This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
- Also see: Talk:Trial of Knox and Sollecito
Judy Bachrach and the Larry King Live show
I am new to the Wikipedia talk page, I hope I can do this appropriately. As a preliminary disclaimer, I am a dual Italian-American citizen.
I find the "Italian justice system" section of the article objectionable.
It seems strange to me that the opinions expressed by one ecclesiastic judge on the roots and principles of the Italian justice, as recounted by one reporter in the context of a highly opinionated Vanity Fair piece, have a place in this Enclyclopedia.
I watched the cited LKL show, and was appalled by Bachrach's description of the case, much more based on mostly derogatory anthropological observations on Italy and Italians in general than on the specific matter at hand.
It seems to me that this section is solely based upon highly biased, personal opinions that do little to provide a framework for understanding the case and its wider context.
Is this note the proper way to propose that this section be eliminated unless profoundly revised? I do not think that citing the lack of alternate opinions is sufficient justification to include in the article an undocumented fringe view of a matter as complex as a country's legal system.
Thank you, Giuseppe Bertini —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giuseb (talk • contribs) 10:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ciao, Giuseppe. I agree, the section merely reports tittle-tattle. - By the way, you can sign your name by adding four tildes. Rothorpe (talk) 15:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- The section is actually factual, but I wonder why on earth this much room is given to two appearances of a single journalist... Averell (talk) 10:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree wholeheartedly, I will tag the section for bias. --Karl franz josef (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The "Inquisition" slur is repeated twice. This is biased and NOT factual. US Dept of Justice: "The Italian judicial system, based on Roman law and modified by the Napoleonic Code..." http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=106708 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.254.144 (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- For info, Italy (like France and others) operates the Inquisitorial system (as opposed to the adversarial system used in the USA. It is not better or worse, just different. Think of it like the US District Attorney), so the initial investigation is managed by an examining magistrate, called a judge. In major trials such as this one, the case is taken by a more senior judge and the trial is quite adversarial. Mapping this to the Inquisition is just pathetic. In my opinion, the section should be removed as the commentator fails the notability test - she clearly doesn't understand what she is talking about or doesn't understand what she has been told. Or she is being deliberately disingenuous. --Red King (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Technically, this is not entirely accurate. In 1930, the Fascist Government enacted a Criminal Procedure Code, which opted for the inquisitorial system. This Code was not abrogated until 1988, when a new Criminal Procedure Code was promulgated. Under this Code, Italian criminal procedure is no longer an inquisitorial system; but it is not an adversarial one, either. Rather it is somewhat in-between. For instance, the examining magistrate is no longer a Judge, as it was under the 1930 Code (the Judge who oversaw the investigations was called Giudice Istruttore). It is nonetheless a Magistrate (called Pubblico Ministero, which roughly translates as "someone endowed with a public function"). There's a Judge, during the preliminary investigations, who is called Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari (Judge for the Preliminary Investigations), who only seldom intervenes: he is the one who authorises the Pubblico Ministero to order the defendant to be incarcerated during the investigations, to prevent him or her from fleeing, from destroying or creating false evidence or from committing another crime, if there's the fumus commissi delicti (that means if there is convincing evidence - here, the decision may also be based on circumstantial evidence, if it is serious, precise and concordant - may that the defendant committed the felony). In Italy, there's no bail. So, a defendant who's been incarcerated can only appeal against the order of the GIP (the Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari) before the Tribunale della Libertà (literally, Court of Liberty). This Court can confirm, modify or quash the Judge's warrant. Its decision can be appealed against before the Corte di Cassazione (Cassation Court). The TL (Tribunale della Libertà) actually reviews all the evidence and must render its decision within fifteen days of the appeal. The Corte di Cassazione, on the contrary, can only be asked to evaluate if there has been any errores in procedendo or in judicando (the Court of Cassation cannot rule on merits). The GIP can also authorise the Pubblico Ministero to order that the defendant be wiretapped. Apart from these authorisations, the preliminary investigations are carried out by the Pubblico Ministero, who must not only look for evidence that may lead to a conviction, but also he must look for evidence that may prove the defendant's innocence.
It is important to note that any ordinanza - ordinance - must contain the legal reasoning that led the Judge to pass it.
That said, it must also be noted, though, that the defendant is allowed to investigate on his own, in order to prove his innocence. Furthermore, in the event that an autopsy should be carried out, the defendant must be allowed to appoint an expert, who will assist and, basically, keep an eye on the expert appointed by the Pubblico Ministero. More in general, whenever the Pubblico Ministero appoints an expert, because he needs an examination, the defendant must be allowed to appoint an expert too, or the said examination will not be considered admissible in court. When the preliminary investigations are through, the Pubblico Ministero must present all the pieces of evidence he gathered to the Giudice dell'Udienza Preliminare (Judge of the Preliminary Hearing). During this hearing - the Udienza Preliminare -, the defendant can make his case, he can prove his innocence. If the Judge is convinced that he's innocent - or that there's no enough evidence to justify a conviction by the Giudice del Dibattimento (Judge of the Trial) -, he sort of acquits the defendant. He passes a sentence of non doversi procedere (it is not opportune to proceed). If, on the contrary, he thinks that the evidence gathered so far is enough to justify a conviction, he delivers a decreto - which would translate as decree, but here it means a kind of ordinance - of rinvio al giudizio - which means that the defendant is, basically, sent before the Judge, to stand trial -. This decreto does not indicate in any way the legal reasoning the led the Judge to deliver it.
All the evidence gathered so far cannot be admitted during the trial; only the evidence that cannot be renewed, such as an autopsy or a search and seizure, can be. All the other pieces of evidence must be rinnovate - renewed -. This means, for instance, that all the witness must be examined again, before the Judge, and the defendant must have the opportunity to cross-examine them. The experts must be heard again and so on. The defendant, also, has the right to summons witnesses and, in general, to prove his innocence, in any way he sees fit.
If the Giudice del Dibattimento - Judge of the Trial - is convinced beyond any reasonable doubts he's guilty, the Judge must convict him; if not, the Judge must acquit. The Judge must also explain the reasons that led him to convict or acquit.
Both the defendant and the Pubblico Ministero, then, can appeal against the sentence before the Corte d'Appello (Court of Appeals), that will retry the defendant. The judgement passed by the Court of Appeals can be appealed against before the Court of Cassation, that cannot rule on merits. It is important to stress that both the Court of Appeals and the Court of Cassation must examine and rule on every appeal. They can confirm, modify or quash the sentence.
It is important to note that Italy does not try anybody by jury. Everyone is judged by professional Judges or by a panel of Judges (three or five). The only exception to this is the Corte d'Assise, that is made up of eight Judges, two of them are professional, six are lay (they are called Giudici Popolari, popular Judges and must wear a sash in the national colours). They are not technically jurors. In Italian, Giudice (Judge) refers both to the eight of them together as a collective body and to each of them considered separately as a member of that body.
Since they are not Jurors, but are Judges, they cannot be excused, unless there are grounds that would justify an objection to a Judge.
They are not sequestered because a Trial lasts too long... Amanda's trial was particular speedy (only one year); there are some defendants that are still before the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing after three years of the felony they committed. To keep a citizen - who continues to work, while serving as a Popular Judge - sequestered for a year or more is, quite frankly, unfeasible.
Sorry for being this verbose. I hope I clarified some of your doubts. 151.48.165.93 (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Not at all, this is great stuff! It would be really valuable if you would get a sign-on [which can be as anonymous as you like) and then use it to update the Examining magistrate article (which is really rather thin and mainly based on the system in France) - certainly you could copy and paste the text above into it. If your supporting citations are in Italian, that doesn't really matter. I urge to do so. --Red King (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
This is an excellent piece of work, very informative and well structured. I would recommend placing your explanation into a new article about Italian Criminal Law or other (better!)title. There is a sad lack of such information on Wikipedia at the moment. It would only take a small amount of editing to make it more general and include citations. With the interest that the Kercher murder trials have engendered such an article would be welcome and timely. I totally agree with Red King's remarks. rturus (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Look, I'd be glad to try and write an article about Italian judicial system, but there are few problems: first of all, as you might have inferred, I am Italian, so I know very little legal English and I'm afraid I might translate something wrong; and second, that, sincerely, I do not deem what I wrote earlier to be very encyclopaedic. I was trying to write sort of a narration, that could explain how come a defendant gets convicted in Italy... If you take a look at the article, when it is finished, to make sure I did not write anything nonsensical. 151.48.177.135 (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Your contribution would be greatly appreciated and of course we will be happy to assist you with "polishing" the article. Please create an account at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&type=signup so that you can have a) a unique username and b) wider editing rights. If you post a message here when you have posted your article, we can then help you complete it. Thanks, grazie e ciao! rturus (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Here you are: Italian_Criminal_Procedure; it is yours to do with as you wish. ;)
- It is not finished, though, because I still have to deal with "special proceedings", such as the fast-track trial. But it is a beginning... Salvio giuliano (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well done, a really good first article. We can discuss "polishing it up" on it's own talk page. Thanks Salvio. rturus (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Infoboxes
Seeing as the suspects have their own infoboxes, surely Meredith Kercher should have one as well. After all, she is the victim, and as such merits an infobox.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Funny that, I added one nearly two years ago and it was removed by an editor that said we don't do that thing! Swings and roundabouts on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.68.26 (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the victim should have an infobox as each of the two suspects and the convict do. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Judicial analysis of the Rudy Guede conviction
Please forgive my inexperience with wikidom,which I so greatly respect.
I wish to provide a reference to a document written by Judge Paolo Micheli, who presided over the fast track trial of Rudy Guede. It is my understanding that it is a requirement of Italian law for a judge to provide within ninety days of delivering a verdict a written explanation of his reasoning in arriving at his decision. This type of document may be called a "motivazione" or "motivi della decisione" and is found at http://www.penale.it/page.asp?mode=1&IDPag=750. As the hard evidence of the murder of Meredith is disputed and source material for the evidence for the most part difficult to establish, it would seem valuable to include this resource. Dottore Micheli's detailed analysis is, of course, in Italian. I counted 71 "Page Dn" clicks to reach the end. I have read the google translation in "botEnglish" in its entirety and found it to be very helpful in detailing and analysing the facts of the case. In the trial of Amanda Knox and Rafaele Sollicito I see a large cultural bias expressed generally by the American media; I have been following this case from its inception in various Italian newspapers (not without their own bias).
I ask that you consider including this document reference as essential to the subject: the murder of Meredith Kercher... (and may she rest in peace) —George langur (talk • contribs) 16:39, 2 December 2009
Is there any way to get a link to this in English? This document is very important and should be incuded in this article for English readers as well. Thank you. PilgrimRose (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Using Google Translate, the botEnglish recap of Guede's trial is: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://www.penale.it/page.asp%3Fmode%3D1%26IDPag%3D750&ei=WQ4eS_DSOYO4NZjA9asK&sa=X&oi=translate .
That trial-recap is very detailed, but difficult to read because of bot-botched translation and 1-letter name abbreviations: sometimes Meredith is "M." but others as "K." (for "Kercher"); Amanda Knox is often "K." (K.A.M.); Guede is "G." (G.R.H.) but, of course, being a full evidence report, many other neighbor's initials are also mentioned. The detail of the house is extensive, as a 2-story, with several bathrooms (at least 2 on 2nd floor). Some of the details to consider for article: the entire 2nd floor was searched; friends said Meredith never left her UK mobile phone (needed to discuss illness of her mother); broken window was in another room but laptop/jewelry not taken (only phones/cash from Meredith); downstairs neighbors said Guede rarely "pulled the chain" on toilet (rather than claim he forgot to flush when he heard M. screaming); horror of blood "dripping everywhere" in bedroom/bath, with much evidence of cleanup/shifting attributed to others (not G.); clothing removed post-mortem due to blood-spatter patterns on skin/fabrics; partial blood prints in outside hallway; many discussions with neighbors; etc. I think that webpage could be a major source of details for the article, or perhaps better used in "Trial of Knox and Sollecito". -Wikid77 (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Surely this should be a major source for the section on the trial of Guede, rather than Knox and Sollecito! It would be very helpful if someone with a better grasp of Italian than me (or Google) could summarise some of the main points. The conclusion of the judge seems to be that Guede could not have acted alone, but I can't really understand the details that led to that conclusion. Also, there is quite a bit of discussion about the alleged murder weapon and whether it could have inflicted the wounds on Kercher (I know this issue was revisited in the second trial). Bluewave (talk) 11:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- On second thoughts, there seems to be good English summary at http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/understanding_micheli_2_why_judge_micheli_rejected_the_lone_wolf_theory/...unless anyone thinks there are problems with this version. Bluewave (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Italian justice system section is all POV - request delete!
This is completely and utterly reprehensible. And is arguably contempt of court in any jurisdiction in the world. It has two two sources: Judy Bachrach and John Q. Kelly. So the criticism is singular and from a reporter (not a legal expert) and a lawyer not connected with the case.
It's egregious and cynical and has just one purpose to smear the Italian Judiciary. Likewise just because this section is referenced from two named sources does not make it correct in assumptions. It's Fringe theory and based on complete lies. Yet the lies are given undue providence and the "real" facts are tagged onto the end.
Just reading it makes my toes curl.
The Italian justice system has been criticized by American reporter Judy Bachrach. Bachrach quoted an Italian ecclesiastical judge, who is not employed in the Italian legal system, in an article about Knox for Vanity Fair magazine. The ecclesiastical judge claimed that the Italian justice system “stems from the Inquisition and also from medieval law. [It] is based on the supremacy of the prosecution. This nullifies the fact – written in our constitution – that you’re innocent until proven guilty.” [1] Bachrach did not seek out an alternate opinion.
On October 18, 2009, Bachrach appeared on a broadcast of CNN's Larry King Live which featured Knox's parents. Bachrach claimed that in Italy “the ordinary person is considered guilty until proven innocent. Italy's laws are direct descendants of the Inquisition.” [2] On that same King show, John Q. Kelly – a prosecuting attorney in the civil trial against OJ Simpson[3] – commented on the Italian Justice system in relation to its treatment of Knox and Sollecito. He said that “it's probably the most egregious, international railroading of two innocent young people that I have ever seen.” (Kelly does not represent anyone involved in the Kercher trial.) King did not feature any experts in Italian justice on the show to provide a counterbalance to Bachrach or Kelly.
The Italian judiciary system is derived from Roman law and Napoleonic code. The Constitution of Italy, article 27, reads "The defendant is not considered guilty until final judgement is passed"; in article 111, that "Guilt shall not be established on the basis of statements made by anyone who has freely chosen not to submit to questioning by the defendant or the defendant’s Counsel ad litem".
It is also a fact that Italy has a very complex legal system with three levels of courts: First Grade Court, Appellate Court and the Supreme Court, the "Corte di Cassazione". A defendant can appeal to all levels of courts including the Supreme Court in most cases. In comparison, the legal system in many other countries (e.g. USA) features much stronger filters between the appeal trial and the Supreme Court.
Furthermore, it shows what happens when you have amateurs doing this stuff, when you include quotes like this “it's probably the most egregious, international railroading of two innocent young people that I have ever seen.” How can the source say that, are they trying the case, NO! It's for the court and the jury to decide. Kelly is also implying impropriety, collusion and dishonesty on the part of the Italian Judiciary. The case is still active and that's contempt of court.
This whole section should be deleted forthwith, as it's arguably WP:FRINGE (only two cited proponents), dubious (the quotes are based on personal conclusions - and not established facts) and it's entirely NPOV.
It's ironic WP has strict rules on Living Person biographies regarding libellous material but nothing concerning contempt of court actions while legal trials are still being held!!!
I therefore recommend for these reasons stated that this section should be deleted forewith.
[Besides if you want hypocrisy; before you start to smear a country's legal profession, is it not better to start with one's own first? Maurice Clemmons, the man who is alleged to have killed those police officers in Washington state was released by the US legal system after only serving a few years of a 35 years sentence. To me that suggests the U.S. judicial system has serious issues of its own]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.68.26 (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- clearly not neutral --Frukko (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Again: I'm all in favor of cutting that section down as it's not utterly relevant. However, it deserves at least a fleeting mention, since it seems to have been in mainstream media and has potentially reached millions of people. Also, it is not required in Wikipedia that each section is "neutral", NPOV means only that the whole article presents all (relevant) points of view equally without giving preference to one. It is also not required that a source is neutral or (in this case) qualified. That said, I'll chop a good part out of this now. Averell (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I am tagging the section for bias.--Karl franz josef (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Not enough, it should be deleted as either pathetic or disingenuous. See above. --Red King (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
For American readers, I think a level-headed discussion of the differences between the two legal systems relative to their handling of the case would be helpful. Different legal systems have different standards of evidence and procedural rules. For example, Americans may benefit from an explanation of why the jury was not sequestered in spite of the charged media atmosphere, while in the US, we would be very careful to make sure that the jury reaches its decision based only on the evidence presented at trial. Also, public criticism of the handling of a trial is legitimate discussion. See the WP articles on the OJ trial, the trial of Sacco and Venzetti, the Rosenburgs, etc. etc. Italian courts are not exempt from this.208.73.29.10 (talk) 03:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- There is now a detailed article at Italian Criminal Procedure which should answer these concerns. --Red King (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Article clearly biased in favor of defendants
One of Wikipedia's guidelines for articles is the neutrality of the author. This article clearly favors the defendants and, in particular, Amanda Knox. If someone wants to write on this subject, fantastic. But please revise to reflect more of the prosecution's evidence that supports its case. For example, there was a knife found at Sollecito's apartment with both Knox and Kercher's DNA. Also, Knox has changed her story so many times, it would be impossible for anyone on the jury to believe anything she says. I don't know if Knox and Sollecito are guilty or innocent. But the author(s) of this article seem to. They are not journalists and this contribution has serious flaws. -SeriousFred (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I have been supporting wikipedia financially but I won't do so in the future. They should finally hire some professional editors. Every other article of a defendant in a serious crime while on trial gets a hideous pr whitewash in favour of the defendant. This is a joke and it has to stop. People running wikipedia now for better or worse have a very responsible position, the have to respect that. To all the editors here: Congratulate yourself for whitewashing another article. Also the attacks on the italian judicial system are ludicrous. Who the heck do you think you are criticising a nation's penal system, a nation that is far more historical than the old U.S. of A. and arguably more cultured to. As soon as a U.S. person is standing trial abroad a huge pr machine goes in place, which is all good and well by some, but that doesn't have a place in what is claimed to be a world encyclopaedia. The accused here should actually be thanking her lucky stars because if she had been found guilty in most states of the United States she would have got the death penalty. 21:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.58.44 (talk)
This article would certainly benefit from the attention of a professional writer. It will attract many readers and editors who are severely biased. For over two years, the British media has had a strong tendency to assume Guede, Knox and Sollecito guilty and the US media to assume that Knox is innocent. That, along with many people's bias for their own countrypeople, makes many of those interested in this case have strong views / biases about it. We need to present a fuller case so that the reader can gain a better idea of what actually happened. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Media portrayal - Independent quote
The quote from the Independent is excessively long. In general we summarise not quote. More importantly a quote of this length seems likely to breach copyright. I am inclined to replace the quote with a short summary but would welcome views, first. TerriersFan (talk) 14:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Bold edit to the Media section
I did a bold edit to the craptacular "Media Portrayal" section. I was full of unnecessary details, newspaper quotes that were beyond any sane definition of fair use (yes, that makes it a copyright violation) and opinions of all people who might have one on that case. Just because one gazillion articles were in the newspapers, that doesn't mean we have to mention them all. The trick is to highlight the main lines of the debate without getting bogged down. I hope that the tone is also more neutral now and that it helps to take care of the POV accusations. Averell (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Who is Judy Bachrach?
