that Kercher died from blood loss after a knife punctured her carotid artery. I think it would be difficult to argue that such a circumstance would ever be accidental and therefore anything but murder. Lastly, all the sources indicate that it was a murder, the Italian police are treating is a murder and a judge has detained suspects on suspicion of murder so I honestly don't know what else you could call this. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't follow your argument that a knife wound to the carotid artery cannot be accidental, though of course even a deliberate but unpremeditated stabbing might not amount to murder. People are killed by knives both accidentally and without premeditation. There are other possibilities; insanity on the part of the killer, for example. We don't know until the investigation is complete.Quelcrime (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Based on the mountain of evidence presented by the police, prosecution, defense and pathologist, I see no way that Kercher's death could ever be ruled accidental, sorry. Likewise, whether or not this crime was premeditated makes no difference in the classification of murder. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Have you read that 'mountain of evidence', or is your view based on a few news reports? It seems you haven't even read the article, which shows that her carotid artery was not punctured, but rather she bled to death slowly. That argues strongly against murder.JaneGrey (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is this even argued? Wikipedia is not a place to tell some version of the truth, or be totally politically correct. It just draws upon sources to make a comprehensive article. As such, no source has called it anything but murder.EgraS (talk) 05:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Where sources are plainly speculative in nature, Wikipedia should recognise that.JaneGrey (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe legally, depending on the state, you can be guilty of murder even when you did not intend to kill. I think there are other standards, such as 'gross disregard for human safety', which could become some degree of murder. So there may be no mistake in the title here.Ykral (talk) 07:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


I have merged these two articles into a single entry covering only the event, per the comments here. The information at the start and end of the article was taken from Meredith Kercher, since I believe deference should be given to the victim instead of the suspects in the articles' lead, similar to Murder of Tom ap Rhys Pryce. I have taken information about the crime itself and its investigation from the body of the article for Amanda Knox. This was only because I had cited all the information in that section and I was familiar with the formatting. I recognize that that section frequently employs Knox's name and that there will be some bias to it, because I was the main editor for that section. I encourage others to edit it further to bring it close to NPOV. If this merger was premature, please let me know here or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds 03:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that precedent is wrong; this page is about a notable event not about an otherwise nn person nor is it a tribute to that person. We thrashed this out at Disappearance of Madeleine McCann where the bio is, rightly, at the end. TerriersFan 05:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It made more sense to me to have the brief biographic intro towards the beginning, if only to describe the players involved in the event itself. I don't disagree about the nature of the article, though. Cumulus Clouds 05:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
We are going to have to add bios about the suspects as well and my view is that they should form a reference-type section at the end. The reader wants the meat of the article early and then the background info later. The lead, rightly, introduces the victim and why she was there. TerriersFan 05:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Prosecutorial assertions

I have changed "The prosecutor has asserted that Knox held Kercher down while..." into the "The police allegedly suspect that Knox may have held Kercher down while...". I have read the article cited as source and it reads "Police believe that Ms Knox held the victim down during a prolonged sexual assault by Mr Lumbumba, gripping her fingers so tightly that she left an imprint on Ms Kercher's skin. When Ms Kercher continued to resist a knife was drawn and her skin was punctured." The police may believe in a lot of different scenarios at the erlier stages of an investigation. A prosecutor in most cases makes assertions when factual evidence is already available; besides, it's a possibility not a certainty and the source cited is a newspaper, not an official police or prosecutor's report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Labrador72 (talkcontribs) 21:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, I'll give you that the source doesn't say anything about what the prosecutors believe. However, multiple sources have given detailed accounts about what the police think happened in this case, so it would be improper to say "police allegedly suspect" since we several confirmed accounts of what the police are suspecting happened in this case. Also including the phrase "may have held" isn't really appropriate, given that they aren't so much pondering the question as accusing Knox of doing it. Cumulus Clouds 21:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Article sources

This page is so conventional. It's sources are just newspapers. And the source of newspapers is fantasy. One makes up a datum or a piece of the story and all the others follow it. And wikipedia follows them. Who was trying to give direct data, like the local website (blog removed) has been prevented. Good like this, keep blocking the truth. Follow the flock, and the stupid rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. After reading this article and following the sources, it seems like the plural of "fantasy" is "data," and the term for a compilation of such data is "wikipedia article." (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


Was MK studying at Universita' per Stranieri? Link to external site if she was. Bilby5 13:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Amanda Knox

I think that there should be either more information regarding the other two suspects, or less of a focus on Amanda, because although the only sources for this article are sensationalized, the consensus throughout most of the internet (which is like wikipedia more: accurate than any single reporter) is that she didn't have much to do with it (other than the gruesome fingerprint evidence). Also, should there be biographies of the suspects and of Meredith Kercher as well, or should this article exist principally for the purpose of news?

What do you think? Alexkorbonits (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree and the focus on Amanda Knox should be weakened. We should opt to include the same amount of small material about the other suspects -as opposed to more about all three- because of the concerns you've raised about notability. The reason the body contains that focus on Knox is because I copied it directly out of the former Amanda Knox article when I created this one, which I only did because I was more familiar with the reference and style there. I would ask that you please revise it to remove this anomaly, if you don't mind. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is strictly your opinion that Amanda Knox had 'very little to do with the killing'.Ykral (talk) 07:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to place the defendants in alphabetical order but was "reverted" before I could even complete the change. Somebody is obsessing. Not healthy. Avocats (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This article does not belong in an encyclopedia

The story of one girl's murder, although tragic, does not belong in an Encyclopedia. I suggest we delete this article from Wikipedia and move it to WikiNews. Graham Wellington (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

