Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 25 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 35


Move PR firm from support section to media section

"Knox's family engaged the services of David Marriott of Gogerty Stark Marriott, a Seattle-based public relations firm, to handle the public relations aspects of their campaign.[126] The family has spoken with a number of journalists and have appeared on several TV talk shows, such as the Oprah Winfrey Show on 23 February 2010."

I think the whole idea of hiring a PR firm is to manage the way Knox is represented to the media. It seems like it would make much more sense to move this line to the media section. Can we get support to do this?Issymo (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Definitely. The whole purpose of originally putting this in the support section was to give the wrong impression that the only support for Knox was from some hired PR firm. One of the many things wrong with this article which I hope we are going to fix. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Moving the PR firm information to the media section is the correct thing to do. This aspect of the case has been misrepresented by the media and others for far too long. Amanda's parents hired a firm to help them organize interviews with the media. The situation was very new to them so seeking help was not out of the ordinary. There was never a million dollar PR campaign as many suggested and there was no effort to manipulate the media. In this case the parents of a young woman who had been accused of a horrific crime wanted to voice their support for their child and they had every right to do so. The PR firm information does not pertain to the support that Amanda has received. Thousands of people actively support Amanda Knox with no help or encouragement from any PR Firm. Amanda's support has not been bought by the family, it is 100% voluntary. Sorry to be long winded but this topic has been so poorly handled by the media that I feel it warrants a full explanation. BruceFisher (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
That some have criticised the "PR campaign" is likely to be pertinent (we can't judge anything about this ourselves) - in much the same way that the coverage of Knox in the media has been crticised by her supporters. It can definitely be dealt with better though. --Errant (chat!) 21:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I have to respectfully disagree. If claims are made to suggest that the firm hired by the Knox family did anything to manipulate the media then proof must be brought forward. They were hired to organize interviews and there is nothing to suggest any further involvement. BruceFisher (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Probably manipulation is too far. But certainly there has been criticism.. Quennell, for example, appears to have been reasonably vocal in that TLC show are you trying to censor this information! ;) --Errant (chat!) 23:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it's fine to say some have criticized the PR campaign, but Peter Quennell is pretty much a nobody as far as I can tell. Someone a little more noteworthy would make more sense. (GeniusApprentice (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC))
I don't think it would serve Wikipedia well to quote Peter Quennell. He runs a website that openly attacks Amanda Knox and her family. Many feel that his site, along with the discussion site that he participates in, qualify as hate sites. I am a little surprised that his name was mentioned here. I don't think Wikipedia should consider quoting anyone that runs an advocacy site on either side of this debate. I don't operate a hate site but I do operate an advocacy site and I would never expect to be quoted in the Wikipedia article and I would be shocked to see any quotes made by Peter Quennell. BruceFisher (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
──────────── From what I see he is about on a par with many of the pro-Knox commentators, and he did appear in the documentary (which lends a lot of weight to my mind). But admitted he does have problems. That is just an example though, the first I could find to illustrate the point. There are more, I'm just throwing it out there for when you propose a rewrite/change --Errant (chat!) 23:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
We can agree to disagree on Quennell. He is not important. I think we can both agree that quotes coming from those who run advocacy sites really have no purpose being added to the Wikipedia article. BruceFisher (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
The question is really just whether TLC is a reliable source or not. If we want to exclude anything that comes from someone connected to a particular campaign then that would have to cut both ways and could exclude quite a lot of the people currently quoted in the article.
For the substance of the claim, there is also Barbie Nadeau: "Of the handful of American journalists in Perugia in late 2007 and early 2008, none got access to the Knox family without certain guarantees about positive coverage" (page 84 of her book). --FormerIP (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I think each person needs to be looked at individually. I don't think anyone is quoted in the article that currently leads an advocacy group. Are you suggesting they should be? If you can come up with a good reason to add a quote from Peter Quennell then please post it. If you want to add the reference from Barbie's book then I would suggest adding "Barbie Nadeau believes" in front of the text because she never backed up her claim with proof. I would argue that Barbie has been part of the problem when it comes to reporting misinformation. This is completely off topic but if you would like a list detailing the campaign of misinformation that Barbie has led, I will be more than happy to provide it. Either way, her point does not show that the PR firm was working to manipulate the media. The family had every right to turn down interviews with those who might be confrontational. They did not wish to get into shouting matches, they simply wanted to voice their support for their daughter. This line of discussion seems to be getting off point and I am to blame for some of that. I should have known that someone would have taken the conversation off the road if I explained the controversy regarding the "PR firm." The bottom line is; the information regarding the PR firm should not be in the support section, but rather the media section. BruceFisher (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Attributing Nadeau's claim to her, rather than stating it as fact, will be appropriate, of course.
I have to admit I don't know what it was that Quennell said. My only point there is we don't exclude people simply because they have a known POV. Not being from the US, I also don't know what TLC is. But that's the main question, I think. If it is a show with a reasonable reputation for fact-checking, then its contents can be cited by WP. --FormerIP (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Since you have admittedly not researched the points on which you commented there really is no need to discuss general Wikipedia policy regarding content from those with a POV at this time. If anyone ever suggests posting a quote from Peter Quennell maybe you could chime in to defend it. As far as this discussion goes, I think the point has been made that the PR firm information should be moved to the media section. Do you object to this move? BruceFisher (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Not at all, but I also insist on adding the quote from Nadeau. --FormerIP (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest that you propose an edit and see what others think. Please be aware that this type of edit opens the door for an awful lot of information coming from books on the subject. I would think that a statement like Barbie's would need to be supported by other sources but I don't make those decisions. BruceFisher (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Outdent: some unformed opinions If the TLC is The Learning Channel, it's probably a RS. If not, who knows. The Nadeau quote, attributed to her, seems reasonable to me. We have to present both sides, as long as they are reasonably represented in RSs. I've never heard of Quennel, but would want to see an actual quote in a RS before passing judgment about whether to include his views.LedRush (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like we are reaching an agreement on moving the PR firm info. If everyone agrees on adding author opinion from the various Wikipedia approved books on the case, I see no issues with that. BruceFisher (talk) 03:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
If the Nadeau quote is allowed to go in without her having to provide any backup for her claim, then by the same rationale OGGI's claim about Nara's hearing needs to go in. It's the continuing exercise of double standards in this article which I find annoying. Don't bother to reply to my point as I'm sure Barbie's unsourced claim will be going in to the article whatever happens, just as OGGI's unsourced claim will be staying out. Respectfully, CodyJoeBibby (talk) 09:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
So with the current lock, do we need to keep commenting on all of these points until edits are allowed? If these topics archive, nothing will be accomplished. Do topics continue to archive during locks like this? BruceFisher (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
It's now Friday (in the UK, anyway). I'm not seeing any letup in filibustering, I'm afraid. If anything, it's intensified. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 07:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Events surrounding the murder - edit

"During the trials many witnesses were questioned in court about the murder and surrounding events."

This sentence seems very out of place and out of the blue, disconnected from the rest. Can we just go ahead and delete it please?Issymo (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it should be deleted. The sentence is also somewhat misleading. The current version of this section only includes information from phone records and initial witness interviews. These events and times were known before the first arrests were made on Nov. 6. --Footwarrior (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Yep. I originally reworded it from the wonderfully obtuse Many witnesses were questioned in court about the murder, and the following events were noted, but at the time felt it should just go outright :)
Really the whole section needs more cohesion --Errant (chat!) 21:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────There doesn't seem to be any disagreement about this, so I will make the request.

In the "Events surrounding the murder" section remove the first sentence. "During the trials many witnesses were questioned in court about the murder and surrounding events."

--Footwarrior (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, done. --Diannaa (Talk) 04:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Another edit, in the line "Parting company with Sophie at 8:55 pm", this time is an estimate and should not say as FACT that they parted at 8:55 p.m. I would like to change this to say - around 8:55 p.m. Issymo (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm annoyed because I reviewed that source and rewrote a lot of the innacurate stuff in that section, but missed that. Indeed the source says "about 9pm" - and that is the time they say they were watching the film till. It then speculates she arrived home at 9:15 (which I don't think we need to worry about. So how about:
That evening Kercher dined with three other young English women at one of their homes, the four watched the movie The Notebook on DVD until about 9pm when Kercher said she was tired and wanted an early night. She borrowed a history book, saying it would be returned before 10 am the next day, and left to walk home with one of her friends. Parting company with the friend she walked the remaining 500 yards (460 m) to her flat alone. According to early investigations and autopsy, Kercher died in the flat between 9–11 pm.
(comes with some grammar improvements & removing the name) Better? --Errant (chat!) 21:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
They could not have watched the movie until 9:00 p.m. because Sophie Purton said she was already home in time to watch a 9:00 p.m tv show. Masseie Report pg. 37 - "she indicated that they had left the house at around 20:45 pm. She said good-bye to Meredith about ten minutes later, at 20:55 pm. She remembered the time because she wanted to be home at 21:00 pm to see a television programme she was interested in." I would really appreciate a compromise on this one. It is important that it say around 8:55 p.m. There is CCTV footage of someone (belived by many to be MK) arriving home around 8:52-8:54 p.m. It is believed by many that her 8:56 p.m. call to her mother was hung up on because she was surprised by RG's presense. That would require that she was already home by 8:55 p.m. It is important for these reasons to leave the arrival time of MK more ambiguous and saying - around 8:55 p.m. accomplishes that. It would also be more accurate than using a specific time that is not actually known.Issymo (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no need for a compromise :) if you have a source that details this information, then we are good to go. It is important for these reasons to leave the arrival time of MK more ambiguous; no, it is important to be accurate to what is sourced. If the aim is to allow for what "some believe" then it is not a good start :) --Errant (chat!) 22:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Errant, you miss my point. The time IS ambiguous and anything that lists an EXACT time as the article now has it listed assigns an exact time that in unknown. The article says they departed at 8:55 p.m, there is no way to assert that as true. The word - around - should be added because the exact time is not known. Issymo (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Sophie Purton's part - "she indicated that they had left the house at around 20:45 pm. She said good-bye to Meredith about ten minutes later, at 20:55 pm. She remembered the time because she wanted to be home at 21:00 pm to see a television programme she was interested in." Massei Pg 37. The person who would know the most is estimating herself. She does not have any definite times.Issymo (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I didn't mention the parking lot video in this section for a couple of reasons. First, the sources just say it's believed to be Meredith. Second, we don't really have a good time for this event. The parking lot camera is known to be off by about 10 minutes, but the prosecution and defense differ about in which direction it's off. To make matters even worse, the released video has the timestamp cropped out of the image. A couple of sources give the time as 8:43, but we don't know if the prosecution adjusted the time. The attempted phone call to Meredith's mother does have a precise time of 8:56 pm. The Massei report states that the call never connected to a cell tower. Some have speculated that this is when Meredith was attacked, but she may just have been in a bad spot for cell phones. In this article we should just report the call was attempted and didn't connect, it's not our job to speculate why. --Footwarrior (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Footwarrior, I'm not asking for any of that to be included. I'm asking that - at 8:55 p.m. be changed to - around 8:55 p.m. Issymo (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Issy, I'm not disagreeing with that... other than to say do you have a source you can provide right now to support it. Because the current source says "about 9pm" - so you can appreciate that it is not possible to use it to say "about 8:55pm" --Errant (chat!) 08:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Errant, I have a source in a paragraph above, from Massei Pg 37 about Sophie Purton's statement. "She said good-bye to Meredith about ten minutes later, at 20:55 pm."[1] Massei uses the word 'about', which would also be fine. Issymo (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Massei Report Page 328: "At 20.56 hours on 1.11.07, an attempted call was made towards the family number (‚home‛) at 441737553564 referable to Meredith Kercher’s mother." This call was interrupted. Meredith made no attempt to make the call again. This call was not witnessed by Sophie so its clear the call was made after Meredith and Sophie parted ways for the evening.We do not have exact times for anything (except phone calls). Just because an article states an exact time doesn't make it true. I guess we need to find other writers that wrote "around" instead of implying that they had pinpointed the exact times. BruceFisher (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


I have seen some of what is written in the archives here and also have been looking into public domain laws for Italy and Germany but not to a conclusive answer. So, are the mugshots obtainable in Italy? ...and same question for Germany as it applies to Guede? Also, do any of the participating editors here have any photos (of their own making) that they would be willing to upload?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you only looking for headshots of those involved (Amanda, Raffaele, Rudy)? BruceFisher (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I am more then happy to assist with this, If you will advise me on what it is you need :)--Truth Mom (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I am looking for whatever we can get that would improve the article. :) I was thinking of the suspects first because mugshots are often (but not always) in the public domain so I thought that might be easiest...but I would think we would welcome other types of photos. The most important thing to Wikipedia is that we don't violate copyrights. If someone has their own photos, they can upload them to Commons. If you have other photo suggestions, just ask here to see if people think they are a good idea. Seeking out photos is a good way to improve the article. Italian speakers will be especially valuable here in looking through their government sites. German speakers may find Guede's mugshot (Germany has been very accommodating to Wikipedia). Shots of Mignini, the court entrance, etc.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Photos of the three suspects taken near the time of the murder would improve the article as would a photo of the cottage. There are some general photos of Perugia on Wikimedia, but I didn't see any good ones that looked appropriate for this article. Uploading your own photos is easiest. If the photo was taken by someone else, that person needs to sign a Wikimedia release form and that signed form should be uploaded at the same time as the image. Ask for advice on getting this right before doing the upload. --Footwarrior (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
To date I have never seen any mug shots of Amanda or Raffaele, but I have ran across the one of Rudy. There are quite a few Italian speakers that I am aware of, I will ask. What would they need to do? As for the form, I will see if I can manage to locate that. As for the uploading, I dunno about that :) I am attempting to learn it though :)--Truth Mom (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── There is a rather steep learning curve for uploading images to the commons. Also, my earlier post was wrong about verifying that someone else gave permission. According to [1] that takes place vie email. --Footwarrior (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok that helps a ton Thank you kindly.So this is an area I can simply even contact various press entities and request that the photos they hold be released for use. I have been in contact previously with a few of them, so this may aid in an already established relationship.

As previously stated, I have never ran across any mugshots, except for the one of Rudy. I am also sure that all of these book writers and blogs, may as well have access to many photos. So will ask,is it only Mug Shots that are of interest?--Truth Mom (talk) 04:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There are two really good sources for photo's and either may be willing to allow use if a PTB here would ask. (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
PTB = Part-Time Boozer? Face-wink.svg ...or Power that be?
I get a 404 on the first must have an account, I'm guessing. The second link has great shots but I'm not sure they belong to them because they also have[]=10200&qwe=amanda+knox ([]=10200&qwe=amanda+knox) these of Hayden Panettiere from the movie in screenshots. If the Knox/Sollecito shots are truly theirs, they would be outstanding in the article....if they are willing to. Their terms seem to say no.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Candace Dempsey was in Italy, I am sure she took photos, maybe it is possible to askher if she would be willing to assist here? --Truth Mom (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

...maybe truejustice has the rights to an image or two that could be released under CC-BY or similar for use on Wikipedia".Fancourt (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Photos of refrigerator and sofa

I have a link to a cottage photo, showing the police letter-markers near the refrigerator and sofa, but I was hoping to get a photo which was published on a news website, such as BBC or CBS News or such. Meanwhile, to reduce fears that placing the "FRIG" on the diagram is a nefarious POV attempt to slant perceptions, view the photo linked here: Cottage-kitchen-entrance-photo. The trial documents mentioned that fruit juice was in the refrigerator, so it would not be wildly frantic "original research" to note the refrigerator was in the kitchen. I would like to have other photos, linked from news websites, to link as reference photos. However, meanwhile, this photo helps to dismiss unfounded accusations of POV-pushing in the details of the concept diagram. Obviously, the house-concept diagram must be displayed in the article because many people actually imagined there was not even a refrigerator in the house, at all, despite being mentioned in courtroom discussions. -Wikid77 23:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

  • It isn't that obvious to me. Do you know what "frig" means? --John (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that everybody proficient in English knows what it means, especially in this context.LedRush (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll assume good faith and accept that you know that "frig" means "wank". The question I have is why we would want to use a badly drawn graphic with an obscure sexual word on it. "Fridge" would be a better label.... --John (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Etymology ==> Frigidaire
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Would it be possible to create a rotating 3-D version of the diagram? That way we could see inside the fridge and label things like cheese. --FormerIP (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Yes. Yes! --John (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
It was my understanding that you , John, were working on creating a "Better" version, is that no longer an option? BTW, I have never heard the word frig, describe a "wank" either, in my world it is a "Wang". It is also a clear minor typo, as we call them a fridge. :) I as well used the title of the section to clarify, what the intent of the word was referring to. Thank you kindly for the proper word meaning. I also like to request that the Wine be labeled as well --Truth Mom (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I had no idea that 'Frig' means 'Wank'. That is definitely a good reason to change it to say fridge instead.Issymo (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I am sure it was a typo, thus there was no reason for all of this really, and I am sure it can be fixed with a little edit..... Really was no reason for a fussing. --Truth Mom (talk) 04:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I am sure it was a typo, perhaps made my a non-native English speaker, and I am not imputing any bad motives. We will have to agree to differ on whether this, the amateurish quality of the image, and the disclaimers all over it, collectively affect the suitability of this image. Do you think it is at all suggestive that the new editors all think this image with all its imperfections is essential, while those of us who have been here a while think it is unsuitable? At least consider the possibility that we might be right, please. As to preparing a new version of the image, either Errant or I could do it. I started work on it a few days ago but I have been busy in real life and it is a non-trivial task to make a decent image. I wonder if Errant has made any progress? --John (talk) 05:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Sadly, no progress here, I've got a new product launch and a camping trip in the next week or so. So... minimal chance I'm afraid. --Errant (chat!) 09:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • No worries, I should get a chance at the weekend. --John (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, Thank You........ :) OK now,I accept you would like to make the quality better, I understand you have a life, and I would hope that you would come up with a resolution to clarify this whole matter and make a diagram we ALL can be proud of. So instead of continued disagreements of it, lets just get a new one together and up and problem solved right? :)I am even willing to assist you in anyway possible, feel free to email me anytime. I have faith in you that you, :) Just don't forget the wine please :) --Truth Mom (talk) 05:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe as an admin, you can even simply go in and correct that little typo? :) --Truth Mom (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, it appears that we have consensus that a floor plan belongs in the article. What are the objections to the current image? So far I have noted the refrigerator not labeled properly and the floor plan is narrowed. If the plan was not narrowed then the disclaimers would not be necessary. I don't think its productive to argue who is right and wrong. We have already gone down that road. Let's work together to get an image that we can all agree on. Are there anymore "amateurish" details that need to be corrected? It would seem to me that the points of debate could be quickly corrected on the current image. BruceFisher (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The word "FRIG" in a kitchen means "reFRIGerator" which is obvious when running a Google image-search for "frig". I have heard the word "frigging" (as a frustration), but this is not that word. A Google web-search for "frig" & "refrigerator" yields over 3 million gHits, so I conclude the world knows about "frig" in the kitchen. Again, the house diagram cannot claim to use "actual dimensions" for the rooms because too much sourcing of wall-segment lengths and furniture sizes would be needed. If the diagram is changed, to go down the path of a scaled "floor plan" again, then that would be one step along the path to getting it deleted (again) as a copyvio of a map or WP:OR in claiming those wall-segments are exactly as shown. I am repeating these ideas here, for the 17th? time, to be sure everyone understands a mapped-to-scale floor-plan diagram cannot withstand arguments for deletion. However, I will remove some of the disclaimer statements, as a compromise, to alter the diagram as requested. -Wikid77 18:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
New diagram...the diagram admitted in court has now been added.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The investigation of the murder of Meredith Kercher

I am wondering if anyone has charted out in this Wikipedia Article on Meredith's Murder, a chronological order of the investigation of the murder. One thing that brought this to mind is when I heard (recently) Paul Ciolino speak at a forum. He spoke of how he went to Perugia very shortly after the crime occured. Being an investigator, he began doing what investigators do: knocking door to door to see who had heard or seen what. He spoke of a 4 story apt. building right across the way from the cottage. While there he found and spoke with the niece of one of the star witnesses. She told him that the old lady was harmless, but mentally ill. What he found out is that NO ONE had ever gone knocking door to door to find out anything at all. This, obviously, was astonishing to him. I don't care what country you're in, this is basic Investigating and it was shocking to myself as well. Why they didn't do this is a question I have no answer for. I can only guess that basic things like this did not happen because a week after the murder occured "We knew she was guilty from the fact that she was eating pizza with her boyfriend instead of laying in bed crying". So, is anyone (in their spare time) up for finding the exact chronological order of this botched investigation. What is Perugia's procedure's? Maybe instead we should see if Wikipedia would be willing to start a "The Railroading of Amanda Knox and Rafaele Sollecito" page. Definitely there needs to be a page on "Giuliano Mignini" as well. In the meantime I'm going to begin looking into finding procedures of investigating crime in the quaint little town of Perugia, Italy. Michellesings (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're talking about looking into the chronology of events, there has been some discussion about whether that is the best approach, or merely telling people all we know about the events in the most NPOV possible is the best. I actually prefer the latter, as some events and statement may look one way at the beginning, and seem completely different in light of everything we learn. If you're talking about retracing all the activities of the investigation in order to point out the deficencies, that seems like POV original research. If there are published (in reliable sources) criticisms of the process of the investigation, they should probably be worked into the article in the appropriate area. I somehow doubt, though, we'll get enough reliable sources to track the entire investigation.LedRush (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I believe that 4-story apartment building is above the house, along the nearby highway, which is the opposite direction from Meredith's bedroom window. Perhaps the police pre-supposed that no one in a 4-story apartment building, along a "busy street" at the far end of the house, through 4 doorways (MK bedroom, hall door, foyer, and cottage door) would have heard much, on a weekend when they were mostly out of town on All Saints Day (a national holiday in Italy 2007). I do not believe all the claims that the police were "incompetent" and I think that Knox/Sollecito could not explain what they were doing between 9-11pm that night and have their explanations match phone calls and visits with other people, so the police became suspicious of the conflicting details. The same problem occurred with pub-owner Patrick L. when witnesses said he was not in his pub during all the hours he claimed when interviewed (but a college professor returned to confirm him at the pub 9-11pm). To understand the problem hearing an argument, outside the far end of a house, play a radio (fairly loud) in a room (with 1 window) inside another room (with 2nd door open) down a hallway, where the front door is in a foyer to that hallway, then go outside, along a "street" type of construction, then go up a hill (or some extra distance) and listen for that radio playing fairly loud on the "opposite end" of the house (down the hill). If the police knew that spot, as being very remote, and most people were gone on holiday, should they really ask door-to-door? The police were reported as having talked to the "neighbors" but I am not sure how many, among 250 witnesses who testified. Perhaps the whole point of the elderly woman was that no one around her could have heard much from that location. A scream in the house might have made a suspect run, then return to see "did she really die" and consider a cleanup, but unlikely to be heard outside. Hence, there is not much which could be added to the article about the 4-story building. -Wikid77 20:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The investigation of the murder of Meredith Kercher

Can someone start a chronological order of the investigation of Meredith? What was, and/or was not done. In luei of recent events, people are really wanting to understand how this all came to be. The one thing I know is that the head Police Investigator knew Amanda Knox was the murderer because she was eating pizza with her boyfriend instead of being upset at home crying in bead. It had been a week, and they were pretty much out there on there own. They didn't have family with them at that time. In trying to understand what's happened, we need to start this as a sub subject. Who wants to start it, I'm just an idea person! :))Michellesings (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You brought this up above, and I made some comments to the proposal there. Let's try and keep conversations consolidates, as much as is practicable, anyway.LedRush (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I would start with: "Rudy Guede had moved to Perugia when he was 5 years old, went to school there, and in recent years, still played basketball, daily, at the Piazza Grimana outside Stranieri, near the cottage. In 2006, Rudy left Perugia but had moved back in February 2007, and had played basketball, for over 1 year, with one of the 4 Italian students who lived downstairs at the cottage. In August 2007, 2 Italian women, coworkers at a legal firm, moved into the upstairs flat. Meredith moved into the 3rd room in late August, and Amanda rented the 4th room when visiting from Germany. On September 20, 2007, Amanda returned to Perugia, from Germany, and then met Meredith. They went to pubs together, and Meredith was with Amanda when Patrick L. hired Amanda, in mid-October, to work nights at his pub, Le Chic. Meredith began dating one of the Italian boys downstairs.
    "Meredith and Amanda met Rudy with the Italian guys at a pub, and they all returned to the downstairs flat, but the girls left afterward. Several days later, on October 25, Meredith and Amanda went to a classical music concert (at Stranieri), and when Meredith left at intermission, Raffaele Sollecito sat next to Amanda at the concert. When they left, Amanda began staying each night at Sollecito's 2-story apartment. On October 29, the 4 Italian guys downstairs made plans to leave for the week, and they gave Meredith a housekey so she could water the cannabis plants downstairs on those days. On Halloween, Amanda called Meredith about their Halloween costumes, but Amanda had to work the busy night at pub Le Chic, and Meredith spent Halloween with her British friends she had met in September who partied and danced at Domus, until 4 am. The next day (the national holiday), according to Amanda, she saw Meredith leave the cottage around 4pm, so Amanda and Raffaele finished a meal in the kitchen and went to his house. (...continue from there...)" -Wikid77 20:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
This is great, there was also a cat she was tending to. --Truth Mom (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Michellesings (talk) 03:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Trial Evidence Submitted

File:Italianpolice crime scene compositeMeredithKercherMurder.jpg
Crime scene composite of the Murder of Meredith Kercher produced by the Forensic Science Division of the Italian national police, Polizia di Stato Scientifica which was submitted as evidence in the subsequent trials.