Last time I checked she wrote for Vanity Fair which is not akin to the Harvard Law Review. I don't think she is credible to pass judgement on the Italian Justice System, no more than an Italian judge is credible to quote on fashion. The fact that this article has been reduced to vanity fair reports comparing the inquisition to the italian justice system is another sign of what a sad place wikipedia is turning it. Again, congratulate yourself editors that this article read like a gossip column by the american defendants pr machine. Brilliant work. 149.254.58.44 (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Vanity Fair is a reputable magazine that routinely covers politics and culture as well as fashion and entertainment.--Gotophilk (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter that Vanity Fair is a reputable magazine. The section under discussion is biased due to the inclusion of Bachrach's opinion. If no opposing opinions are included, we are not following the accepted tenets of neutrality. Simply saying that no other sources can be found (which they can be) is not acceptable for an article of such current moment. The consequences of not appropriately addressing this problem will be the removal of said section. --Karl franz josef (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- It does matter that Vanity Fair is a reputable magazine. 149.254.58.44 claimed that it's not; that's the point I was responding to, not the substance of the article. --Gotophilk (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- The fact is that there are no "opposing opinions" as far as I see. If there had been a public outcry over her opinion, we would have to include that. But as far as I can see, there was none. If the world doesn't bring counter-arguments, it's not our job to create them. (Of course, if you find the public outcry, include it!). However, the only reason for deleting it would be the argument "it's not important enough". The arguments "she isn't right", "she isn't qualified" or such don't count. Averell (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- We aren't in a position to be arbiters of whether each particular source is biased or not. Our task is merely to represent all points of view, one of which is represented in the Vanity Fair piece. Blowfish (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Really, could where the bias is? The section reports that there was both "pro" and "con" media coverage and (to me) the tone seems pretty neutral. And yes, we report that this Bachrach compared the Italian justice to the inquisition; the reason is that she said that, and that she said that in front of millions of people. The article reports just that she said that, not that she's right. Nor is she presented as the only voice on the case (both of which would be NPOV). However, the article is not about the Italian justice system, and I don't see any reason to include a lengthy discussion on Bachrach's view of and qualification to comment on the subject. Averell (talk) 08:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think this particular paragraph should be deleted because it is of no consequence and is actually wrong. The Italian justice system is not "adversarial" like the USA system but "inquisitorial" and descended from Roman Law and the Napoleonic Code. In other words the judiciary doesn't balance the arguments of the prosecution versus the defence, rather it inquires into all evidence to seek the truth (although the appeal courts have now incorporated the "adversarial" system). To say that a defendant is "considered guilty until proven innocent" is just plain wrong. One reason that there might not have been a "public outcry" is possibly the fact that outside the USA not many people have heard about this woman. To assert that the Italian legal system is descended from the Inquisition is nonsense and insulting. Please remove this paragraph. rturus (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
@Averell, Blowfish, Gotophilk. Are you joking? What universal opinion? Do you think that the italian and european media go along with that trash that their system is based on the inquisition in the sense that it presupposes guilt? Of course there is disagreement with this opinion but no one really bothers with some american media to even reply to them. What is that garbage? I feel furious to even have to waste my time discussing this. That is why wikipedia should hire some professional editors. As I asked in the title of this discussion, who is this woman, on what authority does she speak? Because she is not reporting a fact, she is expressing an opinion, she is making a judgement? Does she have the authority to pass this judgement, of course she does not.
I am sick and tired of some wikipedia minders not making any sense and yet having their way here. I will delete this preposterous quote, If you want to re-instate it you should ask for consensus because it is clear a lot of parties consider it unacceptable here. And they those who do find it merits a place here are the usual hangers on with the agenda.
Let me sum up here the reason I am deleting it: The author of that quote in that american magazine does not have the authority to make a value judgement on a legal system because she lacks the background and expertise in Italian law. Moreover this is not a reputable publication to pass judgement on legal issues, because the don't have the gravitas or the expertise for that. If they were merely reporting a corroborated fact that would have been another issue, but they are not.
And let's not beat about the bush here, this is clearly put there to discredit a whole legal system, just because some American sociopath decided they would kill abroad for a change instead of their natural habitat which is the United States famous for having the highest obesity and crime rates in the world. And just because of some misguided patriotism a whole legal system has to be discredited based on a quote by some unknown on a U.S. rag.
The above three parties I mentioned please don't bother replying here, instead open a consensus vote because some of us here actually have a life and don't know how to. In any case I do not think your positions here are worthy of further response and I shall not respond to you. 149.254.56.40 (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I see the page has been semi locked so I wont be able to edit it. The morons here will have their way as per usual. I am off. Enjoy this piece of crap that wikipedia has become. 149.254.56.40 (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
All 11 counts?
Can someone find a credible link that states each count that both Raffeale and Amanda were charged with and can someone post this in the article? I keep revising when people type " GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS OF MURDER". Because whoever writing this is an idiot.... murder is ONE of the counts as is theft and sexual assault...but I didn't have time to write down what Wolf Blitzer said about the other ones on CNN. If someone could find this and post this...that would be nice. Thanks. WiiAlbanyGirl (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- The CNN article http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/04/italy.knox.trial/index.html states she was convicted on all counts excluding theft —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.67.167 (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- 'All counts' (US) = 'all charges' (UK). Just one of those counts was Murder. There were others. --Red King (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Evidence?
It's hard to get a sense from this article what actual evidence there was against Amanda Knox. Ideally, I'd want to be able to understand both points of view from this article, but I'm not sure that either is all that well explained. Blowfish (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- the article is incorrect. There is physical evidence against her. See: http:/ the murder victim on it. The article is wrong on two counts because this is considered the murder weapon. The article has some obvious bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.112.2 (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
The knife is the only physical evidence against her. It contained not only Amanda's DNA and Kercher's DNA, but also Sollecito's DNA. This is not surprising since the three of them were together at times. The fact that DNA from all three people are present on the knife indicated the knife wasn't cleaned. Hence, luminol could easily identify blood on the knife (as it would even if the knife had been cleaned). But no blood was found. Hence it's not the murder weapon. This is further corroborated by the fact that the knife didn't match Kercher's wounds or the outline of the murder weapon found at crime scene. All other evidence against Knox involved Sollecito's DNA or boot print at crime scene, as if she's guilty by association. Kercher was raped, and then silenced by her rapist. Guede's semen was found in Kercher. Three people can't rape and kill someone unless the victim keeps coming back to life to be raped and killed again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.133.151 (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- There's still things in the article that are left unsaid - though I don't know if this is to do with the editors or the Italian judicial system. For example, the print found in blood was described as matching Sollecito's shoe, but that this was then contested by the defence. The article then just leaves it at that. Was it then conclusively proven to belong to his shoe? The outcome? The prosecution wouldn't have just left it there. ArdClose (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, there is much more evidence that was presented during the trial. For example: When did Sollecito and Knox arrive at the house where the murder had taken place, and when did they call the police, and did they call the police at all, or only after the postal police had arrived? I remember that this and other questions were discussed on Italian TV, such as in Bruno Vespa's political talk show Porta a porta on RaiUno. Unfortunately, this is not just a murder case, but also an example for bad journalism. Lots of journalists reported about all kinds of things, such as the presumably medieval Italian justice system, or about Knox' parents, but hardly anyone took the time to actually concentrate on and examine the facts and the evidence (or lack of). Even yesterday, on Larry King Live, the case was "discussed" for one hour, without ever mentioning the facts leading to the arrest and conviction of Guede, Sollecito, and Knox. But of course there was time enough to have a friend of Knox tell the world for several minutes about how nice and sweet a girl Amanda is. At least then the host (it wasn't King, but someone sitting in for him) could have asked the friend whether incriminating a completely unrelated person (Lumumba) would also be part of that sweetness. We obviously have to wait and see whether at least after the trial there might be a chance for serious reporting on the case. I'm going to check Italian media for more material and possible sources. --Catgut (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
i agree it is a bad story, personally i think the italian justice had some clues, like when the article says knox implicated herself for being at the crime scene(having apparently otherwise denied that and not informed the police). also it is quite impossible to forget what you have done a whole evening from smoking marihuana, that is pretty hard even on alcohol. so alcohol is either used or remained unmentioned, a problem i have with this is the conviction of guede, an apparently traumatised kid, the problem i have is that if two other people get convicted for supposed accomplicy and incite, he just has the more credible excuse for clearing the ground. and also when he gets a heavier punishment. my personal suspicion is the italian justice does not usually convict 3 people to such long terms over 1 murder, so here is where the element of xenophobism shines through wich clouds our view on what really happened. next i think the blackmailing option her family allows raises suspicions about how they usually deal with legal issues.24.132.171.225 (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you ever smoked a joint before, but if you are a serious stoner remembering what happened even a day ago is difficult, even if it's important. Your responses to stressful situations will also be questionable, but in a wierd stoner way..logical. Like covering your ears when you hear your flatmate screaming. I think the level of her smoking should be mentioned in this article if there's any information about it.. seeing as it was used in her defence. I mean did she have a little joint or a gigantic bong? Did she smoke weed? If so, what type? The crappy stuff that you get off bums or the really strong GM strains from amsterdam? How often did she smoke? Did she do blowbacks? Did she inhale and hold it? What if it was dipped in acid for god's sake?? 86.42.206.219 (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- A high proportion of the media coverage of this case is biased one way or the other. Readers of this article want to work out if they really did it or not. There is so little about the evidence for anyone reading this to work that out. If evidence such as a footprint is disputed, what is the truth of that matter; what ruling was made on that and why? Was the knife the murder weapon or not? Whose knife was it? If it was kept in the kitchen and used by all those living there, then DNA from them would prove they used it, but that could be just from normal kitchen use on food, not necessarily from using it to kill Kercher. There is little about independent witnesses; did any disinterested parties see any of those convicted at or around the time of the murder? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- So she was a drug addict (defined by her life being ruined by drugs, or ruining someone elses) that killed a friendly, intelligent young woman. Shame Italy doesn't have the death penalty.
- There is growing evidence in the forensics community that some of the claims for the reliability of certain types of evidence are greatly overblown. In particular, ballistics (matching a bullet to a specific gun to the exclusion of all others) and shoeprints (matching a print to a specific shoe to the exclusion of all others) are not definitive as has been claimed. Eyewitness identification is also notoriously unreliable. Hopefully, the defense pointed all this out during the trial. But I would also vote for a point-by-point description of the evidence from both sides.208.73.29.10 (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The allegations that she bought bleach and other cleaning chemicals were discredited and not presented as evidence by the prosecution because the store clerk was not credible and also because no receipts, video were ever found from the transaction.
Also, the woman who claims to have heard the screams on the night of the murder actually stated she could not remember the specific date. So those two statements need to be revised or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.239.74.75 (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Separate pages for murders, victims and suspects/convicts?
Can we consider spinning off separate pages for the principal players? If Street Fighter characters can have their own page, I think real, and currently newsworthy, people should not be consolidated into one messy umbrella article.
- To be honest, I think maybe Amanda Knox should have her own given the amount of coverage she has received, but I'm not sure that she'd be found to be notably independent, that is, have notability other than being involved in this murder. I know what you mean about Street Fighter characters, but basically that's the nature of wikipedia at the moment and there's loads of people that clamour to keep articles like that and on dungeons and dragons and stuff. Stupid really, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS basically says that even though they have those articles which probably aren't notable, you can't neccessarily have others Petepetepetepete (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- The article is not (and should not be) about the people, but about the crime. The crime is noteworthy and the people are only noteworthy in their relation to the crime. We would have never heard of any of them if not for the murder. Also, I don't see that the article is particularly long or messy in a way that would require it to be broken down in separate pieces. Averell (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- There is no reason to give a separate article to anyone involved in the case; none of them have any notability outside the case. Guede committed crimes previously, but none of them are notable. Knox receives more media coverage than the others - because she is pretty. However, she is still not notable outside this event. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, none of the individuals involved are notable other than being a part of this event. No separate articles seem required. SGGH ping! 16:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. --Red King (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Less inflamatory article title
I suggest the article be called "Meredith Kercher murder case" or "The Meredith Kercher murder case" As it is the article suggest a description of the actual murder in perhaps a step by step basis and is more salacious. Hunter2005 (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- No. The article is about the crime, and the title is in line with other articles about such crimes, as Murder of Robert McCartney.
- There is no doubt it was a murder; plus three people have been found guilty of it. The title is fine. Modest Genius talk 11:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Knox is from?
The lead states Spencer, Indiana; her section further down the article states Seattle both in the section and infobox. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- I just Googled the words "Amanda Knox Spencer Indiana" and the only match is this article. All the news reports are saying she's from Seattle, so that's what it should say here unless someone can find a reference that backs this up. It's possible I suppose that she was born in Spencer, Indiana and moved to Seattle. Whatever the case, however, as the information is not referenced I'll change it to Seattle. Thanks TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn’t generally put murder cases on its front page news
I guess the reason behind this story being there is because it involves an American, and this created something of a media storm. I should imagine that anyone else other than the Americans/British/Italians may find this slightly bias. Let’s say it involved a British person killing another British person, it certainly wouldn’t make the front page, because it certainly wouldn’t create as much media attention. But let’s just say it’s because of the intense media coverage that surrounded the warped and frankly hideous actions of Amanda Knox and also the scrutiny of her personal life, as well as the horrible campaign started up by a bunch of bible basing right wing Americans to try and get Knox freed based on nothing other than “She’s an American, we have greater rights!” cliché. And then theres the dubious Italian police coming under scrutiny too… All in all, I think this story does belong on the front page due to the mass media coverage and nothing else. Owell. --Sushi Shushi! (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, it's gone. --Sushi Shushi! (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Assume good faith just may apply here. From my own standpoint the nature of the crime, ages of persons involved and that it was an international case invovling different countries may be the reason that it was initally placed within In The News. You can't assume that every American Wikipedia contributor is pushing an "America First" agenda or all we'll end up with here are endless arguments and debates.Shinerunner (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)- It was removed due to objections on the In The News discussion area. SGGH ping! 16:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Shinerunner
that is utterly falseI was not talking about American Wikipedians, but the coverage in the media and that alone. Please retract your comment. Also, I have just clarified my comments to make them more clear and you should have no trouble in understanding them now. Instead of just accusing me, you should of just asked exactly what I meant. --Sushi Shushi! (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)- I apologize if I mistook your remarks and have struck my comments. However, I've recently seen a number of very harsh statements by some editors regarding contributions from American Wikipedians. The way your original statement was worded (to me) fell into that type of comment.Shinerunner (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough, and sorry I should have worded it better, my bad. There's no bias on the page form what I can see. It was sorted out (Checked the edit history). All is well. Thanks. (The media really have pissed on this case, that's for sure)...--Sushi Shushi! (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Not a problem, I'll be sure to ask for clarification from now on. Sometimes I just can't believe what people will post on here.Shinerunner (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough, and sorry I should have worded it better, my bad. There's no bias on the page form what I can see. It was sorted out (Checked the edit history). All is well. Thanks. (The media really have pissed on this case, that's for sure)...--Sushi Shushi! (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- I apologize if I mistook your remarks and have struck my comments. However, I've recently seen a number of very harsh statements by some editors regarding contributions from American Wikipedians. The way your original statement was worded (to me) fell into that type of comment.Shinerunner (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Shinerunner
- It was removed due to objections on the In The News discussion area. SGGH ping! 16:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- The murder trial is on WP for the same reason that the OJ and Sacco and Venzetti trials are, namely that they are famous and controversial. Part of the controversy has to do with the sensational nature of the accusations, namely that this was a drug/sex/Satanism murder. I can't believe that no one has mentioned this, but this is not the kind of murder that women typically commit. There are exceptions, of course; Charles Manson had female accomplices. But they are exceedingly rare. That kind of killing is most often a "guy thing." But the nature of the accusations guaranteed media attention. Just like the famous trials mentioned above, there are noteworthy aspects of the trial that transcend the events in the courtroom, and they deserve discussion.208.73.29.10 (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Where does it say that this case involved Satanism? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Google "Amanda Knox" and "Satanic" and you will see many articles similar to this one: "Kercher slaying was part of 'satanic ritual', say prosecutors" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.73.29.10 (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- The media reported that the prosecution claimed it was Satanism, but it seems more like it was motivated by sadism and hate combined with the desire of the killers to overpower Kercher and force her into sex then kill her when she refused to comply. However, there is a lack of certainty regarding the motive(s). Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Google "Amanda Knox" and "Satanic" and you will see many articles similar to this one: "Kercher slaying was part of 'satanic ritual', say prosecutors" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.73.29.10 (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Where does it say that this case involved Satanism? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Feces/faeces
The British spelling is faeces. I added this comment before but somone deleted it. 86.42.206.219 (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- I take that it was you who removed two comments form the above discussion. Please don’t do this as it constitutes vandalism. Your original comment was removed because it wasn’t added to the talk page properly, and that was clearly explained in the edit summery I left. --Sushi Shushi! (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
What? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.244.21 (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Appealed?
Um, the (appealed)note in the info box needs to be removed until April 2010 and it is not guaranteed that an appeal will be allowed. Under Italian law the convicted felon cannot appeal for a minimum three months after conviction. [1]Twobells (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Twobells: What is the standard for appeals? Is it that you must present an appeal with some merit or novel issue of law or it will not be heard, or is it that only a select few appeals are heard? Do you know the percentage of appeals that are successful? PilgrimRose (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- An appeal is always allowed under Italian law and is always heard. The appellate trial in Italy is basically a new trial in which both teams can present their case anew. As for the 90 days period this is the maximum amount of days the judge has in order to file the explanation for the verdict (but he can file it as soon as he wish). An appeal is possible only after this explanation document has been filed. By the way also "convicted" is wrong as technically speaking she's still regarded as innocent under Italian law (at least until all the possible appeals are exhausted). I'm sorry I've no reference in English since US based media didn't care too much to explain to their readers the strong differences between the two different criminal law systems. --78.12.158.220 (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Drugs
"Like Knox, he admits to having smoked marijuana on the day of the murder." She says earlier in this wikipedia article that she smokes hashish. Please clarify! They are not the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.226.129 (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Most probably it is cannbis resin as this is the most common form of cannabis in Italy, also I've only heard american media report she had been smoking marijuana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.141.219 (talk)
"video of the five cannabis plants that were being cultivated in a small side room of their flat." Seattle PI (http://www.seattlepi.com/local/400193_knox15.html) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.231.67 (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Absolute mess
This is an absolute mess. Wouldnt it be better if we just had some facts about amanda knox under that heading and all the stuff concerning the investigation under that specific heading. There no mention of Ms Knox changing her story and being caught lying by security cameras and the whole deal with ms knox being spotted outside a supermarket at 7:30 buying cleaning products when she claimed to be sleeping. These are all proven facts which should be mentioned.
Earlier versions of the article went into great detail about the evidence but biased editors have removed most of it: "I have culled the long lists of evidence recently inserted, as they were basically big blobs of less important information." and on this page, pre-11:21, 5 December 2009, a lot of evidence was tidied up by SilkTork.