When publicity is sufficiently extensive then a page can move over the boundary between news and encyclopaedia, and this one does. TerriersFan (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a murder news archive. Furthermore, Kerchner is not a famous or notable person. Graham Wellington (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
She is not notable but her murder is. TerriersFan (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Kercher's murder is not notable and it smacks of recentism. Hundreds of young women are murdered each year. Her story is tragic, but it is neither notable or special. Graham Wellington (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It is notable because of the media coverage being given to the case. This is evidenced by the amount of citations and the easily referenceable material in the case. As TerriersFan pointed out, neither Amanda Knox or Meredith Kercher are notable in their own right, but this event is, so both of those articles were merged into this one to focus only on this event. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Would one of you please show me how to nominate an article for deletion? Graham Wellington (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:AFD. TerriersFan (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Ordinarily, one murder is not notable. However, given the immense international attention this particular murder has received over the last 3 weeks it is notable. Why is it OK to have an article for Außervillgraten, -- Jwinters | Talk 18:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
A news story which receives a lot of attention for a few weeks is not necessarily notable in terms of inclusion in an encyclopedia. This story belongs on Wikinews, not Wikipedia.JaneGrey (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Because there is a convention that places are sufficiently notable for their own article. I have to say that I think that is dubious but there we are. On this particular article it crosses the threshold because not only of the widespread media comment but the fact that it is an international event reported across the world. TerriersFan (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that was my point. My comment got cut off mid-sentence, but it goes along the lines of if a relatively obscure place like Außervillgraten has an article, then this with it's widespread international attention, should have an article. -- Jwinters | Talk 18:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
It's a depressing prospect that sensation lovers are leading an encyclopedia by the nose. Allowing the media to determine what is and isn't notable is a bad joke.... I bet we wouldn't be having this arguement if it was an ugly middle aged man who had been murdered. I think that WP needs to establish a specific guideline - I've no idea how to go about it. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 18:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • One of the most important facets of notability is the amount of coverage being given to an event. This event, because of the unique circumstances, is recieving a huge amount of attention. Is this fair? Not necessarily, but there it is. That being said, the comments about this event not being notable enough to sustain this article are valid. I agree that this encyclopedia shouldn't have individual articles for the media firestorm that surrounds certain events on a week to week basis. If a resolution to this case doesn't come soon, this article should be deleted or merged with another relevant -and more established- article. If the suspects are released without charge, it should just be deleted outright. I'll try to continue to improve the references in the meanwhile if editors will provide specific examples where they need to be. Thanks. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the considered response CC, however under WP:Notability the incident has already passed the criteria for inclusion as an article, as evidenced by the closing remarks (and references) here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Sander. So I have a fundamental problem with WP - it being sensation, rather than importance, lead. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 16:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
check WP:N - "A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability.[10] The Wikimedia project Wikinews does cover topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage." (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but this article has already survived an AfD with those concerns. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I disgree with any proposal for deletion. The subject has recieved enormous attention over the past three weeks, and was in the headlines numerous times. As such, it has exceeded Wikipedia's notability guidelines.EgraS (talk) 07:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Please show a source from police that shows that Amandas hand print is on the face of Meredith. All this is a bunch of tabloid lies and I have seen no proof as to a hand print being on her face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There's gotta be tons of Wikipedia articles concerning the murders of otherwise-unimportant white women. The Black Dahlia and Jon-Benet Ramsey both pop to mind. I'll bet that girl who died in the Carribean a few years back has a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC) This morning on RAI there was further mention of the Kercher murder; at this stage ,due to the massive amounts of publicity it is receiving here in Italy, it should remain in Wikipedia.jeanne (talk) 08:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Caylee Anthony (, Natalee Holloway (, Laci Peterson ( ... I don't need to go on —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia page for "Wikipedia": "Wikipedia (pronunciation ) is a free,[5] multilingual, open content encyclopedia project operated by the United States-based non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Its name is a portmanteau of the words wiki (a technology for creating collaborative websites) and encyclopedia. Launched in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger,[6] it attempts to collect and summarize all human knowledge in every major language.[7]" There's our answer right there.

I think that it belongs here because it in due time would show to be as important regarding international justice as the LaGrand case. Lets remember that Knox was held solely based on an interview over many hours without aid from a lawyer speaking her own language. There is no evidence than her own statement or later fabricated evidence so the the officials behind the case against her can get revenge on behalf of their country because American troops shoot an Italian spy by mistake. See: Italy in row with US over shot spy, by Barbara McMahon, The Guardian, April 15 2005. The future would properly agree that both the LeGrand brothers, José Medellín and Knox should have been given a fair legal aid in their own language. Regardless of the outcome she has had her life destroyed forever. I know that some would argue that she would have no better off as a foreigner in the States, but two wrong doesn't equal one right. Covergaard (talk) 11:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I've never seen such bullshits as Covergaard wrote: putting in relationship Meredith Kercher's murder (And the following Knox and Sollecito's trial) with the assasination of an italian spy is simply stupid (Even if a jurnalist stated that) .Franzius (talk) 15:26, 2 DEC 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Ghoulish fun

As a note to the section above: This article has been largely constructed and maintained by a small bunch of people intent on ghoulish fun. Of course it doesn't belong here, particularly in that degree of detail. Any attempt to remove it or cut it down to size is resisted by the hungry freaks, so there's not much chance of getting anything done about it. Some of them have even introduced fictional elements, perhaps on slow news days, and they're just as defensive about those, if not more so. (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Prose tag


I have removed the prose tag. This is a reference section that is better as a bulletted list, in my view. Having said that, if someone wants to prose it I won't resist that. In principle, if someone wants a section prosed then just do it! TerriersFan (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

ok Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the ethnicity of her mother?