I noticed the new picture for trial evidence submitted. It seems too small to be read, other than for the floor plan, which seems to corroborate the earlier proposed floor plan. Seeing as this doesn't add anything to the article that can be easily read other than a worse version of a floor plan we already have, I think we should delete it.LedRush (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I just went ahead and reverted. The pic is in Italian, you can't read it unless you click on it and then zoom in on the section you want, and seems to be nothing more than an instance of "look how much evidence there is" with no way to check the evidence's significance or nature. It's not only unhelpful, it actively detracts from the article.LedRush (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Berean, could you please post the picture here? Also, I would appreciate it if you were to undo your reversion of my revert. Proper process is to be bold, revert, and then discuss[2]. You forgot the "discuss" part and added another revert.LedRush (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
While you're at it, please provide Italian translations for all of the captions, and a justification for how the picture is helpful. I see some huge BLP concerns here, adding this picture without any indication of what it says.LedRush (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
LedRush is right, BereanHunter you should consider reverting your edit per BRD (take your own advice in the edit summary :)). Still forming an opinion on the image, but it would be useful to see how people argue the image adds to the article. --Errant (chat!) 14:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
(2 edit conflicts - sigh) You have no policy-based reasons in your original post above. Addressing your points, of course it is in Italian - Policy cited for placement, WP:PRIMARY. This is the actual proof submitted at trial....if you can't see the value of that, I'm sorry, but you will have to make a policy-based argument for exclusion. About the other floor plan, it can now be tweaked to fit the dimensions and useful in another part of the article or in possible split-out articles. It doesn't need to be read in detail in thumbnail size...they can click on it. You say a "worse version" of the floor plan? This is the floor plan submitted at trial. What can happen here constructively, is that an English version of the legends and labels that are consistent with the Italian labels may be developed. I don't have to supply all the English captions. Let's see what others have to say.
May we agree to at least a temporary compromise of leaving it in for one day as this is discussed? If the tide of discussion is clearly against it's admission, then I will remove it myself. Fair? If you don't agree to that, I will revert it now...but I'm hoping that we can break out of the previous patterns of how things have been going on this article by an excellent show of good faith. I'll respond again in about half hour.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
My policy reasons are stated above. Perhaps you don't agree with them, but there they are. Regarding the picure itself, it is too small to be of value to anyone in the article. After clicking on it and then zooming, if you read Italian, it is possible that this could be useful, it is possible that it is redundant, and it is possible that this is giving undue weight to the prosecution argument and violating BLP. It is possible that this is evidence that has already been contradicted by scientific evidence or witness testimony. But what we know is that this can't easily be read and provides nothing to our average, non-Italian reading readers. And the floor plan is inferior because I have to click out of the article and zoom on it before I can access it. It takes away from the article. If you could cut it out, make it bigger, and replace the existing one, I don't think I would have objections.
Regarding your desire to leave it in the article until we decide: I simply can't agree to that in this case. If I knew what the slide said, I could agree that this would be the time to break the cycle of "revert first and ask questions later". But seeing as we have so many policy based questions here, and that I can't even gauge the value of the content, I believe that this must be taken down now.LedRush (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, for the record, I did try and come here to discuss this first. 11 hours isn't a long time, but I didn't just blindly revert an inclusion. I opened up an avenue of discussion first, despite all my reservations about it.LedRush (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The only policy that I have seen you allude to is WP:BLP but you haven't actually made the argument for how it might be a BLP violation. Can you explain, please?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I can explain it more than I already have. While I haven't specifically said the terms UNDUE and POV, these are clearly in my opinions above as well. Until we have translations, we simply don't know what we're dealing with. I don't suppose you would give some explanations of how what the captions and evidence say will help the article as I've asked above?LedRush (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Policy is not the only consideration... my only real concern outstanding is that it is extremely small, so is essentially useless unless you click through. Is there any way we can mitigate this? The image was submitted as evidence, so seems pretty notable. We should also make mention of it in the text. Also; is the image definitely PD? Because if it is we should cut out the floor plan and use that further up. Also; FWIW the commons permission needs to be fixed; "source" doesn't refer to "where you got the image" but where it originally came from - so if there is a URL with the right licensing attributed to the image, then that works. Otherwise we need the right source. --Errant (chat!) 15:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Even if it's bigger, the picture is at best useless to the average English reader and at worst, a POV push to say "look at all this evidence...those guys MUST be guilty" (think of Colin Powell at the UN).LedRush (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, nah, that doesn't concern me at this stage. The material there is simply the evidence photo's from the crime scene, it is not pushing the guilt of anyone and is perfectly neutral. It is entered as the prosecution evidence at trial so is notable. No, I don't think there are any valid POV concerns. The Italian text only mildly worries me; it is mostly an image of the crime scene, which is decipherable w/o needing the text, and as this is a piece of evidence in itself it has a value of interest relating to the article. FWIW as an English reader I found it of interest when it was first posted the other day. --Errant (chat!) 15:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad that you've been able to ascertain that the picture and evidence is perfectly neutral. I'll withhold judgment until I read the Italian, though. And I still maintain that this is giving the prosecution case more face time, and giving the article a "look at all the evidence" without actually explaining the context, which I feel distorts the POV.LedRush (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Also, if you could include the part of WP:PRIMARY which says that this picture adds to the article or should otherwise be in the article, I would appreciate it.LedRush (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why your objections to the style of this picture carry the day, but my objections to the style of the other picture got shouted down. How interesting, that. As such, I've removed the other image. Hipocrite (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you've missed the ongoing discussion above regarding POV, UNDUE, BLP concerns, in addition to the picture being in Italian. Of course, the conversation is ongoing, and if I face the overwhelming arguments of other editors as you did above, I will graciously step aside and allow WP policy on consensus dictate that the image above should be included. Alas, you have decided to take a different approach.LedRush (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
This image is clearly stated as being "produced by the Forensic Science Division of the Italian national police," relieving any POV concern. The opinion of the "Forensic Science Division of the Italian national police," is not being granted undue weight by being inclded (the opposite could be said about the opinions of random bloggers). There are no BLP concerns. Further, unlike the other picture, it doesn't look like a 10 year old with MS paint drew it, and it's to scale. Hipocrite (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
God, you lot just can't help snapping at each other... :( Seriously; sort it out. Hipocrite, talk about WP:POINT. My view on this (if it matters) is that on principle both images have merit and use. The first image is crappy and needs to be better quality. The second image is too small as displayed in the article, and we should consider ways to improve the presentation. I see in the section below you're working out an "uneasy compromise" over image #1 - using the plan from this PD image is a no-brainer IMO. It is a quality image which can be considered reliably of the right proportions. I have the opinion that it is within our remit to a) translate any relevant labels and b) add obvious, clear, or easily sourced labels - so long as they push no POV or are a result of OR/dubious sourcing. sorry for the somewhat harsh analysis, see: --Errant (chat!) 22:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
That would work for me, ErrantX. I think the preference should always be use an image created by a reliable source over using something created by an editor. Ravensfire (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Concerning presentation, how about a collapsible box such as below? One would still have to enlarge to see details up close. We need Italian speakers to render labels...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

House Flat diagram

Seeing as Hipocrite has decided to revert the inclusion of the house diagram, can we unarchive the old discussion so we don't have to repeat everything again?LedRush (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

We could, or we could note that I found a far better image - cropping the PD image found by Berean Hunter to just the floorplan - see File:IPMK crop.jpg. Hipocrite (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
It's less bad. --John (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Incremental improvement. I don't support my compromise solution as a first choice, just as a best practical choice. Hipocrite (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The image could be better than the old one, but currently isn't even close. It obviously looks more professional, but without the information regarding whose room is whose, it is significantly less helpful to a reader.LedRush (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to edit that onto the image. Hipocrite (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how. If anyone else can transfer the information from the old pic to the new one, I would support the new one. Until then, the old one should remain, per previous consensus.LedRush (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Added. Thanks for your support! Hipocrite (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Some more nits: 1. I would translate the Italian into English; 2. I would write the names correctly (first name first, last name last); 3. If appropriate, should we exclude Filomena's last name?LedRush (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Misleading/incorrect Intro

"Intro Section" It says 3 convicted and 2 have appealed. Giving the impression that Guede has not appealed which is incorrect and very misleading.

"People charged with the murder"

Why is there 3 times more about Guede than the others? Also mentions arrest DNA etc which is not mentined for the others. The word "murder" appears 4 times as often in his section.

If this info is to be kept then it should mention in the Knox section that her parents were divorced, and that she was athletic and enjoyed football and climbing and did have a criminal record and was a drug user. And then give the reason for her arrest etc. There has been a demand for a page about Knox alone so what is all the information about her that people think is so important to add?

Kwenchin (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome user:Kwenchin. Always nice to see new people here. There are numerous things in this article that need corrected. Please propose specific changes you'd like to make (i.e. replace this with that)so we can discuss them and perhaps even come to consensus. Do include WP:RS citations for your material.. We dont want to mislead people with much of the baseless crap that flows around the internet.. To respond to points, I would agree that it should be pointed out that Guede HAS been convicted in both his initial trial and two appeals. The fact that he is the only fully convicted murder among the three may account for why he's more often referred to as a murderer. As for Knox. Divorced parents, ok.. Athletic, ok.. Criminal record.. hmm .. Please provide a WP:RS citation.. I'm not sure about Britain but in the US and infraction ticket for a noisy party isnt a criminal record.. drug user.. I would lean more toward pot smoker.. 'drug user' sounds so overly dramatic like 'meth addict' or something.. With half the country on prescription Xanax and anti-depressants I think we need to be a bit more specific as to drug use. All in all I wouldnt recommend an 'Amanda Knox' article but rather a "Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffeale Sollecito" article to present the prosecution and defense cases more accurately. Regards Tjholme (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
The noise ticket Amanda Knox paid in Seattle was a municipal infraction. In the same category as parking tickets and not considered a criminal offense. --Footwarrior (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Also Amanda was a drug user only in the sense that Meredith Kercher was too. They both smoked a little pot from time to time. Meredith tended her boyfriend's marijuana plants while he was away. Both Meredith and Amanda were excellent students and Amanda always worked. Neither was more than a light recreational user of pot. PietroLegno (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Move PR firm from support section to media section

This topic was being discussed and was very close to consensus but was unfortunately neglected long enough to archive. I think this discussion needs to continue so the proper edits can be made. Here is the archive.[3]. Is there a way to revive the conversation or does it need to start over? BruceFisher (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I would just copy and paste it here to continue the discussion. However, I'm sure that there's a better way to do this, and there may be some WP rules on this as well.LedRush (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Probably there is something arcane and cryptic, but for here, I'd summarize the last proposal and go from there. I'd suggest putting that as a new sub-section of this section just for ease of editing. Ravensfire (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

PR is about Media, lets move it to the media section Issymo (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation needed

In this edit, an editor discusses 5 shoe prints under a bed pillow, and a failure to explain as much. I reviewed the translated document briefly, but saw no mention of a failure to explain anything. I NPOVed the addition already, but I'm concerned that it's not in the source. Could someone provide a direct quotation, either in italian or in translated English, along with a generalized location in the document where that quotation is located? Hipocrite (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's the complete forensics report that was presented in court by Raffaele's expert. [4] that shows the 5 shoe prints belonging to Rudy Guede. BruceFisher (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Committes to Protect Journalists Protests Actions of Perugian Authorities

Anyone with an interest in this case should be aware of the following:

I would only add that Frank Sfrazo is a very slight man. The idea that he would attack five cops is crazy. PietroLegno (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an important letter and has been sent to the President of the Italian Republic. I believe that the activities of Mignini and the Perugian police and prosecuting authorities, as set out in the letter, justify the creation of a separate section in this entry, entitled 'Controversial Behaviour of Prosecuting Authorities', or similar. I make this suggestion in good faith because I believe that the Committee to Protect Journalists is a reputable organisation that would not take this action without just cause and unless it was convinced that there were serious complaints. In my view the CPJ should be considered a reliable source, but I am not holding my breath on this one. Who will be the first to say that the points are unsubstantiated speculation and they should be ignored? NigelPScott (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
If it gets picked up and commented on in major mainstream media it could be a useful section. Care needs to be taken to focus only on comments specific to this case and no generalization. Sections like this are REALLY easy to start WP:COATRACKs by adding generalizations and references to actions other than this case. If it does get picked up, I think there's enough for a solid article on Mignini covering his career, then getting into the allegations raised in this case and the other case mentioned in that letter. Ravensfire (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I want to post the Italian version of the letter so that people here can appreciate understand fully that this has gone out under the name of some of the highest profile journalists in the U.S. Note also the number of high profile people who were sent copies, including Secretary of State Clinton and Ambassador Thorn. In short this is very, very high profile journalists speaking directly to powerful people in the U.S., Italy, and the EU. Here is the link: PietroLegno (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
This is big. I suggest to wait 24 hours from the release of the letter to see if some major source will cover the story. Otherwise, if this is not going to be covered by mainstream media, I think we can add a citation directly from the CPJ letter. However an entire section is exaggerate, better to add a subsection into the Media Coverage section.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
The CPJ is a highly respected organization and there is no question that they sent this letter as per their own site. There is no need for secondary sources confirming they sent it. 12:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talkcontribs)
I think the argument is that the letter isn't notable unless/until picked up by secondary sources. I pretty much agree. If this was used to support an existing, notable argument, that would be one thing. But this is bringing up a new subject with only this letter as proof that it is notable. We need more.LedRush (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree. This only becomes pertinent if major media publish something about it...and even then it is a tangent that is a bit off-focus from this article.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
CBS News reported on it today: (GeniusApprentice (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC))
I cannot fathom the suggestion that this is not notable in and of itself. Please be sure to read who is on the CPJ board and advisory board. This letter came out with the blessing of some of the most powerful and prestigious journalists in the world. The letter was addressed to the President of Italy but copied to many other people including secretary Clinton and leaders of the EU. The letter makes another important point which we would do well to consider: The most powerful journalists in the world view small journalists like Frank Sfarzo at Perugia Shock as legitimate journalists. Perhaps Wiki should do the same. PietroLegno (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Support for Statement

The article currently states: "On the evening of Thursday, 1 November 2007 ... Knox spent the night at her boyfriend's." Is that proven and/or accepted as fact? Doesn't the prosecution argue otherwise?LedRush (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the only question is whether they left in order to commit the murder. I think it is agreed that they were at the apartment early in the evening and slept there. PietroLegno (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think an easy fix would be to add that Amanda testified to this point: "Knox testified that she spent the night at her boyfriend's." BruceFisher (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

But later, we have the statement, sourced, that Sollecito said he can't remember whether or not she spent the night at his place.[2]LedRush (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)This is not what he said. He said that after he was asleep he can't say what ANYONE did. This is a huge difference. The reason I say this, is because the slight change of detail is the kind of thing that puts an innocent person in jail. If I am incorrect, please show the source. Thanks. :)Michellesings (talk) 02:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have corrected this statement to the undisputed "began the night." Does that solve the problem? Hipocrite (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think so, though we should probably add a fact tag as it is unsourced (I think).LedRush (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm certain we can find a source if the statement is disputed. Hipocrite (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
{ec}Nevermind, I suspect the whole thing is attributed to Dempsey's book. (on a side note, I hate it when I can't check sources).LedRush (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "began the night." solves the problem at all. I think it leads the reader to believe that Amanda left. This wording is far less acceptable than it was before. When talking about Amanda, you should state what Amanda said. Amanda testified that she spent the night at Raffaele's. BruceFisher (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we can do that here. This section is supposed to be the uncontroversial, accepted as fact events surrounding the murder. If you can offer up language that is accurate and doesn't give the impression that Knox left, please feel free to suggest it here.LedRush (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)There is no evidence to prove she left the house that night. I would think, being that this is sourced in written court testimoney that no one would be arguing this. It's simply the truth. Doesn't prove guilt or innocence. Thanks for considering this.Michellesings (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Amanda's testimony is all that is needed. She said she never left. You are making the section controversial by the text you have chosen. You are using a statement made by Raffaele that he later retracted in front of a judge. You sound as if you want to give the impression that Amanda left. That's not okay if you are trying to be "uncontroversial." I will post up some articles stating that Amanda said she spent the night at her boyfriend's. There are plenty of them. BruceFisher (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Bruce, I am not trying to make it sound like anything at all. I am sure you can find sources about what Knox said she did, but that's not the point. We are trying to present uncontested events in this section. Obviously, it is contested that Knox was at Sollecito's all night. We need to find a way to make this sentence work, or just delete the phrase if it can't. But we certainly can't present Knox's statements as absolute truth.LedRush (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Who is asking you to present Knox's statements as absolute truth? I understand why you wanted to edit the text but the edit has created a similar problem. I would suggest: "Knox testified that she spent the night at her boyfriend's" or "Knox stated that she spent the night at her boyfriend's" or "According to Knox, she spent the night at her boyfriend's" BruceFisher (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
"Knox testified she spent the night at her boyfriend's, a fact Raffaele was unable to confirm in the initial police interview because he "couldn't remember". He later retracted that statement in court and confirmed Amanda had been with him the whole night."Fancourt (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I feel like that type of sentence is better for the prosecution/defendant arguments section. Here we are just trying to present things that everyone agrees is factual.LedRush (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I offered 3 versions. I am honestly baffled that you don't see that the current wording is controversial. I could write many factual statements that taken out of context favor one side or the other. Saying that Amanda began her night at Raffaele's suggests that she left. Amanda has said repeatedly that she spent the night at thew cottage. We have sources for that. You can't pick and chose what sources you want to use. You chose to use the source about Raffaele's confusion to justify the edit while ignoring Amanda's testimony. BruceFisher (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
You offered 3 versions of the same thing which I explicitly said shouldn't be used. If you think there is a neutral way to say the uncontested truth, I'd like to hear it. If not, let's just delete the phrase. As an aside, I don't much like your accusation regarding me picking and choosing what sources I want to use. That is an unfair misrepresentation of my position, which has been clear: only uncontested evidence please.LedRush (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
You went against your own suggestion of using only uncontested evidence when you chose to use Raffaele's statement which is contested as well. How is testimony not acceptable? You are not stating it as absolute truth, you are stating it as testimony. I don't think it does the article any justice by stating where everyone "began" their evening, especially if the wording suggests activities that are highly contested. BruceFisher (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I will note that my tone here is probably not the best. I will tone it down as I certainly meant no disrespect to LedRush. I feel very strongly that the most recent edit needs to be changed. BruceFisher (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"On the evening of Thursday, 1 November 2007 ... Knox spent the night at her boyfriend's." Why not just add the word SAID. "Knox SAID she spent the night". It is factual that that is what she said. I think saying "Knox began the night" completely leading toward the idea that she later left her boyfriend's and find that unacceptable.Issymo (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

And, seeing this is an encyclopedia, and not a blog, we need to write proper sentences. We must do better than "Knox began (whatever) the night at her boyfriend's". She was "at her boyfriend's flat." Moriori (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • How did the word BEGAN get added to the article by Hipocrite without concensus. There is no consensus for this change. It is a leading statement that is not acceptable. The word BEGAN means she DIDN'T stay there all night but only started her night there. Why not just say 'Knox said she spent the night at her boyfriend's flat". Issymo (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The current wording (without Began) is good and neutral and side-steps the issue of the fact that later on Knox's whereabouts are disputed/discussed --Errant (chat!) 08:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Another satisfied customer. Or the first satisfied customer. One or the other :)LedRush (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix. Issymo (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the edit. BruceFisher (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Need new link for Massei Motivation

The prior link for the Massei Motivation document seems to be a deadlink, and a new link would be good. There is no policy requirement that a source be hyperlinked in an article, as long as the book, or news report, or webpage has been published in the world at large. However, a new link would be good. -Wikid77 16:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You mean this link?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Move of PR firm from Support Section to Media Section

Issymo made the following observation last week when the article was on lock down. It seemed close to getting approval, but I wanted to reproduce the proposal (copied from the most recent archive if anyone wants to read the prior discussions) to see if there were any objections or suggestions for this proposed move.LedRush (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Knox's family engaged the services of David Marriott of Gogerty Stark Marriott, a Seattle-based public relations firm, to handle the public relations aspects of their campaign.[126] The family has spoken with a number of journalists and have appeared on several TV talk shows, such as the Oprah Winfrey Show on 23 February 2010."

I think the whole idea of hiring a PR firm is to manage the way Knox is represented to the media. It seems like it would make much more sense to move this line to the media section. Can we get support to do this?Issymo (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Seems sensible - recommend going ahead and doing it. --Errant (chat!) 10:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Bloody Footprints in the hall, Filomena's room, and Amanda's room

The following quote from Judge Massei’s report (motivation document) page 256-257, indicates there were no bloody foot prints compatible with Amanda or Raffaele and there were no bloody footprints at all except for one print on the bath mat....

NOTE: To understand this paragraph one must consider that the so-called bloody footprints were found with Luminol in the hallway, Amanda's bedroom and Filomena's bedroom. Also if a sample in question did not contain a genetic profile then it's not possible blood was present the area sampled. Blood contains a genetic profile, so it is not possible the area sampled was blood. Does anyone dispute that?