This whole wiki article reeks of bias and should be sorted out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.141.219 (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
How about providing PROOF that she bought cleaning products? like a link to back up your claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.17.233 (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
How about THIS http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/5028729/Meredith-Kercher-murder-A-new-hole-appears-in-Amanda-Knoxs-alibi.html now.... on your way —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjorn I. Clever (talk • contribs) 11:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Then put it in the article itself if you don't see it and stop bitching about it from the side lines. Hunter2005 (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have added this factoid into the article. Next time as long as you cite a source and keep the language neutral you can edit it yourself. Hunter2005 (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I would have done so myself if it was possible but I was unable to, and please, less of the profanities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjorn I. Clever (talk • contribs) 06:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Judy Bachrach paragraph
I would like to propose the deletion of the paragraph in which Judy Bachrach gives her opinion on the Italian justice system. First of all, the quote used has almost nothing to do with the evidence of the case and only addresses Bachrach's opinion on the Italian justice system which, I believe, doesn't have a place under the specific titling of this section: "Media Portrayal." By "media portrayal" it is inferred that it is media portrayal of the murder of Kercher, not of the Italian justice system which is a derived argument. While the paraphrase does mention that Bachrach has investigated the "contradictions in the case," the outcome of her research is missing. Finally, I don't believe that Bachrach, as a journalist for Vanity Fair, has the appropriate standing to comment on the Italian justice system; certainly not to a degree to be included in a WP article. I believe we should all attempt to approach this article in a rational manner and put our own personal feelings of the case aside which is our job as editors of a presumably "neutral" encyclopedia. I would like to hear others' feedback before changes occur.--Karl franz josef (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- The paragraph in question mentions a judge, but does not state his name. If this info is to remain in the article, his name should be stated. If Bacharach is notable, she should have her own article. If not, why should so much of the Media portrayal section be about what she said? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 10:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- The judge quoted in the Vanity fair article is "ecclesiastical judge Count Neri Capponi" - in other words, not a judge involved in criminal or civil law, only in matters of the Roman Catholic church (which would obviously have inquisition precedents). Therefore this is either a deliberate attempt by Judy Bachrach to discredit the Italian legal system or an example of her complete lack of understanding. If you actually read the article in question you can make up your own mind about this sensationalist and frequently erroneous piece, obviously aimed at a certain USA market. rturus (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- It also claims that in Italian law "the ordinary person is considered guilty until proven innocent". This would clearly be in contravention of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights which states that "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". It is nonsense to suggest that the entire Italian legal system is in contravention of European law. Bluewave (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Sub section media coverage on national basis?
One of the problems in finding a neutral position for this article based on suitable reliable sources, is the editorial position taken by each countries media. In the Italy three people have be found guilty under a fair justice system; in the UK, our tabloid press have exploited the seedier side of Knox's reputation, which has been semi-legitimised by the broad sheets; and in the US, various commentators shocked that any legal system could find any American guilty of such a heinous crime have been overly vocal. Hence, trying to find a neutral position amongst differing supporting sources and media angles will be improbable.
The facts of the case are that a young British lady was murdered in Italy, and so far an American lady, an Italian man and an Italian resident African have been found guilty and sentenced under an Italian legal system. The problem in writing that is in: the lack of clarity in the time lined story of how the murder happened (a continual police and prosecutor problem during the whole trial); the three different editorial positions taken by each countries media. To me this suggest that part of the articles coverage should be in highlighting the differing editorial positions taken by each countries media, other wise the differences and numerous re-writes can never be consolidated. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would also say the Italian media has been doing pretty much the same as the British media in that response. --Sushi Shushi! (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think a subsection for each country is necessary. Knox has received more coverage than anyone else involved. Basically, the American media has been claiming throughout that Knox is innocent. The British and Italian media were saying prior to this month that Guede and Sollecito are guilty. Italian and British media have tended to change their minds this month to claim it likely that Knox and Sollecito are innocent. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Bias/POV issues
Someone placed both Bias and POV tags on the article, and incorrectly didn't start a debate section on the talkpage - so happy to start one. Problems seem to be (add to the list where you feel appropriate):
- No clear timeline or inclusion of evidence
- No clear coverage of the court case, or debate within
- Bias/POV against the Italian legal system
- Bias on overtly debating Knox's innocence having been found guilty
- Bias/POV on debates around Italian legal system through over exposure of Judy Bachrach article and US media exposure
- Bias against American defendant on the basis of her nationality
- Bias in presuming the guilt of defendants —Preceding unsigned comment added by PilgrimRose (talk • contribs) 05:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Misrepresentation of the substance of source articles.
- Over-reliance on uncorroborated news items. -christaltips —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.67.136 (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
There is also a tone of anti-Americanism, but this is presently conflicted and potentially balanced by overt tones of Knox's innocence post conviction. It seems to me in summary at present, a reader could get a more neutral point of view by reading the talk over the article. --Trident13 (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- That looks like a pretty good summary of the problems with the article. I read the article and felt it told me very little about the case but a great deal about people's (editors') points of view. By contrast, I read an article about the case in today's Sunday Times which set out the events, evidence and personalities involved, very clearly and without obvious bias. Bluewave (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have to agree with both of you. The invesitagtion/trial sections need more developement as well as the Bias/POV problems. Also, the main focus on Knox over the other defendants is unbalanced as well.Shinerunner (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that there needs to be more focus on the actual evidence. The amount of attention to Knox doesn't seem unreasonable however, given the amount of interest that she individually has garnered in multiple countries. In Italy she has been demonized (justifiably or not); in the US she has been lionized as a saint (despite very little reporting of the actual evidence against her). Because of the attention given to Knox, there should at the very least be a discussion of her portrayal in respective countries, and accurate representation of the evidence against her as well as claims of innocence. Blowfish (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. However, undue weight should not be given to Knox's claims of innocence: it is not unusual for someone convicted of a serious crime to continue to proclaim their innocence, especially when there is an appeal pending. It is worth noting her claims, but they should certainly not be given more weight than, for example, the verdict against her, which was the result of a lengthy examination of all the evidence by the jury. We need to be a bit careful not to make the article look like a retrial by Wikipedia editors. Bluewave (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Blowfish that there's nothing wrong with extra focus on Knox, as she has been the center of attention in all the coverage that I'm aware of (mainly US coverage). I don't really have an opinion on the other issues as I haven't read the article closely. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Knox has received much more media coverage that Sollecito and Guede due to a few factors. She's female, attractive, has a supportive middle-class family and has the attention of the US media, which is significantly larger and more powerful and prevalent than any other country's media. As a result there is much more coverage of Knox that of the two men convicted. Guede has a substantial pre-murder criminal record, he is of bad character and his useless family aren't interested in their drug dealer son. It is not in the interest of the Italian media to focus on Sollecito, as it would increase the bad publicity that Perugia, and to a lesser extent Italy as a whole, has received since the murder. Perugia is now, in the minds of Britons and Americans, strongly associated with this murder; it is a fairly small city that is not internationally known for much else. This is a disaster for that city's image, but it does no harm to the UK or the US for the media of those countries to give prominent coverage to it. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Can we take the first issue I noted above - a timeline - and try to create something? I noted this afternoon from a rough translation of the Italian Wikipedia entry via Babelfish that their brief article has a better timeline to ours. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- A timeline would be useful. This article also lacks details of what Guede, Knox and Sollecito said versus what has been proved and disproved as to who did what, when and where. The Italian version is better than this one on the timeline, but not much else, as their article is far too short. The Simple English article is tiny. In many instances there are details which have been disputed, but there is a lack of details in the article as to what the ruling was on those particular points and why e.g. footprint, knife. Did anyone back Knox's claim that she was not present at the house at the time of the murder? There is a severe lack of info as to what Sollecito's story is, such as during what timespan does he claim he was at his flat, and how far away from the murder scene is it? It seems Knox and Sollecito claim to have been at his flat together that night, but do the details of their stories match? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Timeline
Here's a start on a timeline. This is how it was described in yesterday's Sunday Times (paraphrased and condensed):
- Early evening, 1 Nov: Kercher visited friends. They ate home-made pizza and warched "The Notebook" on DVD
(agree timeline required - but surely in such a sensitive and complex case every item within the timeline requires references/sources. Are there no court papers available plus text of witness statements, forensics reports etc?. Apol not sure how to format this query.)
- Shortly before 9pm, Kercher left her friends' house, accompanied by another friend, Sophie Purton.
- They parted outside Purton's house and Kercher walked on alone.
What happened subsequently is disputed between the various parties. Mignini (the prosecutor) offered the following, based on the forensic evidence and Kercher's 43 wounds and bruises:
- Kercher went home to an empty house
- Shortly after, Knox arrived, accompanied by Guede and Sollecito
Are there any references to how Guede may have been known to either the victim or the defendants - there has been sketchy mentions of Guede being a drug dealer and/or local police informant (perhaps protected?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.143.119 (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Knox and Kercher started rowing: either about some missing money or the fact that Knox had brought the 2 men to the house
- The row escalated and the trio, under the influence of drugs, decided to involve Kercher in a violent sex game. The two men assaulted Kercher while Knox held a knife to her throat.
However no DNA evidence links Sollecito with Kercher or indeed the bedroom - given the amount of "rearrangement" that tghe defence claims occurred surely some traces would have been left amid this - are there any forensics reports linking Guede to the "faked" break-in? (I say "faked" as I read that the glass from the window was on top of the deshevelled bed, hence not a professsional cover up.)
- Kercher screamed loudly and was heard by an elderly neighbour who said she felt as if she was "in a house of horrors"
And did this neighbour provide testimony in court? Did they hear one person escape or more, did they hear the smash of glass after the scream? etc etc??
- Knox then stabbed Kercher in the neck
- As Kercher lay dying, Knox and Sollecito fled. Guedo stayed and tried to staunch the blood with some towels. Then he fled too.
- One or more of the trio tried to wash away blood, but left the bathroom sink stained with blood and bloody footprints on the floor that matched Knox and Sollecito's feet
So were there more than one set of bloody footprints left? Hence was Guede not a (an alleged) lone killer?
- The trio broke a window to make it look like a break-in and locked Kercher's bedroom door.
The other protagonists have different versions of events
- Knox and Sollecito's initial version of the story was that there had been a break-in at the house and that they had not been inside.
- Knox's second version of the story was that the murder was committed by Lumumba, and that she (Knox) was in the kitchen, covering her ears because of the screams.
- Knox's third verion was that she and Sollecito had spent the evening and night of the murder at his flat and had only returned to the house in the morning. Bluewave (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Has Knox ever explained why she was buying cleaning products at 730 in the morning after the murder - receipts found at Sollecito's apartment.
Even this timeline is biased - not biased but unsubstantiated.
The versions one and three given for the defendants Knox and Sollecito are one in the same. They are not inconsistent stories. Knox's story about Lumumba was given after 14 hours straight of interrogation and intimidation. What 20 year old girl would not have been frightened and intimidated, especially after being hit and called a "stupid liar". It is well known that people will make false statements when cracking under the pressure of a lengthy interrogation. PilgrimRose (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- This was just my best effort at summarising the sequence of events, as related in the Sunday Times. I'm sure others can improve on it or develop it. However, the fact that Knox changed her story is relevant and I am sure it was a factor considered by the jury. Bluewave (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Pilgrim, the only claim of initimidation and physical/verbal abuse came from Knox herself (and was totally uncorroborated, of course) and, as a convicted murderer, she doesn't make the most convincing of witnesses. You need to cite your assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.1.168 (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I have not seen the ruling myself, but I heard on the Larry King Live program that a high court in Italy found that Knox had been treated unfairly during her interrogation so that some of her statements made during the interrogation were not admissible at the trial. It would be vey helpful if there was some way to have a link posted to an English transcript of that ruling. PilgrimRose (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have inserted a factual based timeline. If you read the early press reports versus the later stuff, the bit between Kercher leaving her friend at around 21:00 and being found the next morning after 12:35 is prosecution versus defence conjecture. All the defence witnesses changed their stories at least twice during the subsequent investigation, and the prosecution timeline (as is the case with most legal cases), is the one that emerges - which the prosecutor accepts is conjection. The subsequent investigation seems to warrant another section, in the how the police investigation went, the prosecution built its case, and the defence questioned it. The DNA evidence and the issue of when the bleach was bought are clearly key. I am also quickly coming to the conclusion that inserting such a section would remove much of the anti-American bias. We could then bring the character sections on Knox, Sollecito and Guede down to mini-bio's and how they ended up in Perugia. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Anti-American bias and presumption of guilt
This article was written long before a verdict was rendered, yet it was written as if the guilt of the American girl and her boyfriend were presumed. The article has been written in a very biased manner, and attempts to make the article more neutral are being deleted.
An editor of this article, Sushi Sushi, has made blatently anti-American comments on this talk page. When I added a comment about that to this talk page, he or she removed my comment from this talk page, but left his offensive anti-American remark.
There are strong feelings in the United States that bias in the Italian media denied Amanda Knox a fair trial, by prejudicing public opinion against her. That will be a growing sentiment in the U.S., as more American writers look into this fiasco. I hope that Wikipedia will not join in worsening that injustice by allowing only a one-sided view against the American girl and her boyfriend to be presented in this article.
The point of view should be NEUTRAL, not only AGAINST Amanda Knox--who most Americans view as a badly victimized young girl. The point of view that she is innocent is shared by millions in America. That point of view should be allowed a little presence in this article, at least just a little bit. While the murder of young Meredith was a horrible tragedy from which her family will never recover, the real killer was already convicted before Amanda went on trial. PilgrimRose (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- @PilgrimRose - Yes the article should be NPOV, reflecting fact and not opinion. It should certainly not become a platform for people to crusade about their assumptions of misjustice or similar. American readers should remember that they have been subjected to a huge PR campaign by Knox family and associates, attempting to paint the most favourable opinion of Knox and trying to discredit the Italian justice system. They should research how Italian justice works, what the "jury" means over there and how procedures differ from the USA. Before decrying another country's justice system Americans should consider how the USA system appears to the world, for example the O J Simpson murder trial and the Guantanamo detainees.rturus (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Rturus: I disagree with your personal opinion that American readers have been subject "to a huge PR campaign by Knox family and associates." The Knox family has expressed its opinion. The prosecutors expressed their opinions. People are free to chose which view they think is correct. Many in the U.S. are stuck on the forensics issue. The absence of forensic evidence in the bedroom where the murder took place showing that Knox participated in the sexual attack by Guede. No one is trying to say the U.S. system is any better or worse. It too is obviously flawed. The concern being expressed is the lack of forensic evidence that Knox participated in the brutal murder she was charged with. That is a legitimate concern. PilgrimRose (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
@ PilgrimRose - Nobody is disputing that there may be concerns, there are nearly always concerns in any trial to a greater or lesser degree. However that is not a matter for Wikipedia, concerns can be reported and referenced for sure but this is not the place to mount a crusade - take it to a blog somewhere. My comments stand.rturus (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
There is absolutely NO PROOF or even any shred of indication that the trial suffered from anti-american bias, this is seemingly a complete fabrication by American Media. I heard that the fact that some of the jurors wore the italian colors was somehow anti American. However, this is just plain ridiculous.
This is not a FORUM to discuss your opinion on the trial. This is a discussion page for the article. If you don't have comments pertinent to the improvement of the article, please don't comment. --71.245.116.133 (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I have deleted some statements from this section as they only provide personal opinion, pilgrimrose failed to provide any evidence to suggest anti-american bias and another user only posted a personal rant. PEOPLE PLEASE if you cannot provide anything constructive then do not post. There are forums on the internet where you can voice your personal opinion. This is not the place to do so. I also agree that refering to american citizens as 'bloody americans' is unacceptable. Pilgrimrose until you post something that comes close to resemble evidence of anti-american sentiment regarding the trial I suggest you stay away from this talk page. Bjorn I. Clever (talk) 07:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Bjorn: It is not acceptable to be deleting someone else's comments on this talk page because YOU disagree with those comments. You had no right to do that. Nor do you have the right to tell me I cannot post on this talk page. Just who the heck do you think you are. I have as much right to post on this page as you do. DO NOT delete my posts again. PilgrimRose (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please read wp:NOTAFORUM which is also posted on top of this page (first box).The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Why the notability and media coverage?
I've just looked through this article, and I think it's actually at a reasonably high standard given the amount of attention it's been under. However, something seems to be missing: it doesn't have a clear statement anywhere of why this is a notable murder case. It states that it received a great deal of media coverage from multiple countries (which it did), but doesn't really say what it is about this murder that made it so interesting to the media. Perhaps it's difficult to do that without violating No original research, but I feel that to be properly encyclopaedic, this article needs some sort of explanation of why this was such an important story in the first place. Robofish (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- On 8Dec09, I had instinctively added an intro paragraph that summarizes the notability of the situation: "The event initially appeared to be a routine one-man, rape/murder (with the man admitting he saw her die). However, it became highly notable in world media when prosecutors treated the event as a sexual torture/killing, allegedly pre-planned by 3 people aged 20-23 who had known each other less than 3 weeks." (added to article 8Dec09 1am) -Wikid77 03:53, 8 December 2009
- "The case received heavy media interest." Rich Farmbrough, 15:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC).
- Notability is sort of a meta question-- its discussion belongs on the talk page rather than the article page. As to why this particular subject is notable, it's because of the volume of coverage over a sustained period of time. That's what notability requires. Blowfish (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- This case is notable because of the huge amount of media coverage it has received for over two years from the media of at least three major countries. The amount and prevalence of the media coverage is due to the fact it interests millions of people, due to several aspects of this case. The people involved are from different countries. It is the kind of case that can be sensationalised due to the alleged sexual motive. That the victim and one killer are young females makes the case more unusual and horrifying. Knox and Sollecito are from nice middle class backgrounds and did not have prior criminal records. It is the kind of case that raises emotions in the minds of a large proportion of people. The British media have reported the story with the suggestion of 'your daughter could be murdered by sexual sadists when she's abroad' and the American media have suggested 'your daughter could be wrongly convicted of murder by a medieval system when she's abroad'. Millions of people in the UK strongly relate to the Kercher family and fear going through what they have been through during the last two years. Millions of Americans relate likewise to the Knox family, and the horror of having what they see as an innocent daughter locked up in a foreign prison thousands of miles away from home. In addition, Knox is significantly above-average in the looks department. Rightly or wrongly, good looks tend to be strongly associated in most people's minds with good character, and ugliness with criminality and bad character. There is a strong subtext in the reporting by the US media of Knox that 'she can't have done it, because she's such a nice pretty girl'. This case is rare in that it possesses so many aspects that make it of so much interest to so many millions of people. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Notability is sort of a meta question-- its discussion belongs on the talk page rather than the article page. As to why this particular subject is notable, it's because of the volume of coverage over a sustained period of time. That's what notability requires. Blowfish (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I wasn't questioning the notability of this article (someone changed the title of this section) - it's obviously a hugely notable murder case, because of all the attention it received. I was saying the article needs to explain why it received so much attention. Lkjhgjfdsa's comment above seems a pretty comprehensive answer - it's a shame we can't just put it straight into the article. :) Thanks anyway. Robofish (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oops, re-reading my post above, I see I wasn't terribly clear. It looks like I was saying 'why is this notable? This article should be deleted!', when what I meant was 'this was a highly notable and significant event, but the article needs to properly explain that'. Sorry for the confusion. Robofish (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Diana. Prepare to be hearing from me about this case a lot until it is finally resolved. I do not believe that the article gives ENOUGH credence to the flaws in the case against Knox and Sollecito. For that reason, it does not make explicit what the notability of the case is. The notability is that it is one of the most high-profile International murder cases ever to involve such an immense trail of procedural flaws combined with intriguing side-issues. It does not currently have a section discussing the interesting and related stories concerning Prosecutor Mignini, perhaps the most key figure in the entire drama, at least in sense of the trial. I am going to add such a section and will be vigilant about maintaining it, so I'm just warning anyone who plans to cry "impartiality" as a defense for persistently removing it, as I expect will be the case, in what have become the shark-infested waters of the once truly democratic world of Wikipedia. There should at least be a section entitled "Criticism of the Evidence" to present this information. The reason it is so important to include this information is that the cries of "Free Amanda and Raffaele" are not just coming from people who think they're cute. This man, Mignini, is under a serious investigation for fraud in his abuses of power and bizarre psycho-sexual theories that have already derailed another murder investigation and involved the harrassment and arrest of writers and independent investigators looking for the truth. Prosecutor Mignini (who also performed both the disputed interrogation and also directed the police, as is standard under the FLAWED Italian judiciary system) has a documented history of delusionary and complex theories that involve lurid allegations of a bizarre and psycho-sexual nature. Please see the false arrest and attempted prosecution by Mignini of US author John Baker and his Italian journalist colleague Mario Spezi, both of whom had done years of research on the notorious "Monster of Florence" serial killer case. http://johnbakersblog.co.uk/the-monster-of-florence/ Baker cannot currently return to Italy to continue his research because he is still under (false) indictment and at risk of prosecution. Furthermore, Spezi, an Italian citizen, has been subjected to intense harrassment, arrest and prosecution. Their "crime"? Refuting the insane theories of Mignini regarding the identity of the Monster of Florence. In that case, as in the Kercher murder, the forensic evidence points to a lone attacker, but the pet theories of Mignini involve outlandish and titillating things such as satanic cults and group sex orgies, and he also has a habit of ascribing depraved and occult significances to rape-murder cases that in all statistical likelihood have a far more depressingly mundane solution. An international union of journalists wrote a letter of condemnation and protest to Berlusconi about the situation (hardly the paragon of non-corruption himself) that is reproduced here: http://cpj.org/2006/04/crime-journalists-imprisonment-raises-alarm.php In the aftermath of his arrest and interrogation, which included efforts by Mignini to get him to falsely confess and/or incriminate his partner Spezi, Baker managed to be released for a time, during which he took the opportunity to flee the country. He has described an aggressive and terrifying interrogation, presided over by Mignini himself, that implied that Mignini knew that Baker himself was implicated in the very killings he was investigating. If you read the two links above, you will get the background of the case and you can then investigate others on your own, as I have, by researching it independently. Diana Trimble, Freelance Journalist, UK, Member, British Association of Journalists, USA and UK Citizen —Dianarama (talk • contribs) 19:26, 7 December 2009
- I agree with those views, and others have noted that readers will expect such text in the article. About 5 hours later, I had instinctively added an intro section noting the prosecution as an unusual scenario of a 3-person, sex-torture killing. -Wikid77 03:53, 8 December 2009
- @ Dianarama - Please note that Wikipedia is not the place for you to spout your theories. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog space for self-publicising or crusading, so please stop. rturus (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a seperate page for the Monster_of_Florence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.231.67 (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Age discrimination
The article says that a lighter sentence was given because defendants "were young and had no criminal record". I've heard such things before, even in the U.S., but they don't make any sense to me. Shouldn't someone be given more credit for being old with no criminal record? A long history should tell you more about whether someone would commit a crime again. So my question is: is there an article that you could reference (or start) that would explain whether this discrimination is actually encoded in law or just a spontaneous bias of the judge? Wnt (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- According to an article in the Sunday Times: "An anonymous juror was quoted today as saying that despite the appalling nature of the crime, it had been felt unjust to condemn two people in their twenties to a life in prison." Bluewave (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Trial
The article does not mention the long break in the trial of Knox and Sollecito; why did that happen? Is it normal in Italy to try one defendant separately to and before the other two? Whilst there was more evidence against Guede, it seems strange to put him on trial first when he was arrested after Knox and Sollecito. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Guede opted for a fast-track (uncontested) trial in the hope of a shorter sentence. It's in the article. --Red King (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think the break was during the summer mainly where most people are off work.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjorn I. Clever (talk • contribs) 16:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- The length of the break and the reason for it should be mentioned in the article; is it normal in Italian trials for there to be such a long break in court proceedings? Whilst it is mentioned that Guede opted for a fast-track trial, it does not state whether it is normal to try one person separately to the other two for the same offence when they are already all in custody well before the court proceedings began. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think the break was during the summer mainly where most people are off work.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjorn I. Clever (talk • contribs) 16:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes of course it is common there to try defendants separately if they are being tried under different procedures. Guede opted to not contest the charges and so presumably hoped to have a)his trial not be protracted and subject to the scrutiny that the other one had and b) a more lenient sentence.rturus (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
But is it common to try defendants, all of whom are in custody at the same time for the same crime, under different procedures? Can you provide evidence that Guede opted to not contest the charges? Surely if he admitted the offences he would not have been tried at all. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- It is not common (because almost every defendant in murder cases opts for a fast-track trial) but it may happen.