Her father is white, but her mother is black - is that correct?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Kercher I assume- she doesn't look black to me, more middle eastern/north african. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, could you clarify which parts of the article need more refs so I can insert them. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't really believe that race is relevant in this article. But yes, according to what I have read, Kercher's father is white or north African while her mother is of African ancestry. EgraS (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It's worth adding if anybody has a source. The pics I've seen of her parents back up the idea that her mum is black and her dad white though.--MartinUK (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe Kercher's father is white, and her mother is South Asian. I've seen pictures of the siblings (who, like Kercher, look Eurasian), and the mother. However, I don't know the precise details; if anyone does, please add it. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't clear how relevant (or not) race is in this case, but the international element of it is certainly relevant. The massive media coverage the case has received in a multiple countries is largely due to the fact that all the people directly involved are from different countries: the man convicted, the former suspect, each of the two current suspects, and the victim. Had the victim not been from the UK, then the British press would not be covering the case to anything like the extent they are. Similarly, the American media would not be anywhere near as interested in the case if not for the fact that one of the suspects is American. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rudy Herman Guede.jpg

is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use Rationale added.EgraS (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


I've fixed the references in this article (again). An editor had moved significant portions of this article around and not all references followed. I have replaced them. Material needs to be pruned as a result of these revisions, which I will do shortly. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I moved the info to "suspects" since the it belongs there, not in the "murder investigation" section.EgraS (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • But in doing so you deleted or pruned two references, which showed up as bright bold text in the reference list. Please be more careful in the future when you move blocks of text around in the article and it would be helpful if you would do so in as few edits as possible. Thanks. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


I don't see the relevance of the ((Recentism)) tag - this is a recent current event so how can there be historical context? I am removing the tag pending a more convincing explanation of what is required. I am also removing ((refimprove)) tag. As far as I can see the page is fully sourced - ((fact)) tags should be placed on anything important that isn't. TerriersFan (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Recentism? Specifically this passage:"After "recentist" articles have calmed down, the instigating news story has dropped from the Main Page and the front pages of newspapers, and the number of edits per day has dropped to a reasonable minimum, concerned Wikipedians ought to initiate comprehensive rewrites. Most articles can be condensed to keep only the most important information, the wider notable effects of an event, and links to major issues to which the article is related. Much of the timeline content and day-to-day updates with minor details can safely be excised." It seems to me this tag was entirely appropriate. Also consider the 'ten-year test'. The ((refimprove)) tag is also not inappropriate; look at the huge number of ((fact)) tags.JaneGrey (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Replaced. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 22:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


Are not the photos WP:OR or non-WP:V? They're from the Facebook accounts, which is impossible to verify if it really is them. I, for one, will never be able to confirm if the Kercher photo is really from her account since she's deceased. And even if I did see the photo from the account, how would I know that's her account and her photo? Kelvinc (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel too uncomfortable with the second photo of the male staying on, as his identity is unverifiable and so under WP:BLP I've removed it from the page. Kelvinc (talk) 08:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
since there aren't any photos of the other suspects, there shouldn't be a photo pf guede. Plus I think that it is a bit inappropiate to have any pictures of the suspects. It seems as if we would be honoring the suspects or something. Also, they haven't been convicted yet, so putting up pictures of suspects would almost be like saying they are guilty. (UTC)
There is no reason not to have a photo of Guede. Feel free to add a verifiable photo of Knox and Sollecito. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't add any more photos of suspects since they are not in themselves notable and have not yet been arraigned on any charges. Per WP:BLP, we should only keep the smallest amount of identifiable information possible about each suspect to avoid defaming them. This does not include adding non-free use photos to this article which don't greatly increase the reader's understanding of this event. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The photo of Kercher is no less relevant than the one of Guede. Unless you remove that one I will add the other back. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Kercher is a victim. Her role in this event is pretty well established since she's dead. It would also logically follow that because she is dead the rules for biographies of living persons do not apply in the same way. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I take issue with the fact that Guede's photo remained on this article and so it was deleted. I would like to know the source of his photo and why Wiki approved it as compared to the photos of Amanda and Raphael. User:Nzingamina —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Good, it should have been removed. It's a fair use photo of a living person in violation of the policy we have for that at the NFCC. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • As the original uploader, I uploaded the image contrary to WP:NFCC because the subject is incarcerated. I didn't feel that "taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible)" really applied unless we can find Guede's attorney and have him take a photo of him for free use, although I can see how that can be considered possible, so I won't challenge removing the photo. Kelvinc (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that there's still reverts going on on the Guede photo. The Kercher photo is also tagged as non-free, though - so I wonder if the same standards should apply. Personally I'd not be too sad if all the photos would be gone. Their informative value is marginal at best. Averell (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Meredith Kercher is dead, by and through which her fair use picture is exempt from the NFCC. Guede is still living, so a nonfree image of him cannot be used. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Guede YouTube

Video of the murder suspect acting as "dracula" here uploaded by the suspect on February 15, 2007 giving his place of residence as Milan and hometown as "Ponte san Giovanni". Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I've removed that once already since it doesn't provide anything relevant to the article. It makes Guede look like something of a lunatic and since he's only a suspect it would be inappropriate for this bias to be in the article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Was Guede Meredith's boyfriend?

A recent edit to the first paragraph of the 'Suspects' section states that Guede was Meredith Kercher's boyfriend. As far as I know, the only person claiming this is Guede himself. Is there any independent source for this information? Isometimesthink (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

  • If it's cited in a source somewhere, keep it, otherwise remove the offending section. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Its unlikely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

"Postal Police"

The article states that Meredith's body was found by the Postal Police. I have tried wiki-linking to Postal Police but there is no such article. The "List of law enforcement agencies" does not mention a postal police force in Italy either. Is there another term for them, or could someone write an article? Rachel Pearce (talk) 10:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Here they are: [1] One of many. I've put the link in the article. Rothorpe (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Lumumba

Since Lumumba has been exonerated, no further material about him or his life needs to be added to this article. The only relevance he has is in the context of his arrest and release. I've removed most other biographical material as extraneous and, since he is innocent, possibly in violation of WP:BLP. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Time to condense the article

From Wikipedia:Recentism#Suggestions_for_dealing_with_recentism

After "recentist" articles have calmed down, the instigating news story has dropped from the Main Page and the front pages of newspapers, and the number of edits per day has dropped to a reasonable minimum, concerned Wikipedians ought to initiate comprehensive rewrites. Most articles can be condensed to keep only the most important information, the wider notable effects of an event, and links to major issues to which the article is related. Much of the timeline content and day-to-day updates with minor details can safely be excised.