From Massei report page 256-257: “With respect to the Luminol-positive traces found in Romanelli's room, in Knox's room and in the corridor, she stated that by analysing the SAL cards "we learn, in contradiction to what was presented in the technical report deposited by the Scientific Police, and also to what was said in Court, that not only was the Luminol test performed on these traces, but also the generic diagnosis for the presence of blood, using tetramethylbenzidine, and this test, gave a negative result on all the items of evidence from which it was possible to obtain a genetic profile" (page 64 hearing Sept. 26, 2009).”Turningpointe (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The facts are a) We don't know for sure whose footprints were in the hall--the police did not take reference samples and all we really know is that Amanda cannot be excluded as a donor; b) luminol is only a preliminary test for blood, and when the confirmatory test was done it was negative; c) there was no DNA in the prints. To summarize: no blood or DNA in the prints and we don't know for certain whose prints they were. Note too that 14 luminol hits were found in Raffaele's apartment. Those weren't blood either.PietroLegno (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Luminol is a presumptive test which is just slightly different in that it says the substance found could be one of MANY substances one of which is blood, another of which is bleach. But I agree with you on this.Michellesings (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This is getting far too deeply into original analysis of a primary source. Turningpointe, what you are selectively quoting is Massei himself quoting something put forward by the defence. You're missing out that the court expert said that the traces were blood and the defence witness said that the results were "not easy to interpret", partly because the test used is only 50% reliable. No, TMB will give a false positive but not a false negative. If Massei is attributing something, that he's quoting, who is he attributing this to and on what page is he attributing it on? The court experts DIDN'T say there was blood. There's no "court experts". There are Prosecution experts and then there are Defense expertsMichelle Moore 07:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC) It is agreed by both sides that the traces contained DNA. Remember DNA is not the same as blood.There's DNA in an eyelash.Michelle Moore 07:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)The defence witness appears to be questioning whether the traces are blood, but agreeing that they must be something that would contain DNA, such as spit or excrement. Since it is known that someone was stabbed in the flat, Massei, not surprisingly, concludes that the traces probably are blood. That absolutely doesn't make sense and is simply not the truth no matter how much you want to believe thisMichelle Moore 07:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC) --FormerIP (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)It doesn't matter (who this was said by) if this was said by the defense, it was still Massei. Massei is saying unequivoqually that the Polizia Scientifica said one thing in court but there reports said another thing entirely. This is Pergury. Patrizia Stefanoni essentially lied. She perjured herself. Right now it's looking more and more like the Massei Report is the roadmap to a railroad job.Michellesings (talk)

Rather than analyzing the data here, it might be preferable to expand or start new articles on the many blood tests in use ([5] seems like a beginning) so that readers who are interested can do their own OR. For example, some sources list the DMB test as only 1/5 as sensitive as the luminol ([6]) - however, bear in mind that the development of colorimetric signals is an art form and there are many protocols meant to get a little more oomph out of the procedure (which would make nice meat for an article about the test). I think someone would have to have the product number of the kit they used to even have a prayer of figuring out such details for himself. (And the experts cited by the media? 50-50 chance they'll get it right...) Wnt (talk) 07:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I think we might be getting wrong-footed in several places here. First, I want to make sure that no one suggests that it is reliable to interpret luminol findings on the basis of color. There was an old wives tale to that effect but it has never been accepted in modern practice. Here is a useful source:
"If the result of the presumptive testing is negative, the analysis is terminated. However, if the result is positive, then a more definitive confirmatory test is performed. The reason for this that there are a number of substances that can produce false-positive observations including bleach, plant peroxidases, chemical oxidants such as potassium permanganate, copper, brass, lead, zinc, bronze, iron, or cobalt."

"DNA: Forensic and Legal Applications" Lawrence Kobilinsky, Thomas Liotti, and Jamel Oeser-Sweat John Wiley and Sons, 2005, p. 36

The point is that luminol is always to be considered only a preliminary test and a luminol "hit" is NEVER to be accepted as an indication of the presence of blood absent a positive finding from a confirmatory test.
As for the DNA/luminol issue, it is important to distinguish, analyze, and not lump everything in together. The footprints in the hallway (which have not been shown to belong to Amanda) did not test positive for blood and contained no DNA--hence the defense suggestion that the idea that these were Amanda's "bloody footprints" is wildly illogical and unsupported by evidence. Just a few of the luminol stains found elsewhere yielded DNA profiles but these were strictly non-probative. PietroLegno (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Do we have a source that the jury in this particular case was wrong to believe that the traces were made in blood, or is this just OR? --FormerIP (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The negative results of the blood tests need to be included in the article. Then the reader can make up his or her own mind about whether the jury was right or wrong to believe that. Does that sound reasonable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talkcontribs) 08:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

A secondary source needs to be found for the information first, at the very least. --FormerIP (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Candace Dempsey covers this. I will get the citation. In the mean time, I have taken the liberty of summarizing the points made in the Knox appeal. This is surely enough to demonstrate that the point is vigorously disputed:

~---There is no evidence that any of these tracks were made in blood and there is nothing to link them to the murder.

---Evidence shows that there were no footprints or shoe prints found inside the murder room that could be attributed to Amanda.

---Only 3 of 9 luminol tracks had the positive profile of Meredith. Meredith’s DNA profile was NOT found in any of the claimed bare footprints (nor was anyone's).

--Initially, Stefanoni claimed that no additional testing was done. The information she was compelled to release in July 2009 revealed otherwise. The luminol findings were all tested using using TMB and the tests were negative for all tracks.

---Massei’s speculation that the negative test results occurred because the sample was just too small is silly and wrong as a matter of science. Any error in this type of testing usually provides a false positive, not a false negative. This same type of testing was able to confirm blood in tests of the bathroom samples of far smaller in quantity than the bare foot print findings.

--Massei appears to accept the claim the luminol stain was blood based upon a subjective assessment of the color of the reaction. This is completely unscientific and flies in the face of established protocols everywhere. The bottom line is there was no proof that the footprints were made with Meredith’s blood. PietroLegno (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The luminol evidence was central to Knox/Sollecito’s conviction. I think letting the reader know why and how this conclusion was reached is important to understanding Knox’s conviction.

Knox’s DNA recovered from the lumiol traces could only come from pressure or sweat, because she had no cuts on her feet. But whereever she walked with bare feet she would leave DNA via that same process, and she walked around her own home barefoot plenty. Recovering Knox’s DNA from any given patch of floor would simply be incidental. That would also have to be true of Meredith’s DNA found on the floor. Well, perhaps that is OR.

Still, I think one of the problems with explaining the luminol traces is being overly brief. It’s easy to create the false impression that the traces are easily identified as foot prints, and that the placement of the traces leads to a logical connection with the crime. Reading the Massei report shows that neither of these statements are true. We should be willing to devote enough text to explain the luminol traces in some depth - exactly what was found with luminol, how the court came to decide the traces were connected to the crime, the strengths and weaknesses of the luminol traces as evidence. Moodstream (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The only thing the luminol footprints prove is that there was no cleanup of the crime scene. That's it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talkcontribs) 07:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP, I"m confused. I can't find the information you mentioned in your post about: 1) the test only being 50% reliable, 2) the test results "not easy to interpret" 3) something that would contain DNA, such as spit or excrement 4) Massei concluding that the traces probably are blood. If you don't mind would you please copy and paste the paragraphs here from where you found this information, along with the page number where I can find the information. The following is your comment from April 2.

"This is getting far too deeply into original analysis of a primary source. Turningpointe, what you are selectively quoting is Massei himself quoting something put forward by the defence. You're missing out that the court expert said that the traces were blood and the defence witness said that the results were "not easy to interpret", partly because the test used is only 50% reliable. It is agreed by both sides that the traces contained DNA. The defence witness appears to be questioning whether the traces are blood, but agreeing that they must be something that would contain DNA, such as spit or excrement. Since it is known that someone was stabbed in the flat, Massei, not surprisingly, concludes that the traces probably are blood. --FormerIP (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)--Truth Mom (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if some sense of proportion is being lost here. Should an encyclopedia article really be delving into such specifics? Is the article going to re-try the evidence and come up with its own judgment on what it all meant and how it should be interpreted? I think that if the article were to be truly neutral it would necessarily be frustrating to advocates on all sides. The goal here should be to produce something encyclopedic that frustrates everyone at least a little. I'm pretty new/ infrequent on Wikipedia but it seems clear to me that NPOV means the article can say that "this is what they were convicted for, this is what the court said, this is what they're saying in their appeals" but not "the traces found with luminol clearly were not made in blood." The latter is OR. And impossible for anyone who's not a forensic expert to know, by the way. And even forensic experts disagree. It's tempting to play amateur CSI here but that's not what an encyclopedia article is for. What is knowable--and appropriate for an encyclopedia to report--is that a conviction was made, an appeal is being made, the court said X, the defense said Y, etc. Grebe39 (talk) 03:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Grebe39, I see that you are new to wikipedia, welcome. If you don't mind would you please delete your comment or revise it because nobody suggested an edit to the article that reads "the traces found with Luminol clearly were not made in blood." Also I suggest that you start a new topic to discuss what wikipedia should be, which BTW is an excellent topic to discuss. I prefer to keep this topic focused on the bloody footprints in the hall, Filomena's bedroom, and Amanda's bedroom. My comment will be deleted after this issue is resolved. We have to do things a special way here and the Admins do that stuff. Thank you kindly.--Truth Mom (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Forgive me if I'm just overlooking it, but is there a specific suggestion under consideration in this thread for an edit or change to the article? I see a discussion of the so called 'bloody footprints' but I dont see what specific changes are being proposed. I do think the subject is important as the presence of 'bloody footprints belonging to Amanda' has long been one of those inaccurate red-herrings that appear damning but have no real basis. The bare footprints in the hall that fluoresced with luminol were later determined (Stefanoni's notes) to have been tested with TMB and did not react. i.e not blood, The presence of DNA, if it existed, meant nothing more than that bare feet made the prints. So what change is being proposed. We need something concrete to work toward consensus on.Tjholme (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP would you please answer my question.--Truth Mom (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Tjholme, we have a statement in the article that says “Luminol revealed footprints in the flat, which the prosecution argued were compatible with the feet of Knox and Sollecito.” This would lead one to believe that the footprints were of blood. As we can see from Massei’s report this is not true. I think we should include the entire paragraph from Massei’s report (posted above) verbatim to clear up this misleading statement.--Truth Mom (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP you said " defence witness said that the results were "not easy to interpret", partly because the test used is only 50% reliable."

Is this what you was referring to? I found this on page 258 of Massei's report: "She added that, in her own experience, analyses performed with TMB on traces revealed by Luminol give about even results: 50% negative, 50% positive,”

Also I found this on page 256 of Massei's report: "...During the hearing, Dr. Sarah Gino also explained that from reading the SAL schedules, information emerged which indicated the personnel who performed the analyses, the file number, the bio code, and the identification numbers of the items being analysed. She added, however, that "there is missing information or rather, information which is not easy to interpret".

Is this the information you found in Massei’s report that you mentioned in your comment? If not where did you find the information? --Truth Mom (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Would someone please help me make this edit because I don't know how? --Truth Mom (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is currently locked, so I think only an Admin could make an edit. What precisely do you want to add? I would write it clearly here (meaning, the actual proposed text, with citations) and then ask others to add it.LedRush (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
well, I don’t know what is possible to include in the article. The article currently contains the following statement, “Luminol revealed footprints in the flat, which the prosecution argued were compatible with the feet of Knox and Sollecito.” The statement indicates Amanda and Raffaele’s bloody footprints were found at the crime scene. This is very incriminating. From Massei's report we know that test were performed on the so called bloody footprints and were negative for blood and when the authorities were ask in court if the test for blood had been performed they gave false testimony". If we paraphrase what the Massei report says, then we are doing original research, so I guess we must include the entire paragraph from Massei's report following the statement that is currently in the article. How is it possible to approach reality under these conditions? Apparently The media didn’t think the authorities lying in court is significant because they did not report it. Also the blood test on the footprints didn’t get much attention if any, but Amanda’s panties got plenty of coverage. I just doesn't make sense. --Truth Mom (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Truth Mom, I agree! Something needs to be done about this!Turningpointe (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest the following edit " Luminol revealed footprints in the flat, which the prosecution argued were compatible with the feet of Knox and Sollecito.[50]:373[56] . The authorities testified in court that test for blood had not been performed and presented police crime lab reports that did not mention the test. Later the defense testified that the authorities crime lab records revealed the test in question had been performed by the crime lab, and the results were negative for the presents of blood for all traces, however the judge assumed the blue blurs revealed with Luminol was from Amanda's bloody feet regardless of the scientific test results [50] --Truth Mom (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you be able to provide the relevant quotes from the source that support this version of events? --FormerIP (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
yes--Truth Mom (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Please would you be so kind as to provide the relevant quotes from the source that support this version of events. --FormerIP (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
FormeIP the information you ask for is already posted in this topic / thread, and you said the court accepted the substance is blood (above)although the test indicated it wasn't so you know where this info is located in massei's report, am I correct? --Truth Mom (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Currently the article reads, " Luminol revealed footprints in the flat, which the prosecution argued were compatible with the feet of Knox and Sollecito.[50]:373[56] " I think the test for blood for the footprints should be included in the article although Massei's report is considered a primary source. I would like Mr. Wales opinion about this because it is a significant issue " Turningpointe (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The authorities giving false testimony in court is significant and should be in the article along with the test for blood that gave negative results for all footprints that could have contained blood. It is not proper for this information not to be included in the article. Turningpointe (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It says the authorities said the prints were compatible with Knox's feet. We should follow that letting the reader know that her prints were the only ones they compared them to. They didn't take prints of the other roommates feet. Issymo (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed ReWrite - Support for Knox and Sollecito

Support sites for Knox and Sollecito with hundreds of members[citation needed] developed over the course of their arrest and trials and have called for their release due to wrongful conviction. Some sites being: Friends of Amanda Knox[7][8][self-published source?], Injustice in Perugia [9] [10][11][self-published source?], Raffaele Sollecito [12][self-published source?], Science Spheres [13][self-published source?], The Ridiculous Case Against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito [14][self-published source?], View from Wilmington[15][self-published source?] and Ingiustizia a Perugia [16][self-published source?]

Notable supporters of Knox and Sollecito's innocence include: 25yr veteran FBI agent Steve Moore[17], Author Douglas Preston [18][19], P.I. Paul Ciolino[20], Peter Van Sant[21], FBI Profiler John E. Douglas[22], Donald Trump [23], John Q Kelley [24], Timothy Egan [25], Judy Bachrach[26], Forensic Engineer Ron Hendry [27], Mark Waterbury Ph.D.[28][29], Author Candace Dempsey[30], Lawyer Anne Bremner[31][32] and Judge Michael Heavy[33][34].

9 US Specialists in DNA Forensics Open Letter: On 19 November 2009 Elizabeth A. Johnson Ph.D. and Greg Hampikian, Ph.D. as well as 7 other US DNA experts signed an open letter outlining their concerns with the Bra Clasp and Kitchen Knife evidence central in the case. The letter raised the possibility that the DNA evidence involved was introduced through contamination and concluded that the DNA test results "could have been obtained even if no crime had occurred". [35][36][unreliable source?]

Senator Maria Cantwell's statement: 4 December 2009, the day the guilty verdict on Knox and Sollecito was announced, WA state Senator Maria Cantwell released a statement expressing her sadness at the verdict, saying that she had "serious questions about the Italian justice system and whether anti-Americanism tainted [the] trial". She added that "the prosecution did not present enough evidence for an impartial jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Knox was guilty."[37] Issymo (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This is very good you have put a lot of great information in it. --Truth Mom (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
This is very well written. BruceFisher (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
This looks very fair to me. Any interested reader would find the links useful when making an assessment on the case. I believe that the DNA Forensics Open Letter was picked up by New Scientist Magazine and written about there. Surely a reliable source? NigelPScott (talk) 12:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Issymo. The first two paragraphs of your proposal contain no reliable sources. The second two look okay, but I am not sure they add much to what is already in the article. The link between the open letter and Friends of Amanda [38] should, of course, be mentioned. --FormerIP (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What is the link between the open letter and friends of amanda? Propose text please.LedRush (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that asserting that various websites are "The most notable," requires a source, as does listing "Notable supporters," especially when those "Notable supporters" lack Wikipedia biographies. In addition, I am strongly concerned about link-farming. Hipocrite (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Let us go back to the start of this. Is there consensus that there should be a section entitled "Support for Knox and Sollecito"? If there is, then the websites and individuals listed are the most notable in terms of knowledge, information and their analysis of the case and its shortcomings. There are other blogs that have much to say on the subject of innocence, like the oddly named, Church Discipline where the writer travels on a journey from believing in guilt, to believing in innocence tainted by unhelpful behaviour, to believing in outright innocence with belief that a manipulated and biased media was part of a railroad process. Be that as it may, the items suggested would probably be supported as being helpful by most knowledgeable supporters of Knox and Sollecito. Have a look at them and see. These sites illuminate the 'innocence' side of the controversy and we are agreed that there is a controversy aren't we? I would suggest that any editor is free to suggest other innocence sites (e.g. Church Discipline) if he or she believes that there are significant omissions. Of course, if there is a consensus that there should be no section entitled, "Support for Knox and Sollecito", we can discuss something else instead. NigelPScott (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I dispute that these websites and individuals are the most notable. Could you cite reliable secondary sources for your assertion? Hipocrite (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Hipocrite, I would love to hear your alternative list of the most notable pro-innocence websites and individuals. Pray, do tell, then we can all consider the options and reach a consensus. NigelPScott (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
You're missing the point Nigel. We need reliable sources that discuss or illustrate the notability of these websites and individuals, otherwise these is no material on which to base a discussion and reach a consensus. --FormerIP (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm unable to cite reliable sources for my alternative list of the most notable pro-innocence websites, so I don't think it's relevant for me to disclose my list. Could you cite your reliable sources? Alternatively, we could exclude a list of people/websites. Hipocrite (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Hipocrite is clearly being more confrontational and obstructionist than necessary, but he's also making a good point. Just because we all know that these guys are the ones that are most notable doesn't mean that it's sufficiently verifiable for our readers. I think there is a simple fix. Just cite news articles which quote these people and organizations (preferable, major media sites) and change "most notable" to "some notable supporters include".LedRush (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to a story done by ABC News that discusses Friends of Amanda and Injustice in Perugia. [39] BruceFisher (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with FOA being mentioned in the article, and I think we have already agreed to do that. Injustice in Perugia, though, isn't really discussed in this article, it is just mentioned as hosting a video. We really need sources that show these websites to be noteworthy, not just confirming their existence. --FormerIP (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The article mentions nothing about Injustice in Perugia hosting a video. The article discusses the active support provided by Friends of Amanda and Injustice in Perugia for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. The article is discussing Injustice in Perugia as a group, not simply discussing the group's website. BruceFisher (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
And a lot of these sources recently added don't instill a lot of confidence in me. I feel like a mention in Time or ABC news is prima facie evidence that they can be listed in the article. However, while the West Seattle Herald may be a RS, I don't think it carries the same weight. I think I would need more from such a reference (like an explicit statement that those people/groups are notable, or repeated mentions).LedRush (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I am pressed for time but here are a few others discussing Injustice in Perugia. National Review [40], France 24 International News [41]. The independent made the mistake of stating that Injustice in Perugia was created by Steve Moore but they mentioned it non the less. [42]. The Injustice in Perugia website was also seen in the recent Lifetime documentary highlighting Steve Moore's analysis. It seems like the question is whether or not Injustice in Perugia is a notable support group for Amanda Knox. I think a few links would be sufficient to show notable support. With the Injustice in Perugia websites along with the cause page set up in support of Amanda and Raffaele, there are currently thousands of active supporters. We are here today taking another look at this article because members of Injustice in Perugia brought attention to current issues. I think that alone would show that Injustice in Perugia is significant. BruceFisher (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
These sources are being misrepresented. The National Review article simply name-drops your own book of the same name. France24 devotes once sentence to the group, followed by commentary on something one person says there. The Independent name-drops the site (incorrectly as you say) as it discusses Moore's opinion, there is no commentary or analysis of the site itself. Tarc (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I am going to step back let others voice their opinions. I am certainly not here to promote my website. Keep in mind that the discussion is about the group and not the website. I am only suggesting that Injustice in Perugia is clearly a significant support group for Amanda Knox. It honestly seems a little silly to me that anyone would suggest otherwise. BruceFisher (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've added sources for the 'Notable Supporters'. I've also changed the wording in regards to the support sites to simply say - Some site being: - I've added RS for FOA and IIP. Since the wording has changed to say sites being, instead of notable sites, do the others sites even need secondary sources since it is self evident that they exist by clicking on their link? Wouldn't they be examples of common knowledge plain sight observations? Or could we use FOA as a source since all those support sites are listed there? Issymo (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Just listing sites without any notability is a violation of WP:LINKFARM - what are the conditions for inclusion on your list? FoA is not a reliable source for the notability of sites. Many of your links to "notable" supporters in no way confirms the notability of said supporters. Hipocrite (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
If the support sites being listed without secondary sources are not acceptable they can be removed. I don't know the rules on this and would appreciate others input on this please. FOA and IIP have sources and should be kept. I disagree that the sources given for the notable supporters are unacceptable. I see nothing wrong with them at all and believe they are perfectly acceptable. Issymo (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Let's try it this way - what makes each and every one of your "notable supporters" notable? If it's just that they are supporters, is that notable? You've included such "notables" as a retired engineer and a local judge. Hipocrite (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
They are notable enough to mention here because they are notable enough to be mentioned in the RSs listed (for the ones listed in RSs, of course...the others should be deleted, per my comments above).
Are you suggesting that I expand the section to include individual quotes and descripions of how they are involved in the case? I can certainly do that. I had thought before that it would make the section too long. I don't understand why you question a Forensic Engineer and Judge's notability when the Telegraph and King 5 news found them worthy of space.Issymo (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If someone wants to dispute the citations, let's discuss them here, rather than tagging the text, making discussion nearly impossible. Especially when the tags don't seem to relate to the things they are tagging. It seems like Hipocrite thinks the citations are doing something than what I see them as doing. I see the citations regarding the groups merely supporting the statement about the goal of such groups. Each clearly does this. However, the sources, if they come from RSs, also provide prima facie evidence that the group is notable...the sources don't say the group is notable. They indicate that the group is notable by covering their actions and statements. Of course, as I have said above, if the West SEattle Herald covers the group or individual, it does not carry the weight as Time, ABC, CBS or the Telegraph.LedRush (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Also, can the self-published site be enough to state what the opinion of that group is? I think so. So most of those tags should be removed as well.LedRush (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If sources merely mention the existance of a person in passing, or are from small-circulation local papers and are the only instance where someone was mentioned, they do not evidence strong notability - it appears to be using wikipedia as promotion for non-notable people and non-notable blogs. The "west seattle herald" has a circulation of about 10k - this is not a newspaper where one article about some engineer makes them notable enough to include in this article. Hipocrite (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Given that my attempts to fix the text are reverted on site, I oppose any inclusion of this unencylopedic linkfarm. Hipocrite (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
That is not my proposal - my proposal is no change at all. That was my compromise. Please do not speak for me. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Settle down and try and be constructive, please. I was merely trying to make your edits more easily accessible so your proposed revisions, (the "compromise" if you want to be unnecessarily combative) could be discussed without ruining the other people's work (and making the conversations impossible to follow).LedRush (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I have removed text attributed to me that I did not write. As above - if my changes to the proposal are reverted sight-unseen, I oppose any change to the article at all. Hipocrite (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the question is how to properly describe the support. Linking to a site, IS citing it. That isn't to say that including the sites is the best way to describe support.Perk10 (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Perk10

Obvious and transparent problems with the proposal

In addition to the tags that were somehow allowed to stick, there are more obvious and transparent problems with the proposal. This is not a full recounting of the many flaws, but all of these must be corrected.

  1. The first sentence is ungrammatical. "Their" refers to the sites? K&S? Someone else?
  2. The first sentence is POV - it places "due to wrongful conviction" in Wikipedia's mouth. It needs to be clear that "due to wrongful conviction" is the opinion of the sites, not a fact.
  3. The following "notable" supporters are not notable - Steve Moore, Paul Ciolino, Judy Bachrach, Ron Hendry, Mark Waterbury, Anne Bremner, Judge Michael Heavy. There are two points to being a "notable supporter" - being a supporter, which is verifiable from the citations, and being "notable." Just because their support is noted, they are not, themselves, notable. If the word "notable" were removed, this might be acceptable, but then it's just a linkfarm. Well, if you look up "Steve Moore" and "Meredith Kercher" on Google, you might change your mind on the noteworthiness point". In this case, even the smallest of things have ended up quite notable, indeed. For example, I think it is even quite notable that Peter Quennel, who's never even been in the media, is involved. Look at what he's done in his involvement. Same with Peggy Ganong. There should definitely be sections on them in this article as well. And Steve Moore's credibility has helped open up a huge can of worms as far as The Murder of Meredith Kercher. Mainly, what he brought to the table was that two of people convicted were part of a horrid injustice. Being that two innocent people who were wrongfully imprisoned are about to get out of jail, and that these people had part, are quite notable. I think he's had a huge impact in this, along with several others that you are calling un notable.Michelle Moore 07:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
  4. The third parargraph is not written like an encyclopedia - it is written like a persusuasive argument - bullet pointed.
  5. The third paragraph states that the Bra Clasp and Kitchen Knife evidence was "central in the case." This is an opinion - whose opinion is it?
  6. The fourth paragraph is not written like an encyclopedia - it is written like a persuasive argument - bullet pointed.