- A fast-track trial is a trial where no actual trial is involved. I'll try to explain it. A criminal proceeding in Italy consists of many phases:
- 1. preliminary investigations;
- 2. preliminary hearing;
- 3. trial;
- 4. appeals.
- After the preliminary hearing, the Judge only decides whether or not the evidence gathered so far is enough to sustain a case in Court. If so, he sends the defendant before the Judge of the Trial, where he will be convicted or acquitted; if not, the Judge sort of acquits the defendant.
- A defendant can, though, choose to give up his right to a trial. He will be, then, tried by the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing, who will hand down a judgement, based upon the evidence gathered so far.
- Since this is a reduction of the defendant's rights, it must be he who asks for a fast-track trial. In exchange for that, he is compensated with a lighter sentence. If there are two or more defendants, one may opt for a fast-track trial and the other choose to stick to the standard pattern. In this case, since it would be unfair (or so Italians think) to let the wishes of one of them take precedence over those of the other, the two defendants are tried separately, even though they committed the same crime. Salvio giuliano (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Convicted murder of Meredith Kercher
The article should begin with "convicted murder" and not simply "murder." She was convicted of a crime that she largely contested and due to the lack of hard/real evidence there is reasonable doubt of her guilt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmf25 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Meredith Kercher was not convicted of anything. I presume you are referring to Amanda Knox. Whether any particular person is or is not guilty may be doubted by some. There is no doubt that Meredith was murdered. Not natural causes, not an accident, not suicide. The opening section says that Guede was convicted and that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were found guilty. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- No Wikipedia article is titled Convicted murder of ...; Murder of... is standard, regardless of convictions, or the lack of them. The fact is, with this article as well as the others, the person in the title was murdered. Therefore the title is correct. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I will...
Report anyone who removes my comments. I was the first to post the verdict of the case yet it was removed. I'll have to get in touch with the higher ups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.206.145 (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Partiality
This article, which I have been reading a couple of times during the last year, is now partial and does not seem a good reflection of the "true case". Significantly, the section about Amanda Knox is the longest one, apart from the false accusation of Lumumba, it leans more towards a positive portrayal of her actions. This way, noone can understand why Knox and Sollecito have been convicted, indeed. Missing is for example the description of the fact that the house was cleaned with bleach the morning after the murder took place. Instead, the article just states: not a trace of Knox's DNA, hair or fibre in the bedroom." Further evidence against Knox and Sollecito is also not always referred to.
See: From Times Online November 19, 2007 Suspect ‘bought bleach to clean murder weapon after Meredith Kercher’s death’ Daily Telegraph, 21/03/09, Meredith Kercher murder: A new hole appears in Amanda Knox's alibi Amanda Knox was seen in a supermarket early on the morning British student Meredith Kercher was found murdered, despite claiming she was in bed, a court has heard. (...) Detectives believe bleach and cloths found under the sink at Mr Sollecito's house were used to clean up the murder weapon - a knife - and the murder scene itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Setern (talk • contribs) 22:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- How is it possible that a great deal of DNA evidence, hair evidence, blood and other forensic evidence was found in Meredith's bedroom if it had already been cleaned with bleach? Guede's and Kercher's DNA was all over the bedroom. It is not believable to say that Knox somehow knew how to remove her specific DNA from the bedroom, and the DNA of her boyfriend, while leaving untouched the DNA of Guede and Kercher. It would take a DNA specialist to achieve that feat, which Knox was not. PilgrimRose (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- So Knox just happened to be, by total coincidence (yeah right!), in the store buying bleach the following morning and swaring blind that she was in bed. Such a coincidence.. the sort of thing you do when you have a housemate lying buthcered in the adjacent rooms. Not buying fresch bread for the day or evryday groceries, but bleach. Come on... give us a break! 66.54.123.19 (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- There isn't DNA evidence everywhere a person has been recently. It would be useful if we could find out in what form the DNA was found and exactly where. Guede raped and killed Kercher, so it would make sense that a lot of his DNA was there. Knox and Sollecito had an interest in helping each other avoid being convicted, so Knox could have cleaned only where she and Sollecito had been in Kercher's room, rather than cleaning the whole room. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- So Knox just happened to be, by total coincidence (yeah right!), in the store buying bleach the following morning and swaring blind that she was in bed. Such a coincidence.. the sort of thing you do when you have a housemate lying buthcered in the adjacent rooms. Not buying fresch bread for the day or evryday groceries, but bleach. Come on... give us a break! 66.54.123.19 (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, the scene was an extremely brutal and violent one. Meredith had 43 bruises and knife wounds on her body. According to the prosecution, Knox assaulted her, pulled her hair, smashed her head against something, cut her with a knife, beat her. How is it possible to somehow clean up such a violent crime scene so perfectly that not one cell of Knox's DNA or hair or fibre was found at the scene while Guede's and Kercher's DNA and hair are left intact? How could Knox "see" where her DNA was? DNA is invisible. How could Knox have been able to see and find each and every cell of her DNA so completely? Also, how could a girl with long hair like Knox be in such a violent battle, with not a single strand of her hair being left in the room? To me the obvious explanation is that Knox was never in Meredith's bedroom at the time of the crime or otherwise.PilgrimRose (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Sashes/family view
I have removed a reference to the jurors wearing Italian sashes - so what?; would we comment if a US jury wore flag pins? This is trivial and tries to make a political point. I have also removed a reference to the family's view of Knox's innocence sourced to a Knox pressure group. The family have no first hand knowledge of Knox's involvement, if any. We can cite reliable sources who criticise the Italian judicial system but must be careful not to synthesise (which the sashes inclusion was an attempt to - see the edit summary here). TerriersFan (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I have visited Italy several times and I have never seen Italians wearing Italian sashes. If this is not common in Italy, one could reasonably ask after its meaning, especially in a jury of a controversial trial of a foreign national. Is it unreasonable to wonder if the sash-wearers were making a statement, and if so, what that statement might mean? I have seen many people in the US wear flag pins for no particular reason, so to see a juror wearing one could well be without significance. But if several jurors wore them in a controversial terrorism trial, for example, one could reasonably inquire whether they were truly imparitial.208.73.29.10 (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The sashes are worn because they are acting on behalf of the state. It has nothing to do with xenophobia or racsim. Bjorn I. Clever (talk) 07:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The issue is whether the wearing of the sashes is typically done in most criminal trials in Italy, or was it done specially for this trial due to its international aspects. I would need to see some reference source that states that sashes are typically worn by jurors in Italy before I would accept the assertion that such sashes are worn simply to show that the jurors are acting on behalf of the state. PilgrimRose (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have just watched several videos on youtube.com of verdicts being read in an Italian court, in every video I saw (4 not including the Kertcher trial) the jurors were wearing a sash in their national colours. My understanding from reading comments from Italian posters is that they do this to reflect that they are doing their civic duties by serving on a jury. Would a person wearing a lapel pin displaying the Stars and Stripes be seen as nationally biased and xenophobic or patriotic and correct in the USA ? Would it help if I provided links to those videos of juries wearing sashes during the verdict proceedings ? Justin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.121.195 (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Your understanding is quite right. Actually lay judges (they are not, strictly speaking jurors) are requested by law to wear those sashes (think of it as the "Jurors" pins you have in the USA). --140.105.47.81 (talk) 08:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Please read Italian Criminal Procedure where all this is explained: the lay judges and their sashes, the professional judges in their robes, the difference from a US/UK jury. --Red King (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Reducing top tagboxes
I am reducing the top tag-boxes to avoid the mass of alarming, non-specific verbiage at the top of the article. Since the Italian judicial system allows up to a 90-day delay before appeals, I think the tagbox for "current event" is no longer applicable. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- That's fine. It might become a "current event" again ones the judge filed his explanation for the verdict and the defendants appeal is laid out.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Not a unanimous jury
It should be noted in the article that the guilty verdict was not reached by a unanimous jury. In Italy the courts require a majority, not a unanimous decision. Thismightbezach (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- ABC News reported it as unanimous. http://video.yahoo.com/watch/6552557/17010021 --FormerIP (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Italian courts don't have juries in the US/UK style. They have a panel of judges, some professional, some lay. Please read Italian Criminal Procedure where all this is explained.
Wrong name
Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini [ article text: ]
- "Guiliano Mignini is the Pubblico Ministero (public prosecutor) of Perugia.[37] It was he who conducted the infamous interrogation of Meredith Knox in which Patrick Lumumba was implicated due to Mignini's questions about text messages between Patrick Lumumba and Knox on the evening of the murders and his belief that they indicated a rendezvous."
Her name is Amanda Knox (not Meredith Knox) - can someone fix this. —210.87.40.22 03:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The adjective "infamous" is a value judgement that should not appear. Some may regard it so, others may not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.28.131 (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- DoneI have deleted the word "infamous" from that paragraph. rturus (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Guede's presence at the house
Why was Guede in the house where he raped and murdered Kercher? It seems that Kercher, Knox and Sollecito hardly knew him. The article used to say that he was a hanger-on of the four young Italian men who lived downstairs, and that he often arrived at acquaintances' houses unannounced. This assertion was removed earlier this month due to it being uncited. Who invited him into the house and why? Was his presence there due to him being a drug dealer and one or more of them buying from him? I would have thought the police and lawyers would have asked about these points. Is the house split into two separate, self-contained flats, or is it one big, undivided house where he could have been let in by someone who lived downstairs and then walked upstairs uninvited? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Subarticle: Trial of Knox and Sollecito
08-Dec-2009: I have created the new subarticle "Trial of Knox and Sollecito" to allow space for numerous details. The main article "Murder of Meredith Kercher" has reached 48kb, becoming too large to expand the details of the trial, as requested by several readers. Because Wikipedia, as yet, still lacks advanced procedures for creating sub-articles, the edit-protection is not carried to the new page, so beware anonymous hacking of the Trial article. However, people can no longer claim "limited space" (on that page) as a reason to delete details about the various trial events, evidence presented, and arguments made during the trial. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Propose full protection of Murder of Meredith Kercher page
This article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia, it is being used by some people as a tool to attempt to further their own views and opinions. The obvious attempts by some to try to exonerate a convicted murderer are quite disgraceful.
It is not the place of Wikipedia to advocate one position or another, nor to try to discredit a country's legal system. Rather, Wikipedia should present a neutral reporting of facts and events. The rights and wrongs, issues and principles of a criminal case are a matter for the courts to decide.
I propose that the Murder of Meredith Kercher page be given full protection by an administrator and examined for NPOV, edit war and defamation issues and then revised to an acceptable condition before resumption of it's semi-protected state. rturus (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think I agree. The article as it stands is incredibly non-neutral (particularly the Amanda Knox section, which mainly consists of her defence case). It's probably a highly-viewed page at the moment, and I don't think it is showing Wikipedia's systems in a very good light at all. --FormerIP (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- i agree as well, this page was already dealing with a lot of neutrality questions, the fact that the verdict has just been sent out, makes it even more susceptible to damage by well meaning individuals.Killemall22 (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- It seems a bit drastic to full-protect this article. Considering the high profile of the case, there has been little vandalism and few BLP violations. The biased additions are not being added every few minutes. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is drastic, but what less drastic alternative would you propose? For now, I've POV-tagged the Amanda Knox section. --FormerIP (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Agree. And I think this article needs a strong revision.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think it would be better to narrow the problem down to what the significant points of contention are. Most of the article is good. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- My proposal for full-protection has been declined. At the moment it is considered not to merit an edit-war protection. Currently the article remains semi-protected and flagged for NPOV. I hope that people can refrain from pursuing their crusades and points of view in the article and let Wikipedia perform it's neutral, factual purpose.rturus (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that Wikipedia should be NEUTRAL. Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) under Wikipedia policy means that when there are alternative viewpoints, or substantial minority viewpoints, those should be included in the article. If only ONE viewpoint is allowed to be included, then it is not neutral, it is biased. Check out the NPOV policy and you will see that alternative or minority views should be included. So on this topic, there is the majority view of some media and countries, and as found by the jury, that Knox is a murderer. Then there is the minority or alternative view prevelent in the U.S., and as expressed by her family, that Knox is innocent of the murder. Under NPOV policy, both sides of the story must be included. And, no, it is not "shameful" to include the other side of the story. It is merely refective of the reality of the situation that there is no one, single, "correct" version of the events at this point. Perhaps there will be after the appeals process is finished. PilgrimRose (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I mentioned this in my reply to you further up the page. However it is clearly evident that certain people are being especially concerned to put across as much as possible in favour of Knox and also attempting to discredit the Italian justice system. This is an encyclopaedia, not a news-sheet or a blog. NPOV means being balanced and reporting (with citations) facts, not constructing arguments to enhance one opinion or another. If one tries to read the article and this talk page with some objectivity one is bound to notice that certain people are stridently trying to display their outrage. (Although I think perhaps that you might disagree. ;-) ) I have no views either way on this trial, I have not sat through the evidence gathering and examination that the Italian jury have. I know it will all be examined in more detail in the appellate court (when perhaps Sollecito will break his silence) and in fact the Guede appeal might even bring more light to the situation. I am just looking to try to convince people that we should maintain Wikipedia's neutrality and that those who have an axe to grind, should take it elsewhere. Anyway I have put up a request on the NPOV noticeboard (because the NPOV Project seems to have ceased work?) asking for an editor experienced in NPOV matters to have a look at revising the article. (Also, please don't try to lecture me about Wikipedia, you can see - if you look - how long I have been on here) rturus (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Pilgrim Rose, I think what you should consider most is not WP:NPOV in this case, but WP:WEIGHT. In the context of a criminal trial, it is ridiculous to put so much emphasis on the unsuccessful arguments of the defence. If you look at other pages about cases with comparable media interest (Harold Shipman say), you will notice that there is little or no discussion about defence arguments at trial. This is mainly because those arguments were rejected at trial and they are therefore much less notable compared to the facts of the case that were established at trial. It would be conceivable that someone could research all the defence arguments from the Shipman trial and insert paragraphs and paragraphs of material into the article. This would undoubtedly give us an article that made it look like there had been a horrible miscarriage of justice. But it would by an obvious breach of WP:NPOV, as is the current state of this article. --FormerIP (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with FormerIP. At present, the Investigation section of the article is clogged with assertions – by the prosecution and counter assertions by the defence – that clearly belong in the Trials section. In my view, these should be relocated. --Red King (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Pilgrim Rose, I think what you should consider most is not WP:NPOV in this case, but WP:WEIGHT. In the context of a criminal trial, it is ridiculous to put so much emphasis on the unsuccessful arguments of the defence. If you look at other pages about cases with comparable media interest (Harold Shipman say), you will notice that there is little or no discussion about defence arguments at trial. This is mainly because those arguments were rejected at trial and they are therefore much less notable compared to the facts of the case that were established at trial. It would be conceivable that someone could research all the defence arguments from the Shipman trial and insert paragraphs and paragraphs of material into the article. This would undoubtedly give us an article that made it look like there had been a horrible miscarriage of justice. But it would by an obvious breach of WP:NPOV, as is the current state of this article. --FormerIP (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
American view is anti-fascist or anti-brutality not anti-Italy
08-Dec-2009: I've read the article several times, and I didn't find any shocking bias in the statements. Because Amanda Knox is an American, convicted in a way totally unacceptable in America, then many of the sourced controversies are, quite naturally, going to oppose the prosecution and the verdict, rather than claim, "Why wasn't Amanda beaten more severely to confess all in the first 2 days, then publicly hanged, stoned, knifed and burned rather than merely sentenced to only 26 years?" That's not the typical American way. Please understand the typical American heritage: "It is better that 10 (or 100) guilty men go free rather than 1 innocent person be wrongly punished". If Amanda Knox is only guilty of helping her boyfriend buy bleach and cleanup a crime scene (that he might have helped initiate), then sentence her to 2 years cleaning diapers, not 26 years. Please understand, in America, if it can be proven that a confession was forced/beaten, then it must be suppressed/banned (totally) from the trial, and if police commit a crime to obtain evidence, then that evidence must be omitted (although it is often used anyway in many corrupt American courts). The American way is very different: if a guy actually commits murder, and the police lie, then the guy is legally "not guilty" and cannot be tried again for that event. The American legal system does not pretend to magically "know" a sex-game occurred, but must prove each point of evidence, in accordance with the laws of physics. In general, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (not just one person's testimony): if it's true that the DNA of Amanda Knox was not detected at the scene, then it must be proven that she wore gloves+hairnet or had extraordinary powers to remove her DNA while leaving DNA of Rudy Guede at the scene. That issue would be expected in the article. If a knife has traces of bleach, then it must be proven that other knives/forks or dishes nearby were not likewise bleached because they happened to be in a sink also (as in the old adage: "correlated does not mean causally related"). Because America has extensive cultural diversity, many people have met others that laugh or joke, under stress, or in times of sorrow. In South Texas, the Karankawa native tribe (some of them cannibals) and their descendents have been known to constantly smile, in the most "inappropriate" of situations (this has been documented for nearly 400 years). In some Japanese-related families, it is often typical to publicly laugh at horrific events, and this also has become understood in the American diversity. However, America's big concern is: anti-fascist or anti-brutality (anti-king, anti-royalty, and anti-bully). Perhaps claims of brutality have been falsified, but it is an issue that causes Americans to rally in protest, so that is why it is a typical American complaint about the Kercher trials, rather than some exaggerated, POV-slanted view that seems to unfairly highlight those views as unbalanced. Almost any American source is likely to protest evidence gained by police brutality. Also, as others have noted, the automatic appeal in Italy as a type of "re-trial" is rarely found in America, so Americans typically have to protest immensely, with numerous points citing judicial error, to be granted an appeal: a court verdict in America is often "fatal" in the sense that it cannot be overturned, so the American press can be expected to protest loudly about a questionable verdict, rather than let Italy's appeal process merely expand the evidence during the re-trial, where a prison sentence in Italy is often reduced by half. I hope that helps explain the American viewpoints, in the article, from the numerous sources about the trial events. It's not a problem of bias, but rather, of viewpoint. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry - are you really saying that you think the American view is that Italy is Fascist and that police brutality is prevalent in Italy? I really think you should rework your "rant" to be a little less insulting and misinformed. rturus (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- 21st century Italy is not fascist, and I don't believe it is generally considered to be so by any country. Any claims to the contrary should be backed by reliable sources. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think you are a victim of a very bad journalism.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- @Wikid77 Your extreme, prejudiced, racist and factually incorrect rant is exactly the sort of thing that unfortunately highlights the weakness of the entire Wikipedia system, and which (imho) is in serious danger of bringing it into wide disrepute. As others on this discussion page have pointed-out, the entry on the main page already gives undue weight to those that believe that Amanda Knox is innocent, and regardless of whether that is indeed the case, this sort of nationalistic abuse and directly factually incorrect statements helps neither your cause nor the reputation and standing of the entire Wikipedia project. --Plasticmanic (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think you are a victim of a very bad journalism.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- 21st century Italy is not fascist, and I don't believe it is generally considered to be so by any country. Any claims to the contrary should be backed by reliable sources. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Sashes
I am re-adding this sentence: "At the reading of the verdict, six of the eight jurors were wearing red, white, and green sashes, the colors of Italy's flag." It had been deleted with the comment "what the jurors wore is trivial and irrelevant", but it is relevant in light of the "Media coverage" section, which suggests that this case may have been influenced by criticism of the Italian judiciary system. I've read editorials suggesting that Knox was more likely to be found guilty merely because of all the foreign press suggesting that Italian police were buffoons who contaminated the evidence; the jurors may have been motivated by a desire to show that an Italian court can indeed convict on a murder case. The CNN article also said that people applauded outside the courtroom after the verdict was announced. - Brian Kendig (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Removed. It seems to me that there was a bit of disinformation. Corte d'Assise Jurors always wear tricolor sashes, this wasn't a particular behaviour.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, that sounds reasonable. - Brian Kendig (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please read Italian Criminal Procedure where all this is explained: the lay judges and their sashes, the professional judges in their robes, the difference from a US/UK jury. --Red King (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
This page is about the event not the person ...