I suggest that time has now come.JulieRudiani (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I have removed some portions of the text that I felt were unrelated. I'll trim down Amanda Knox's section and then rewrite the portion about the Public's Reaction and the tabloids' online sleuthing, since those are the things that give this event notability. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
That's hardly a 'comprehensive rewrite' to 'keep only the most important information'. This still needs to be done. (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Italian law

the article states they will likely face trial in 2009. Does Italian law not allow suspects to post bail like in the U.S.? will the suspects be incarcerated until trial? (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a specialist on Italian law, but I guess it will be somewhat similar to the German in this regard: Bail cannot be posted, and the judge will decided if the suspects are kept in jail until the trial (depending on the likelihood that they'll go into hiding). For murder they will most likely be kept. Averell (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Huh? No-one has been charged with murder. (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
It is being treated as murder: see discussion above. I shall leave it to another user to do a second revert. Rothorpe (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • There are literally hundreds of sources that reported on this event and not one of them treated it as anything but a murder investigation. Any changes made to this effect are vandalism (note the title of the article) and can be reverted as such. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • And all three suspects were charged with murder by Italian authorities, the article just hasn't been updated yet. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
In Italy, detainees are sometimes placed under house arrest, but not in a murder case such as this.--jeanne (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Stabbed vs. cut

I reverted the following revert: [2] by the anonymous ip. Since the last part (the blog/media thing) had been removed by the same ip I'll just assume it wasn't intentional.

The editor insists that the murder should be called suspected and that Kercher was cut and bled to death, giving this as a reason: "She was cut,bled to death, murder is suspected but no-one has even been charged with it. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid rag."

However: As far as a know, the fact that Kercher was murdered was never disputed.It was neither a suicide, nor did she die of a natural cause. She was killed by someone else. Even if the current suspects are innocent, it would still be a murder (just with an unknown murderer).

The phrase "cut and bled to death" seems highly awkward. While it is not incorrect it sounds highly technical - I'm not a native speaker, but I think "stabbing" is a general term that is generally applied to purposeful killings with knives and other pointy things. So I don't see why it should be a problem. Averell (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Stabbing involves forward thrust, sticking a knife (or pointy thing) into someone. Cutting is a more general term and covers the injury caused by a sideways movement of a knife. As far as I can make out from the news reports, Kercher was cut and bled slowly to death. I don't see the basis for claiming she was stabbed.
On murder; Wikipedia's own definition is this: "Murder is the unlawful killing of another human person with malice aforethought". It's not correct to say that any death unlawfully caused by another person is necessarily murder, as the writer above seems to imply. If the killer intended Kercher to die, that would suggest murder. If not it might be, for example, manslaughter or accidental killing. Again, from the news reports it souds as though she was cut in a clumsy fashion during a struggle. I have seen nothing to suggest with any certainty either malice aforethought or a deliberate killing. In the circumstances it seems appropriate to describe the death as a suspected murder; until the police investigation and trial are complete we can't be sure that it was murder, we can only suspect it.
I really don't see why people are so obsessive about not allowing any changes to the wording of this article. It's really quite silly. Perhaps some of the contributors here should set up their own Kercher website which they can then control completely, or at least read up a little about how Wikipedia works. (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to remind everyone to remain civil and exhibit show some good faith. To the above editor: If you want this piece change, please discuss it here and try to build a consensus. Continuous reverting doesn't help anyone. My problem with your proposed edit is not the correctness, but that it sounds highly clumsy and awkward. Especially the "cut and bled" part. "Stabbed" implies an attack that causes injury or death. It usually also implies a stabbing motion. But I don't see why it should not be used just because the motion may not have been exactly perpendicular. When I read your arguments it seems that you suggest that the killing could have been somehow accidental and want to see that reflected in the introduction. However, I don't see this reflected in any reports I've seen so far. While her death may have been unintended (which is quite likely) it also appears that the attack on her was intentional. We could consider changing the wording to 'killing', however this would also require a rename and modifications in other places - and thus a strong consensus. Averell (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Just to say I agree entirely with Averell. Rothorpe (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, every state has its own definition of murder, and sometimes different 'degrees' of it. Not all murder convictions are from deliberate killings.Ykral (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


I am a bit surprised that there is no reference to Mignini's prosecutorial incompetence from the past, especially regarding the Monster of Florence related cases. This is a person who has been accused of abuse of office and conflicts of interest in previous cases. In light of the constantly changing allegations of facts from the police and prosecutor's office, there should be some mention that there is a history of sensationalism from a key actor in the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Focher (talkcontribs) 02:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd add this only if we have sources that discuss these issues in relation to the Kercher case. If those sources exist, go ahead. But otherwise it'd (IMHO) smack a bit of original research (since it make the "connection" between past cases and the current one). Or, if there are wiki pages on Mignini or those Monster cases, we could link them from here. Averell (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Now it's a ritual?

Sigh. Now it's a satanic ritual. I toned this down a bit, while staying true to the sources cited. This seems to somewhat out of context to dramatize the event for publications like "dailystar". I've still got yesterdays "Repubblica" around, which talks about the same things but (as far as I remember) doesn't even mention the word "ritual". In fact it made the whole killing sound more accidental, saying that Kercher got cut when she struggled to escape. I'll re-check the facts, though. And while I consider "La Repubblica" a better source than the ones given in the text, it'd be preferable to find a high-quality English-language source for this. The other question is, of course, if that article really needs more additional detail... Averell (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly what the prosecutors have alleged, it is not tabloid dramatization. CNN is a respectable source and has this headline U.S. student accused of killing housemate in Satanic rite Mpondopondo
Other sources include the same information

(talk) 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah well. I re-checked and while the print version seems more balanced I also found an online piece that speaks of a "premediated ritual". So if you feel you must rewrite that section, since you got the sources. While I tend to believe the print version is closer to the truth (especially since or quotes directly) it's hardly worth a lenghty discussion - the case is still ongoing. However I don't feel that the "ritual" part was actually the important part of the news... (for reference i'll quote the abbreviated section of the article I have here, partly quoting the prosecution:
"There is the undeniable tendency of this subjects to read particularly violent stories especially the Manga [...]" And then the songs of Marilyn Manson, the drugs and the impression of Halloween. All that contributed to inspire that bloody night.
another part quoted mignini: "[Kercher tried to escape] and with the right hand tried to push back the blade used by Amanda, hurting herself... The situation collapsed and Amanda sunk the knife into Mredith's neck..." Averell (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The english-language sources, although high-quality press, actually could have given a slightly wrong translation. The "satanic ritual" was not the prosecutor hypothesys, the word "rito" in this context indicates something like a "fightenig Halloween joke". See an original title: ["Metz uccisa nel rito di Halloween"] Aki 001 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC).