These must be fixed. Hipocrite (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

1. "Their" release refers to AK and RS. Whose release is it - AK an RS's release. I am not opposed to making the sentence clearer in some way. 2. Yes they have POVs, they are afterall support sites. In the context of saying there are support sites this should be acceptable. 3. "notable", I disagree that they are not notable. They clearly are. They have also made notable contributions to 'supporting' AK and RS as this section suggests. 4. The DNA experts say the bra clasp and knife are important evidence used against AK and RS. This is also well known and other sources can be found for that line if required. 5. I don't see anything wrong with paragraph's 3 and 4. Other editors should say how to make them more encyclopedic if needed.Issymo (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  1. I'm glad you're not opposed to clarifying the sentence. Since I'm not allowed to do so, please fix it. Hipocrite (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  2. it is not clear that the POV that the opinion about the conviction is merely the opinion of the activists, as opposed to a fact expressed by wikipedia. Please fix that.
  3. If they were notable, there would be articles about them regarding things other than this case.
  4. If it is the opinion of the experts that the claspe and knife were important to the case, this should be made clear. As you wrote it, it is stated as fact that the claspe and knife were central.
  5. I am not permitted to rewrite your paragraphs, so I'll have to just oppose their inclusion in full.

Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Clearly "their" refers Knox and Sollecito but that is an easy thing to fix if designations are better than a pronoun. The wording that includes "wrongful conviction" is reflexive to the sites' and supporters' opinion, though that intention and meaning of the phrase could be made more explicit. The word "notable" can be likened to the word "main", or "key". The bra clasp was the only physical evidence that put Sollecito at the scene of the crime, so it was central in that respect, indeed. The fourth paragraph needs to be reworked for grammatical purposes, but it seems to aim at merely quoting the senator.Perk10 (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Perk10
I'm not sure how the British use the word 'notable', but Websters says it means

'worthy of note or notice'. In the context of this case, The Kercher murder case the the subsequent trial of Knox/Sollecito, all those people indicated above qualify as 'notable' under a conservative definition of the word. Beyond the advocacy websites and self published books, each (or most) has been vetted by major news media and interviewed and/or quoted as an expert in their field as related to the case. These media companies include such respected names as CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, NY Times, Seattle PI, etc etc. They've also spoken live at the invitation of Seattle University, Media Dept. Their 'notability' is self-evident. What would make them 'notable' by your definition? Everyone cant be Lady Gaga.. Tjholme (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Notable can mean significant. So that the notable supporters can mean the main ones, notable amongst the supporters. Or it can mean persons who are in themselves notable, in general. Obviously, in terms of the latter meaning, Senator Cantwell is notable, experts could be called notable, even as Jimbo Wales suggested, a celebrity section noting Oprah Winfrey and Donald Trump, even if it is clear that celebrities are individuals who are well known who were willing to stand up publicly to show support.Perk10 (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Perk10
I think Perk10 is right here, at least how I have always seen it anyway. There are two sorts of people/groups here. The first are notable people who have come out in support. This would be people independently notable, not by being connected with the support groups or the family - i.e. celebrities, government officials etc. Usually we would include a few of the most significant supporters of this type supported by independent reliable sources. The other type of person/group are those that are identified as a significant and notable part of their support. This is a bit more difficult, because defining at what point and individual or group becomes significant is a tough editorial decision (and we must be careful to avoid OR). But the oft accepted practice is to find a independent reliable source that identifies the person/group as a supporter and specifically notes them as significant to the cause. This last part is the step that most usually gets forgotten. As a final note; by independent I mean a non-partisan, mainstream source. A source from one support group, for example, saying another is significant/notable etc. is not very solid :) --Errant (chat!) 08:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I know that there are also some groups that support the convictions. This section should probably include mention of those groups. Maybe rename the section Support, and include a subsection for the various sides. It would be a pretty glaring absence not to mention both sides here. Ravensfire (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
That's a good point. There is some discussion above to do exactly that, specifically with regards to Kercher's father's statement, which don't seem to belong in the media section.LedRush (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I don’t have a problem with equal time for the opposition groups but, with due respect, I’m not sure that they are notable for anything beyond spewing grief and misinformation, and I can’t think of even one that’s notable on an individual level.. Peggy Ganong, out of West Seattle, DID get a couple local media interviews I guess.. It would, however, be beyond charitable to call her notable.. and Peter Quennell is kind of an enigmatic finance man.. They don’t seem to do awareness raising events or public protests.. For the most part just ad hom attack from behind the mask of internet anonymity. There just isn’t the same sort of support from reputable public personalities stepping up and putting their own good names on the line to fight a perceived injustice.. But some sort of the mention of the 'Guilters' does seem fair.Tjholme (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I think we use the same criteria for both groups: if they are commented upon in large media outlets (CNN, ABC, Telegraph, Time, etc.), that is prima facie evidence that they are notable. If they are mentioned in less notable RSs (West Seattle Herald), we might need more explicit statements of notability, or evidence of continued references to the group. And we don't give equal weight to both groups...we merely reflect what the RSs have determined (through the process I describe above) are notable. If that's 20 that support Kercher and 2 for Knox and Sollecito, then so be it.LedRush (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Support for Kercher Statement

Currently, the media section has the following:

The Kercher family have made clear their views that the trial was fair,[116] but have generally avoided much media attention.[117] On 2 December 2010, Kercher's journalist father, John, writing in the Daily Mail, condemned Knox's elevation to "celebrity" status as "utterly despicable," and that the "Foxy Knoxy" nickname, "trivialises the awfulness of her offence." He maintained that to the Kercher family, Knox is, "unequivocally culpable. As far as we are concerned, she has been ­convicted of taking our precious Meredith’s life in the most hideous and bloody way."[118]

I would like to delete the reference that the family has avoided media attention. It seems out of date based on all the interviews that the family has conducted. They seem to have increased media presence after the convictions for Knox and Sollecito were announced, so I wouldn't mind the article saying that (assuming a RS can be found).

Furthermore, these seems to have more in common with the "support" section than a media coverage one. I propose that we create a support for Kercher section with this passage in it. We should also include any notable support groups or other notable statement by family and/or supporters.LedRush (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It is laughable to say that John Kercher has avoided media attention. On the contrary, he has used his Fleet Street contacts with extraordinary success--most naotable in the Sunday Times where he was allowed about 2,400 words. This in itself is extraordinary. It is true that Arline Kercher has avoided the limelight.PietroLegno (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
He also resurrected the ridiculed claim that Meredith was killed as part of some Satanic ritual. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"Support for Kercher" seems an odd choice of subtitle. No amount of 'support' is going to change Meredith Kercher's current state one little bit. "Kercher" is not trying these cases, expresses no opinion, and takes no position on them - the Italian authorities are. pablo 15:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Do you have any suggestions for how to name the section? "Kercher Family Views"?LedRush (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I think Hipocrite hit the nail on the head with "Reaction of the Kercher family".LedRush (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I would avoid all direct quotes from family members, due to the potential of emotional phrases, such as Kercher's father saying that Knox "has been ­ the most hideous and bloody way" and I suppose any quotes which claim Knox was railroaded by corrupt Italian officials, who beat and starved her, insensitive to her grieving while she wept over her dear friend Meredith's death, should be avoided. However, I think a lot should be included that the Italian authorities lied to tell her she was HIV-positive (was not) when they knew she was HIV-negative because a lot of women think of HIV as a death sentence or ban on pregnancy, even though 1/3 of children born to HIV+ mothers turn HIV-negative. Perhaps we could cite several sources which note that HIV-positive women are directed to not get pregnant, to really emphasize the nature of falsely claiming Knox was HIV+ (while they knew she was not). So, if the police misled about HIV (source: "Two Faces of Amanda Knox",, 2009-12-04), then what else did they lie about. It is important to defend the conclusion that the police lied, so that notion would not be considered as a "novel conclusion" (although many readers know police lies are not a novelty). For example, in the Micheli Judgment, it is noted that Guede acknowledged having made false statements after going to Germany (Judgement 28.10.2008 filed 2009-01-26, link, Italian: tanto da aver reso false generalità - "so that he had given false information"), so noting that text will support the conclusion that "Guede has lied about the details of the Kercher murder" (by Guede's own admission). Stick to noting the documented events, rather than quoting someone said Knox's conviction was "hideous". -Wikid77 18:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Not exactly. Dare false generalità only means to give a false name and or address (when asked by authorities). Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)Whilst I largely agree that family commentary should be kept to a minimum (and certainly avoid the most emotional and inflammatory quotes from them) I have to question whether you are being ironic about this bit: Perhaps we could cite several sources which note that HIV-positive women are directed to not get pregnant, to really emphasize the nature of falsely claiming Knox was HIV+. Are you being serious about that? Because it would be a pure WP:SYNTH and WP:POINT issue to try and so so :S In general it is highly recommended to avoid following through with your own speculation on topics. --Errant (chat!) 19:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • This is not mere speculation, it is a typical reaction for women. The policy for WP:SYNTH only applies if a conclusion is not stated in any of the sources, and certainly a source about HIV+ women is likely to mention how women would be upset about not having children. Meanwhile, the Guardian source ("Two Faces of Amanda Knox",, 2009-12-04), already states that Amanda was upset thinking she could not have children:
"She [Knox] had written about her 7 lovers in her prison diary only after... told she was HIV positive ­following a prison blood test. [continued] "I was crying, thinking I cannot have children," [Knox] said of the 2 weeks before she was told she was negative."
Knox's extensive suffering because of the police is well-documented. In general, almost any details can be stated in a crime article: a suspect's version of crime-related events is not WP:UNDUE details, but rather, essential for WP:NPOV (how could a suspect's viewpoint be omitted and still be considered "neutral" coverage of viewpoints?). Also, it is rare for WP:SYNTH to restrict crime-article text: neither guilt nor innocence would be a "novel conclusion" to a reader, and the concept of a witness lying on the stand is hardly a novelty. WP does not ban a suspect's testimony out of fear how readers might imagine a suspect is lying about the events. A suspect's viewpoint should be included. -Wikid77 03:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but as soon as you then add a sentence that notes "that HIV-positive women are directed to not get pregnant" (with sources) that is synthesis of sources. to really emphasize the nature of falsely claiming Knox was HIV+; and that would be the WP:POINT violation. --Errant (chat!) 10:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Primary sourced description of trial

I reverted this. It is nearly all primary-sourced, and it does not add substantial value to the article. If there are important points there that need summarizing, please explain which are important on talk, with references to reliable secondary sources. Hipocrite (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Can I restore my improvements to the opening sentence of that section? Cos you also just restored the "supposed date" stuff which is classic WP:WEASEL. Just checking this is kosher before I do it. --Errant (chat!) 09:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I have no concerns with your changes. Hipocrite (talk) 09:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Per policy WP:PRIMARY, descriptive text can be backed by a primary source; secondary sources are needed to support conclusions not stated in the primary sources (read WP:RS). Also, sources are not needed for non-controversial text, at all. Plus, the large-scale deletion of major sections of text, of deleting 3408 bytes, requires consensus of interested editors, not a unilateral deletion as was done by User:Hipocrite in this edit (09:30, 20 April 2011). Unless there are any new policies created to allow one person to delete massive amounts of sourced text, I will restored the deleted material to the article. -Wikid77 16:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The policies I relied on in removing the text were WP:BURDEN, WP:CON and WP:BRD. Please describe what from your primary sources is important, using reliable secondary sources. The section cannot be based almost entirely on primary sources. Hipocrite (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, it is my understanding that these edits are fine under WP:PRIMARY as they are merely descriptive text. If that isn't the case, the language should be changed to descriptive text, not tagged. Furthermore, why is this the only information being tagged? There are at least a dozen references to the Massei rerport in this it Hipocrite's position that each one needs to be tagged? Clearly, WP policy is to allow primary sources in some circumstances. I just don't see the value in these tags.LedRush (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what tags you are referring to, since this section is not referring to a tag addition. If you are referring to this tag addition, it is because the information about the laptop may or may not be notable - if it were notable information, it would have been included in a reliable secondary source. The "Massei" report is massive - and a problem that needs to be avoided is the possibility of editors misusing the report, selectively reporting and documenting facts that they feel are important - in effect, analyzing the document by choosing what to include and what not to include. The typical way that large primary documents are used is not to find things that are in the document and report on them, but rather to summarize the contents of the document - to hit on it's main points. This is documented in WP:PRIMARY - "Do not ... evaluate material found in a primary source yourself." That is what could be happening when people pick specific passages out of a primary source that were never documented in a secondary source. Hipocrite (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
It should further be noted that we hardly use the Massei report at all, and my attempts to clean up the section where the report is massively overused were, as I recall, reverted. Hipocrite (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure your attempts to 'clean up', as you describe them, were highly selective. You should really get consensus from the group before making the often radical changes to the article which you appear to think you are entitled to make at the drop of a hat. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Please review WP:BOLD. Do you insist on pre-clearing consensus from the group for all radical changes to the article? For instance, should this edit have gotten consensus before being made? Why or why not? Hipocrite (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I've read the policy. You can't blindside me by Wikilawyering any more. I warn you not to patronise me again by telling me to review any more Wikipedia policies. You're simply using them as a weapon to patronise your adversary. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The founding principle of Wikipedia is, basically, that you don't have to navigate complex bureaucracy to make changes. You make them. If they are validly disputed then it gets discussed. --Errant (chat!) 18:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
That's great Errant, except that that principle has not applied to this article in the recent past. However I'm not complaining. It seems to be moving in the right direction. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The material initially gave me pause for thought. I think the relevant policy is WP:UNDUE; an awful lot of detail was added from the single primary source - the idea is to write an overview. :) I felt the text was not particularly well written (although can can be fixed in the copyedit process, which I did start before the RV). And I also had a worry over the liberal accompaniment of Italian words to the text. I couldn't figure out what purpose that served (except in a couple of cases where quoting his words made sense). --Errant (chat!) 18:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, I've also just noticed that Guede stated he had met Kercher the previous night, on Halloween, and had arranged a "romantic" date with her the next day might be a close paraphrase of the source. If someone gets chance to fix that it would be great :) --Errant (chat!) 18:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I've taken out the quoted "romantic" statement, which makes this less close to the original in two ways (tone and vocabulary (and not having romantic in quotes)). The left over statement is so simple and general, I don't believe there is a copyright issue.LedRush (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I realise this is nit-picky, but copyright like this is specialism... it is still very close (well, basically the same sentence :)). I'll have a go at rewording the intro to the paragraph later. Single sentences won't usually matter, but when we are attributing the source so directly it is best to err on the side of caution. --Errant (chat!) 20:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I do not think describing Guede's version of events is a case of WP:UNDUE details. Kercher's house keys & 300 euros were confirmed missing, the front door was noted as left open, her bedroom door was locked, other rooms had been entered, a window was broken, and she was found on the floor, disrobed on a single bed pillow (with blood handprint and shoe prints), and pools of blood nearby. Text related to those details should be added, so it is appropriate to note Guede claimed Kercher unlocked the front door with a key from her handbag (Guede stated the door was not wide-open at that time), and she did not say, "Wow, I've lost my key...could you break a window to let us unto the cottage?" Guede claimed Kercher discovered significant money missing from an open drawer (Italian: cassetto aperto), and they together searched the house, room-to-room. Here's a general rule of thumb: expect the size of this article to grow until all major aspects of the crime are described: the missing 300 euros (~$420), 2 credit cards, 2 mobile phones, Kercher's house keys, the phone calls which Kercher made before dying, the fingerprints and shoe prints recorded, the luminol patches, the CCTV video evidence, and the knife evidence. -Wikid77 21:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Presumably because I commented at the recent WQA report that arose out out of this article, user Hipocrite asked me at my talk page to comment on this section (permalink). As I said there, I don't have an intrinsic interest in this article, and I don't intend to participate in its development; certainly not to edit it. But I have spent roughly 90 minutes reviewing the edit in question, and the policies that apply to it. There has been considerable debate at RSN over the circumstances under which it might be permissible to use court transcripts, of course, and to what extent, and we have more than one policy that applies to this particular instance of the question. The one that seems to me to be most relevant to this instance is WP:BLPPRIMARY. I won't quote from that here; please look at it yourself. Although some might read that as a black-and-white, bright-line exclusion of the disputed material in this case, I don't see it that way, given that other sources have discussed this material. So in my opinion, like most of the cases that have been raised over the use of trial transcripts at RSN, this, too, comes down to a judgment call.
And it's a difficult judgment call, in my opinion. I have no objection to using the trial transcript to clarify and briefly expand statements that have already been discussed in secondary sources, but that use should be very limited, I think. Is this edit "limited", or "limited enough"? I think it is, just barely. I do object to some parts of the added material, though. For example, "Guede could not describe the knife or indicate length" cited to the transcript seems rather cherry-picked to me, in the sense that (to me) the statement implies he should have done, and to the extent that's true, it offers an editorial comment, however implicit. Also, "The man struggled and cut Guede, who fell to the floor, but picked up a chair" should not, in my opinion be reported as fact; it needs to be prefaced with "Guede said", or some such, I think. Also, the word "claimed" is used to describe Guede's statment, which should not be used; see WP:CLAIM. Similarly with "supposed date"; the phrase indicates disbelief. Instead of "In their supposed date, Guede said...", I'd prefer to see something like, "As Guede recounted the events of what he described as their date, Guede told the court ..." More neutral, less prejudicial, imo.
If I understand correctly, though, much of the dispute over this edit has to do with whether the statement in the article, "The court found that Guede's version of events did not match the forensic evidence" can be or is properly supported by the primary-source quotation,
Guede "confirmed to have touched more or less everywhere in the room, even with his hands stained with blood, without explaining why his footprint is just under the corpse on the pillow when he remembered the regular pillow on the bed". –Micheli Judgment
I'd say it's justified in concept, but that the wording is too strong and too broad. Unless there's other supporting material that I'm unaware of (a possibility, of course, since I know almost nothing about the facts of this case) the summary statement, "did not match the forensic evidence" seems too much to say if it's referring to, and depends upon, only the pillow/footprint statement, above. I'd prefer to see something like, "In rendering its verdict, the court noted that Guede did not explain how his footprint came to be on a pillow under the corpse, observing that Guede had stated his recollection of the pillow as having been in place on the bed." Or something like that.
As I said on my talk page, I do not intend to be drawn into participating in the development of this article, so I probably won't be replying to any responses that are posted here to this commentary, or not at any length, anyway. I've provided this opinion primarily because Hipocrite requested it, and because I felt I sort of owed him the courtesy, since I'd been so critical of his behavior previously, at WQA. I doubt he'll be pleased with my opinion here, though, which I regret. I'll close by saying that this is just one editor's opinion, of course, and certainly isn't definitive. If participating editors want other opinions, those could certainly be reasonably requested at RSN. If you take it there, I'd just suggest that you all try hard not to continue to argue the case there, to give uninvolved reviewers the "room" to respond, and that you give greater weight to the opinions of reviewers who appear to have spent more some reasonable time examining the question, instead of just quoting a quick sentence or two from policy that touches this, and concluding that decides the matter. This is not a question that can be resolved that way, imo; it calls for careful analysis of all the policy issues that apply. In any case, please try to remember that everyone is trying to do the right thing here, as he sees it, and that opinions about so close a judgment call as this may certainly differ, legitimately, and in all good faith.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Well put, I especially like your suggestion for the summation of the courts opinion on the footprints (any objections by editors to that being inserted?). I think that we can definitely add material from this report - however I think it needs to be done with care. For example He said he got fruit juice from the refrigerator (Italian: frigo), and then she walked back to her room to find a drawer open (Italian: cassetto aperto), and her money (denaro) was missing. He claimed they went, room to room, to search for other money or items taken, but saw no evidence of a break-in. strikes me as detail rising to the level of triviality. I am unconvinced that it is important to recite every single detail as described by Guede, only the particularly relevant things/broad overview (this is why secondary sources are useful FWIW, because they identify the relevant bits for us :)). He did not say she tried to phone anyone about arriving home, or about the theft. Instead, he claimed he calmed her, and they soon became intimate, to forget about the missing money, and he touched under her clothes and bra Didn't strike mas as neutral or off-hand. I'm struggling a bit (because the source does not translate properly ever time for me) to track down the specific part that supports this, but, I am concerned that this is intended to undermine his evidence due to the fact that a phone call is said to have been made elsewhere (the insinuation being he is lying). It would be nice to have the exact part of the source presented that this is taken from. The second sentence also concerned me, mostly because of the use of "Instead", which seems a bit of a WP:WEASEL word (following on from the previous sentence). All of this material can, and should, be dealt with. I just think this particular edit was not the best presentation of it. (Also: I reworded the problematic close-paraphrase & also re-added a small amount of detail about the times, which are important, from the primary source). --Errant (chat!) 10:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The purpose of this article is not to try to defend the testimony of a man who was convicted 3 times of a murder, and there is no WP policy which states, "You cannot include testimony of a convicted man which might make him seem to have lied in court" (no WP policy supports that viewpoint). Please note that even policy WP:SYNTH requires a synthesis of text from 2 or more sources to imply a novel conclusion. It is not a novel conclusion that Guede was convicted 3 times of the murder, nor to conclude his testimony did not match the forensic evidence. The extent of details which I added from the court transcript was a microscopic summary of his testimony: he also stated that when he fled the scene, he left both Kercher's bedroom door open and the cottage door open as well; plus, he noted he spent Halloween with some Spanish friends and 2 women, at a residential party, and they went to the Domus nightclub later. Many of those people made statements for his trial. Also, when shown photos of Meredith Kercher partying, in costume, at various locations, Guede said he did not recognize any of those locations. There is an enormous amount of detail in the Micheli Judgment document, so the tiny portion I noted is only part of what could be included in the article, as related to the criminal charges which arose in his trial. Per WP:NOTCENSORED, even if an editor's religion demands avoiding the facts, WP does not "cherry-pick" which text to exclude from a conviction-summary so that a man convicted of a murder would seem less guilty or would seem to have always told the truth. It is not a novel conclusion that he might have committed the murder. -Wikid77 17:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I am not sure of the relevance of NOTCENSORED or editor's religions, you lost me there, sorry. The content that was reverted had significant issues (FWIW I would have improved it rather than RV, but there you go), not least a non-neutral tone that strongly implied he had lied in his evidence. This is not a conclusion we can make (if someone else reliable does so, that is another matter) or adopt. The section did not successfully detach fact from analysis. As you say; there is microscopic detail in the trial transcript. We don't really need to deal with all of that. As another point, where testimony contradicts other evidence (or itself) we must have a reliable source that explains this to support the text. That can't be "side stepped" by listing his testimony in a way which situates it against text further up the article. The key idea here is of hand tone :) --Errant (chat!) 19:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikid77, I don't know who or what you might be referring to with your comment about "an editor's religion", but please keep it civil. You know the drill: Comment on the content, not the contributor. There's been more than enough flaming and flame-bait around this article, already; no one needs any more, regardless of how frustrated they might feel.
More substantively, re "WP does not 'cherry-pick' which text to exclude..." you hit on exactly the problem with using trial transcripts at all: When someone picks, based on their own preference and judgment, which passages from a transcript to include and which to exclude, his editorial discretion will inevitably be open to charges of cherry picking. Some facts will be emphasized by the selection, and others suppressed. Thats why, to my understanding, primary sources should, at most, only be used to briefly expand on, or elucidate, statements already made in secondary sources. Whenever you go much beyond that, you start to act as a journalist rather than an encyclopedia writer, imo. Based on what you've presented in the foregoing (talk-page) comment, it does seem to be "the truth" that Guede's conviction was just. But you know very well that "the truth", for better or worse, isn't our stock in trade, here. That's certainly frustrating at times, but there are good reasons, too, that we're mostly limited by policy to summarizing what secondary sources have already reported. I'm sure you'll agree when you reflect for a moment on the alternative.
@Errant: I also had some reservations about, "He did not say she tried to phone anyone about arriving home, or about the theft. Instead, he claimed he calmed her, and they soon became intimate, to forget about the missing money, and he touched under her clothes and bra." If "he did not say" isn't an observation made by the principles (i.e. judge, lawyers, etc.) in the case that's taken directly from the transcript, but rather an observation made by an editor about it, I'd say it has to go. Also, I didn't see the point of the fruit juice thing, either. Whether to mention Guede's statement about money being missing at all, and his testimony that they searched for it is, imo, a tough judgment call. I'm inclined to recommend that it be left in, but I'd be happier about doing so if it were reported in secondary sources. Even if it's not, though, it seems to me to be a small-enough expansion on the narrative that does exist in secondary sources that I think it's permissible.
Finally, I'd like to reiterate my objection to "supposed date" and the ubiquitous use of "claim" or "claimed"; again, see WP:CLAIM for NPOV considerations that apply. Guede may be guilty as sin; based on the little I've read, it's my opinion that he probably is. But we still don't get to skew the language of our articles to say so. We still have to report the facts in an NPOV way, and can't use the "voice of Wikipedia" to cast doubt on (or lend credence to) anyone's statments.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I fixed the "supposed date" problem when I fixed the close paraphrasing problem earlier. There is still a claim in there, I was a bit lazy so sort of constructed the new sentences around the witnesses testimony statement, and "claimed" was the natural word to use :) Absolutely no issues from my end on rewording that part. --Errant (chat!) 19:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Errant, I missed that correction. Also, as a point of order, mostly directed to Wikid77: I'd suggest that you'd probably all get along a little better here if everyone would stick to normal WP:INDENTATION threading protocol, and try to refrain, in the future, from using flush-left posts or, especially, from calling out their posts with bullet-points/asterisks. This is a small point, but the usual protocol does tend to help the discussion proceed in a more cooperative way, imo.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Not a problem. I fixed the claim problem (seeing as I caused this latest one :)) now too. Not really all that happy with the sentence but it is a case of "shored up" for the moment ;) --Errant (chat!) 20:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Re-adding Guede's version of events