... so I have reworked the lead to make the purpose of the page clear. I also think that the bio infobox should be removed, for this reason. TerriersFan (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Infoboxes are often used in Murder of ... articles, including: Murder of Tom ap Rhys Pryce, Murder of Adam Walsh, Murder of Laci Peterson. Each of the three convicted killers in this article also have infoboxes. Information about the victim, beyond merely their murder, is standard on Wikipedia and elsewhere. The reader needs to have an outline of who the victim was, and events leading up to the murder, even if they were otherwise completely non-notable; the same goes for killers. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- OK but I have moved the Kercher infobox to her bio section which is consistent with the infoboxes for the other players. TerriersFan (talk)
- I disagree with the move of the infobox. Moving because it is "consistent with the infoboxes for the other players" totally ignores and further disrespects the fact that one of them was murdered, and the other three have been found guilty of murder. They are hence hardly equal. It is for this reason why the infoboxes for the victims when we write such an article appear at the top and not half way down the page. I intend to revert these edits. Rgds,--Trident13 (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- It is not equating the four; those found guilty are in a separate section and Kercher's section has significantly more prominence. The key point is that this is not a bio article hence the original position of the infobox was inappropriate. Arbitrarily reverting the move will not help; the way forward is to get consensus support n here. TerriersFan (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree with the move of the infobox. Moving because it is "consistent with the infoboxes for the other players" totally ignores and further disrespects the fact that one of them was murdered, and the other three have been found guilty of murder. They are hence hardly equal. It is for this reason why the infoboxes for the victims when we write such an article appear at the top and not half way down the page. I intend to revert these edits. Rgds,--Trident13 (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- OK but I have moved the Kercher infobox to her bio section which is consistent with the infoboxes for the other players. TerriersFan (talk)
- Personally I wonder why anyone finds it necessary to include Meredith Kercher's ethnicity in her info box but not the culprit's in theirs - why should that be relevant? I too think that Meredith's info box should be at the top of the page and the contents box moved to be underneath the introductory paragraph - that is the standard layout. rturus (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ethnicity and nationality of everyone involved is relevant, it is biographical info. Kercher has a Person infobox, which has an ethnicity parameter; the three convicts have Criminal infoboxes, which do not contain that parameter, hence it cannot be added to theirs. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- The position of the Kercher info box is correct because it is located by her section and makes it easier to cross-read. If the page had been about the person then placing a bio infobox at the top would be correct but it is out of place in an event article. TerriersFan (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification Lkjhgfdsa 0 rturus (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Except that people have repeatedly been inserting an ethnicity that she does not have. Yes, she has one English parent and one Indian parent, but that does not make her ethnicity either Anglo-Indian or Eurasian. Just the same as Barack Obama is not African-American, even though he has one African parent and one American parent. He does not come from the African-American ethnic group. --Red King (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Barack Obama's article states he is African-American, despite the fact his father was not American and his mother did not have African ancestry. He is assigned to that group. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Neutral Point of View policy requires inclusion of alternative views
I am posting a small excerpt of the Wikipedia NPOV policy. The policy clearly requires the inclusion of alternative or minority views. The murder case is presently in the appeal process. There is no one set of facts that has been finally established as of yet. Thus, there are alternative or minority views on what really happened. Under the NPOV policy, those alternative views should be allowed into the article. Editors should not be deleting them or accuse others of "shameful" conduct when they try to include information about the alternative views of some commentators, scientists, experts or major media sources in the United States. Under NPOV policy, such alternative perspectives should be included, at least until the appeals process is finalized.
Neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.
The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view. Articles should provide background on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular; detailed articles might also contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from taking sides.
Bias
Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be fixed.
I hope that the NPOV policy will be respected in this article. PilgrimRose (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- This is
extremely rude and arrogantnot very nice of you PilgrimRose. By all means give a link to another page of Wikipedia if you wish but to cut and paste a section of policy AT THE HEAD OF THE PAGE and try to interpret it to support your views is just wrong. Please delete your post and try to lose some degree of yourarrogancepossibly inappropriate emphasis. rturus (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC) In the spirit of attempting to placate perceived personal insults I withdraw the words I have struck out and insert more moderate remarks which I have italicised.rturus (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Dear Rturus, It is you who is being rude. Please delete your personal insults. There is no need for that. Also, where does it say that Wikipedia policies may not be quoted in part, but may only be linked to? I don't believe there is such a rule or policy. You are placing a demand on me to delete my quote of the NPOV policy simply because you don't like the policy being presented in an up front manner. Thus, your demand is unreasonable and therefore it is you who is being arrogant. It is clear from your posts that you have a hard time tolerating alternative or minority views being included in the article, but that is indeed required by the NPOV policy. Have a nice day. PilgrimRose (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
For futher reference, here is a link to the Wikipedia policy on Neutral Point of View http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by PilgrimRose (talk • contribs) 21:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- PilgrimRose, what is being pointed out to you is that you are placing undo WP:WEIGHT on arguments that were presented and rejected during the trial. You are taking the WP:NPOV out of context here, it does not allow you to present every alternative opinion or theory as fact, when they are clearly still opinions. You might get more support if you present your arguments in the context of "Reasons why Amanda Knox should request an appeal" Let's be WP:CIVIL Jonathancjudd (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Jonathan, I have reviewd the section on undue weight. The gist is that fringe minority viewpoints do not need to be given undue weight in the article. The section includes the example of those who believe the earth is flat. Such a fringe minority position does not need to be included in an article. But that example is a long way from this murder case situation. At this point, there has been no final determination of the facts or the evidence in the case because all that will be reviewed by an appellate court. The appellate court could turn around and adopt very different interpretations of the facts and the evidence. It could even adopt some of the views of the defense. The views of the defense are shared by large numbers of people, commentators, media and some experts. Until there is a final ruling in this case and the facts and evidence are finally determined, the alternative views of the defense are not so fringe or minor as to be excluded from the article under the NPOV policy, including the section on undue weight. Rather, those alternative views must be included under the NPOV policyPilgrimRose (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Pilgim Rose: Thank you for a polite reponse. I believe that we are saying the same thing, but perhaps in slightly different ways. I agree that it is certainly possible that an Italian appellate court might reverse or overturn the verdict, however, a decsion actually has been reached. It may or may not necessarily be the final decision, but it is a decision nonetheless.
Until that appellate court actually reverses that decision, though, everything else should be considered as opinions and an indirect interpretation of the evidence. Not all of the "evidence" will be allowed to stand. I am not an expert on Italian law, and perhaps a greater understanding of the due process would help.
You may want to consider perhaps creating a new section in the article, titled "Amanda Knox Appeal", this way it is clear that everything you are suggesting is in the context of the appeal process. Jonathancjudd (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Jonathan, under procedures in many states in the U.S., a decision that is under appeal is considered to have no binding or precedential effect. It is as if the ruling is in abeyance until the appeal is decided. I'm not certain that this is the situation in Italy, but I would think so given that in the U.S. our appeals are far more limited than Italian appeals. Italian appeals can result in a re-determination of the facts and evidence, almost like a trial de novo. Given how far reaching an appeal can be in Italy, I don't think it is required for Wikipedia to adopt at this point the views of the prosecution accepted by the jury-- to the exclusion of alternative views. There is nothing in the NPOV policy that I can see which requires such a result. The reality is that there is an extensive international debate about this case, and it would seem that the interests of neutrality require that both majority and minority views be included. I am noticing now that even in England there is starting to be a questioning of the problems in this case. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6947979.ece I think that inclusion of alternative views is more consistent with NPOV policy than exclusion is. 22:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PilgrimRose (talk • contribs)
- I don't think I am going to bother paying any more attention to what you say PilgrimRose. You are obviously determined to follow your agenda. I don't think I was making a personal insult but rather an observation on your behaviour in these pages. I think most people will objectively see that you have indeed been acting
in an arrogant fashionwith possibly inappropriate emphasis. Please enjoy your continuing devaluation of Wikipedia and reinforcing it's increasingly USA-slanted appearance. rturus (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)In the spirit of attempting to placate perceived personal insults I withdraw the words I have struck out and insert more moderate remarks which I have italicised.rturus (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Below comment was moved by an editor and is "not" in response to the above comment made by Rturus. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ditto. More would be a waste of words for someone who doesn't even obey the basic guidelines of Wiki.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Rturus, This is supposed to be a discussion about NPOV. Your anti-American sentiments have no place in the discussion. As you noted in your private message to me, you have this belief that the U.S. is arrogant and is a bully in its dealing with other countries. You apparently also feel that the arrogant Americans are trying to take over Wikipedia. I am confident that there are many who do not agree with your views. I sure don't agree. While you are certainly entitled to your opinions, those views should not be entering into a discussion of NPOV policy. I do not believe that your fears that Wikipedia is becoming too "U.S.A. slanted" justifies trying to block the views of Americans who wish to contribute to this article. Please read the policy on NPOV and try to respect the rights of others, including Americans, who feel their views should be included under NPOV policy. PilgrimRose (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)PilgrimRose
Cleaner: Please take your personal attacks elsewhere. PilgrimRose (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please start obeying talkpage rules (like Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages and others) and you won't see my or other editors remarks as a "personal attack" anymore, or at least you shouldn't IMO.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should take your own advice. PilgrimRose (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Umh, could you clarify this? Your comment does nothing than leave a "blank" in regards of what you're trying to say. If you'd like to clarify and talk this out you can do so at my talk page. It shouldn't take long. Also I think you're wrongly seeing this as a "personal war" between you and me which is not my point of view (and doesn't belong in mainspace anyways).See you(?), The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
@ PilgrimRose. Firstly, I am by no means anti-USA. You misquote my remarks to you which actually were "Many people feel that the USA has an arrogant and bullying approach to other countries". I also explained to you that the links that I gave you to our UK papers showed "how most of us here actually viewed the trial with misgivings and apprehension".
You also seem to have failed to grasp that I communicated to you with the main purpose of placating your misapprehension that I had been making a personal attack on you, viz..."I am sorry that you thought I was being very insulting, my use of the term arrogance was not meant as a personal attack but a reference to the way you were treating the page. <snip> You should know that my only interest was and is in trying to maintain a neutral Wikipedia, I have grave concerns about the appearance of a USA "slant" in much of Wikipedia and the Kercher page is a very good example. However, believe me when I say that I have nothing personal against you (or anyone else for that matter) and I apologise for any offence I might have caused you."
I am assuming that your misrepresentation of my communication was due to a failure on your part to understand it's content. I am sure that you had no intention of trying to discredit me by making erroneous statements and trying to disguise it by editing it into an entry which you had made at a previous date. Such a conclusion would be very ungallant and I refuse to believe such an underhand motive.
I apologise to others reading this page for bringing this matter up here, since I feel that it is against the "this is not a forum" guidelines. However I feel it is necessary to counter the unfounded statements that PilgrimRose has made about me in their "refactoring" of their earlier entry above. As I said in my message on their talk page "you have your opinions and you are entitled to them and I would defend that right on your behalf". I have copied the whole of that message to my talk page for reference.
Finally, may I just say that it is rude, manipulative, disingenuous and totally against the rules of Wikipedia to alter the contents of talk pages in the way that you have done PilgrimRose. Firstly by removing the responses of others (which I have corrected) and secondly by editing your own entries to either disguise the content or the date and time of the entry. Refactoring should be used for clarification and correction, not expansion and altering the original content. That and other activities is what is being referred to by The Magnificent Clean-keeper and myself.rturus (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Rturus: now you call me "rude, manipulative and disingenuous", while saying I don't comply with the Wikipedia rules. If you check the rules you will see that such personal attacks on the discussion pages are not allowed. Please stop with these insults. I have the impression that you are trying to bully me into not participating in this article. PilgrimRose (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- If you would've checked the rules that where pointed out to you and obeyed them you would be in a quite better possition than you are right now. So please give us a break, start editing by the rules that all editors should and have to go by and everything could go its intended course.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- And yet you totally ignore Rturus's repeated personal attacks which are against the rules. I'd say posting insults against another editor is a far more serious issue than any alleged rule violation of mine. Enough. PilgrimRose (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please read WP:AGF. It's not the whole (Wiki) world against you even if you feel this way.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- And "Assume Good Faith" works both ways. It also means that before you start repeatedly calling someone "rude" "arrogant" and "rude, manipulative and disingenuous" you should try to assume good faith. Rturus starting attacking me for simply posting excerpts from the NPOV policy, calling me "rude" and "arrogant" when he should have assumed good faith. It should be obvious that posting a quote from a rule is consistent with good faith. But ignoring his bullying and failure to comply with the rules is not good faith. No one should be condoning the posting of insults on a discussion page, so please stop doing that. PilgrimRose (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, and you reversed me when I moved this section of yours to the bottom of the talk page where it belongs w/o any editsummary, as usual. You don't seem to like to interact with editors by editsummaries nor on your own talk page nor when one is offering and asking you to talk something out (an issue what seemed personal and had no place to be discussed here on the article's talk page). You're right in one point: "AGF goes both ways", but please, also keep in mind the timely screwed up history of this thread as an example for... well, you chose.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- PS: You'll get a notice on your talk page shortly. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- And still not a word about the use of personal insults on a discussion page! So still you are condoning this. I have no respect for such behavior nor for anyone who condones it. I do not wish to speak with you any further. Instead, I will in the future respond to such personal insults with personal insults, since that seems to be allowed (at least for some people) around here, and hope to make my point more effectively in that manner. Perhaps those on the receiving end of such personal insults will then understand why such insults are counter-productive to Wikipedia. PilgrimRose (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps all three of you could take a deep breath. Have a snack or a drink of your preferred beverage and reconsider whether you own remarks could have been more moderately made. If you can't see how, you simply aren't trying. Escalating incivility will rapidly go nowhere. An action such as top posting on the talkpage may be bad form per WP:TALKPAGE, but it certainly isn't a crime against humanity. Neither is calling a post rude. When two relative wikipedia novice editors (as rturus and PilgrimRose both appear to be) take on a controversial topic it is only to be expected that such errors will arise. Many articles find it helpful to avoid discussing the editors and focus on the edits instead. Personalizing the inevitable disagreements isn't good for anyone.LeadSongDog come howl 22:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- And you or we could go on and on here which is not the right place to do so. Let's move it to ANI where you at least had the courtesy to respond and even so I disagree with your comment I'm appreciated that you finally engaged in a discussion. I see this as a first step to solve some issues.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- PS: You had your chance to interact with me on your and my talk page but you refused as you refuse to give edit summaries. I really don't know why. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Once again PilgrimRose sees everything as a personal insult. I am making no personal attack, the remarks are descriptive of the manner in which you have edited. I already apologised for any offence my remarks might have caused you - what more do you want - blood? I have not sought you to stop participating, merely to try to be more balanced and observe the editing guidelines. Any personal attacks have come from you in defaming me by misquoting and misrepresenting me. I have no desire to engage in personal attacks and you can see my response to your attacks on ANI. You have also failed to engage in discussion via your talk page or mine (as is also the case with other editors - see above), instead deciding to use this article's talk page as a forum to try to reinforce your opinion and attempt to discredit other editors. rturus (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Rturus: Enough with these childish, immature attacks. You say you have apologized, yet in your apologies you reaffirm your insults. Personal attacks are wrong. Period. I am here to write about an interesting topic, not to deal with your bullying. Now please stop and just leave me alone. ENOUGH. PilgrimRose (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Ms PilgrimRose. I am making no attacks, I am asking you to retract your deliberate misrepresentation of me in contravention of "2 (d) quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CIVIL - as I have stated in ANI and your own talk page. (The definition of personal attacks is also on the CIVIL page.) With very best wishes and most civil greetings, your most respectful servant rturus (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Factual inaccuracy in the investigation subsection
I apologise if I am doing this incorrectly I have never attempted to edit any wiki page before or taken part in a discussion.