Guede trial question

This BBC article says (near the bottom) that "Mr Guede is being tried behind closed doors in a fast-track process". What does "behind closed doors" mean here? Does Italian law allow trials to be held in secret? That's what it sounds like, but if so I'd have expected more press coverage of that aspect. (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't really know, though I suppose that "fast-tracking" the trial will take some possibilities from the defence. However, despite the fact that he opted for fast-track, the prosecution is going for the life sentence. I remember some speculation in the papers that, if found guilty, the "reduction" may only mean less time in solitary confinement... Averell (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Current event?

Since the title of this page is "Murder of Meredith Kercher" using the tag "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses." seems a little bit odd. Is there a corresponding tag for recent event rather than current? The Murder itself was concluded quite a while ago. (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the Knox and Sollecito trials are going to start in January 09. Those trials might or might not be media circuses, depending on judge's orders on courtroom access, but in any event they will receive heavy coverage in at least three countries. Because the trials are so integral to the article, I think the tags should stay for now. Townlake (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


This article shows bias in the language used; that is, the language used implies an opinion, rather than reflecting an encyclopediac tone. Examples: "According to propoganda put out by the prosecutor ..." "In one of her earlier statements to the police, given under duress and torture ..." These are not cited, they are inflammatory and clearly inserted to impress a particular point of view. Glacialfury (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC).

Agreed, should be removed. (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


I'm inclined to delete the tributes section, and move a sentence about the funeral to the main body of the article. Once the trials start (which will be soon), this section will likely become an easy place for folks to add inappropriate content, and WP is not a memorial or POV battlefield. But since I'm new to the article, I don't want to do this without others' thoughts. So... thoughts? Townlake (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - Rothorpe (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Please do. Averell (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - it's done. Moved a sentence about the funeral to the end of the Murder & Investigation section, failing any better place to mention it. That section needs some significant wordsmithing anyway, so I only made it slightly more clumsy... Townlake (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Check up needed

Due to lack of time I cannot check myself the article, but I added citation and verifibility inline tags. In particular I found:

  • Outdated statements
  • Unclear or unsourced assertions

Furthermore I think that the section "Suspects" should be renamed into "Defendants" (or "accused", "convicted") and that remarks about Patrick Lumumba should be moved into the "Investigation" section.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; done. Townlake (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

OR tags and facts in intro

I've removed the OR tag and some fact tags from the introduction. As far as I see the introduction should be a summary of the article, so I don't feel it necessary to footnote all facts that are explained in length and well sourced in the article below. As for the OR claim: I've tried to rephrase the claim a bit, so that I hope it's less OR-y. However, it's obvious that the case is based on forensic evidence, and that was meant also as kind of a summary of all of the below. Besides, I don't see this fact is even in dispute. I'm aware that it could be interpreted as going against the OR rule. But frankly, if we'd get this unflinching with the rule, it would not be possible to have articles that are anything but collections of atomic facts. Because each explanation, summary or other device to make the article more readable could possibly be OR then... Averell (talk) 11:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Er yes. Sorry for adding this to the article itself, but now it seems in the right place... Averell (talk) 12:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree the intro shouldn't be fact tagged as long as the facts contained are accurately cited below it. That said, the intro right now is way too long and detailed, and I do agree with the editor above that we need to keep working on keeping things updated. Monday I'll start crawling through any tags that are remaining. Townlake (talk) 03:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Done. Obviously, I encourage everyone to please go over what I did and improve on it. Townlake (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Guede ethnicity

Can explanations be found for Cote d'Ivoire citizen Rudy Herman Guede's ethnicity? Or is this German name a swindled nickname? In Cote d'Ivoire French is spoken or local languages, not German. He does not look German, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing particularly German about the name. Rothorpe (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
His middle name Hermann is German. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
While German in origin Herman is used as a name in France also, either with one or less commonly two n's.


What is the consensus on using infoboxes in the article at this point? Respectfully, I think they add little more than clutter - no offense to the editors working on them, but I don't see the value, especially at this point when we're deploying two different classes of boxes for the three defendants. Townlake (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - Rothorpe (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Dont agree. I think that infoboxes could be very usefull. But i would however prefer and agree to remove the two yet to be convicted defendants infoboxes.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I could see them being very useful for all three defendants after the trials are over. For now, though, there is little information to put in any of the boxes, and their presence makes ongoing maintenance of the article unnecessarily complex. Townlake (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Split to Amanda Knox has since established notability

Amanda Knox now passes WP:BIO having been cited by multiple independent sources as "devil with an angel's face". This article on CNN:

is specifically focused on her and the notability she achieved after the incident. Valoem talk 16:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

No need for a separate article. It's the same story. Should she/they be found guilty, that's another matter. Rothorpe (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
No justification for split. The fact that the media is fascinated with Knox does not mean she's done anything high-profile outside the scope of this incident. And using a media nickname as justification for a separate article raises enormous WP:BLP problems. Townlake (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually according to WP policy she has received indepedent coverage a part from the murder. If you look at John Hinckley, Jr. and Seung-Hui Cho they are both notable for one event. BLP1E is a severely flawed argument. Recent afds all suggest that this article should be split see Nadya Suleman. The scope in which she was covered should be the focus here not whether or not it relates to the incident. Although Rothorpe does have a legitimate argument, I wouldn't mind waiting till the verdict in the event she is found innocent. Valoem talk 18:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Nadya Suleman actively went seeking publicity apart from the actual giving birth to octuplets. You're comparing apples and oranges there. I strongly disagree that BLP1E is "a severely flawed argument." Time will tell if Amanda Knox establishes the independent notability of the individual examples you described above, but there's certainly no rush to thrust a biography upon her. Townlake (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
(nothing I say here is directed at you) WP:BLP1E is definately a flawed argument despite its good intentions. Some recent AfD shows that some editors use WP:BLP1E as an excuse to delete articles they feels are not notable. I don't know why some people feel removing information from an encyclopedia is better than creating articles perhaps because they are envious of unworthy fame. For example Gail Trimble and Suleman both should have never even been nominated. I can't see any reason for these nomination other than out of envy. Many editors tend to abuse WP:BLP1E which is why I feel it definately needs to be rewritten. Valoem talk 19:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