I am responding, here, to several issues noted, anywhere and everywhere, in the above topic:
When I use a left-side bullet-point/asterisk, I am responding to several issues.
When I indent, it is a response to the prior post.
The word "claimed" is coming from the Italian language (perhaps Wikipedia can get the word removed from Italian dictionaries?). The court document said Guede (quote) "claimed" (unquote).
I like the word "claimed" and object to Wikipedia's insinuation that "claimed" means "lied desperately to hide his guilt" so I just do not believe most readers in the world will read "claimed" and go "Aha! Liar, Liar, Liar" which (to me) means that WP:CLAIM is a violation of WP:NOR redefining the word "claimed" to have an exclusive new meaning (compared to the witness "fabricated" or "imagined").
The reference to the fruit juice places Guede in the kitchen at that time.
I can pinpoint the source where Guede states he calmed her to forget the money and became intimate.
I noted he never mentioned Kercher using her phones.
He was charged with murder, and notes her as alive c.21:00 but later stabbed by another.
He was charged with assault, but stated they became intimate/touched.
He was charged with theft, but stated her drawer was open and money gone, and saw her house key from her handbag (details related to his criminal charges).
The house door enters the kitchen, and Kercher's room is at the end of that hall.
Guede stated a direct course of events: they entered, he took fruit juice from the kitchen, and they went down the hall to her room where a drawer was open; hence, it's not like they came inside, and he cooked a meal, then she went outside to pick flowers, left him inside 25 minutes, then returned to find someone opened a money drawer in her room.
By insisting on removing any minor "9-word phrase" about fruit juice (etc.), it is an attempt to censor the suspect's stated course of events, and I just do not understand what policy says to remove 9 words about entering a house.
About the tone of the post, I have stated Guede's version of events, and I cannot help if he seems to be lying. They noted that he could not describe the knife or indicate length (indicare lunghezza), but stated he was cut on the hand by it (hey, Judge Micheli noted these issues in his reasoning about guilt, so go figure: a guy is fighting to avoid a man with a knife but does not know what the knife looked like or any length). Please understand, that the Micheli Judgment went further, by noting that Guede's alleged trip to the far-opposite bathroom, just when the "knifer" arrived, seemed to them to be "too convenient" (in timing of events) to be reality. I did not include that level of judgment, and the whole story might still seem fishy and negative to any readers, but Wikipedia is not about trying to un-fishy-fy a guy's testimony.
I do not see a reason to justify removing the entire 4kb text of Guede's version of events.
I could note 23 issues to change in the text, but that is no reason to prevent adding it.
The problem to avoid is "paralysis of analysis" in waiting to pre-debate and decide every possible analyzed flaw, before adding text to the article.
As a result, I plan to restore the whole text, but avoid the word "claimed" for now, while also adding a secondary source specifically about Guede's version of events ("Meredith whispered killer's name, suspect says", Telegraph, 24 Nov. 2007). Then, we can modify parts of the text or discuss, later, how to "perfect each and every word" or other issues. -Wikid77 06:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for taking the time to discuss specifics :)
  • The reference to the fruit juice places Guede in the kitchen at that time.; why is this important? Do we have a source that identifies this as an important thing to note?
  • I noted he never mentioned Kercher using her phones.; yes.... but you haven't explained why. Does the source (I am struggling to find it) specifically say that he never mentioned this detail. Or does it just not mention it? Do you see why that is an important difference?
  • hence, it's not like they came inside, and he cooked a meal, then she went outside to pick flowers, left him inside 25 minutes, then returned to find someone opened a money drawer in her room.; is this a view expressed in a RS? or your own view of what is important to establish? If the latter,
  • I cannot help if he seems to be lying.; I disagree, I explained above how the formulation of the sentences implied heavily he was lying. NPOV is not just about stating every view, but stating it in a neutral off-hand way. We are not quoting Guede, so there is no reason for the wording to imply him being a liar. That is an analysis we must leave to a RS, if one exists.
  • Please understand, that the Micheli Judgment went further, by noting that Guede's alleged trip to the far-opposite bathroom, just when the "knifer" arrived, seemed to them to be "too convenient" (in timing of events) to be reality.; why? This is the sort of analysis material we should be considering including!
  • The problem to avoid is "paralysis of analysis" in waiting to pre-debate and decide every possible analyzed flaw, before adding text to the article.; I generally agree. But in this specific case I strongly recommend you let people re-write portions and add it back as we discuss each section. My main concern with what you wrote is that it wasn't very good text. --Errant (chat!) 10:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Guede has stated his version of events. His account is easier to describe if treated as a story-line: he waited, she unlocked with key from handbag; it was c.21:00; he asked and took juice from frig; she went back to her room, and they discovered the missing money; they toured the cottage and found no breakin and no other theft; they became intimate/touched; he got sick and crossed to the large bathroom; heard knock+scream & went to bedroom; knifer guy with no glasses over body on floor; they fight and Guede's hand cut by knife he could not describe; he leaves Kercher fully dressed on floor & white pillow on bed. He says Amanda Knox was not in the cottage that night. He runs home (using back streets), changes clothes, and goes dancing. The next he pays cash for a train ticket from Italy-to-Switzerland-to-Germany and leaves. He has no idea about Kercher's 2 missing phones. The jury decides guilty. If not ordered as a story-line, it becomes: he fled and went dancing; MK was bleeding on floor; he searched for money/valuables in all rooms; she unlocked the front door; it began at 21:00; MK said her money was gone; Guede could not describe the knife; he changed clothes; Knox was not there; he heard a knock+screams; they became intimate; he ran home; knifer guy with no glasses over body on floor; white pillow on bed; they fight and Guede's hand cut by knife; Guede pays cash for a train ticket; Guede got sick and crossed to the large bathroom. So, it is much clearer when re-ordered by time of events. -Wikid77 12:01, 24 April 2011
  • Also, when the entire section was modified, as discussed above, and added back, then it revealed people who falsely claimed there was no discussion to alter text at all during those 6 days, or falsely claimed no changes were made to the re-added text, or falsely claimed other things. There is obviously a WP:BATTLEground mentality of several other editors here, who are quick to make false claims, false conclusions, or put false text into the article. They pretend to require consensus before changes can be made, pretend to enter into discussions to get agreement, but then unilaterally delete any text they, personally, do not want in the article, and then complain that other text changes were made without an agreement. So, it is difficult to imagine they could add fact-checked text to the article. -Wikid77 13:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
You addressed none of the points I raised. Please address the points I raised. --Errant (chat!) 13:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

WP policies allow details in crime articles

There seems to be extensive misunderstanding that this crime article cannot contain any details, because some people think everything published in reliable sources is considered a violation of WP policies. That is simply not true. In fact, it would be a severe violation of WP:NPOV neutrality to (continually) remove or ban a suspect's version of events as being WP:UNDUE details (Think: how could a suspect's viewpoint be omitted and still be considered "neutral" coverage of major viewpoints?). When a person has gone to trial for a crime, and their documented viewpoint is excluded from a article, then I would consider that a violation of WP:NPOV in excluding their viewpoint while only considering the police or prosecution version of events. If people are charged with theft, and they state the theft occurred before they arrived at the scene, then that must be included in the article. In reality, there are few cases where details should be removed from a crime article:

  • If a suspect names someone else as committing the crime, then consider removing that as unfounded rumor.
  • If a news report quotes local people as claiming someone committed a crime, then that should be removed as rumor.
  • If a non-official person is named in the text, then that name can be shortened to last initial, or removed.
  • If a person testifies, under oath, that they saw a person involved, then that should be allowed.

Consequently, to provide the wide, NPOV-neutral coverage, then all major viewpoints must be presented in the article, and that could generate a huge article, to present a balanced coverage of all major views. In fact, if a crime article seems brief, or merely moderate, in size, then it probably is a policy vio against WP:NPOV balance. Therefore, expect many people to complain that a crime article is biased, when it leaves out so many details that all major sides of an issue are not fairly presented. Plus, when it comes to an article becoming huge, then remember WP:NOTPAPER allows articles to be quite large. I hope this clarifies why crime articles should be expected to become huge. -Wikid77 03:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem that exists is that we definitely don't want to recite their exact testimony in great detail, we are a summary. So we deal in the generalities of their evidence, and then pick important specifics as identified by reliable secondary sources. We aren't telling a story, we are recording historical events in reasonable detail. --Errant (chat!) 10:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I think there has been a misconception, earlier, when some people used the word "transcript" about the Micheli Judgment document (from 2009-01-26), as if being a record which quotes all statements made by Guede and witnesses. It is not a court transcript, but rather a summary of Guede's 1st trial (1 of 5), as published 90 days later. In fact, the source used in MoMK is not really a true "primary source" but rather a summary of the real 106-page Micheli Judgment, condensed by omitting many forensic details as well as page numbers. In this case, the website has published a summary of the true Micheli Judgment by repeating most of the details, as being significant, but omitting numerous room measurements (and such) which were contained in the true primary source. For that reason, it would be possible to draw a "scale map" of the cottage (from measurements), but only some furniture measurements are in the version. So, I agree with the concept of using a summary of each suspect's version of events as noted in secondary sources, and that is, indeed, what the above text embodies. -Wikid77 00:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a general encyclopaedia - not a dedicated crime encyclopaedia. The point should not be inflate the article through the inclusion of one piece of information after another until the page comes across more as a repository for trivia and minutiae than an accessible source of information. If the article is so turgid as to make it unreadable, Wikipedia rather fails in its goal to serve as a tool for education. SuperMarioMan 14:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I realize the size of Wikipedia might seem troublesome, and I do not think Wikipedia can be called a "general encyclopedia" but rather an "immense encyclopedia" of more than 21 million articles in 250(?) languages, intended for the general public who read any of numerous languages. It's not "your grandfather's 1911 Britannica any more". I continually remind people, that in the 1960s, Encyclopaedia Britannica did not allow an article on Babe Ruth, or Clark Gable or even Elizabeth Taylor (the highest paid actress at that time), but upon her death, Wikipedia's pageviews for her article entered record-breaking levels: 2 million pageviews in 1 day, and 4.5 million per month, for an article formerly not allowed in Britannica. Today, Wikipedia does not ban articles in that manner, and WP:Notability of a subject is determined by extensive coverage in reliable sources, where the extend of an article is determined by policies of NPOV-neutrality, verifiability (to all WP:RS sources), and known research on details. Hence, when crimes are notable (due to extensive coverage), then Wikipedia includes a vast "crime encyclopedia" treating each case in a balanced, verifiable matter, which includes material to cover all the major (felony) crimes associated with a particular event. However, I support your concerns about "turgid" text, so I advise to use subarticles and inter-wikilinked sections, plus photos and crime scene concept-diagrams, charts, and lists (etc.). Also, this article is a special case:  a crime article that is among the "Top 1000 most-read articles of 2011" (by pageviews). Plus, it is a rare case: college students, with 2 men and 1 woman are accused of assaulting and murdering another student. -Wikid77 00:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, WP:NOTPAPER and avoidance of what could be described as "topic elitism" should both be borne in mind. It's just that, given the appearance of the article approximately 12 months ago, when it was at 150kB or more, I'm generally wary of attempts at sizeable expansion. In its previous incarnation, the Murder of Meredith Kercher article presented so many assertions and counter-assertions as to render the text practically impossible for a non-expert to follow - hence the drawn-out rewrite and simplification of content. Just out of interest, when you allude to sub-articles, what kinds of titles do you have in mind? The two proposals that are often raised at this talk page (and have been debated frequently in its various archives) relate to a separate biography for Knox and a trial article covering her an Sollecito (both of which have been the subject of WP:AfD discussions and still - currently - exist as redirects, as information at the head of the talk page indicates). The case for a Knox article may well be stronger at this point than in the past - I'm no longer certain that I oppose the concept, in principle, since WP:BLP1E concerns would seem to hold less merit now - but the potential for acceptance from the wider Wikipedia community remains difficult to judge. Opinion would appear to be sharply divided. SuperMarioMan 01:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
People want to know why the case is notable, and what has been controversial. When all is added back to the article: the Satanism concept, the alleged gioco erotico, the Myspace photos, the claims of bleaching, the conviction of Mignini, then the crime details become overwhelmed by the controversy. Now imagine if retesting the bra clasp (2nd sample) matches Guede not RS. Plus imagine if Knox/Sollecito get acquitted (due to whatever motivations in Italy to free them), then all those issues must be explained (per NPOV balance about BLP of 2 students), and so the result is a bigger distraction from describing the crime & how it happened. Thus, split "Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito" to move that away and focus on the murder of MK. Since Knox is already in 2 articles, adding a 3rd for the Trials, makes the separate Knox biopage an automatic choice (linked to 3 articles). The title of the article promises to describe a murder event, not a shaggy dog story of how wild prosecutions distracted people from solving the crime, from getting the bank video recording before it was over-written (which showed people leaving the house), and from moving furniture to other rooms before all evidence was collected from the scene (etc.). Focus on the evidence of the murder, versions of events from suspects, and phone calls made. -Wikid77 12:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
<<<the potential for acceptance from the wider Wikipedia community remains difficult to judge. Opinion would appear to be sharply divided.>>> ...One of the best examples of WP:WEASEL I have ever seen. Well done, SuperMarioman. Is there any way to nominate this for the Wikipedia hall of fame? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, when the Amanda Knox article, as it existed previously, was discussed at AfD in June 2010, users put forward many arguments both for and against keeping it. However, the resulting merge/redirect back to the Murder of Meredith Kercher article was perhaps inevitable at that time, since that old version of the page presented POV problems besides raising questions of WP:BLP1E. If the article is resurrected and reads as neutral in tone, then the weakening of the case for WP:BLP1E would leave arguments for another merge/redirect much thinner on the ground. Recent talk page discussion on the prospect of a separate Knox biography has indicated that opinion is still split on this subject - I am simply making some observations, speculating a little and asking Wikid77 a question. Your concerns regarding WP:WEASEL would hold more water if the Manual of Style applied to talk page comments as well as article content. I grow rather tired of all this sarcasm and snideness - do you have something to offer in response to my comment above that will permit this conversation to move forward amicably? Regards, SuperMarioMan 04:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I mentioned to Wikid77 that, ultimately, this might spin out into more articles. I think there will eventually be scope to do so (although, not a biography of Knox :S) just to keep it sensible. The two trials (an their appeals) would seem to be the sensible divider. But that is a long long way down the road, when appeals are done and if the article gets too big in this guise. --Errant (chat!) 09:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox and the Idaho Innocence Project

Recently, has reported the Idaho Innocence Project as checking the Amanda Knox case (video URL: Hence, increased participation on the MoMK article, at this time, should not be seen as nefarious "off-site canvassing" but rather a natural consequence of a recent news story about the events. -Wikid77 17:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Excessive detail, again.

In the above section titled "Primary sourced description of trial," it seemed pretty clear to me that there was not support for the majority of this older edit. Specifically, the use of italian phrases oddly in the text, discussing such trivialities as getting juice from a fridge, various discussions of drawers being open, and whatever. I don't know why an alternative proposal was not made, or an explanation of why the various details were important. I assumed that the issue was just dropped.

However, the edit was made - again, with even more extranious detail and random italian quotes - [43]. This is problematic. I do not think that adding this level of detail, or random italian words throught the section is appropriate. Please explain what details need to be added to the article, with reliable secondary sources. Do not continue to just reinsert the detail without discussing. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, the suspect's version of events is being added into the text of his criminal trial, so that the text is not only the viewpoint of the prosecution, but reflects a balance of what he stated and the court's conclusion. Guede was charged with murder, sexual assault and theft, and hence, the details of his statements address those 3 charges. All issues had been discussed, thoroughly, above under topic "#Primary sourced description of trial". Please re-read all of that entire talk-page section. You seem to have missed those other days of discussion after you previously removed the added details about the Guede trial. Thank you. -Wikid77 23:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Reviewing the edit more closely, I have even more substantial problems with it - specifically, it includes the text "Guede also said that Amanda Knox was not in the cottage on the night," sourced to [44]. That article states "Guede said that Knox was not in the house on the night." However, Guede's story, according to [45] had "two shadowy figures he would later identify as Knox and Sollecito." I am unclear as to why his statements are selectively presented to absolve Knox in our article. Hipocrite (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
That two-shadowy-figure text contradicts the actual Guede trial records; see topic below " article contradicts Guede trial records". -Wikid77 00:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
My reaction to this edit by Wikid77 is best described as "disappointed". I can find no explanation for it other than an unhealthy dose of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Not addressing concerns raised on the talk page, wait a few days, then re-insert pretty much the same material... I would also point out that Wikid77 restored the close paraphrase that we discussed and I fixed and all of the weasel words and POV ("alleged date", "however" etc.) that we constructively worked out. --Errant (chat!) 19:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
All issues had been discussed, thoroughly, and changes made in response to concerns above under "#Primary sourced description of trial". The wording you had rejected was "supposed date" which I changed to "alleged date", and other text had been removed by User:Hipocrite. Also, please re-read all of that entire section about the other issues. Thank you. -Wikid77 23:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
How is alleged date any better? It clearly has the same issues :S We 'fixed' that problem after discussion. You reverted the problematic copyvio text and weasel words that we worked out above, seemingly with no thought. There was no agreement to add the rest of the material above, the discussion just petered out, really waiting for your input (though I did incorporate some of the material), input you never gave - just added all the stuff back. --Errant (chat!) 09:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the amount of detail included appears to have been excessive in places (I query the motivation behind the sentence about listening to an iPod, for example). I also agree that inserting the occasional translation in Italian serves more to distract than truly educate. This is precisely the kind of inordinate expansion to which my remarks in this section are aimed: filling out the article with rather copious detail is not necessarily a beneficial exercise, and has the potential to render the text difficult to follow. The use of sources here is also open to debate, as Hipocrite has pointed out. SuperMarioMan 21:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, all issues had been discussed, thoroughly for days, under "#Primary sourced description of trial". The use of the Italian phrases (in parentheses) was to connect the text to the sourced Italian wording (which has no page numbers), as requested by users asking for direct quotes to pinpoint the phrases in the source. They, specifically, asked for Italian text quotes which addressed each phrase, plus secondary sources, and for those reasons, the section I added (in this edit) is one of the most heavily footnoted text sections in all Wikipedia articles. Please re-read all of that entire talk-page section. Thank you. -Wikid77 23:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm removing most of the parenthesis Italian you just re-added. It doesn't help make the text readable and risks confusing the reader. Use the "ref" tags if it is important to help locate it in the source. --Errant (chat!) 09:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikid, having read through the section as requested, it seems fairly obvious to me that the "issues" raised had hardly been dealt with at all. The edit linked contained a number of statements open to debate as to their worth - just how are trivial factoids as someone getting fruit juice from a refrigerator essential to one's understanding of the major events? OhioStandard is also correct to cite "cherry-picking" concerns - I'm not sure what agenda is behind statements about identifying the length of the knife, or listening to an iPod, but these parts of the edit were at the least quite dubious. Neither OhioStandard's nor Errant's queries have received satisfactory responses. SuperMarioMan 14:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC) article contradicts Guede trial records

The article "Meredith Kercher: Man jailed for 30 years for killing British student" (, 29 October 2008, web: G-Oct29) contains a statement that seems totally contrary to other sources: "Guede has claimed that he had retreated to the bathroom with stomach pains seconds before two shadowy figures he would later identify as Knox and Sollecito burst in and stabbed Kercher." (contradicted by many statements in the Micheli Judgment about the Guede trial). According to other sources, Guede listened to 3 songs (not lasting mere "seconds") in his iPod earphones, and stated that about 5 minutes passed, and he confronted a lone man with a knife, and there was no one else in the house with that man.

As you might know, I have tried to expand Guede's trial-section text, as sourced to secondary sources plus the Italian-language Micheli Judgment (filed on 26 January 2009), where Judge Micheli reports that Guede stated he ran to Kercher's room and found a lone man, with a knife, standing over Kercher bleeding on the floor. Guede stated that he struggled with the man, who cut him in the hand, then Guede fell to the floor, but picked up a chair, and the man fled from the house. There was no mention of Knox, or any other woman, being in the house with them. Guede stated there was only the one man and one knife (Italian: coltello), which Guede could not describe or indicate length (indicare lunghezza). This is the first time I have seen a so-called reliable source which directly contradicts several details of the actual Guede trial records, although I am aware how other editors warned that some news reports were incorrect.