In the Investigation subsection it states that Rudy Guede was not known to either Knox or Scolletico, "He was not an acquaintance of either Knox or Sollecito" the page reads. My understanding is that they were known to know each other and had been seen in each others company several times prior to Meredith Kertcher's murder. I do not dispute that Knox denied knowing Guede initially, but witnesses have made statements saying that they had been seen in each others company before. How do I go about getting that subsection changed to reflect the fact that they did know each other and that Guede was suspected by local police to be a drug dealer and it is assumed by the local police that Knox and Scolletico were acquainted with him because of Guede's drug dealing. Knox and Scolletico admit to smoking hashish, which is thought to have been purchased off Guede. What do I need to produce in the way of a citation and how would I go about editing to reflect that statement. Justin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.121.195 (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- This kind of info is missing from the article and should be added, if there are reliable sources stating what the facts or statements by those involved were. If someone can find a reliable source that give these details, they should be added. We also want to find out what Guede said about how long and how well he knew Kercher, Knox and Sollecito. Another point unanswered is how well Kercher and Sollecito knew each other. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
June 2009 transcript
I have just removed a 335kb text that was pasted in here by an unsigned user, you can see it if you look at the history page. This is not the place to include such a huge cut and paste job. In fairness, it included a link to where the transcript was copied from. This was all that the poster should have included. The link is:http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165&start=0 but that is from 137.205.56.18, not from me. I have no idea as to the reliability of the source. rturus (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, just to say I'm the person who attempted to paste it in (realize it was too long). I found it online after having seen some of the videos on youtube. I thought it was interesting to hear (if it is authentic) the sworn descriptions of the police interviews matching the witness statement and subsequent memorial, and including some further details. I thought it was interesting that the police really can throw a monkey wrench into someone's cognition by stating they have proof of something false. Then, repeating what essentially she had been forced to accept as true, had been interpreted as lying to save herself hence incriminating? It made no sense and I'm pleased that the main article does not even mention this thread of thought, this distortion upon which she had been convicted. Writing from Birmingham, England 78.145.170.24 (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Clear and short Italian version
Why the english version is so long and complicated? The same article in italian is short and very clear.151.60.118.123 (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- We Americans just like to hear ourselves talk =) Awayforawhile (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that your talking is useless because she's jailed at 35 km from my home in Italy (EU).It's an american joke.In Italy and EU all the people is laughing of Us behaviour.151.60.117.196 (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
American media bias should be included in the media section too
The accusations of the anti-American bias and lack of evidence have been dismissed by John Kercher who blames these baseless accusations on the American media - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/12/08/anti-american-bias-accusations-branded-ludicrous-by-meredith-kercher-s-father-115875-21881142/ This should be included on the POV Media coverage section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.84.139 (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I've added a quote from John Kercher. You should post at the foot of the page - you're lucky anyone found your comment. --FormerIP (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- When I posted it originally it was at the bottom of the page but I put it as a reference, not just an address. I can't make head nor tail of these wikirules.
- I mean your post, not the reference. Convention is that new topics go at the bottom of the page. --FormerIP (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Issue of alleged bleach and cleaning of crime scene
The article contains information about bleach supposedly being purchased the morning after the murder and being used by Knox to clean the crime scene. However, that information was apparently untrue or unreliable because it was not presented at the trial. Since the information was apparently not accurate or reliable enough to be presented in the trial, it should be removed. If the information had some validity it would have been included in the trial, because it would have been so incriminating. When I heard the reports of an alleged clean up of the murder scene by Knox, I found that overwhelmingly damming. But it turned out not to be true, like so much else that the media reported. Since the info was not reliable, it should not be in the article. PilgrimRose (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that information can be considered unreliable purely because it was not used at trial. However, it's my view that the article should contain a lot less information about things that were actively rejected at trial. Surely there's a much stronger case for saying all that stuff is unreliable? --FormerIP (talk) 10:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- It is properly referenced and is part of the section on police investigation so therefore it should stand imo. Bjorn I. Clever (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Washing machine and bleach
Are there any other (official Italian?) sources for the allegations about the washing machine running and the bleaching of the apartment? According to the Friends for Amanda site, these were never used in court, and the Times article seems pretty wishy washy ("Reports said the police heard the washing machine spinning to the end of its cycle as they arrived at the cottage at 1235"). Should a note be added to the article to mention that these weren't used in court? --Dilaudid (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- A lot of what is in the article wasn't used in court. As I've pointed out above, a lot of the material also did not stand up in court. I think it would be tedious to constantly note this, but there is a case for removing some material altoghether IMO. This should be done methodically, though. --FormerIP (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- The washing machine was certainly mentioned in the testimony of Filomena Romanelli. She said that when she returned to the flat, the washing machine was warm and that the clothes in it were those of Kercher. This was some 10 hours after Kercher died, so the inference was that someone else had washed Kercher's clothes after the murder. See, for example: http://www.newsweek.com/id/185169/page/2 Bluewave (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- As a more general point, it is quite difficult (with two trials, one of which lasted almost a year) to be definitive as to what was and what was not used in court. However, the definitive source is probably not the Friends for Amanda site. We probably need to wait for the judicial analysis to be published for the second trial. Bluewave (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- A lot of what is in the article wasn't used in court. As I've pointed out above, a lot of the material also did not stand up in court. I think it would be tedious to constantly note this, but there is a case for removing some material altoghether IMO. This should be done methodically, though. --FormerIP (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
In the June trial (A link to the transcript is in the 'transcript' section of this talk article) she states that she did not know what an Italian container of bleach looks like, had never used or bought it. I think then that the assertion that she used it can't be stated as unbiased fact. So if it is still in the article, it should be taken out. Admittedly I don't know the source of the June 2009 trial transcript or its reliability. It is translated by someone on a forum somewhere (see link).
78.145.170.24 (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
According to The Times of 19 Nov 2007,[2] till receipts found at Sollecito's flat showed that he bought 2 lots of bleach, one at 8.30am on 2 November, and the second 45 minutes later. It seems surprising that Knox, who was supposedly with him at that time, didn't notice him buying the bleach. Bluewave (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Which floor?
The article speaks of Kerscher's flat being on the "second floor" in the house. UK newspapers talk of it's being the "first floor". Is this a problem of different English and U.S. terminology for numbering floors. And, if so, can anyone suggest an easy way to make this clear for all readers (preferably without needing a great wodge of explanation, every time it is mentioned)? Bluewave (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- The building is built on the side of a hill and has two floors/levels. Each floor/level has a separate apartment / flat / dwelling. The flat in which Meredith Kercher was murdered was on the upper floor / level. The entrance to that flat is at road-level. See for example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8394110.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8395012.stm and pictures on http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8392616.stm There are other illustrations available on the web. rturus (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Since there are only two levels, the simplest way would be to use 'upstairs' and 'downstairs' instead of the confusing 'floor'. Rothorpe (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, good idea. The point is that if an English reader sees "second floor flat" they will think the building has 3 floors: ground floor, 1st and 2nd. American readers will think there are 2: 1st (at ground level) and 2nd. Some other countries use the same convention as England (eg France: rez de chausee; premier etage etc). I can't remember the Italian usage. If we talk about floor numbers, the article should probably follow English usage as it is written in British English, but perhaps it would be clearer to talk of the "upstairs flat" as you suggest. Bluewave (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Glad you agree. I'll make the change in an hour or two if there are no more comments. Rothorpe (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion to minimize bias
It seems that much of the disagreement regarding bias in this article has to do with debate over evidence, sources and public opinion. The article reflects that and appears to be a hodge-podge of talking points rather than a clear statement of facts. I don't wish to offend anyone who has an opinion on the verdicts rendered in this case, but it seems that opinion is complicating judgments about the relative strength of the supporting references. I was struck by how many of the sources are news articles and that depending on which country they originate from, the same information may be presented very differently and therefore lead to different conclusions.
Now that I've explained why I'm even bothering, my suggestion is simple. Arrive at some consensus about which sources are solid and ensure that there is a reference from each of the three countries (Italy, UK, US) to corroborate what goes into this article. This won't eliminate all of the controversy, but it may help to minimize it. It would also help make the article more succinct and readable. Cheers. Christaltips (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- There has been a huge amount of news coverage in national British and American newspapers for over two years, hence why most of the refs are press articles. If someone can add the transcripts of interviews and court proceedings to the article, that would be an improvement. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please don't ask for transcripts to be added to the article. Reference them and link to them by all means but they are just too huge! I recently removed a 335KB paste of text from the transcripts. I left in the poster's reference and link - that will take you to a forum with all the transcripts (in English) as well as other material. rturus (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry I should have been more clear. The 335KB transcript I removed was from this talk page, not the article. rturus (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not saying put all the transcripts in the article, just mention / quote the important points. The massive transcript of the questioning of Knox, which was rightly removed from this talk page, contains some important info. If someone could check the translation and authenticity of them, we could use some of the points in them. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry I should have been more clear. The 335KB transcript I removed was from this talk page, not the article. rturus (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the suggestion was to rely on more solid references and not to rely so heavily on news reports, unless the news reports can be corroborated by cross-referencing to articles from other countries. I did not mean to imply that transcripts needed to be added to this article. On the contrary, I was trying to suggest a means of vetting entries that would be fairly objective. My apologies if I've upset anyone.Christaltips (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Article more biased pro-prosecution than news reports
10-Dec-2009: Please read many of the linked news reports, which are more balanced than the article has been. Although it seems logical that there would be some amount of bias in the various news reports, the bias that I've concluded for days, in the article, seems to be the skipping of text in the same news reports that refutes claims of the prosecution. For example,
- A news report has been linked to claim "Sollecito's footprint" was found in blood, whereas the actual linked news report states that a footprint claimed to match Sollecito's Nike shoes was found in blood in Kercher's room; however, Giovanni Arcudi, a second expert arguing on behalf of Sollecito, stated, "That footprint does not possess clear and definite characteristics."
- Also consider: police claim the entire flat was cleaned with bleach, except the open smaller bathroom, where blood smears were found & the toilet unflushed. Hello? The bathroom would be the first room to be cleaned, due to simple surfaces and the nearby sink, then flush the evidence.
I think a prior assessment of the article is correct: long before the trial ended, the article had been systematically edited (and re-edited) to primarily list evidence "proving guilt" of Knox and Sollecito, using "cherry-picked" text while excluding any nearby text where the defence refuted the evidence. It is important for readers to also take time to read the linked news reports, to understand the vast, enormous scope of evidence that has been refuted by the defence attorneys. Then, return to the article, to consider adding nearby text which refutes the prosecution claims, when no DNA, hair or fiber evidence from Knox or Sollecito was found on any furniture, bedding, flooring or walls in Meredith Kercher's room, while "holding her down" with "2 different knives"? To avoid a POV bias, try to provide dual text: for every claim of the prosecution in the article, try to follow it with obvious text claimed by the defence. That is a very simple way of avoiding such a one-sided view of the events: it is as easy as checking the article for black-&-white, black-&-white, black-&-white, etc. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- The unsuccessful arguments of the defence should not be given equal WP:WEIGHT to the facts of the case as established at trial. --FormerIP (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- The so-called "facts" are not really established at a trial; so, even when a jury votes "not guilty" that does not mean they thought that everything claimed by the prosecution was false. A jury is free to pick and choose which parts of each person's testimony to believe or reject: they can believe "Amanda said they were friends" then not believe she didn't kill her friend, even if that seems unfair. -Wikid77 12:51, 11 December 2009
- The unsuccessful arguments of the defence should not be given equal WP:WEIGHT to the facts of the case as established at trial. --FormerIP (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I really dont understand your point. It seems to me you're trying to counterbalance a supposed POV tendence to respect the trial achievements adding a (far more) POV opposite content to condemn the prosecution and the Italian media (was Gente worse than British The Sun or American Fox??), as you did at Trial of Knox and Sollecito.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- The counterbalancing of widely-reported, opposing views is typical in Wikipedia articles. --Wikid77 12:51, 11 December 2009
- In response Wikid77, I would say that the opposite bias has been prevalent during the time that I've been reading the page, but then this is the inherent problem of the article as a whole, as bias is perceived by both sides of this discussion to favor the opposing point-of-view. In any case, to take your simple example of the bathroom being left uncleaned: not only did the defendants not know that the police would arrive as quickly as they did (returning a mobile phone that belonged to Meredith Kercher), but the evidence in the bathroom, and in particular the unflushed feces in the toilet, helped to incriminate another person (Guede), and it was therefore in the interests of Knox and Sollecito that the bathroom should not be cleaned. I would therefore say that, on the contrary, it's very notable that the rest of the apartment had apparently been thoroughly cleaned, and Amanda Knox had also (by her own testimony) taken a shower in the bathroom, but no-one had flushed away feces floating in the toilet. In my opinion, this just goes to show to what extent the 'facts' of the case are open to both discussion and (arguably) manipulation. —Plasticmanic (talk • contribs) 22:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I really dont understand your point. It seems to me you're trying to counterbalance a supposed POV tendence to respect the trial achievements adding a (far more) POV opposite content to condemn the prosecution and the Italian media (was Gente worse than British The Sun or American Fox??), as you did at Trial of Knox and Sollecito.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps Amanda Knox took a shower in the other, larger shared bathroom on the 2nd floor, leaving a fresh scent of warm soap, shampoo, perfume, and deodorant that pervaded the entire flat to make it seem "recently cleaned", but that is yet another example of omitted detail. -Wikid77 12:51, 11 December 2009
- @Wikid77 Amanda Knox herself stated in her own testimony that she had showered in the bathroom with the bloodstains (which also contained the faeces from Guede), as she also has said that she thought the bloodstains must have come from one of the female residents of the apartment having their period. As for the suggestion that the extensive forensic evidence of cleaning in the apartment is based on "the fresh scent of warm soap" etc - the police used Luminol to uncover bloodstains and bloody footprints in various parts of the apartment that had been cleaned away and were no longer visible to the naked eye. I'm sure it is not your intention to spread misinformation about the trial by using this discussion page for that purpose, now that the main page has been partially locked, but the net effect may be the same if you continue to enter statements in the discussion which are not based on the established facts of the case. Please bear in mind that the existence of the bloody footprints that had been cleaned away are not disputed by the defence, but the identity of the footprints was disputed. Therefore we may fairly presume that at least some parts of the apartment had been cleaned so that blood was no longer visible to the naked eye.--Plasticmanic (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Attempted deletion of section on the controversial prosecutor
It seems that someone keeps deleting more and more information in the section on the prosecutor so that there is hardly anything left. The information that was there several days ago struck me as very interesting and relevant to the topic. I would have liked to know more about that topic. Certainly, the prosecutor is an important figure in this case. Some have expressed the view that his own past abuses of power may have shed some light in how he handled the Kercher murder case. I think this section needs to be beefed up, not shorn down. PilgrimRose (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- If that seems to you to be the case then perhaps it is worth thinking whether that person is notable enough for an article? Gather all the facts without any sense of "off topic" and undue weight? That's my suggestion, though without prejudice as to notability. Redheylin (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- It might be a bit WP:BEANS to say it, but perhaps he is notable enough.
- I'm surprised you feel starved of information about this person, though, Pilgrim Rose. You seem to have taken quite an interest in most aspects of the case.
- Don't forget that WP:BLP applies here. Proper sourcing is needed, and certain types of information which may count as libel should not be included. Mignini has apparently initiated legal procedings against a number of newspapers. Opinions about him made by persons who are not appropriately qualified should be avoided in particular. --FormerIP (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I mentioned the loss of the information because I don't know anything about him myself, but would like to learn more. The information that was once in the article was very interesting. PilgrimRose (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- As it appears to be his (quote) "past abuses of power" that you want to shed more light on, I'd have to assume that you do know at least something about him. In which case your last statement appears to me far too disingenuous - particularly within the context of the massive number of comments you've made on the page, and your obvious and strident viewpoint on the case. --Plasticmanic (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Plasticmaniac---So, the point of your post is merely to say that my simple comment was "disingenuous"? Talk about a rude uncalled for remark. But it is your remark that is disengenuous since it is obvious that a person can know a tiny bit about someone but not have enough information to actually write about the person. PilgrimRose (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I do know what has been said about him, but WP:BLP also applies to talkpages. One of the things I do know is that there are serious reasons to doubt the accuracy of some of the claims. For example, a widely-reported allegation concerns the famous Monster of Florence case, but it appears that Mignini did not actally work on that case. --FormerIP (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm digressing a little, that isn't the point. The point is just that WP:BLP applies. Appropriate, sourced content may be added if it is of value to the article. But character-assasination is not allowed. --FormerIP (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Plasticmaniac---So, the point of your post is merely to say that my simple comment was "disingenuous"? Talk about a rude uncalled for remark. But it is your remark that is disengenuous since it is obvious that a person can know a tiny bit about someone but not have enough information to actually write about the person. PilgrimRose (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Of course, there is such a thing as BLP rules, particularly when making nasty remarks about lawyers and one has, at any stage, either read or not read a given passage. Nevertheless the man seems notable enough for a page and, as I say, would prevent undue weight here and help diffuse what, I can imagine, is a vexed issue. Redheylin (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- I undertake, by the way, never to edit this present page just so I may afford myself the luxury of mentioning that I myself can find no sign of any convincing evidence whatsoever against Knox and boyfriend. Voila. Redheylin (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- There was some poorly sourced and irrelevant material about the prosecutor, so I removed it. This article is about the murder and case, not about him. Fences&Windows 23:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Subpage Trial of Knox and Sollecito POV issues
I think we are failing to monitor also the subpage of this article. I flag for your consideration in particular this section, Trial_of_Knox_and_Sollecito#Various_controversies. That is a raw list of POV critics to the trial and to the Italian media. Please take a look at the discussion ongoing at Talk:Trial_of_Knox_and_Sollecito.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have created an AfD page for the subarticle. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trial_of_Knox_and_Sollecito --FormerIP (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- There is nothing unusual about including various POV (point-of-view) aspects in an article. In fact, at Wikipedia, we prefer to have an obvious cross-section of major viewpoints expressed together within one article, rather than slant to a POV-bias such as reporting only the claims of the prosecution during a trial. As for having 2 pages about a subject, please understand that back in 2006, there were 12 major articles about the film/book "The Da Vinci Code" which involved sites in Italy. So, having 2 pages about a subject in Italy is not a problem. As for the scope of opinions, I have many sources contesting the events of the trial, but none advocate the "hanging and burning" of Amanda Knox, as occurred in Italian city states in the 1400s (search Google for: "hanging and burning" Knox). However, if you find reliable sources that intend to hang/burn Amanda as a warning message to other 20-year-old girls attending college in Italy, please feel free to add them to that article. Also, I have no bias against your viewpoint. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- You are right that Wikipedia represents various points of view. However...
- It should represent the points of view of its sources, not the points of view of editors.
- It doesn't necessarily include points of view that are grossly ignorant (eg flat earth opinions).
- It has to try to get a balance that avoids undue emphasis.
- Where points of view are included, we must ensures that they are attributed. So, for example, it can be stated as fact that Knox's DNA was found on a particular knife but it is the opinion of the prosecutor that the knife was the murder weapon and it is the opinion of the defence that it could not have caused the wounds. It is the opinion of some commentator that the knife might have been contaminated.
- ...and I've no idea what is the relevance of hanging and burning. Thankfully, Italy does not have a death penalty. Bluewave (talk) 12:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- You are right that Wikipedia represents various points of view. However...
- Wikid77, the matter is not having 2 pages about this case, it is having good content verified across reliable sources and not to fall in the original research you seem to embrace largely in your contributions and discussions. And please avoid that foolish sarchasm.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Sections looking very mixed up
For example, the section about the forensic investigation has got a lot of stuff about the trial. The trial section has got a lot of stuff about Cantwell, Clinton and other commentators. I suggest that we should keep the sections on the investigation and forensic evidence completely factual (eg where the knife was found and what DNA was on it, but not whether it was or was not the murder weapon). Then the trial sections needs to focus on what actually happened at the trials and the arguments put forward by each side. Then a separate section about the way the case has been seen in various countries, mentioning Cantwell, Clinton, et al. Bluewave (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Applause! --Red King (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! I was going to propose a major sort-out of material into the right sections (or even just doing it!) but was waiting for the decision on whether the other article on the trial is going to be merged, deleted or left alone. Bluewave (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree Bluewave, I have made some partial suggestions as to proposed structures in the "Prosecution's version of events" and "Michelli judgment" sections at the foot of this page. Perhaps it is time to set up a section to purely discuss an agreed new article structure? rturus (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think the structure looks too bad (though, don't let me discourage you from opening a discussion on improving it!) The worse problem is that people can't seem to let material stay in the right place in the structure. So the section on forensic evidence, for example, ends up with some of the refutations that belong with the trial or with the opinions of lobby groups that belong somewhere else. Bluewave (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Actual charges and verdicts?