People may have legalistic arguments citing Wikipedia guidelines. From a practical standpoint, when there becomes too much information about Amanda Knox so that big section of the article is about Knox, not the murder, then a Amanda Knox article is a good idea. I am not a Wikipedia lawyer but that is the common man's logic. User F203 (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I suggest you read the WP:BLP page before dismissing it as a "legalistic argument." We have an ethical duty here to be careful about how we handle biographies. Townlake (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a legalistic arguement but I am not dismissing it. The BLP page was created by Wikipedia. No other website has the same BLP rules. I am not saying that BLP rules are wrong, just that it is a manufactured rule. Instead of dismissing it, I am just adding the common sense explanation. So I am not disagreeing with anyone. User F203 (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Comment Just wondering to all editor did you read the cnn article? WP Consensus can change the merge was agree in 07 this is 09. Here are some quotation from the CNN page that shows her notability:

The Italian media call her "Foxy Knoxy" and portray her as a "devil with an angel's face," and there are 11 Facebook pages dedicated to her, all in Italian.

The superheated publicity surrounding the case helped make Knox a household name in Italy. She is usually portrayed as a femme fatale. Consider these headlines:

• "Sex, lies and stabbings" • "Lovers without any inhibitions" • "And in prison, she even tries to sun tan"

Italian journalists also have plastered their newspapers with photos they found of Knox on the Internet, especially images that showed her as a "wild girl." They pounced on the "Foxy Knoxy" they found on her MySpace page, even though her parents later explained the high school moniker came from the way Knox played soccer, quick like a fox.

A random sampling of women on the streets of Rome showed that all of them had heard of the case and most believed Knox and Sollecito were at the very least implicated in the slaying.

Among the items leaked: Knox's diary, various police interrogations, photos of Kercher's body, video of Kercher's body (which wound up on YouTube but has been pulled), and video of the Italian forensic police carrying out their investigation. Eventually, even the leaks made headlines, leading to more speculation.

A quick search on google bring copious amounts of information regarding her and suggests that she is almost a household name in Italy. Valoem talk 19:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet, even on the Italian Wikipedia, look where "Amanda Knox" redirects to. - Townlake (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
How is that an argument? I'm basing the split based on coverage and precedence. What WP policy says if it is not on the italian wikipedia (which has considerably less articles and editors) it shouldn't be on the english. Just because someone didn't create yet doesnt mean it wasn't created because of lack of notability. She will probably receive further coverage as her trial continues. I do not see the harm in spliting these articles and it doesn't seem to violate any policy. If you do please tell me. Valoem talk 19:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I already have, but you don't seem to like my rationale. So let's wait to hear what others say. Townlake (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose split Amanda Knox has no notability outside of this case. The information about her is already cleanly presented in this article, and spreading that to another article will be redundant. And this article is in no way so long that it requires a content fork.Reywas92Talk 20:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

- That's it in a nutshell. Oppose split - Rothorpe (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I would certainly endorse a split of the article into a own Amanda Knox article. She has in my opinion reached the notability status that could grant her a own article. Amanda is the center of attention in this case and seem to actually need a separate article, for extensive coverage etc etc..--MarkusBJoke (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose split. Amanda Knox is not yet a personality in Italy. At least, not more than Raffaele Sollecito, Patrick Lubumba and other people involvede in this case, wich is indeed noteworthy. I would reconsider my vote after the process. Btw, who hasnt a fan page on Facebook nowadays?--Grifomaniacs (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose split and prune the section. She's not famous for anything else than the murder, and there is not enough material that a separate article is needed for clarity. Actually here section could use some serious shortening - it's bloated with needless citations and irrelevant "biographical" facts. Who cares if she was a gymnast or not? This article seems to have a tendency to accumulate gossip. Averell (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Another reason not to split: takes attention away from the victim, who is not here anymore to be photographed or heard from.Ykral (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I cant see a consensus for the split. Could we remove the tag at the top of the article?--Grifomaniacs (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I'd say leave it up a few more days. This issue is going to be a perennial question with this article for the foreseeable future; might as well give the proposal at least a week in the spotlight in case anyone else has something to add. No sense having this come up again in the short term because the time of invitation to comment on this was shut too quickly. Townlake (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok I removed the split, consensus is against split. Valoem talk 12:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely now the case is over and all defendants have been found guilty it makes sense to split thse into seperate biographical articles now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misstinkafairy (talkcontribs) 00:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Amanda Knox ctd.

Cleanup: Since the discussion close, I've removed the "random biographic facts" from her section. I left them in while the discussion was on so that it doesn't look like I was making it "unsplitworthy". As said above - none of those facts appear to be particularly noteworthy and were not serving any purpose. Even the "woman of the year" thing is, on closer examination, just a internet poll by a TV station for the "TV personality" of the year - where she came up as the top woman. Averell (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Looks good. Does the current last sentence of the Knox section have anything to do with the trial? (The "seven..." bit.) I've already taken out one clearly irrelevant personal detail on a similar topic, but I've been trying to resist being the only one cutting stuff like this. Townlake (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I've removed that too. To qote from WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy" - neither is it in any way connected to the murder, nor is it a generally noteworthy fact about Knox. With this article I'd rather be bold in cutting such stuff since it will accumulate cruft as long as the case is in the news; if others disagree we can discuss it here and see. Averell (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the case against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito

Do we really need this section? It's largely cribbed from the NYT opinion piece published on June 10th.[3] I feel like this information could be merged into the rest of the article, because as it looks now it's verging on a violation of WP:NPOV to have a separate section which only serves to be critical of the prosecution, without giving equal time to validity of the charges and the evidence. I mean, this is a pretty easy one -- you state the evidence given by police and the prosecution, then state the defense's issues with that evidence, as is done in the O.J. Trial article or the Scopes Trial. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems clear that this is a POV; I will refrain from removing it myself again since I was reverted, but I think whoever wants it to be there ought to provide justification for the section's existence, and some sources (the Egan article has none). Phils 20:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
It's basically a criticism section, which is to be avoided. If the information can be sourced, it should be merged with the rest of the article, not in a separate section. Averell (talk) 07:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


I have culled the long lists of evidence recently inserted, as they were basically big blobs of less important information. I strongly suggest that, when adding things to the article to add to the existing text. This will also force the editor to provide more context and explanations of the relevance.