Accusatory text against Knox & Sollecito was added to the MoMK article, based on that contradicted text, and I feel compelled to remove it, per WP:BLP concerns when I know it is contradicted by many other reliable sources. However, because this is a battle between WP:RS sources, I will allow some discussion first. -Wikid77 00:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Guede changed his story several times so this may be an issue of timing. They may have published whatever rendition he had at the moment. It would not be strange to see such contradictions. I don't think removing it is the right way to go.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
It can't be in there without the context of how the story changed.LedRush (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
So the problem is not about the removal of the source but rather determining the choice of words to illustrate Guede changed his story several times. The source is backed up by the Telegraph with Guede stating that Knox & Sollecito were in the house 1. It comes out slightly different that he heard Amanda...struggled with Sollecito...saw Knox & Sollecito running away. The Telegraph backs the Guardian in that Guede states they were in the house.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Guede's trial had closed hearings (with no reporters present, as stated in many sources). Plus, note the Micheli Judgment was not published until 26 January 2009 (90 days from 28 October 2008, not 60 days as believed in that same incorrect Guardian source above), at which time, the press finally had access to actual details of those secluded court sessions. I strongly object to removing detailed text, backed by multiple sources, to add 3 phrases of vague text which would be contradicted by much of prior text and its many sources. According to the Micheli Judgment, Guede stated that he and Kercher "toured the whole house" (Italian: giro per tutta la casa), room-to-room, and found no evidence of a break-in. What happened here was a POV hatchet job on the article: removing extensive multi-sourced text and replacing it with vague, misleading text contrary to much of the deleted text and its many sources. -Wikid77 01:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Wikid. This needs to be fixed or this section of the MoMK article is nothing more than a smear of Knox and Sollecito. If filibustering occurs on this issue Wikid should go ahead and boldly remove this smear. We waste too much time on this talk page accomodating the views of extremists. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
"We waste too much time on this talk page accomodating the views of extremists"
That's a pretty ... extreme point of view. pablo 11:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The rumors about Knox and Sollecito were removed, earlier, within 40 minutes after I started this talk-page topic. The incorrect text in numerous British news reports is causing some people to have extreme views which are refuted by many fact-checked sources and refuted by the Italian court documents for the first Guede trial and first Knox/Sollecito trial (2 of 5 trials). -Wikid77 13:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Pablo, if i were some kind of extremist i would no doubt be vigorously editing the article myself. As you can see from the article history, I've barely touched it, compared to people like Hipocrite who appear to have little to occupy them other than editing this article. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Please discuss contributions, not contributors. SuperMarioMan 15:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Errors in Guardian and Telegraph sources

After re-reading another article, I have found more factual errors, this time from a Telegraph article, 5 December 2009. Having 2 publications, the & Telegraph, with several factual errors could be the reason some people claim that problems in the MoMK article are "based on British tabloids". The errors in the article "Amanda Knox trial: Rudy Guede profile" (5 December 2009, web: Tel245) involve several incorrect statements about Guede:

  • "he had been held in Milan in the weeks before the murder" - actually, according to the Guede trial & Knox trial records, Guede had been booked on 27 October 2007, just 5 days before the murder (in the same week).
  • held "for an alleged theft" - actually, Guede was booked on multiple charges, including "carrying a concealed knife" in his backpack, which the school director said came from the kitchen, and "possession of stolen property".
  • "to hide from police" - This event, on 27 October 2007, was 5 days before the Kercher murder, with no need to hide, and I did not find any other sources which claimed Guede was hiding in that nursery school in Milan.
  • "had a knife in his hand when he was eventually arrested" - actually, the school director testified she called the police because he was inside the school afterhours, and when they searched Guede's backpack, they found the kitchen knife, a laptop (with accessories) plus cellphone (both stolen 14 October 2007 from a Perugia law office burgled with a rock through an upstairs window), and a woman's watch, a hammer (etc.) in Guede's backpack.

There are just so many factual errors in that report ("Amanda Knox trial: Rudy Guede profile") by "Nick Squires in Perugia", despite all those details having been carefully reported by others earlier during 2009, so it is difficult to trust anything in that particular article. These types of misinformation in British publications might be a major reason why some editors have been questioning the actions of other editors. By focusing on these incorrect "WP:Reliable sources" then perhaps we can get editors to avoid attacking other editors, when the real problems are in the incorrect sources. -Wikid77 02:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you are assuming one source is the others must be wrong. That is a dangerous way to consider sources. As a fact, the Telegraph was getting information directly from Guede (right or wrong) before his arrest and the Italians didn't have access and/or they have chosen to dismiss some of what he said (perhaps rightly so). The Italian prosecutors/court also changed their story along the way to fit things...from cult ritual to sex game to dispute between flatmates, etc. The sources are publishing from the info they have/had. All of the sources will be in error in one way or another. I am against removing them as sources if that's where you are going with this.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I am basing my conclusions on multiple sources, as multiple sources in English and multiple in Italian, using the concept of fact-checked text with multiple independent sources. I realize this is a difficult situation for Wikipedia's current policies, and that is why some savvy editors have abandoned Wikipedia as incapable of sorting the facts of this case, based on current sources. It would be a culture shock to remove British sources which speak of a sensationalized murder most foul and bloody where one suspect "had a knife in his hand when he was eventually arrested" (not according to multiple sources, which stated he was booked for a "concealed weapon"). Also, imagine the disappointment of Italian editors being limited to fact-checked text, when the Italian courtroom is "grand opera" of condemning the "narcissistic" Knox and her helpless male puppets. I would not be surprised how Knox/Sollecito were convicted in Act I ("colpevole" - guilty!) and could be acquitted in Act II as the appropriate dramatic turn ("innocente!") in this cosmic play. I just don't want editors, here, to conclude we are arguing over facts, when the arguments are obviously based on sensational British news reports and high drama of sleeping jurors awakened in Italian courts. However, I do appreciate the time you have spent working towards a fact-checked neutral viewpoint. -Wikid77 04:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that this issue is important and difficult. What is clear here is that this was (and remains, to a lesser degree) an extremely high profile and fast moving case in which many newspapers - even normally quite reliable ones - jumped the gun and printed things that are universally agreed today to not be true. This makes using contemporary news accounts rather tricky.

As an update on where I am, in case anyone wonders, last night I started reading my 3rd book about the case, Bruce Fisher's book, Injustice in Perugia. After I have finished it (possibly this weekend, depending - I have a long flight on Thursday and might get to it then), then what I hope to do is start through the article looking for places where I can cite facts to at least the two books that seem to be generally agreed upon as reliable sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Quoting Guede as source on Knox and murder

27-April-2011: Quoting accusations of convicted killer as WP:BLP vio against Knox during his re-trial to get a reduced sentence when making claims which please the prosecution: I certainly hope all the above is an elaborate joke, and no one, really, I mean really in all honesty, intends to repeat Rudy Guede's claim, on appeal, that he "heard Amanda Knox arguing" with the victim at the time of the murder (which he denied upon arrest in Germany), when Guede was convicted after he stated he left Kercher fully clothed but forensic evidence showed blood spatter on her bra and bare skin, and he stated her bed quilt (duvet) and single pillow were on the bed, when forensic tests matched his shoe prints in Kercher's blood on that same pillow under the disrobed body he claimed was fully dressed. Please tell me ...please tell me.... you are NOT going repeat accusations of a man against a prosecution suspect, when that man was convicted of the same murder while multiple statements he claimed about the event were considered to be lies, contradicted by forensic evidence, in the considered opinion of the court's Judge Paolo Micheli. Plus, when questioned by police after his November 2007 arrest in Germany, Guede had stated that "Amanda Knox was not in the house that night".[3] You know this incident must be reported to the WP:BLP/Noticeboard. I am trying to understand this concept of who are reliable sources to support controversial WP:BLP claims: well-known college professors, news journalists, court judges, and people earlier convicted of the same murder? How many lies can a person state in court and still be one of the WP:Reliable sources? When quoting a suspect, I am thinking, "Comment on the crime not the co-defendants". The changes to this article are becoming more difficult to accept. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

We're not here to determine the truth, just to say what reliable sources said in a NPOV. If you want the other info, which I think is very relevant to the article, show us the RSs and propose the edits.LedRush (talk) 04:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Relevance is critical when quoting what any of these people said, about anything.
It's not unheard of for people accused and/or convicted of crimes to lie, mentioning what they said does not ascribe any veracity to it. "It is reported that he said X" is not the same as "He said X therefore it is true>" pablo 08:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • comment In my opinion in situations such as this less is more. Avoid going into the areas where disputed details pop up and we need to judge weight and balance and where we run the risk of giving tendentious impressions even without wanting to. There was a murder, X and y were convicted and appealed. Outside of that lies madness.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't disagree more. In situations where you have a highly controversial trial (a controversial criminal, a controversial prosecutor, controversial evidence and controversial media coverage) it is an absolute disservice to the readers to not cover the controversies. Furthermore, limiting responses to the bare bones will almost always violate BLP, NPOV, and UNDUE as we end up "endorsing" one side of the controversy, instead of just explaining it simply and accurately.
In the instant case, I feel we must give the details of what statements Guede made and at what times, without adding POV terms about changing his story unless RSs state that as fact. Regarding his statement about Knox and Sollecito as it now reads in the article, we have presented the info in a concise manner which indicates which statements he made early in the process and which he made at trial. I see no problem with that.LedRush (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Maunus, "There was a murder, X and y were convicted and appealed." would be a very poor article indeed. LedRush is right, the controversies does need to be covered - but concisely. Previously in the article there was lots of "the prosecution said ... but the defence said ..." as various editors (now mainly departed) attempted to retry the case and/or solve the murder live on this page. That level of detail is ridiculous too. pablo 14:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Per Pablo and Maunus, less is more and we should aim to summarize information rather than to be comprehensive. It's a common newbie mistake to assume that we reach NPOV by copying reams of data from both sides of an argument. We don't; instead we summarize in proportion with the established weight of the sources. --John (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Controversy is absolutely relevant to this article as covered by reliable sources, which do include the media in Washington State, books written about the suspect with attribution, etc. this article needs to be significantly broadened to include all that. BelloWello (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

External discussions

hatting discussion irrelevant to improvement of article. BelloWello (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is a new WP:ANI discussion here that may be of interest to users editing this topic.LedRush (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a new WP:ANI discussion here that may be of interest to users editing this topic (opening comment copied to User talk:Jimbo Wales and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography). SuperMarioMan 11:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What a surprise (not)! pablo 12:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
It seems that a discussion has been on the horizon for some time if, as these "friendly notices" assert, "numerous users" are becoming "frustrated" and there is "continued resistence to expanding the details in the Kercher article" (drinking fruit juice being one such all-important detail, of course). SuperMarioMan 13:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that public sarcasm or the airing of messages from people's talk pages is the appropriate response here. A simple link to the discussion would be sufficient, I should think. With posts like these, all you are doing is setting a negative tone which makes constructive editing more difficult.LedRush (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
A negative tone has existed here for a long time. When an editor or two makes continual references to tag-teams, stone-walling and generally denigrating anyone they disagree with, it becomes a serious impediment to editing. I've walked away one already because of that - I was literlly started to express views in a louder than normal voice at work. The ANI thread DOES NOT HELP with reducing that tone. It absolutely ignores any good faith on the part of the editors that Wikid77 disagrees with. Shockingly, this is a controversial article! It's about a topic that has seen radical shifts (in real life) in information, coverage and general tone. And people are shocked that it's going to be difficult to edit here? Amazing. LedRush, I think you're downplaying some of the sources of the issues here. If Cody's words (tag-teaming, wikilawyering, stonewalling, cabal, etc) where being used by SuperMarioMan or Hipocrite, I suspect your comments would have a very different tone. Ravensfire (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I know of editors who continually denigrate anyone they disagree with and who constantly accuse a group of editors as acting in concert with bad motives. Of course, these editors do not want to teach the controversy, and I, suspect, are not the same ones to which you are referring. They have been around a lot longer than most of the new SPAs, and have been a source of poison for this talk page for a long time, with the tacit approval of Admins. The simple truth is that the problems do not all stem from one place. Through in a group of SPAs unfamiliar with WP policy and with a strong POV on the situation into the group I mentioned above, and each feeds the preconceived notions of the other and makes the situation worse. The tone here, though, has improved recently, though topics like this threaten to undo the progress.LedRush (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I have publicly and privately criticized Cody for his tone and his edits. Of course, I am more sensitive to issues directed specifically at me. I am not policing everyone, but merely chiming in on the issues I spot. Regardless, your comment to me doesn't seem to address my points about this posting here.LedRush (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Since Wikid77 mentioned other users at this topic in his opening statement at the WP:ANI discussion (no names mentioned, but users alluded to nevertheless), I decided to provide a link to both the ANI discussion and its mirrors in the absence of prior notification. As for "undoing progress", Wikid77 has so far been unable to respond to concerns further up the page about the use of WP:PRIMARY sources, instead going so far as to start an ANI discussion on the subject - is that the real path to "progress"? SuperMarioMan 15:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
So, he's bad, so you decided it was ok to be sarcastic and to air talk page discussion here? It doesn't seem like much of an explanation. (to be clear, I already stated that a simple link to the AN/I discussion was warranted)LedRush (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Guede timeline

Aside from the primary sourced document, it appears that the most frequently used source to detail Guede's testimony is [46]. This states that Guede saw two shadowy figures and later IDed them as Knox and Sollecito.

Our article previously stated he saw one figure (this was sourced to this article). I'm somewhat confused. Could someone, using reliable secondary sources, detail the timeline of Guede's claims? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely. Let's get the timeline, and then change the article to include it. Let's not change the article first without knowing or inserting the timeline.LedRush (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I wonder, LedRush, why you reverted my hewing the article to the source, but didn't revert this misrepresentation of the source. Was that an oversight? Perhaps you should have gone farther back... Hipocrite (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I merely reverted the edit that looked like it was breaching WP policy on BRD...I didn't see any others. If you are making an accusation (or a suggestion), I prefer for you to make it directly. LedRush (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if your acceptance of an edit that stated, in Wikipdia's voice (see WP:NPOV) that Guide changed his story was an oversight or a lapse of judgment. There is no source provided that says Guede changed his story - that is the conclusions of editors. I invite you to revert to the last noncontroversial version - which omits sourced claims by Guede that he saw Knox, or IDed the male figure ([47]) while we discuss - that would be the BRD move, as opposed to reverting preferred, new version that both omits the IDs and accuses - without reliable source - Guede of changing his story. Hipocrite (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Could you provide a diff, or just make the edit yourself? I can't understand your cryptic suggestions.LedRush (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
this edit is bad, because "In a later version of events," is WP:SYNTH (No source states there are two versions of events). Are you saying it should be reverted and discussed? If so, why don't you do it? Hipocrite (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Your tone continues to seem quite accusatory to me. There was no conspiracy here...I merely reverted what I thought was an edit contrary to policy. It was not an endorsement of any other intermediate edits, of which I was wholly unaware. I couldn't understand your arguments because you didn't cite the difference that irked you so much, and you didn't directly state what edit you didn't like and why you didn't like it. I have changed the statement because it seems like synth to me.LedRush (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Summary of sources

Nov 07 - Struggle with man

  • Nov 07 "While he was in the bathroom, he heard screams and rushed out, to find himself face-to-face with the assassin. "He was a brown-haired Italian man, without glasses and shorter than me," Guede told the German court." "Guede's version of events would absolve Amanda Knox, Miss Kercher's 20-year-old American flatmate. Guede said that Knox was not in the house on the night."
  • Nov 07 "He went to the lavatory, and because he had earphones on he did not hear the killer enter, though he did hear Ms Kercher scream. He emerged to see “an Italian I didn’t know” stabbing her. The unknown man had said as he fled: “You’re in trouble, you black bastard.” Mr Guede had heard her whisper the initials, and also said that he had tried to save Ms Kercher but it was too late and he too fled in panic."

Oct 08 - Two figures

  • Oct 08 "He had his iPod earphones on but heard Ms Kercher’s screams and found a man standing over her bloodied body holding a knife. He struggled with the man, who allegedly fled, saying: “You’re in trouble, you black bastard”, accompanied by a woman whose voice Guede heard but whose face he did not see. The man with the knife, Guede’s lawyers claimed in the pre-trial hearings, was Mr Sollecito, and the woman was Ms Knox."
  • Oct 08 "Guede has claimed that he had retreated to the bathroom with stomach pains seconds before two shadowy figures he would later identify as Knox and Sollecito burst in and stabbed Kercher."

Nov 09 - Two figures + argument

  • Nov 09 "He told the appeal judges that he went to the cottage on the evening of November 1, 2007, but felt unwell, and although he had been "intimate" with Ms Kercher they had not had sex. He went to the bathroom with his iPod on and listened to three tracks. "Then I heard Meredith's and Amanda's voices, arguing about some missing money," he said." "He said he rushed into Ms Kercher's bedroom and saw an unidentified man with a knife who tried to attack him. He said he heard the man say, "'Let's go, there's a black man", and looking out of the window he saw the fleeing "silhouette" of Ms Knox. In past testimony Guede has said the man resembled Mr Sollecito." "

Timeline Conclusions

Did I miss any? It appears there was the early reports of one male figure, later reports of an accompanying female, and a later ID of the two of them. Does anyone disagree with that timeline? Are there further relevant entries? Hipocrite (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't access the last report, which seems to tone down the "identification" of Sollecito to merely say the guy resembled him.LedRush (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
[48] doesn't work for you? You can also find the text at [49] (via google search). Hipocrite (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I cannot access the timesonline article, but I did read the other reproduction. That one seems to indicate that Guede was an ear witness to Knox, but not a witness at all regarding Sollecito.LedRush (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Apologies, that's a bad reproduction. Try [50], search for "Meredith Kercher killer Rudy Guede 'saw Amanda Knox fleeing scene'" Hipocrite (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Fruit juice

Upon entering, while Guede obtained fruit juice from the refrigerator which he drank from the carton, Kercher went to her bedroom and said significant money was missing from an open drawer. What is the significance of the first two clauses? Did the juice and/or the carton figure heavily in the evidence that resulted in conviction? This detail seems a little extraneous to me - could the sentence just skip to the mention of the missing cash? SuperMarioMan 15:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
We could, but every attempt to remove the fridge/juice is removed from the article. I suspect there's some theory out there about the juice that we're not being informed about - that anyone who really understood crime scene investigations would see immediately, but that isn't obvious to the layperson. I've found that's frequently why details are added to this article - I don't understand why the obvious conclusions that we're supposed to draw are not also added. Hipocrite (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why the juice sentence needs to be there. Delete it.LedRush (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
He did drink it from the carton and admitted doing so. Do you normally get juice out of the fridge and swig it from the carton when you're a guest in someone's house as Guede claimed he was? You don't need to answer, as i'm sure you know perfectly well what the relevance is. If you don't, you probably shouldn't be editing an article about a crime. With the greatest respect, CodyJoeBibby (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, but it could be just as likely that he was invited in and drank from the carton after Kercher was out of sight. I don't see that this really adds a lot to this discussion.LedRush (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Boldly removed. SuperMarioMan 15:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I intend to revert SuperMarioMan's change as the reader needs the information to help evalute the credibility of Guede's story. Burglars, not invited guests, swig directly from the carton in other people's houses. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Before you start reverting, let's discuss. I am concerned that your goal is not to present information detailed in reliable secondary sources neutrally and without bias, but rather to convince the reader that something is true - this is evidenced by the fact that you think a detail is important to include not because of it's prominence in reliable secondary sources, but rather because you believe it makes clear Guede's true actions. Is that the case? Hipocrite (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
  • In Guede's version of events, he says he talked with Kercher at a Halloween party the prior evening (the 4 Italian guys downstairs left 29 October 2007 for the week), Guede arranged a date w/Kercher, he comes to the house several times that evening, noting the guys downstairs are gone, but returns again at 20:38, and Kercher arrives, unlocks the door with a key from her handbag, they enter c.21:00, then he asks and gets fruit juice mixed with water from the frig (Italian: frigo), as Kercher walks back to her bedroom and complains that significant money is missing from an open drawer ("cassetto aperto"). In other testimonies, the cottage rent is established as 1200 euros, each girl is to pay 300, Kercher withdrew similar money at the ATM, Amanda Knox's bank account had over $4,000 at the time, Knox was arrested with 200, and Guede paid cash for his train ticket from Italy-to-Switzerland-to-Germany. Those are some issues to consider. -Wikid77 15:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Change reverted, as per BRD policy. Please discuss before reverting this change. The information about drinking from the carton is from Guede himself. It helps the reader understand that there may be some doubt about his story of being a houseguest. Very respectfully, CodyJoeBibby (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you should re-review WP:BRD. You boldly added information about fruit juice. Someone else reverted you. Then you discuss - you don't just revert them back. Hipocrite (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I intend to revert SuperMarioMan's change as the reader needs the information to help evalute the credibility of Guede's story. I think not. Re-insertion of the content for the purposes of insinuation, with unspoken conclusions about a suspect's "credibility", would amount to thinly-disguised POV-pushing, which is not advisable. SuperMarioMan 15:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The information is true, and is in Guede's own words. If you want to draw conclusions or inferences from this factually true information, that's up to you. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
It's either incredibly trivial or some kind of weird veiled insinuation. In either case we definitely cannot use material like this. --John (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary, I am not the one who wishes to draw "conclusions or inferences" from such questionable trivia. As I have said, please bear in mind WP:POVPUSH. SuperMarioMan 15:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