I have made some changes on the article page and the sub-page changing the conspiracy to murder convictions to "Murder and sexual assault". However I also changed the remarks on Guede to "conspiracy to murder" in the text. Unfortunately I might have been wrong in doing the latter, my apologies and if the actual charges and convictions can be obtained from a reliable source will someone post them (and the citation) here or on the page. I know for example that Knox and Sollecito were also found guilty of unlawful possession of a weapon and of staging a crime scene but not guilty of theft and that Knox was found guilty of defamation. I am sure there are other charges and/or verdicts but I cannot find English language references. Again, apologies for any error and please feel free to correct if you have reliable citations. rturus (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- I do not have edit rights on this article but wanted to help clarify the verdict information for Guede. Here are the links to references documenting "Murder and Sexual Assault" -- Times Online, Time, TGCom. Can someone correct this? Christaltips (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Done.--FormerIP (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Is it correct that all three were convicted of sexual assault, but no-one was convicted of rape? Was anyone charged with rape? Kercher was raped, so why was Guede not convicted of that offence? Were the sexual assault convictions on the basis that Knox and Sollecito held Kercher down whilst Guede raped her, or that they actually sexually assaulted her? The article needs clarification on this matter. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sexual assault and rape are not necessarily the same -- rape is very narrowly defined in some local jurisdictions whereas sexual assault may encompass a wider range of offenses. I suggest providing a link to the WP entry for sexual assault. Christaltips (talk) 02:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Guede denied committing any offence against Kercher; no-one believed his lies. Many media reports state he had intercourse with her against her will and deliberately killed her. Why wasn't he convicted of rape? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 11:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sexual assault and rape are not necessarily the same -- rape is very narrowly defined in some local jurisdictions whereas sexual assault may encompass a wider range of offenses. I suggest providing a link to the WP entry for sexual assault. Christaltips (talk) 02:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- There may not have been a rape conviction because, according to the trial judge's report in the Guede case, Guede "didn't finish the act" of sex. His DNA was found in epithelial cells on and in Meredith, not semen I understand. I don't know the Italian legal definition of rape so that is just my supposition as to why it was a sexual assault conviction and not a rape conviction in Guede's case. rturus (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Is it correct that all three were convicted of sexual assault, but no-one was convicted of rape? Was anyone charged with rape? Kercher was raped, so why was Guede not convicted of that offence? Were the sexual assault convictions on the basis that Knox and Sollecito held Kercher down whilst Guede raped her, or that they actually sexually assaulted her? The article needs clarification on this matter. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Done.--FormerIP (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- There is no felony of stupro (rape) in Italy; there is a felony of violenza sessuale (sexual violence/sexual assault), which encompasses a great number of behaviours, from touching somebody's butt to actually raping him or her. Penalties, of course, are different: less serious charges are punished with a lighter sentence (a third of the maximum penalty).
- There have been cases where defendants were convicted on charges of sexual assaults for caressing lasciviously somebody's thighs; or for kissing somebody's neck; in one case, somedoby's cheeks.
- Until 1996 there were two different crimes: violenza carnale (carnal assault, which meant rape) and atti di libidine violenta (acts of violent lust, which referred to both sexual assault and sexual harassment). Salvio giuliano (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for that Salvio. Your insights and contributions are greatly valued. rturus (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- My pleasure! ;) Salvio giuliano (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
At Wikipedia, we don't judge the case, we just report it
The main focus of Wikipedia is WP:Verifiability, not ultimate truth. This is an issue that seems to take years for some editors to fully comprehend. Wikipedia just reports what the reliable sources claim, whether they are right or wrong. For a legal case, we just report what is claimed in reliable sources: if they report remarks made by the defence, or prosecution, we just include the major viewpoints of each. We do not exclude defence remarks because the prosecution won the verdict and judged the defence as "wrong". Wikipedia does not attempt to conduct a sort of "re-trial by wiki" to somehow show that a jury was right or wrong. We just repeat what others said, without making any final judgments. Think of Wikipedia as a collection of old news, with the editors as journalists who organize the old-data of the world. We are not here to judge "guilty" or "not guilty". We just combine all viewpoints of a case, from what multiple people report. -Wikid77 12:51, 11 December 2009
- Hopefully everyone would agree with you. However, we face a few problems:
- The two trials have, between them, been running for well over a year and there is no single reliable source (or even a small numbr of them) where we can find the definitive record of what was said and what was contested. Instead, we are mostly relying on the snippets that were published in newspapers as the case unfolded.
- In the case of the Knox/Sollicito trial, the judge has not yet published the details of his judgement, so we don't actually know what were the most significant points of evidence from the year-long trial.
- The newspaper accounts were often highly partisan (look at a selection of the headlines!) and frequently changed their slant from one day to the next. It is easy for someone who wants to give undue weight to one point of view to find plenty of material to back it up. It is conversely difficult to achieve an objective encyclopaedic stance.
- Some of the media reporting was just grossly ignorant. For example it has been suggested that the Italian justice system assumes a defendant's guilt. So, it then becomes an editorial decision whether to include this material, but to add in a load of other stuff to demonstrate that it is nonsense, or simply to exclude it.
I think these are some of the things we are struggling with! Bluewave (talk) 13:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- It is indeed difficult to get the proper balance to form an accurate depiction of the topic. But I agree with the general principles Wikid77 has set forth above. PilgrimRose (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- A general strategy is to consider the topic as separate phases, then try to answer the "Six Ws" (who, what, when, where, why & how). For that reason, I created the subsection "The 2nd-story flat" because people did not realize there were 2 shared bathrooms on the 2nd floor: shower in one, and use the non-steamed mirror in the other? Also, Amanda knew Meredith for perhaps only 3 weeks before Sollecito and Amanda dated? However, Guede had visited the 4 guys on the 1st floor many times, probably long before Meredith arrived in August. All of that information is easy to find when concentrating on When and Where. Hence, that gives a focus for expanding the article in a more complete manner. Several people have complained that the article presented the situation as a confusing mass, with too few basic details. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- well, in terms of details, I think the sort of thing you want to discuss above is the sort of detail that is probably excessive in an encyclopedia, The purpose of an article here is not to enable people to judge guilt, but to inform general readers about the overall matter. Excessive weight on details like this is either polemic on side or another, (in some other instances, it amounts to sensationalism). We are not a tabloid, we are not a court report. DGG ( talk ) 21:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Expect little evidence from Knox/Sollecito trial
12-Dec-2009: Okay, more bad news. I think we can forget waiting for the Judge's trial-summary of the Knox/Sollecito trial as a great source of evidence for this article. Many people, who claimed to have read the recent transcripts, said there's not much evidence. One even summarized the whole trial, as if the prosecution had claimed:
- "Yeah, our evidence is shit. We know she had no motive. But you don't need motive and evidence to kill someone. Doesn't she look guilty!?" (a reader's opinion of Knox/Sollecito trial transcripts)
Hence, we will need to "protect" what little evidence is left, in the article, to avoid a one-sided view that Knox/Sollecito were convicted on no evidence at all. Several people reported that the interrogators had asked Amanda Knox to consider several (perhaps 5?) different possible murder scenarios, and then respond to each. Another source claimed that Knox was asked (when age 20, an underage minor in U.S.), by interrogators, to speak as if she were pretending to have role in the murder, imagining how events would unfold, and her words about those various scenarios were recorded as if being statements of actual events.
Other bad news:
- Several people are reporting the cut bra clasp (or fastener) was collected as evidence "46 days" after the murder, and had been "kicked" or slid several times, plus was placed in a (non-sterile) shoebox (not a locked evidence-box), and was re-handled by multiple people, reusing gloves that touched other objects.
- Why would someone carry a large (8 inch, 20 cm), knife murder-weapon (after screams were heard) out in public to his house to be cleaned and kept, rather than dispose of the knife somewhere, anywhere else?
No wonder so many people wanted to keep all this information from being added into the article. -Wikid77 04:52, 12 December 2009
- Just a quick comment here on a small point of fact, in the U.S. you cease being a "minor" once you turn 18, and by age 20 you are only "underage" inasmuch as you cannot drink alcohol legally (or, I think most everywhere, rent a car).
- I'm not planning to get involved in the content discussions about this article, but I would suggest to Wikid77 and everyone else that it's best to post links to news articles and other sources when making comments like the one above that seem to include specific arguments based on something you've read. I have no opinion about the specifics of this case, but talk page comments arguing specific points are generally more effective when they are backed up by evidence. Also as I suggested in my comment below, continuing to assume good faith while working here is quite important, so suggestions that some want "to keep all this information from being added into the article" are usually not very constructive. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Misspellings, can't edit
There is a little misspelling under the "Amanda Knox" section. It says "inclduing the bathroom sink." This is how --> 'including' is spelled. -none 12:51, 11 December 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.67.53 (talk)
General thoughts on article interaction (via WP:ANI)
I'm coming here via this thread (now archived) on one of the noticeboards and a request to take a look at the situation here from one of the editors involved in discussion above. I haven't edited this or any related articles and indeed have no real interest in them, though I'm vaguely familiar with the facts of this case.
Things became rather heated in certain sections of the talk page above, but that seems to be calming down somewhat which is good. I did not see anything too egregious (certainly not anything which rises to the level of anyone being blocked or otherwise sanctioned), rather several editors made ill-advised remarks, and then other editors reacted to them rather strongly—perhaps too strongly. Overall the dispute has become far too personalized, with editors commenting rather fiercely on others with whom they disagree. Most of the time the comments are on behavior rather than on the editor themselves (for example "you are acting rude" rather than "you are a jerk"), but still the comments are far too harsh and they've definitely poisoned the environment somewhat. Multiple parties have been guilty of this kind of thing, but to my mind the best course for right now is to let bygones be bygones and forget about what has been said previously.
Beyond that the core issue (and I've not read all the talk page, though I have read much of it) still seems to be that there is a disagreement about how to write a neutral article on this topic—i.e. what does and doesn't need to be discussed and how much emphasis is needed. In that regard I agree with User:AniMate's suggestion here that what might be needed is a content RFC (see here for instructions on how to file for anyone who is unfamiliar). I think some of the problems here could be solved by getting some outside views as to the content issues, particularly with regard to questions about NPOV. Even before filing an RfC, involved editors might want to start by listing out the specific issues of dispute. Oddly, in reading through the most intense talk page threads, that is not always entirely clear.
Finally, I would recommend the following just in terms of specific editing behavior in order to help keep things cooled down so that people can actually collaborate:
- Use edit summaries, particularly when editing the article itself. For contentious topics like these, it's extremely important to let other editors know what you are doing as you edit.
- Avoid any sort of statements of a "nationalist" nature ("anti-U.S.", "anti-Italian", etc.), particularly with respect to other editors. Such language will always inflame disputes.
- Try not to radically alter talk page comments after the fact (or show that you are doing so by striking out your previous comment), particularly when other editors have replied to your comment since it disrupts the flow of the conversation.
- Assume good faith in talk page discussions, even if you have doubts about another editor's good faith in your own mind. Personally from what I can gather most everyone here seems to be interested in turning this into a quality Wikipedia article, there are just disagreements about how to do this.
- If another editor does not do one of the above or otherwise acts in a non-collegial manner, do your best to let it go rather than responding in kind and escalating the situation.
I'm not sure if any of the above will be helpful or not but hopefully so, and again I strongly recommend that involved editors list out specific content concerns here on the talk page (preferably in new threads) and then consider starting a content RfC on the most important issue or issues. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Tactics interrogators used to deceive Knox
12-Dec-2009: I was still wondering, to explain the events in the article: How could 8 (eight) experienced judges (on the Knox/Sollecito jury) possibly conclude "guilty" with so little evidence? There are 2 psychological factors:
- Pass the buck - render "guilty" so the appellate court gets the re-trial.
- Peer pressure - appease the angry mob outside (they cheered when they heard "guilty")
However, I think the key is in the manipulated interrogation testimony, spliced together to give the appearance of nervous and guilty remarks. There are now claims of 5 tactics possibly used by the interrogators:
- Interrogate someone all night long, when they would be sleeping.
- Claim that someone they know admitted something that really didn't happen (as above, under "#June 2009 transcript").
- Ask them to role-play to explain what might have happened if they were in the next room.
- Ask them to conclude the likely outcome, based on various sets of starting events.
- Threaten them, or hit the table, or similarly scare them with excessive force.
Perhaps the most self-damning approach is to ask someone to respond to a friend's remark, which didn't really happen. For example, a hypothetical trap, based on a police lie:
- - "Mr. Smith said he went to your house at 9pm (the lie). Why weren't you there?"
- "I was still at my boyfriend's house."
- - "So you met Smith later?..."
- "No, what I meant was, when Mr. Smith arrived at my house, I was still staying at my boyfriend's house."
- - "You just admitted Mr. Smith arrived at your house, so you did meet him, didn't you?"
- "No, I didn't see him that night."
- - "Ah ha, so you do admit that you were there, but you didn't see him arrive."
- "No. No. No."
- - "Well which is it? Get your story straight...(you stupid liar)".
No wonder, when parts of such an interrogation would be shown during a trial, chop-edited and out-of-context, even experienced intelligent judges could be tricked into thinking the responses appeared guilty and deceptive: she claimed "Mr. Smith arrived at my house" (guilty of incriminating him). Using all the various tactics to make someone feel nervous, and trapped, many people might conclude the suspect appeared guilty. Even if there were limited forensic evidence, the interrogation videos or recordings could sway judges toward guilty.
Because the trial, of Knox/Sollecito, had also included civil charges about incriminating others (Patrick Lumumba), parts of her interrogation, about him, could be shown out-of-context, to the same jury who decided the criminal charges. In the U.S., American citizens such as Amanda Knox (even at age 20) have a right against self-incrimination ("take the 5th" Amendment), hence, many Americans do not grow up realizing the tricks of interrogation. It is a major cultural difference. All of these issues will be tedious to add into the article. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Again, this appears to be entirely speculation on your part, and as such is not very helpful for talk page discussion. If you are interested in discussing these sort of issues in the article you'll need to provide reliable sources up front, otherwise it's extremely difficult for other editors to respond constructively to your comment. (Also, upon seeing your redlink, I'd note that we do have an article on pleading the Fifth, though apparently it needs some work).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Many are aware of these issues already (hence above: #June 2009 transcript). In talk-pages, we don't expect more sources than an article would require. For a topic of this complexity (reported in Italian), I just hunt "where there's smoke there's fire" not demanding the source flames ("Does anyone see flames down there under all that black smoke? Let's be sure there's a fire." ). Also, we want to focus on the major concepts, not nit-picking which source claimed which point. However, I wish you could get involved, unless that affects your neutrality. We have an article here which will enter the Top 1000 ("WP:Most read articles in 2009" ). The controversy is an American girl & boyfriend convicted with no DNA or hair evidence found inside the room of the victim with 43? wounds/bruises, but blood smears everywhere. No one can comprehend a fight (with 43 wounds) that leaves no DNA/hair of hashish-smoking "sex devils" who calmly met police 13 hours later. So, yes, expect many readers to want some content in this article. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- @ Wikid77 Your contribution to the discussion seems increasingly to be based on pure speculation and also misinformation. None of the scenarios that you present above has any connection whatsoever with the evidence that was presented at trial, and your contention that "no DNA or hair evidence found inside the room" is also wrong, as DNA evidence and a bloody footprint were found inside the room, together with a number of other traces around the apartment which had been cleaned away, but were discovered by the police using Luminol (which uncovers blood stains that have been rendered invisible to the naked eye by cleaning). I'm wondering if contributions (even on a discussion page) that are purely fictional or are factually incorrect should be allowed to stand, and if not, whether wikipedia has guidelines on their status?--Plasticmanic (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has few restrictions on talk-page text. People even call another person "misinformed" (or "wrong") as if God gave them ultimate truth. Speculation is not banned from talk-pages; it is even used to convict people in numerous criminal trials, but I might be misinformed about all of those. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- @ Wikid77 Your contribution to the discussion seems increasingly to be based on pure speculation and also misinformation. None of the scenarios that you present above has any connection whatsoever with the evidence that was presented at trial, and your contention that "no DNA or hair evidence found inside the room" is also wrong, as DNA evidence and a bloody footprint were found inside the room, together with a number of other traces around the apartment which had been cleaned away, but were discovered by the police using Luminol (which uncovers blood stains that have been rendered invisible to the naked eye by cleaning). I'm wondering if contributions (even on a discussion page) that are purely fictional or are factually incorrect should be allowed to stand, and if not, whether wikipedia has guidelines on their status?--Plasticmanic (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Wikid77, I think you hit the nail on the head by highlighting the issue of the interrogations. That does indeed seem to be a crucial underlying problem with the case, and may well prove to be pivotal in the appeal. A high court in Italy has already ruled that some of the interrogations were illegal and inadmissable for certain purposes in the trial. It would be helpful if somehow we could get an English translation of that court ruling linked into the article. It would seem that if the high court has already ruled that some of the interrogations were illegal or inadmissible, yet those statements (false accusations against Patrick) made their way into the trial anyway, that the trial may have been impermissably tainted by forbidden fruit. You are right to say that this is an alien situation for Americans, because it would be unconstitutional in the U.S. for the fruits of an illegal interrogation to ever be admitted into a criminal trial. I agree that this issue could appropriately be included in the article. PilgrimRose (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Incidentally, the right to silence is implicit in European law. The European Court of Human Rights has held that "the right to remain silent under police questioning and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6 [of the European Convention on Human Rights]". (Murray vs. UK). Bluewave (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- There is also a very detailed (and apparently well-researched) timeline at http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmktimeline. Assuming this is accurate, the questioning of Knox began at 2400 and she changed her story to accuse Lumumba at 0145. So, when she first changed her story, she had been questioned for an hour and a half, not all night. Bluewave (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- @Wikid77 I think your agenda is pretty clear now, but just to clear up the veiled attack implicit in this statement: "People even call another person 'misinformed' (or 'wrong') as if God gave them ultimate truth." I think it's fair for another participant to correct your factual errors by stating facts that were not contested at the trial by either defense or prosecution. It seems from your statement that you believe there is no 'Objective Truth' in the world, whatsoever - and though I'd endorse that viewpoint to a certain extent in purely philosophical terms, if we take it to its logical conclusion in discussions of judicial process (where you seem to be implying that totally fictional speculation is a on a par with forensic evidence), then I'd say with respect that the discussion is of no practical use, at all. --Plasticmanic (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- (outdent)Wikid was referring to the 8 December dispute above. There is no need to infer an agenda. The parties seem to have dropped that discussion now, as is best for all. Please stick to discussing edits or proposed edits on their merits and avoid discussing the editors and their motives.LeadSongDog come howl 22:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- I felt that an agenda was quite clear in the biased title of the section, and the loaded question: "How could 8 (eight) experienced judges (on the Knox/Sollecito jury) possibly conclude "guilty" with so little evidence?" The insertion of these statements (which are not true, as there was a relatively large amount of circumstantial and technical evidence) together with the totally fictional speculation below it helps to disseminate and legitimize the point-of-view that the conviction of Knox was based either on police corruption, or on Italian bigotry. Placing these bogus sections on Wikipedia exposes them to a broad public, and enables others with the same agenda to propagate these myths and untruths elsewhere. Someone could just as well start a section called "How did Amanda Knox persuade two men to help her murder Meredith Kercher?" and follow it with a fictionalized dramatization of the conversation between the three convicted people - but this would be both offensive and fruitless, and neither that fictionalization nor the one by Wikid77 above has a place on this discussion page imho. --Plasticmanic (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
If an "interrogation" (such a pejorative word - I wonder why it is being used here?) was "illegal" then that would mean that an offence had been committed and so charges would be brought against the "interrogator". Presumably perverting the course of justice or assault or similar. What really happened is quite different from the picture that is trying to be painted here. When first interviewed as a witness Knox had no legal requirement to have a lawyer present. As soon as her statements led the police to believe that she might actually be a suspect, they halted that interview because she now was indeed required to have legal representation. The later interviews were conducted with such representation, however, in the meantime it appears that she decided to write down a version of what she had just been saying. Here is what the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini is reported to say to Linda Byron (a reporter for a tv station in seattle - KONG?) in a letter: "Knox was first heard by the police as a witness, but when some essential elements of her involvement with the murder surfaced, the police suspended the interview, according to Article 63 of the penal proceedings code. But Knox then decided to render spontaneous declarations, that I took up without any further questioning, which is entirely lawful. According to Article 374 of the penal proceedings code, suspects must be assisted by a lawyer only during a formal interrogation, and when being notified of alleged crimes and questioned by a prosecutor or judge, not when they intend to render unsolicited declarations." [3] rturus (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Diagram of Kercher/Knox upstairs flat
12-Dec-2009: Okay, I made a diagram (crude) based on a crime-scene map at a BBC page, URL: http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46857000/jpg/_46857947_knox_house466x600.jpg .