Do also keep in mind that editors here put quite some work into weeding out the cruft. Improvements are of course welcome, but not every little factoid makes this article better. Averell (talk) 10:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Prosecutorial bias

The section Prosecutorial bias is really misleading. It is totally unrelated to the subject and it focuses around a former inquiry related to the Monster of Florence case, sure not to the Murder of Meredith Kercher case.

Furthermore the section is unsourced and contains visible mistakes (for example Corriere della Sera, wich is indeed the most renowed journal in Italy, is referred to be a "limited circulation newspaper"). And what about the story reguarding the drug addict... pure rubbish. Giornale dell'Umbria (a Perugia paper) published it only to sell an extra bunch of copies, but that is nothing more than an urban myth.

What to say more? To complete this wildly unreasonable section I would suggest to add a banner at the top of the section pointing to the Amazon page of the Spezi and Preston latest book.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say to condense this whole section into a single, sourced statement that the prosecutor is (or has been) controversial. Full stop. Adding more unsourced information to counterbalance doesn't really help. Averell (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I quite agree with you but I would like to read the position of other editors, in order to reach a very strong, balanced point. Anyone would keep let's say the story of the drug addict or any other content - obviously if verifiable - from the section under scrutiny?--Grifomaniacs (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
No, I agree with Averell. Rothorpe (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Yep, Averell's right. And the MSNBC cite doesn't back up what it says it backs up, to boot. This whole section needs to be vaporized; a cite to the widely-reported criticism of the prosecutor in the Trial section would be appropriate. Townlake (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the old section and added a new, far briefer section at the end of the Trials and Convictions section. Please take a look, comment, edit and improve, etc. Townlake (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Brand new to Wiki and want to add information about evidence in the case

Hi there, I am TOTALLY brand new to wiki. I am very interested in this case and was surprised that its Wikipedia entry was so short. The page seems to lack an explanation of the alleged evidence against the suspects now on trial, who many believe would be "unlikely" to have been involved and whose motive, if they were involved, might be difficult to understand. I especially wanted to include these things because the American media glosses over a lot of the evidence in favor of the idea that the attractive white suspects were railroaded by an "unjust" Italian legal system.

For example, I added the following list below the Amanda Knox section . I realize that people aren't fond of lists (I don't know how wiki works so I don't know if that's across the website or just a preference of particular editors) but please help me understand if any of the following is relevant and how it can be incorporated into the Amanda Knox section.

Is it normal procedure to post additions to the talk section before making page changes? Before today, I wasn't aware that there was a talk section, which is rather like "the pages behind a page." Also, I'm not quite sure how to add references.

Thanks in advance.

-->Additions to follow Amanda Knox section

Besides for her changing story and weak alibi, the alleged evidence that implicates Knox includes the following:

  1. Security cameras caught footage of Knox heading to the apartment shortly before the murder, when she claimed to be home with her boyfriend.
  2. Knox claimed to have spend some of the evening when the murder took place reading Harry Potter. A copy of Harry Potter was observed by police at the crime scene, but not at Sollecito’s house, where she claimed to spend the entire night.
  3. Both Knox and her boyfriend—also a suspect—turned their mobile phones off about the same time the night of the murder and not turned on again until the morning after the murder which forensics showed was not their normal usage pattern, as both reportedly normally used their phones late into the evening. However, Knox's reported explanation was that she had turned her phone off because she did not want her boss, Lumumba, to call her back to the bar to work that evening.
  4. Witnesses reported hearing more than one person running from the murder.
  5. A witness places Knox and Sollecito in the hills above the house looking down to it about the time of the murder or shortly thereafter presumably concerned about whether the victim’s screams would bring any response.
  6. Knox said she stayed at Sollecito’s house all night and awoke about 10:30AM. However, a witness placed her at a local grocery store waiting for it to open at 7:30 AM., where she allegedly bought bleach and other cleaning products. Police reportedly later found a receipt for these cleaning supplies when investigating Sollecito’s residence.
  7. Knox first found at the flat the morning after the murder with a mop and bucket, which she said she had gotten to mop up water that Sollecito had spilled when a water pipe broke when he was cooking pasta the night of the murder.
  8. One of the flat roommates testified that Knox had a scratch or welt on her neck the morning after the murder which wasn’t there a day earlier.
  9. Knox and Sollecito have changed their stories several times, even trying to implicate the other. For example, Knox has stated that she saw blood on Sollecito’s hands that evening but assumed it was from the fish he had prepared for dinner. Also, she reportedly suggested that he may have arose from bed to complete the murder and then brought back the murder weapon (with Kercher’s DNA on it) and pressed it into her sleeping hand in order to implicate her.
  10. Reportedly, Knox showed no fear of being at the flat after the murder, but instead expressed concern about rent obligations and of finding another place to live.
  11. Guede, the drug dealer who has already been convicted in Kercher’s killing, stated that Knox and Sollecito were with him and that the murder began about money (presumably the theft of the victim’s rent money), which was stolen from the flat. However, Guede’s story has changed several times.
  12. Evidence shows murderer(s) staged the flat after the murder to simulate a burglary, foolishly breaking a window from the inside that was too high for any burglar to access and taking nothing of value except the victim’s cell phones and likely her rent money. For example, a laptop was found in clear view.
  13. Reportedly, there was evidence of extensive cleaning and staging of the crime scene. For example, only one print of Knox’s could be found including in her own bedroom—although opinions vary as to whether this could actually be normal in one’s own residence since the number of clear, unsmudged prints in any residence can vary--and some prints in blood were reportedly cleaned up so well that they only became visible with luminol enhancement. The prosecution has suggested that only someone closely tied to the apartment, such as Knox, would have the motive to complete such a thorough cleanup so as to limit the evidence tying them to the scene.
  14. Reportedly, some experts have suggested that the wounds and bruising on the victim’s body suggest that there were multiple attackers. Kercher was found with multiple superficial neck wounds in addition to the fatal wound, suggesting that Kercher was tortured prior to being killed. This might match the prosecutor’s theory of a forced sex game “gone wrong.” However, the medical examiner, who was among the first people testifying in Knox’s trial, stated that there was likely only a single attacker, presumably the already-convicted Guede.
  15. When the victim’s body was found and throughout meetings with police and the victim’s friends, Knox expressed no sadness or normal emotions of terrible loss as all of the others did. Knox reportedly displayed an odd demeanor, which included hitting herself on the head at the police station prior to being fingerprinted, doing “cartwheels and stretches” while waiting to speak with police, sitting on Sollecito’s lap, sticking her tongue out at him and resting her feet on his legs and otherwise acting not maintaining a solemn demeanor.
  16. Knox and Sollecito were videotaped in a lingerie store buying underwear within the days after the murder. A witness reportedly overheard the couple flirting and talking about the “wild sex” they would have when they got home. Photos and video of Kercher smiling in the store have been posted on the Internet. However, the defense has stated that Knox was shopping for emergency underwear since her home had been sealed off as a crime scene, and that furthermore, the “witness” only spoke Italian and therefore would not have understood Knox, who at that point was not fluent in Italian.
  17. Reportedly, Knox’s and Sollecito’s bare footprints were found outside the victim’s bedroom door in luminol imaging.
  18. Reportedly, Knox and Sollecito had details of the victim’s body and manner of death that only the murderers could have known. For example, Knox supposedly made statements to the police that suggested that she knew the body had been moved. Also, Knox made three calls to her mother on the morning that Kercher’s body was discovered. Both she and her mother have allegedly stated that the topic of the first phone call, which was made prior to the discovery of Kercher’s body, was Knox’s growing concern and fear that there might be “someone in the house.” However, during a visit to Knox's Italian jail Knox’s mother was secretly videotaped discussing this first phone call, noting that Knox had discussed “a foot” having been discovered in Kercher’s room. The timing of this call indicates that Kercher’s body, which was eventually found with one foot sticking out from under a duvet, had not yet been discovered.
  19. Knox and Sollecito reportedly gave conflicting statements about their whereabouts to police and in emails to friends and family.
  20. An independent investigator engaged by a panel of judges reviewed and found the forensic evidence to be reliable and done in conformity with international protocol.
  21. When the police first arrived on location to investigate the two cell phones that had been found in the garden, Sollecito and Knox stated that they had just called the police. In fact, there was no record of such a call from either of their phones.
  22. In an email to family and friends on Nov 4 detailing her behavior the night of the murder and the day after, during the early investigation, Knox describes how she returned to her flat the morning after the murder, noticed blood on the sink spout, blood on the bath mat, (didn’t mention the 10" streak of blood on the bath door) but took a shower thinking that maybe her roommate victim had just been messy with her menstruation. Police were skeptical as to why Knox would take a shower on such a cold day, as the apartment had no heat on.
  23. Knox claimed that the victim had always locked her door, when in fact her other roommates say this was not the case.
  24. Knox’s key was reported to open any lock in the apartment, yet she did not attempt to open Meredith’s room, even when she claimed to be suspicious and worried about the condition of the apartment (open front door, blood stains, etc.)
  25. Knox falsely fingered her boss as the murderer. He had recently demoted her at her job and reportedly offered Knox’s position to her roommate, soon-victim Kercher.
  26. Knox and a man of “north African descent” were observed washing clothing and shoes in a local Laundromat in the days after the murder.
  27. Knox told the police the morning after the murder that she wasn’t concerned about Meredith’s bedroom door being locked “because she always kept it locked.” Roommates stated that her door was never locked. However, it is unclear why this would make Knox worry if indeed it was customary for Kercher’s door to be locked.

Knox proclaimed her innocence at the closed-door hearing on 17 October 2008.[3]

  • You are encouraged to add relevant, cited, non-duplicating elements of this list to the "Murder and Investigation" section of the article. In its current big-list format, your contribution is clearly intended to argue your point of view on the case, and that is simply incompatible with Wikipedia. We can't give undue weight to either side of the arguments on the case; the goal all the collaborators on this article seek is to create and maintain an informative, non-biased article about the subject. Townlake (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes 2

Hi, personally i think that the Infoboxes are very usefull and i dont see any reason for them to be deleted without a discussion and consensus first, atleast.--Judo112 (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Have to agree with Judo, I dont see any problem with the Infoboxes. If anything they are good as they establish difference and clear results of trials etc etc... between the different people involved in this incident.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Well Judo112, so why did you delete the infobox about the victim?
By the way I havent any sort of problem with the infoboxes, and I deleted them only in the attempt to solve a technical issue. Fortunately a bot [4] cleared the bug - wich in the end resulted independent from the infoboxes, so for me now it is all fixed. I only hope that no one will modify naively the code of these templates, as in this edit [5].--Grifomaniacs (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


I'm seeing that we include the age for all the suspects for some reason, which must be updated each year - wouldn't it be easier to either just mention the age at the time of the murder (which will probably be the interesting figure in retrospect) or just the year of birth. (And if, for some reason, we want to include the current age, isn't there some kind of template for this) Averell (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of laundromat

'This has since been discounted' needs a reference. Rothorpe (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy about posting info on living persons states that if a fact is in doubt it should be removed. The citation was this link: It basically says that someone say a white woman and an African man at the laundromat. It does not say that Knox was there. I'm quite certain the laundromat sighting was a rumour that came up early in the investigation. I'm just following wiki's policy. (I am quite sure that the laundromat sighting never came up at trial.) HeWasCalledYClept (talk) 06:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)