As I've said before; trivial, don't see the need. It is akin to starting to write a sentence "Kercher opened the door, they walked inside, Guede untied his shoe laces and kicked one shoe left, the other right. Guede walked into the kitched where he stretched twice and then touched his toes...." etc etc. Cody's reasoning for it's inclusion makes me feel even stronger that there is no basis for inclusion. Classic example of OR and POV/POINT --Errant (chat!) 15:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. SuperMarioMan 15:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Lol, I see the tag team has arrived, just after Hipocrite reminds me of the 3RR rule. It's hilarious how the same bunch of people turns up on this article every time. The information about the juice is a fact the reader needs to know. It is not original research nor is it POV pushing. The reader can decide for themselves. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
No, it's a trivial piece of information that's not notable. Yes, it's in a reliable source. So is a lot of other facts that ultimately don't matter. Why does this one matter? What's the relevance? What does it add to the article?
But hey, let's include it! Don't forget what type of fruit juice! That's important! And the brand! That's important! </sarcasm> Ravensfire (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The information about the juice is an 'important fact' of no proven relevance to the subject of this article. There have been many such - the 'important fact' that Knox thought Sollecito looked like Harry Potter for instance - peppered throughout the article from time to time because somebody thought they were significant. Guede drinking some juice does not demonstrate whether he was a guest or an intruder. It indicates that he may have been thirsty. pablo 16:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
It's important in that it gives a possible clue that Guede was not in the house legitimately as he claimed. Why do you think he mentioned it? Because he knew he had done it and needed to explain his DNA being there. However his explanation still sounds weird. No decent person does that, especially on a date. It's a fact that needs to go in the article. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok then; do you have a reliable source that identifies this as a valid reason for this point being sigificant? or is it simply your OR/POV? --Errant (chat!) 16:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
It's a fact that needs to go in the article. No, it doesn't. It's just a bit of old fruit juice. The terrible ramifications of having something to drink can be debated at numerous other venues across the internet - not here. SuperMarioMan 16:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Let's try this from another many RSs address the fact that he drank fruit juice from the carton?LedRush (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
What are the reliable sources which identify valid reasons for any of the other purely factual points currently in the article as being significant? Please provide full details for every other purely factual point or expect it to be removed, following your reasoning. Respectfully, CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
For starters, I think I'll remove the information about Amanda doing a languages course. I don't see what that adds to the article. do you have a reliable source that identifies a valid reason for this point being sigificant? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Please stop this disruptive editing now, and please do not make idle threats about removing other sourced information as a means of making a point, since it is not constructive. You have been warned about these behaviours many times before. SuperMarioMan 16:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to be bold but remember not to be petty and that way you can't go wrong. --John (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for my point to be answered. I have been told by Errant that for factual information to be included in the article, a reliable source that identifies a valid reason for the point being sigificant is required. I am waiting for full information to be provided about the other facts stated in the article. If that is not provided, then, applying Errant's criterion, those other facts will need to be deleted. If there is something i have misunderstood about what Errant said, then please feel free to correct me. Respectfully, CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that I said I just wanted to know which RSs mention it, not which state it is important. I can give numerous examples of RSs which state why Knox was in Italy, but I'm not going to because that is irrelevant to the conversation at hand.LedRush (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
My point is directed at Errant, not you. Respectfully, CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
You've missed my point entirely; I asked for the source that supported your view of why the fact is important. --Errant (chat!) 17:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
And I require you to do the same for all other facts in the article. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Which specific quotation from the article would you like verified? Hipocrite (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Cody, are you saying you want to remove "She was in Perugia attending the University for Foreigners for one year, studying Italian, German and creative writing."? Ravensfire (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
All facts in the article need to be validated with reliable sources which support the view of whoever wants to include them of why the fact is important. If not, they face deletion. It's not my policy, it's Errant's. Ask him about it. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:BURDEN, that's accurate. Any unsourced fact faces deletion if questioned. Do you have a specific statement you'd like verified? Hipocrite (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing i want to remove from the article. On the contrary, I want to add something which is sourced. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Your addition was challenged. Per WP:BURDEN, provide sources that demonstrate the notability of your proposed addition. Any reliable secondary source would likley suffice. Hipocrite (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
A reliable secondary source which specifically says what? That most people don't swig juice from the carton when a guest in someone else's house? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
No, if you were to include that on an article that wasn't about Fruit Juice it would be a violation of WP:SYNTH. You need a reliable secondary source that mentioned the juice and found it worth noting. Hipocrite (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
That's right. As I asked above, how many RSs talk about the fruit juice? Let's see what they say about it.LedRush (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Cody - what people are asking for is something that can show why fruit juice is notable in the case. I think it's trivia to include it as do some of the other editors. We're asking for sources that can show why the fact he drank fruit juice is notable. There's a lot of information on the page, we need to keep it focused on the notable details. This is a summary of what happened - it is not supposed to be a blow-by-blow account of every little tiny detail. That's what secondary sources and other sites are for. Ravensfire (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Searching now. I'm not sure there's very much information out there about this. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. I can find only five articles containing all of "Guede", "Kercher" and "juice" in the Google News archives - not a promising start. So, as has been stated countless times already, the juice would not appear to have been, and would not appear to be, notable in any shape or form. SuperMarioMan 19:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Note: partial strike-throughs for tone. SuperMarioMan 20:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Notability does not apply to article content, the fruit juice has received mention in reliable sources and hence should be included. BelloWello (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
BelloWello, would you please provide links to these reliable sources?LedRush (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────(edit conflict) Notability does not apply to article content is an interesting statement.
Perhaps you could suggest some wording which covers the fruit juice and demonstrates exactly why it is relevant to the murder. pablo 15:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC) ───────────────────────── I quote from WP:NNC: "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people)." BelloWello (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"notable" is used interchangeable to mean "significant" for article content. The problem is explaining why this specific detail is of significance in the description. The only one given so far has been that it undermines his testimony ("who first visits someone's house and drinks their drink") - which may be a legitimate analysis of the testimony, but no reliable source has been provided for that.. --Errant (chat!) 15:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
We don't make analysis of the testimony, but we certainly may cite what reliable sources say in a factual statement, such as "he drank orange juice," that's entirely appropriate. BelloWello (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Will a small mention of juice actually add something of use to the article, though? Unless reliable sources have made much of it, it serves no particular use to anyone. SuperMarioMan 15:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
If a reliable source thought it worth including as background information, I see no reason why wikipedia shouldn't give it nine words. I also don't understand why users above made such a big deal out of the appropriate addition, but that is irrelevant. Any policy based reasoning against including the sourced information? BelloWello (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Let's be clear: I'm not saying the information is crucial to be included in the article, I just don't see where there is any reason not to include it in the article when a user clearly wanted to include it and it can be cited to reliable sources. Again, any reason other than the fact that some editors don't think it is relevant, despite the fact that it originates in reliable sources, to not include it? BelloWello (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Can you please show me these reliable sources? If we don't know how they use the information, how are we supposed to decide how (or if) to use the information?LedRush (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, it would open up the article to all sorts of tedious trivia for one thing - if drinking juice is significant, perhaps the brands of the clothes that people were wearing at the time are also significant. No citation of policies or guidelines is essential to understand that a bit of fruit juice is totally irrelevant and inconsequential in the absence of thorough discussion in reliable sources. SuperMarioMan 15:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)We aim for a broad but concise overview. The problem is that the text from which the fruit juice is cited is a "primary" source which contains a lot of detail. My main point was "why is this particular fact of such significance to have been included". Theories have been extended as to why it is significant, but none of which are substantiated in a RS. The problem is that if we mention fruit juice it appears to be subtly pushing a point of view that Geuede either lied, or is mis-representing his testimony (see above for that theory, from Cody). Which leaves us in the somewhat difficult position of having to remove that POV by... using all of the detail? A blow my blow account of his testimony is going to get lengthy :) Remember; we summarise what is given in RS's --Errant (chat!) 15:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I still maintain that the content is relevant should a reliable source be given that mentions it. However, unfortunately, I went back to provide what I thought was a reliable source only to discover that it was a Salon Open blog, and not a Salon Newblog. My mistake, I agree that primary sources are not sufficient for inclusion in this case (per the policy regarding court documents). If there are other reliable sources that I have missed (I'm speaking to Cody here), please provide them. BelloWello (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Based on Jimbo's statement here, as follows: "I think, too, that there would be widespread agreement that use of documents directly from the Italian legal system can be valid, if used judiciously and without inappropriate synthesis, for some of the basic and undisputed factual matter." I am in agreement with that, and believe that the fact that he took some juice and drank it can be added based on the evidence. BelloWello (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Uh, I'm not sure the source was ever questioned (except to point out that it is a summary judgement, a primary source to be treated with due care).The problem is this, here is the translation of the section the fruit juice is taken from: The accused, because of the kebab is a bit 'hot, had requested permission to drink, and K. told him to do as if it were at home, so he had taken from the refrigerator a bit 'of water and fruit juice. While he was in the kitchen, she heard the girl moan and curse, and it was therefore directed toward her M. in her room, she found an open drawer and said that there was more money that he had placed there without specify the size of the sum but implying that it was a substantial figure, and if it was taken immediately with A., describing it as a drug addict. See the level of detail there... and this is just one small part. There are a number of fairly trivial elements in that piece of text; the money being missing has been highlighted as relevant per various reliable sources. The fruit juice simply does not seem relevant to a summary. *shrug* The only reason given so far that this is significant is that it undermines Guede's testimony - but not RS has been provided to support that. --Errant (chat!) 21:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Since I was mentioned above, I wanted to say that I was speaking of a broad general principle, and one that I do not think comes into play in this case. I see no relevance (based on reliable sources) for the inclusion of the juice claim nor any reason from the perspective of high quality encyclopedic writing to include it.
A camparison was made, above, to information about Amanda doing a languages course. I don't think that comparison is valid. I have two grounds for this. First, from the perspective of good writing, the reader will naturally want to know what the key players were doing in Italy. This is basic background information of reasonable relevance to understanding the whole situation: Amanda was a student in Italy for a year. Second, it is a fact of relevance and importance that Amanda was studying Italian, as her degree of competence in Italian is a factor of some discussion relating to her interrogation by the police, etc.
The juice, on the other hand, appears to be of no relevance except a theory that I have seen advanced in no reliable sources, namely that his admitting to drinking juice directly from the carton tends to suggest that he was a burglar and not an invited guest. That's not a very plausible theory, but more importantly, it is not a theory that has been put forward by any reliable source. Therefore, I conclude that the tidbit is too trivial to include.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Of course the stupid juice isn't worth including. My question is, why did we need 3666 words of discussion to achieve the consensus that the juice in the "frig" wasn't worth including? We need fewer partisan editors seeking to include crackpot theories here, not more. --John (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you are saying there is a "frig", or what you hope to achieve by your personal attacks. Please try and make constructive contributions to the talk page, even when you are frustrated, as many of us were, by long conversations with which you don't agree.LedRush (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
That's a million miles from a personal attack. I've struck the word "stupid" from my post in the interests of future cooperation. Nonetheless, expending this much discussion on discussing whether it is notable that someone drank fruit juice during a murder when no secondary sources think it is, still seems like a highly unproductive use of our collective time, a benchmark of what we shouldn't do, in my opinion. --John (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll be the first to admit that the discussion of the juice here and on AN/I was not very productive. However, saying it's stupid, making jabs at specific editors with the word "Frig" (which was not used in this conversation at all), calling editors partisan and saying that they have crackpot theories would be considered uncivil by just about anyone. Even if these personal attacks aren't particularly horrible, especially for the rough and tumble tone on this page, they're not helpful. However, there are miles of difference between your first post and second. The second makes your point without the unnecessary jabs at others. For this, I thank you.LedRush (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I know that I too have added to the hostile atmosphere with some recent comments, for which I apologise. However, in principle if not in tone, I am honestly inclined to agree with much of what John states. The discussion above was stretched out because, although it was made clear from the start that a simple mention of the drink in the WP:PRIMARY source did not sanction a mention in the article (on the grounds of WP:UNDUE, and in the absence of significant coverage in other sources), there was a persistent refusal to understand the point and further requests for it to be included anyway (and, on the one occasion when it was re-inserted, the information was clearly intended to advance the case for a specific POV - a WP:OR/WP:SYNTH insinuation regarding suspect credibility). Nevertheless, I could have been calmer at times when arguing for removal. On a side note, I do not see how John's use of "frig", in particular, is an attack of some sort - if I remember rightly, there a recent discussion here about how "frig" is a shortening of "fridge" or "refrigerator" (it can indeed be used in a vulgar manner, as in "frigging", when it substitutes for the F-word, at least in British English - I cannot account for other varieties of English). SuperMarioMan 09:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite


Emerging from the bathroom he found, a shadowy figure with a knife standing over her bloodied body. Guede stated he struggled with the man, who then fled while saying in perfect Italian, "Trovato negro, trovato colpevole; andiamò"("Found negro, found guilty; let's go"). In a later version of events, Guede also said the man was accompanied by a woman.

Hipocrite's proposal

Emerging from the bathroom Guede stated he found a shadowy figure with a knife standing over her bloodied body. Later reports also detail Guede's reports of an accompanying woman. Guede reported he struggled with the man, who then fled while saying in perfect Italian, "Trovato negro, trovato colpevole; andiamò"("Found negro, found guilty; let's go"). In some media reports, Guede is stated to have later tentatively identified the man as Sollecito and the woman as Knox.

Hipocrite's revised

Emerging from the bathroom Guede stated he found a shadowy figure with a knife standing over her bloodied body. Guede reported he struggled with the man, who then fled.

In testimony at his appeal Guede described an argument over money between Knox and Kercher that he heard from the bathroom. Also at his appeal, Guede further testified that he later realized the man could have been Sollecito, and the he identified that a silhouette leaving the house was Knox.

I truly appreciate Hipocrite's efforts here, and I am generally ok with all but the last sentence. However, the last sentence seems a little weasely to me. I feel like this is something we should be able to get to the bottom of. He either identified them or not (at the end I mean). Do we have any reports that say Guede (and not his lawyers) actually identified Knox and Sollecito visually? Aurally?I want to stress here that I really do appreciate Hipocrite's willingness to compromise and work collaboratively here.LedRush (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The sources attribute it variously to his lawyers, him, and "past testimony." I'll see if I can't find better. Hipocrite (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources specifically on the id: [51] "Guede addressed the court for the first time as he launched an appeal against his 30-year jail sentence, handed down last year in a separate trial during which he was convicted of the murder." This source seems exceptionally strong, with lots of quotes. I'm revising my proposal. Hipocrite (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The source looks good. No ID on Sollecito (it could have been him) and an ear witness to Knox and, later, a silhouette of Knox.LedRush (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Concur on source and on phrasing. Better clarification on what was said by Guede and when. Ravensfire (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Although herd needs to be heard :) and also I would drop "Also" as un-needed --Errant (chat!) 16:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
In the source, it is clear that Guede did not identify the silhouette of Knox until some time after he saw it. I think that that detail is important. Is there any way to include that in the proposed language?LedRush (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll take a shot. Hipocrite (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Awesome.LedRush (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Nice work, Hipocrite. Ravensfire (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
One thing that is missing in this sentence is the context of WHEN it was said, which was months after being arrested after he changed his story.Issymo (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Another Knox Documentary, this one by CNN

Do we wait for it to air before putting it in the article?LedRush (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What new information does it have? Ravensfire (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
While it has some color on issues we've already discussed, I meant just adding it to the current list. Sorry if that wasn't clear.LedRush (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I've boldly added. I think we did this for the Lifetime Movie, but this should be rather noncontroversial regardless.LedRush (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I support your inclusion of this sourced and relevant content. BelloWello (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I support inclusion the moment it aired but not now. That's how we usually handle those things so we don't fall into the wp:crystal trap. that said it should be boldly removed again but waiting for more input here.TMCk (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Disagree - it has already received coverage from reliable sources. BelloWello (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Umh, in case that for whatever reason they won't air it we then would've had wrong information in our article for quite some time. That's the whole point of having policies like wp:crystal.TMCk (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
At some point, we might want to consider spinning off the list of books, documentaries and films based on this into a separate article "List of Books, Documentaries and Movies based on the murder of Meredith Kercher". Yeah, it's convenient to have everything in one article, but if that list starts to get big, moving it to a list, with a short summary in the main article is good. I think it's getting close to that time. It would also let us add any notes, reviews, and/or comments about that particular book or documentary with it. Ravensfire (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
That's certainly worth to think about.TMCk (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

False, unsourced information in article

In this revert, unsourced information is included in the article. Please source each of the following assertions, using quotes from reliable sources. Do so on the talk page.

  • The court found that Guede's version of events did not match some of the forensic evidence
  • 5 shoe prints
  • his shoe prints
  • single bed pillow
  • under the disrobed body

Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not for or against inclusion, and frankly, couldn't care less about the case. I don't think information like that should be removed without first seeking consensus on the talk page. Since you have now posted this, if the consensus is for the deletion of the content, then please feel free to delete it. With the current polarization of the article (and this goes to both sides), it would be advisable to seek consensus before removing anything from the article. BelloWello (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
How do you know the information is false?LedRush (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
At least one of my bulletpoints is directly contradicted by the source that purported to confirm it. Hipocrite (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Didn't somebody provide a source (I don't remember if it was good or not) to at least some of these questions above? I'll take a look.LedRush (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
[52] purported to source it. Hipocrite (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Hipocrite, can you tell us which of your bulletpoints is directly contradicted by the source? A quote would be helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
"Five" is a complete fabrication - an invention by an editor here. Hipocrite (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • That information is based on the Micheli Judgment, in Italian (and expect Italian secondary sources to have similar wording). There has been a bias to avoid the Italian phrases and, thereby, reduce the matches to the same concepts in secondary Italian sources, some of which match the Micheli Judgment phrases, word for word, letter for letter, accent mark for accent mark. Quoting from the Micheli Judgment (in Italian & English):
"Ribadiva poi di aver toccato più o meno dappertutto nella stanza, anche con le mani sporche di sangue, senza tuttavia spiegare come mai una sua impronta si trovasse proprio sul cuscino sotto il cadavere, quando egli ricordava il cuscino regolarmente sopra il letto" in English, "[Guede] confirmed to have touched more or less everywhere in the room, even with his hands stained with blood, without explaining why his shoe-prints are just under the corpse on the pillow when he remembered the regular pillow on the bed". –Micheli Judgment (filed 26 January 2009)
Again, due to systematically removing key Italian phrases from the article, that action has biased the text to reduce the connections to secondary sources in Italian, and giving the impression, that no where, in the world, do secondary sources exist about the Guede trial. Aha! Now we finally understand the crucial reasons why the key Italian phrases had been added to the article, for each point about Guede's first trial (1 of 3 for him). There is a secondary source in English which mentions this point about the unexplained shoe-prints on the pillow, but I am still looking.
Plus, remember the Micheli Judgment document we cite is an abridged version of the true primary source (106? pages), as a secondary source where all major text is quoted as significant, but the page numbers, and perhaps other details have been omitted, as an editorial choice as to what to drop from the true primary source. Our Micheli Judgment is, in fact, a secondary source (in Italian) where some editor(s) decided all of the text was to be quoted (except page numbers and etc.). -Wikid77 05:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "Five" is not a complete fabrication and was not invented by an editor. There were a total of five shoe prints found on the pillowcase. The prosecution's expert only found two shoe prints on the pillowcase. Forensics expert Francesco Vinci identified all five by highlighting the fabric using a process called Crimescope. None of these shoe prints represent a woman's shoe size 37 as claimed by the prosecution. The prosecution's expert found one partial shoe print on the edge of the pillowcase. It was that shoe print that was said to be a woman's shoe. The truth is, there were three partial shoe prints. All three partial shoe prints and the 2 full shoe prints match the tread pattern on Rudy Guede's shoes. 3 partials + 2 full = 5 prints all belonging to Guede. Here is Francesco Vinci's full report. [53] BruceFisher (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
BruceFisher, do you have any specific, sourced text that you wish to add to this article? pablo 20:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Get actual primary source of Micheli Judgment

As you might know, for years, we had been unable to find the true primary source of the Micheli Judgment 28.10.2008 for Guede's first trial (with page numbers). The copy we have been using is a secondary source, at Italian website, which omits the page numbers and perhaps other details. I had read the document size was "106 pages" but, now, I have found another document (written in MS Word) which appears to be the "real" primary source but with only 63 pages (page numbers generated by MS Word). It is my understanding that this court document is public domain in Italy; however, you may just wish to view-only the MS Word document from the website (or download file "trib_pg_sez_gp_28_10_08.doc" per Italian public-domain access):

When I opened the copy with MS Word, it complained that an Italian hyphenation file was missing, and without the same hyphenation, then the auto-generated page numbers might vary somewhat. It might be possible to host a copy at Wikisource, pending the restrictions of the Italian copyright law, which I believe some of our current MoMK editors have reviewed. At Wikisource, perhaps the MS-Word format could be converted to wiki-text format, adding equivalent page numbers and <hr> ruler-line page separators, and the hyphenation file would no longer be an issue. The first line of each paragraph is indented by about 7 letters. More later. - (06:53, 28 April 2011) Wikid77 revised 16:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The following sources contiain information that should be included

Since this morning I've done some reading regarding the case. The following sources list information that I believe should be included in the article.

These are all reliable sources the shed light on the situation. BelloWello (talk) 06:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I am not opposed to such sources (although some appear to be opinion pieces). But what content are you proposing?? :) --Errant (chat!) 08:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Echo that - although this page is not currently protected, it is much more constructive to propose specific additions and amendments here first.
We need to be very careful with op-ed pieces, they are mainly sources for the opinion of the author ... pablo 09:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
The first one contains important information about the fact that the authorities seemed to be considering her guilty before the trial, going as far as to put her image up on their trophy list, giving substantial question to the fairness of the trial. BelloWello (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, from "Crimesider", the TMZ-ish investigative arm of CBS that has what is essentially an opinion piece about a photograph placement. Of what use is this to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talkcontribs) 13:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
In a case where there has been much controversy over the conduct of police and the prosecutor, evidence that shows that the Police had assumed the guilt of an individual before they charged her seems incredibly relevant. That this fact has been picked up by many reliable sources, not just this one, seems to support that.LedRush (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Head investigator Edgardo Giobbi determined, in his mind, the guilt of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito before he had even begun to collect or analyze any actual evidence. This decision of guilt was achieved before Edgardo Giobbi had even heard of Rudy Guede. Edgardo Giobbi boasted: “We were able to establish guilt by closely observing the suspect's psychological and behavioral reactions during the interrogations. We don't need to rely on other kinds of investigation as this method has enabled us to get to the guilty parties in a very quick time." [54] BruceFisher (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding cross-claims of suspects jointly

I think claims of the suspects, against each other, need to be added together in the article, not just Guede's version first. Over the past several months, I have tried to describe the reasons why Guede was judged guilty, as logically the first fully convicted (in 3 trials), and various people have resisted the additions, beginning last year. Then some observers claimed that by other people removing any text which made Guede look guilty, then "Knox would seem more guilty" (perhaps) in comparison to pruned Guede text which left him seeming totally innocent. Recently, I have noticed that as Guede progressively changed his story, from the interview in Germany, where he stated, "Amanda Knox was not in the house that night" to later claims of hearing "her voice" with his iPod headphones turned to high volume (which the judges really wondered how), then he becomes a BLP witness against Knox. However, text could be added to the article to also give Knox's version of events. When Knox attended Guede's first trial, she stated she thought Guede would shoulder blame for the murder, and confess to being the one, as she said, "There was one day when I thought Rudy was going to confess, I was shouting for joy." (source: "DNA on Meredith Kercher's bloodied bra was due to lab contamination", Telegraph, 24 Oct. 2008, Tel3). So, instead, if text is continually removed from the article which shows Guede radically changing his story (180 degrees) and how judges concluded that Guede's version did not match reality of some forensic evidence, then by omitting text which undermines his credibility as a BLP witness, then it might seem he always told a consistent version, as never refuted by evidence (not true) because Judge Micheli noted Guede insisted Kercher was fully clothed when stabbed, but blood spatter was found on her removed bra and bare skin, still wearing her 2 T-shirts rolled up to her arms, not blood spatter as fully dressed. I'm not saying the judge's conclusion is "true" but just we cannot omit such text when knowing that omitting the court conclusion would slant away from NPOV-balance and give the impression that none of Guede's claims were refuted. Similarly, we cannot omit Knox's version that she thought Guede would confess during his first trial. Hence, all related text should be added, together, as a balanced set to provide an NPOV-neutral view of the events. NOTE: None of this is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH because the sources already state the implied conclusions of guilt or innocence, or revisionism. Any thoughts or other related testimony? -Wikid77 16:25, 28 April 2011, revised 16:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you actually want to change. Please make a proposal to add, remove or edit text on the talk page. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
If Guede originally stated that Knox wasn't in the house, that should definitely be noted in the article.
I also think it is notable that he stated that Kercher had all of her clothes on, but that the judge concluded otherwise because of where the blood was.
Regarding Knox's feelings that she thought that Guede was innocent, I'm not sure what that adds to the article and why it is notable. She could be excited because if Guede took the fall, she would get out of jail despite the fact that she killed Kercher. To me, it doesn't really add and commentary that allows me to understand the case or the controversies. But, as I said, I think the other information can be very useful.LedRush (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikid, please actually propose the specific text you wish to add. pablo 19:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I suggest to add a section "Statements of suspects about each other" where all the statements would be collected, together, to avoid issues of NPOV balance if that text, instead, were scattered so that readers might not realize all suspects made some statements about some others. -Wikid77 16:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikid, please actually propose the specific text you wish to add. pablo 18:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

60% of American Students say that Knox Case Would Have Some Impact on Choice to Study in Italy

Is this better for this article, or one on Amanda Knox?LedRush (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Y'know, by my rough tally, you and Wikid77 have initiated 2/3rds of the topics that are currently on this page, the last 2 by you minutes apart. Do you think it might be a good idea to bring closure to existing topics before opening so many new ones? I note several above that never even received any responses at all. Tarc (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
By my rough tally, these are the only two active topics I've opened here. This question seems disruptive here...can we move this to my talk page? Or can you start a new section so as not to hijack mine?LedRush (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
It strikes me as peripheral at best. pablo 19:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I am strongly concerned that the results of the poll are being misreported. The poll doc can be read at [55] and even a cursory review leads me to discount usage of this poll to generalize to the extent presented (in fact, any usage at all seems highly suspect). I can go into detail, but the methodology of the pool is irredeemably poor - of course, since it's a poll by an advocacy organization, the goal isn't data. Hipocrite (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Is Loyola University an advocacy organization, or is the Italy-USA Foundation an advocacy organization? What do they advocate? Studying in Italy?LedRush (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Full article here, original Italian page here (as far as I can tell, the first is a full word-for-word translation of the second, and not just paraphrase). LedRush, where would the information go - "Media coverage", or elsewhere? That said, Pablo may have a point about the information being "peripheral". SuperMarioMan 20:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Further, attributing the poll to "Loyola University" is problematic, as it appears to be a poll by two undergraduate students at Loyola University. Hipocrite (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I would think it would go in the Media Coverage section. If not, an article on Amanda Knox.LedRush (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I am opposed to any inclusion of this ham-handed poll, conducted by two college students without, apparently, any oversight or control, in our article. Hipocrite (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
The information would seem to be much more relevant to this article than a prospective Knox article, although Hipocrite's concerns seem to be something to consider first. SuperMarioMan 20:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I support inclusion of this poll as a valid indicator of the effects of the case in Italy. A good way to handle it would possibly be to create a section called "Reactions," which would include the current "Reaction of the Kercher Family" section, information about this relevant poll reported on by reliable sources as well as any other reactions we can find that satisfies due weight. I take exception to calling it a "ham-handed" poll unless reliably sourced criticism of the poll in this manner can be found, in which case both the poll and criticism should be mentioned. BelloWello (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
The poll was not conducted in Italy. Have you reviewed the poll document? Hipocrite (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Does it matter? It's been reported in reliable sources. I have reviewed the Huffington Post and Worldcrunch articles. That is sufficient. BelloWello (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
While the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, that does not mean we include false statements. Hipocrite (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if Hipocrite thinks it's a valid survey or not, what matters is what reliable sources report. BelloWello (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think this poll should be included. The results are extremely vague. We could just as easily say that 70% of students say that the Knox case has little or no effect on whether people will study abroad in Italy. With the No percentage being higher than Yes (by quite a bit!), it's pushing a POV to go with the original proposal. Going to the source for HP, it says that the "little" choice would be some impact, but not determining. Hipocrite's comment about it being done by undergrads is also a red-flag. Nope, shouldn't be included. Ravensfire (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, the sources say it was done by Loyola and the Foundation. Even if it were conducted by undergrads, I don't know why undergrads can't conduct surveys like this, and we have no evidence either way of what supervision they had or didn't have. I do know that I had several articles and survey results published in logisitics, transportation and economic journals when I was an undergrad and I never received criticism based on that fact.
Raven is right that the results could be phrased in different ways, but the end results are the same.LedRush (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Those sources are objectively and provably wrong. The poll was not conducted by the University. While the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, that doesn't mean we insert false information. Also, I don't think you published alone - there was a lead author who was a grad student or professor/professional economist, right? Hipocrite (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes they were listed as a co-author, sometimes there was a footnote explaining my supervision (really, others' contributions) and sometimes I got published on my own just by sending my stuff around.LedRush (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know that the source is provably wrong. I've just seen a pdf cover sheet of the results. Is that all you're going from?LedRush (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
No, it's not. 22:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Why the poll cannot be used to say "60% of American Students" anything

The poll document is located at Read it first.

Thanks for reading it. Let's start with the sample weighting. Let's begin with the first question "What is your gender?"

  • The gender gap in college is substantial and well studied. Evidence has resulted in a 58-42 female/male ratio. This poll would be a massive outlier - arguing that merely 24% of college students were male.

"What year are you in school?"

  • While there are general variances in college admission over time, it is reasonably small. While there are a number of students who take "fifth" and further years and call themselves seniors, very few students repeat years other than the last. This would lead one to assume a year preference of F S J S O of x x x y z. The poll resulted in over two and a half times as many Sophomores as Freshman. Did colleges really shrink that much?

"Do you think that boycott campaigns against Italy, like that of Donald Trump, can have real effects on the collaboration between Italy and the United States?"

  • This is a two part question. The first is "Are you aware of boycott campaigns against Italy?" Then "Are you aware of the Trump Boycott" then "Do you think it will have any effect?" By lumping three questions into one, you can only state that individuals made aware that Trump was boycotting Italy believed it would X.

"Do you think that the controversies coming from the news about the trial of the American student Amanda Knox, whom many people think to be innocent, will some way discourage study abroad in Italy?"

  • I leave the analysis of the key question to the reader.

Further problematic items:

  • Are you aware that there is a European Parliament?
  • Are you aware that out of the many European institutions there is a European Commission?
  • Do you agree with an establishment of the G2 forum between the United States and China, both of which represent the two greatest world powers?

Hope that helps. Hipocrite (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If entered into the article, it would have to say that 60% of the American students interested in studying in Italy....that explains why more women are interested and why different classes of students are represented.LedRush (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
That's not an accurate description who took the poll. Where did you get it from? Hipocrite (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
In my link above: "Conducted by the Rome campus of Loyola University and the Italy-USA Foundation, the study "American Students' Thoughts on Italy" looked into overall attitudes of potential young visitors to Italy."LedRush (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
But that's objectively false. Further, since when did "potential young visitors" equal "interested in studying in Italy," exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
"...looked into overall attitudes of potential young visitors to Italy.", but what does that mean? It's pushing it to get interested in studying in Italy from that. Potentially, *I* could go and study abroad in Italy. I'm not, however, interested. Hence my questions below. Ravensfire (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't really know what you two are on about...I've explained why there would be a descrepency between males and females and between class representation. It's not a conspiracy or some I don't see what parsing my word choice accomplishes when I am not suggesting a specific edit to the article (and I think the word choice is fine, btw..."A sampling of 800 American students were asked if the Knox case would affect their decision of whether to study in Italy".)LedRush (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Addressing the first few concerns:

The gender gap in college is substantial and well studied. Evidence has resulted in a 58-42 female/male ratio. This poll would be a massive outlier - arguing that merely 24% of college students were male."

Are we sure that this isn't the makeup of previous participants for study abroad in Italy?

While there are general variances in college admission over time, it is reasonably small. While there are a number of students who take "fifth" and further years and call themselves seniors, very few students repeat years other than the last. This would lead one to assume a year preference of F S J S O of x x x y z. The poll resulted in over two and a half times as many Sophomores as Freshman. Did colleges really shrink that much?

Or maybe this is because after the Sophomore year is the most popular time to study abroad? That has been my personal experience as a student currently considering studying abroad.
Again, let's not get into an argument regarding the poll. That's what reliable sources are for. BelloWello (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
So you agree that the poll cannot be generalized into "60% of American Students," as you have now assumed that it polled only people who expressed a desire to study abroad in Italy? A "yes" or "no" answer will suffice. Hipocrite (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
We should say what reliable sources say, in this case, I think it should say something along the lines that "A study conducted concluded that a 60%..." etc. I'll leave the exact wording to someone else. BelloWello (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
So, to summarize, it is your opinion that our article should include information known to be false if a purportedly reliable source said that information was true? Hipocrite (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I decline to give any credence to wikipedia editors second guessing reliable sources, yes. Unless there is question about the content (like, another reliable source debunking it), I think it shoudl be assumed to be correct, despite any misgivings that may be present. BelloWello (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
To add a few more concerns, good studies will also mention some details about who they surveyed - what criteria did they use? How were they chosen? I can only see that 800 students were surveyed. Loyola only? Chicago schools only? Schools that send students abroad to Italy only? All colleges? Ravensfire (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • As I said above, it doesn't matter if wikipedia editors thinks it's a valid survey or not, what matters is that reliable sources reported it. If you guys are qualified to critique surveys, then you should publish your concerns in a WP:RS and then come back here (although then you would have a COI). We should include it, and if there is criticism of it in reliable sources, include mention of that too. BelloWello (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
We also don't blindy put everything in, editors are supposed to use some discretion! This is a bad survey. Period. Curious, would you object to adding 70% of prospective students say the case is not a determining factor in their decision? That too is supported. (And yes, I would also object to adding that statement). Ravensfire (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't see that as being a prohibitive factor. We just play with the language to ensure that people understand that only 13% said it was a big factor and 47% said it was a little (or whatever it is). I'm not super-invested in getting this in, BTW. While some of the criticisms are valid, some seem misplaced.LedRush (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Was that reported on by reliable sources as well? I didn't see it, but maybe it was there in the two articles that I reviewed and simply glanced over that mention (which would imply it wasn't emphasized...). BelloWello (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • If an addition to the article is sought, the phrasing will need to be precise. It will have to reproduce the text of the question and offer a full breakdown of the responses. Inserting a statement of either ~60% (at least mildly) affirmative or ~70 (at most mildly) affirmative would have the potential to be misleading. Greater precision would be of benefit to readers - this would extend to the need to cite the fact that only 800 people in total were polled. SuperMarioMan 22:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I see no statistical credibility to this poll, nor any real relevance to an article that is about the "murder of Meredith Kercher", if anyone needs a reminder. The scope of the article is about the case and the participants, not peripheral nonsense such as this. Tarc (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Where where these young people found. Other than not having been to Italy there is no clue. How did the students in Rome select students in America?
  • Ask more females: more likely to empathise with a female in prison.
  • Previous question is about the boycott. Putting avoiding Italy in the respondent's mind. Oldest trick in the book for surveys. [ps Trump hotels still sell Italian wines, eg Pinot Grigio from Friuli region in Italy!]
  • Question says "who many think is innocent". Adding fear of Italian justice.
  • Question says "in some way discourage study". Some people have said that they will never go to Italy because of this. So everyone who is aware that someone else has said that they would avoid Italy should answer Yes. Others have said it will affect them so the answer should be 100% Yes. The question does not ask whether it will have any effect on them personally. Kwenchin (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The phrasing of some of the questions - the one regarding Knox in particular - would not appear to be neutral. Inclusion of the clause "who many think is innocent" could quite easily have led some of those polled to answer in the affirmative, when under different circumstances they may have been inclined to opt for something else. I am doubtful that the proposed addition has much to offer; if it must go in, there should be a full citation of the original question. SuperMarioMan 15:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Is this just your personal speculation/original research or are there reliable sources who say the same thing? Because, frankly, I don't give a crap what other editors think of a study, but if they can bring a reliable source to back up their claims, at that point it means something. BelloWello (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary, it is the interpretation of quite a few others here, as earlier comments will indicate. Also, the onus is on those in favour of the addition of this data to disprove the concerns raised and prove that the addition would be worthwhile. Since I am in opposition to inclusion, there is no burden of evidence on me. SuperMarioMan 01:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Opinion polls are problematic at the best of times as they are very susceptible to bias, based on the way the poll is worded and the sample selected to take part. I agree with the several editors who have stated that this poll should not be included in this article for these reasons. If the poll attracted major and serious coverage by reliable sources I might change my mind. At the moment it is just a poll. I could do one myself and publish it, and the results from my poll wouldn't be notable for inclusion here either. --John (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The difference being that the poll being discussed was published by reliable sources. Your poll would lack that credibility. Why is it that 2 reliable sources are good for some edits but others require "major and serious coverage?" BruceFisher (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I would agree with those editors who think that the poll should not be included, for the reason that the poll is not of a random sample, is not objective in its wording, and therefore does not produce a result worth quoting. Quywompka (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Closer summary of survey:- "After being told the Knox Case has caused some people to boycott going to Italy, 60% of American Students say that Knox Case Would Have Some Impact on some people's Choice to Study in Italy." Kwenchin (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for advice and tiny bit of help

What I'm hoping to do, off and on, over the next week, is go through the article looking for statements that are soured poorly... either unsourced or sourced to a tabloid... and improve the sourcing. I think the best way to do that will be to attempt to dual-source the statements to both Candace Dempsey's Murder in Italy and Barbie Latza Nadeau's Angel Face. It seems safe to say that both of these books are WP:RS, as they are published by traditional publishers and are both used extensively already in the article. As an additional plus, they are diametrically opposed conclusions, which means that if they both agree on something, it's pretty solid unless there is new information which has come out post-publication.

Here's my problem: I only have the kindle versions, and kindle books don't all have page numbers. In this particular case, Angel Face has page numbers, while Murder in Italy does not. This is a bit of a hindrance to me, because I don't think citing "locations" from Kindle is appropriate for a general audience.

What should I do? Here's what I am thinking: I can propose edits here, and someone with access to page numbers can fill them in for me, and then I can make the edits to the article. Alternately, if someone is willing to work with me offline, who has a copy of Murder in Italy, we can test several locations in the book to figure out if there is a simple formula that maps one to the other.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo, I can help off-line. Just tell me what to do. Issymo (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
If you can roughly tell where the information can be found in the book, preferred with a quote I (and I'm sure many others) can search for the page number. I Bought both books recently but haven't read them.TMCk (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Moving images back to fair-use

I am thinking we should return, soon, to using the fair-use approach to the police images, at least while the deletion-discussion on Wikimedia Commons is in progress. When all 4 of those images get yanked out of the article, then the escalated, extensive WP:DISRUPTION will likely spiral into losing the captions, forgetting which sections had images, and removing large (vast?) amounts of text related to those images. Such extreme gutting of the article has been done before, but not with such extreme timing, planned to coincide with massive reader interest during the Knox/Sollecito appeals trial. Fortunately, when assuming good faith, I have learned to expect the absolute worst, so we are ready to stomp out these latest problems, and massively expand the article with more images, diagrams, charts, tables, and lists. Because of the fear of image-deletion disputes, I had wanted to be conservative to the original concept diagram of the upstairs flat, so I think people are beginning to understand why I was upset at all non-consensus deletions, and removal of an image which had remained for over a year. -Wikid77 10:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That's, as usual, an interesting take on events. Not quite sure what all of it pertains to, although I do recall you becoming upset over the removal of a photograph of a pair of spectacles.
The new diagram is a vast improvement on the old, squashed version. The only approach to the police images that is appropriate here in this article is surely dictated by copyright law, licensing, and Wikimedia policy and not something to decide on an article-by-article basis. pablo 11:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Why only a picture of one of the murderers? This is not NPOV. There should be a photo of each of the murderers or none at all. Only a photo of Guede puts the bias on him, there should be photos of the others as well. Kwenchin (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
If you can find images that are usable in accordance with WP's licensing restrictions, by all means add them. pablo 13:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I've asked a few times about the PD tags on those images. But no one ever came up with a definitive answer. Now it looks like, from Commons, that they are not public domain. I think that fair use might be fine for some of the images, so we should locally upload and switch the licenses as required. Some may need to be removed if they do not go with sufficient critical commentary (or we end up with too many fair use images) per policy --Errant (chat!) 13:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
That's probably the best approach. Image licensing is an absolute pain at times, especially when pulling in images from another country. This isn't a forum or blog - we've got to do it right. Ravensfire (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I concur. I read that whole Italian copyright piece and tried researching across the language barrier (for me) on the matter. I notice that the official Italian police site issues everything under a Creative Commons 2.5 license (bottom of page) which is more in line with what I'm used to in the US, namely works of the federal government are in the public domain. (Sidenote: there were several issues of a police comic book which I can't find now released under CC-2.5).
A few questions.
1. How many is too many when it comes to Fair-use images in an article?
2. Since there doesn't appear to be any restriction on using high-res images in fair-use under Italian law, could we continue to use high-res if uploaded here as fair use?
3. After answering #1, which images would we want to use bearing in mind that future fair-use images would seemingly bump out existing ones?
4. Should we add photos of Sollecito & Knox under fair use? (try to get them both in one for image count sake)
5. Is it correct to say that all of these images will be in public domain circa 2027 under Italian copyright law?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I have re-created the room image, in the original fair-use image file, to avoid deletion. I consider those images (~500kb) as still low-resolution, because they are not the typical "megapixels" images which most digital cameras have produced in recent years. I have tried to get fair-use images of Knox/Sollecito, but never found any police photos (Guede's mugshots are available from his prior arrests, such as 27 October 2007 in Milan). Attempts to use any photos from Reuters, or Associated Press or Italian ANSA, have been swiftly deleted, and the advice was to use non-commercial images, such as created by a government agency (police). The 3 room images are, by necessity, 3 separate photos due to physical layering: the room scene shows the duvet, but the pillow scene shows the bed pillow which was covered by the duvet, and the bra clasp was covered by the pillow: 3 images for 3 items eclipsed by others in prior photos. Hence, all the photos can be justified as fair-use, and there are no "decorative" or excessive images. However, we should re-create the extensive section titled "Detailed forensic evidence" to provide enough commentary about each photo, to overcome any potential claims of not enough commentary about the photos in the article: one short sentence about each photo is typically considered too little (I have seen numerous fair-use images deleted when only 1 sentence describes each), so prepare to have a paragraph about each photo. The reality is clear: Wikipedia is not organized to have tiny articles with multiple fair-use photos, so that is why these images foster large articles, and all the details are not WP:UNDUE but rather part of addressing copyright concerns and providing enough text to balance for WP:NPOV-neutral text. -Wikid77 17:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Not really, the main issue is creating a free resource, so sticking to free images as much as possible is part of the core mission --Errant (chat!) 17:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I can't see why fair use can't be used to include images in the article under WP:NFCC. For example, I think these MySpace images may qualify: [56] [57] [58].
I think a lot of thought is needed before deciding that crime scene images are okay as fair use, though. Unless they significantly add to the readers understanding then are they not just gratuitous? For example, the article already tells us that a bra-clasp was found on the floor. Do we really need a picture to show what this would look like? Plus, there's a big issue about NPOV. Why a picture of Guede's print on a pillow but not, for example, Sollecito's print on a bathmat, which is also out there? There's also the question of a current Italian courtcase regarding the illegal leaking of crimescene images. I don't *think* the images we are talking about are anything to do with that, but it is something to be kept in mind. --FormerIP (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
We have been talking about adding more photos for each significant aspect of the murder investigation, such as a photo of the sky-blue bath mat in the small bathroom. -Wikid77 16:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
There should be one face of each (in the "People charged with the murder" section). The photos mentioned above would be suitable, trimmed to show just the faces. The current situation of showing two pictures, also being mug shots, of just one of them violates NPOV. Kwenchin (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Are you implying that to maintain NPOV, the article should censor Guede's mugshots and omit testimony that Guede was booked by the Milan police (with the stolen knife, PC, accessories and mobile phone) on 27 October 2007, just 5 days before the murder, and re-appeared at the burgled Perugian law office on 29 October 2007, to say "he didn't do it"? -Wikid77 10:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Isn't it simpler than that? I understood Kwenchin to mean that, as three people have been tried and convicted of the murder, there should be pictures of all of them rather than just one. Unless I've missed something, he didn't say anything about any crimes in Milan, you appear to have pulled that out of thin air. pablo 10:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
There are problems with using fair use images of living people. We consistently and exclusively assume that a living person, unless exceptional circumstances imply otherwise, a free image can be obtained at some point. So, no, a fair use rationale does not really exist for the myspace pics. r.e. the mugshot; we generally avoid mugshots for living persons, in this case I think it isn't too bad. But if we could be hunting down a better one... --Errant (chat!) 07:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
There are three people convicted of the murder so to have pictures of just one of them violates NPOV. There should be pictures of all 3 or none. Although Knox and Sollecito are living people they are currently incarcerated for 26 years so they cannot be photographed easily, this means it would be OK to use the myspace pictures. Kwenchin (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, no it doesn't. The exact same scenario has been discussed many times before and agreement is that being jailed is not enough for an exception, which are very few and far between. The margin is not "can be photographed easily" :) --Errant (chat!) 20:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree that presenting Guede's picture alone could raise questions pertaining to NPOV, but the real problem, as Errant notes, is one of fulfilling the fair-use criteria. Although images of the crime scene add to the reader's understanding of the topic, mugshots are generally of less value - an image that merely shows what someone looks like is relatively inessential, as far as reader comprehension is concerned. SuperMarioMan 20:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Errant: Actually, although I'd agree that this is something that can be argued both ways, being jailed can be enough for an exception, as in the case of Jared Lee Loughner. What I'd note is that the mugshot of Guede almost certainly isn't an official police release (if it was, where are the similar photos of the other defendants?), so the case is even weaker than for the MySpace photos. I think there's also a burden to be met in showing that the crime scene images are official releases. --FormerIP (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
The reason why we have Guede's mugshot is because the police did release the photo when he was a fugitive ref from Newsweek (it went through Interpol, for one). The reason we don't have the mugshots of Knox or Sollecito is because they were never fugitives and the police haven't released them...exactly. This is really about availability...if we had their mugshots, we would use them. Their is no NPOV issues here as some seem to perceive...Guede has exhausted his appeals and may be called guilty whereas the Knox/Sollecito appeals are still in flux (only time will tell). If they are found guilty after all appeals, it still wouldn't mean that we are trying to slant towards guilt by having one mugshot...just that is all we could get. It is my understanding that there was a mug shot of Amanda Knox but it was removed after an MP wanted it removed 1. I'm not sure about that, though.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
The story says he wanted it removed from a wall in the police station for some reason. Not good evidence in support of the idea that Italian mugshots are fair game.
You reasoning is speculative. Distributing a photo through Interpol for the purposes of apprehending someone is not the same as releasing it to the press for publication. What I'm saying is that it makes for a weak NFC case if the image has never officially been made available. --FormerIP (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I linked to a Newsweek ref that says "Mug shots of Rudy Hermann Guede distributed by Italian State". CBS also identifies it as coming through Associated Press and the Italian it was released.

My linking about Knox's mug shot has nothing to do with presenting evidence for an NFC case...only to possibly explain its apparent removal from online sources. If you read the articles, you'd see that Knox's mug shot had made it to YouTube (I haven't seen it anywhere)..."These YouTube photos (of the mug shot) have ended up on U.S. screens, fueling accusations against our country that we singled out an American citizen among the three Perugia defendants," said Girlanda, who heads an Italian-American friendship association."
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: The fair use version of one of the crime scene photos is being nominated for deletion at NFCR here.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Today, I have refuted the reasons for deletion of the bed-pillow image, at that NFCR entry. -Wikid77 21:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you make out a journalist's blog to be Newsweek or "distributed by Italian police" to be "released for publication". --FormerIP (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
"Sunday, November 25, 2007...In the current issue of Newsweek we take a look at the killing of British student Meredith Kercher..." written by Christopher Dickey. "Award-winning author Christopher Dickey is the Paris Bureau Chief and Middle East Regional Editor for Newsweek Magazine."
Also CBS states it was AP/Italian police.
That is good enough. I don't need to prove it to you further. The onus is now on you to find a reliable source that states it wasn't released. Otherwise, this is your speculation.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I haven't got any onus until someone gives an NFC rationale. I don't see how it could be a strong one, though. --FormerIP (talk) 00:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
FormerIP; regarding Loughner, that exactly proves my point :) The non-free mugshot was deleted (after a lengthy battle with certain elements) and shortly afterwards a free image was found. Another example was Bradley Manning, non-free images were removed from that article by consensus and policy - even though he was arguably one of the most inaccessible prisoners in the US :) and we fairly quickly got a properly released free image. So, no, being Jailed is not a an accepted exception. Another example, Mina is a recluse and despises being photographed - non-free image use was rejected even then, and attempts were made to get a released photo from her direct. Eventually it seems someone was able to find an image that was PD in Italy and use that. The point being; with time this issue will resolve itself. --Errant (chat!) 09:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, well I'll admit that the Laughner example, as it eventually turned out, tends to support that view. But OTOH it also shows that a decision to keep a non-free image in this type of case is possible.
In any event, so long as the eventual outcome is neutral so that we are not using images to draw attention to any particular defendant, I don't mind. Pictures are not exactly hard to fin by other means, after all. --FormerIP (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Tonight I managed (I think/hope) to get some really nice, but copyrighted, photo's from the 1980's Brixton riots released to put into the article :) So it can be done! It might be worth trying to prompt the Italian police and try to get a proper release for WP. Or contact the families (might be touchy). Incidentally you have me somewhat convinced on the NPOV issue, probably would support putting Guede's image to one side temporarily while we locate the others. --Errant (chat!) 20:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
You may have missed that Guede's picture needs a free use rationale as much as any other. He's our Loughner. --FormerIP (talk) 01:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Massei Report, pg. 37
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference newsweek was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "Meredith whispered killer's name, suspect says", Malcolm Moore, The Telegraph, 24 November 2007, web: Tel481.