The diagram shows the 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms and kitchen, but I can't decide where, at what spot, the house entrance (into the kitchen) should be added to the diagram (compare to BBC quick image URL). Note that each bathroom also contains a bidet (as noted in the Judge's 1st trial-recap). The blue square is a corner-shower outside Kercher's room (right side of diagram). More later. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think the house entrance is the door that you've drawn near the top left corner. This leads into a small lobby (which you've drawn). A doorway in the right hand wall of this lobby leads into the living room. At least that how it looks in the plan from last week's Sunday Times and an accompanying photo. Bluewave (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've added a dotted line (for now) and the broken glass. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- I hate to be a spoilsport, Wikid, but I think you would need to create the diagram from scratch in order for it to be usable without infringing copyright. It looks very much like what you have done here is add labels to the diagram off the BBC website. --FormerIP (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm also amazed at the similarity, but the 2 diagrams are of different dimensions, and not one pixel is the same between the wiki-image and the BBC diagram. In general, rectangular shapes cannot be defended by copyright, and even if the diagrams had the same length/width, that is somewhat expected when describing a floorplan. The width, walls, windows, interiors & labels differ from the BBC image. -Wikid77 02:06, 13 December 2009
- I don't see why you'd be amazed. It's pretty obvious how you created the image. You need to recreate it from scratch, or it's a copyvio. --FormerIP (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- The entrance to the bathroom on the left needs a thin line across the doorway, rather than a thick line that suggests a solid unbroken wall there (compare to the other rooms). Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
In the version in the Sunday Times, it looks as though the middle of the 3 small rooms on the extreme left has a wash basin in it. It looks as though that is an extra bit of bathroom. Bluewave (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Article is a farce but avoids prosecution secrets
This article is farce and a disgrace compared to other articles In Wikipedia. As long as the "truth" about the case has not come out, it cannot be that the defense always has the last word. There is no respect of the work of the Italian prosecution and jurisdiction, they themselves are judged in this article, as if they were primary school pupils or worse. It would be best to translate the Italian wikipedia article into english and to prevent anyone associated with a personal interest (e.g. "friends of Amanda") from contributing to it, if that was possible. Cannot somebody seriously neutral rewrite all this and keep out any personal interest and manipulative disguise. Otherwise, I suggest that this article should be called "Amanda Knox involvement into the Murder of Meredith Kercher as seen by her friends and relatives". I'm seriously disgusted, even if Amanda is innocent, this article gets the current status of the trial and previous events totally wrong. Just look at some of the phrases used, typically at the end of a paragraph, to give Knox the last word: " Knox's defence claim..", "Defence lawyers for Knox dismissed..", "There is no forensic evidence, such as DNA..", "The defense and Knox's supporters claim that it was the real killer, Guédé...","Knox's family has claimed that she was convicted because..", "Knox, her family and many supporters in the U.S. maintain that she has been unjustly convicted and vow to..". People responsible of this distortion should be ashamed of themselves, whatever the truth behind the involvement of Knox and Sollecito is. If they are seriously involved, which seems really reasonable after all, you load a subtle kind of "guilt" or at least serious responsibility on yourselves. —91.109.190.146 (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that not enough evidence has been presented, often due to a lack of people able to translate the Italian webpages. On the other hand, please respect the privacy of the prosecution's case, in that the article does not reveal all their secret evidence against the 3 accused (or others). In any court proceedings that escalate to introduce new evidence, such as a re-trial after a hung jury, the prosecution has the ability to "fire new ammo" as new evidence, without giving pro-defence culprits extra time to taint or alter that evidence (or new witnesses). I know it must be frustrating, but I think the prosecution would love this article, because it avoids revealing their secrets, and thereby, maintains the strength of their arguments in each appeal. Please try to view this article in that manner, from the point of view of the prosecution, who benefit, greatly, when the article focuses mainly on reported opinions and does impact their evidence or witnesses. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would certainly agree with the IP-address poster above that the article is currently unbalanced. An interesting test is to compare the cases of Knox and Guede. Both were charged with murder; both have maintained their innocence throughout; both maintained that the evidence against them did not point to their being murderers; both have been found guilty of murder; both have been sentenced to long prison sentences; both are appealing against their convictions. Yet the article treats them very differently and is much more sympathetic to Knox's case than it is to Guede's. Admittedly there are some differences. Guede opted for a fast track judgement: I don't know what interpretation, if any, can be put on this, but it is certainly not the equivalent of pleading guilty, and he has certainly maintained his innocence. He was given a longer sentence which implies that his crime was somehow worse (particularly taking account of the reduction that he presumably received in exchange for fast-tracking). However, 25 years is still a very long sentence. Another difference is that Knox has had a very vocal "supporters club", particularly in the US. This is of course notable, and should be mentioned, but should not permeate the whole article. Knox has also had much more media coverage (some favourable, some damning) which again is notable but again should not permeate the article. Also, the evidence against them is different, but Wikipedia editors should absolutely not be reassessing the evidence and letting their personal conclusions affect the way the article is slanted. At present, I think that some people are taking a personal point of view that the evidence against Guede is more damning than that against Knox and are editing the article accordingly. The article should summarise the evidence objectively and summarise the arguments put forward by prosecution and defence but, as I and several others have already said, it should not turn into a retrial by Wikipedians. Bluewave (talk) 12:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Guede's sentence is significantly longer than Knox's and Sollecito's because of his substantial criminal history and because his part in the sexual assault was more severe. Knox has many supporters due to the fact she is female, attractive, has a supportive, middle-class family and the evidence against her is much less than that against Guede. There is no reason for anyone to want to support Guede, who the mainstream media, including The Times, say is a drug dealer and thief, and against whom there is easily enough evidence to prove he raped / sexually assaulted and murdered Kercher. No-one has a good word to say about Guede, which is almost certainly because he has no good qualities and no-one likes him. Knox is spoken of positively by many people, had only one misdemeanor against her name so minor as to not require a court appearance, prior to the murder, and against whom the evidence is, for many, insufficent to convict. I don't know how long murder trials in Italy usually last, but the length of the proceedings against Knox and Sollecito suggest it was a difficult case to convict, due to the limited evidence. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding their criminal history, I might have added that neither Knox nor Guede had a record of violent or sex-related crime (I'm pretty sure I've read that this is true). When you say that the evidence against Knox is much less than that against Guede, you are expressing a personal opinion, not stating a fact. I might very well agree with your opinion, but neither of us should reflect that opinion in our edits. All we can say for certain is that, in both cases, the evidence was sufficient for a court to return a guilty verdict. Again, your suggestion that "the length the proceedings against Knox and Sollecito suggest it was a difficult case to convict, due to the limited evidence" is purely your opinion. It might equally be argued that the case took so long because there was so much evidence to be considered! Either way it is an editor's opinion and should not influence the article. Bluewave (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- It would be useful to know the details of Guede's criminal record. Even if the offences were not violent or sexual, a person with several convictions will tend to receive a significantly longer sentence than a person with little or no criminal history. Reliable souces say that there was conclusive evidence against Guede, and that the case against Knox was much weaker, so the article should reflect that. Lots of evidence from both the prosecution and defence would suggest a case that is difficult to reach a decision on, as does the jury taking many hours to deliberate. We don't know for sure unless we can read the transcripts of the court proceedings. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding their criminal history, I might have added that neither Knox nor Guede had a record of violent or sex-related crime (I'm pretty sure I've read that this is true). When you say that the evidence against Knox is much less than that against Guede, you are expressing a personal opinion, not stating a fact. I might very well agree with your opinion, but neither of us should reflect that opinion in our edits. All we can say for certain is that, in both cases, the evidence was sufficient for a court to return a guilty verdict. Again, your suggestion that "the length the proceedings against Knox and Sollecito suggest it was a difficult case to convict, due to the limited evidence" is purely your opinion. It might equally be argued that the case took so long because there was so much evidence to be considered! Either way it is an editor's opinion and should not influence the article. Bluewave (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Guede's sentence is significantly longer than Knox's and Sollecito's because of his substantial criminal history and because his part in the sexual assault was more severe. Knox has many supporters due to the fact she is female, attractive, has a supportive, middle-class family and the evidence against her is much less than that against Guede. There is no reason for anyone to want to support Guede, who the mainstream media, including The Times, say is a drug dealer and thief, and against whom there is easily enough evidence to prove he raped / sexually assaulted and murdered Kercher. No-one has a good word to say about Guede, which is almost certainly because he has no good qualities and no-one likes him. Knox is spoken of positively by many people, had only one misdemeanor against her name so minor as to not require a court appearance, prior to the murder, and against whom the evidence is, for many, insufficent to convict. I don't know how long murder trials in Italy usually last, but the length of the proceedings against Knox and Sollecito suggest it was a difficult case to convict, due to the limited evidence. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would certainly agree with the IP-address poster above that the article is currently unbalanced. An interesting test is to compare the cases of Knox and Guede. Both were charged with murder; both have maintained their innocence throughout; both maintained that the evidence against them did not point to their being murderers; both have been found guilty of murder; both have been sentenced to long prison sentences; both are appealing against their convictions. Yet the article treats them very differently and is much more sympathetic to Knox's case than it is to Guede's. Admittedly there are some differences. Guede opted for a fast track judgement: I don't know what interpretation, if any, can be put on this, but it is certainly not the equivalent of pleading guilty, and he has certainly maintained his innocence. He was given a longer sentence which implies that his crime was somehow worse (particularly taking account of the reduction that he presumably received in exchange for fast-tracking). However, 25 years is still a very long sentence. Another difference is that Knox has had a very vocal "supporters club", particularly in the US. This is of course notable, and should be mentioned, but should not permeate the whole article. Knox has also had much more media coverage (some favourable, some damning) which again is notable but again should not permeate the article. Also, the evidence against them is different, but Wikipedia editors should absolutely not be reassessing the evidence and letting their personal conclusions affect the way the article is slanted. At present, I think that some people are taking a personal point of view that the evidence against Guede is more damning than that against Knox and are editing the article accordingly. The article should summarise the evidence objectively and summarise the arguments put forward by prosecution and defence but, as I and several others have already said, it should not turn into a retrial by Wikipedians. Bluewave (talk) 12:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Appeals under Italian law
Someone has reverted my addition that "under Italian law, appeals are automatic unless the individual opts out". Admittedly I read this in the Daily Mail (on line[4], I hasten to add...in case anyone thinks I actually buy the Mail!). Can anyone with a better knowledge of Italian law than me explain what the actual appeals procedure is in Italy. Thanks! Bluewave (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Have you checked the new article "Italian Criminal Procedure" for accuracy, as it relates to this article? -Wikid77 (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. That looks a really useful article and it firmly refutes some of the crazier things that have been said about the Italian justice system on this page (and in the press). Bluewave (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- It was me that removed the "automatic appeal" reference, because it wasn't sourced and looked (still looks) dubious. Think about it. An automatic appeal? Even if there's nothing new to say? I think an automatic right of appeal may be more plausible.
- The Mail source does indeed seem to refer to a mandatory appeal. But I suspect the journalist has misunderstood. The Telegraph describes a different process, where the convicted party has 45 days to lodge an appeal following the publication of a detailed judgement [5]. This would not seem compatible with the notion that the appeal is automatic. --FormerIP (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please read Italian Criminal Procedure where all this is explained. Also, please realise that the Mail is a tabloid and not a reliable source. (US readers, think Fox News). --Red King (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Anglo-Indian ethnicity doubtful - citation please
An editor insists on giving Meredith's ethnicity as Anglo-Indian. There is no evidence to support that claim. The citation Meredith's mother tells court of grief says only that her mother was born in India. We don't know if she is Indian etnicity, let alone Anglo-Indian.
The Anglo-Indian article says
“ | The Anglo-Indian community in its modern sense is a distinct, small minority community originating in India. They consist of people from mixed British and Indian ancestry whose native language is English. An Anglo-Indian's British ancestry was usually bequeathed paternally. | ” |
These are people whose geneology dates back to the British India, and who became a distinct ethnic group, neither truly Indian nor truly British, but tend to regard themselves as more British than Indian.
If in fact Arline Kercher is an Indian national, that would certainly make Meredith Eurasian, but it would not give her Anglo-Indian ethnicity unless Arline is Anglo-Indian. We have no evidence whatever to support that idea: the probability is tiny that it could be true by chance.
The line should be deleted from the info-box. --Red King (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- The Anglo-Indian article seems very unclear to me. In any event, I don't think it is a commonly used term for British people of Indian descent. I would suppose something like "mixed Indian and white British" might be correct for Kercher. --FormerIP (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Mother is an immigrant from India to the UK, and clearly full Indian; I have changed it to half-British, half-Indian. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Citation please. The present citation merely says that she was born in India. Perhaps they have a reason for saying that she is not Indian? --Red King (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Would a picture of her be vaild as a source? She's Indian. --FormerIP (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- They probably say she was born in India rather than is Indian due to her having British citizenship. Some people define by extraction, others by citizenship; born in India is definitely correct. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Would a picture of her be vaild as a source? She's Indian. --FormerIP (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Citation please. The present citation merely says that she was born in India. Perhaps they have a reason for saying that she is not Indian? --Red King (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Mother is an immigrant from India to the UK, and clearly full Indian; I have changed it to half-British, half-Indian. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- The Anglo-Indian article seems very unclear to me. In any event, I don't think it is a commonly used term for British people of Indian descent. I would suppose something like "mixed Indian and white British" might be correct for Kercher. --FormerIP (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
"Half-British, half-Indian" is like something from a Victorian trial. It is not an ethnicity. Nobody has produced a reason why that line should remain. --Red King (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- It is the best ethnicity description of her that can be given, unless someone knows a word for that mixture (it seems Anglo-Indian is not applicable due to the mixing taking place only in the UK, not in India). Many people have asked what her ethnicity is, it was debated on the archive. In any case, it is relevant, sourced biographical info. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ethnicity is a terribly sensitive subject. You can't just make up something that you think is "is the best ethnicity description of her that can be given, unless someone knows a word for that mixture". For heaven's sake, find some reliable citations for her ethnicity or leave it out! Bluewave (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Mother is from India and looks Indian; in absence of evidence of her having any other ancestry, she's Indian. If her ancestry were Chinese or African, she would look very different. The ref is a Times article, a very reliable source. There are plenty of pics of both parents and all three siblings on various articles. Why doubt that a person born in India, who looks Indian, and is never described as being of any other origin, is anything other than Indian? If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Britain has official classifications for ethnicity (Classification of ethnicity in the United Kingdom), according to which Meredith would be "mixed white and Asian". I think it would be more appropriate to use this than any particular wording from a source. I tend to think this is not of crucial importance to the article, but I'm not sure it is so irrelvant as to say there is any reason why it should not be in there. --FormerIP (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm...but "Asian" normally means SE Asian in the US... --FormerIP (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- The origins of the people involved have been mentioned many times in the mainstream media; it is relevant. Eurasian is correct, but has much a more broad definition. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia defines an ethnic group as "a group of humans whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed". In the UK, official records seem to recognise this and, for example, in the censuses, people select the ethnicity that they believe best applies to them. We should not be trying to make up ethnicities without good evidence. "Eurasian" is not officially recognised as an ethnicity in the UK, nor is "Half-white British, half-Indian". Bluewave (talk) 12:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- White British and Indian are both recognised ethnicities. We know she has one parent from each of those; half-white British, half-Indian correctly describes her ethnicity. Some people who have that ancestry would describe themselves as half-white British, half-Indian, so I don't see a problem in describing her with that factual description. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 12:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia defines an ethnic group as "a group of humans whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed". In the UK, official records seem to recognise this and, for example, in the censuses, people select the ethnicity that they believe best applies to them. We should not be trying to make up ethnicities without good evidence. "Eurasian" is not officially recognised as an ethnicity in the UK, nor is "Half-white British, half-Indian". Bluewave (talk) 12:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Just to clarify: use of the word Asian in the US is not limited to individuals of SE Asian descent, as noted in the Wikipedia entry. Also, individuals of SE Asian descent in the US are often referred to as Indian, as documented in that entry. This can be confusing, as individuals of Native American descent are also referred to as "Indian" or American Indian. Individuals of Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Japanese, etc. descent are commonly referred to as "Asian." (See the Tiger Woods Wikipedia entry for an example). Christaltips (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- The origins of the people involved have been mentioned many times in the mainstream media; it is relevant. Eurasian is correct, but has much a more broad definition. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent point regarding the sensitivity of ethnicity. It might be least objectionable to note only place of birth and citizenship for everyone, if deemed important. Christaltips (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Mother is from India and looks Indian; in absence of evidence of her having any other ancestry, she's Indian. If her ancestry were Chinese or African, she would look very different. The ref is a Times article, a very reliable source. There are plenty of pics of both parents and all three siblings on various articles. Why doubt that a person born in India, who looks Indian, and is never described as being of any other origin, is anything other than Indian? If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- The infobox now links to India instead of Indian, removing the ambiguity of Amerindian v Asian Indian. Removing info because some people may be sensitive about factual information is not what an encyclopedia should do. Thousands of Wikipedia biographies mention the subject's ethnicity - imagine removing Tiger Woods' or Barack Obama's ethnicities from their articles! Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Barack Obama is actually a great example of what I'm banging on about. His article describes his ethnicity as "African American", presumably because that is the "group of humans that he identifies with, through a common heritage". Lkjhgfdsa's logic would have him down as something like "half white, half black Kenyan". We don't know which group of humans Meredith Kercher identified with, through a common heritage, unless there is a reliable source. Bluewave (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- It could quite legitimately be both. Are you saying that if we don't have a person's feelings about their ethnicity from the horses mouth then they are of no or indeterminate ethnicity? Like a sort of Schrodinger's cat -type principle, I suppose. --FormerIP (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Many multiracial people identify with more than one ethnicity. Her ethnicity is known, so should be stated in the place in her infobox that is for that purpose. What she may or may not have identified as is irrelevant. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- It could quite legitimately be both. Are you saying that if we don't have a person's feelings about their ethnicity from the horses mouth then they are of no or indeterminate ethnicity? Like a sort of Schrodinger's cat -type principle, I suppose. --FormerIP (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Barack Obama is actually a great example of what I'm banging on about. His article describes his ethnicity as "African American", presumably because that is the "group of humans that he identifies with, through a common heritage". Lkjhgfdsa's logic would have him down as something like "half white, half black Kenyan". We don't know which group of humans Meredith Kercher identified with, through a common heritage, unless there is a reliable source. Bluewave (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Personally I think the Ethnicity part of the info box should not be there at all - ever. rturus (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's a mess - away with it! Rothorpe (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- What you're saying is merely WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you haven't given a genuine reason to remove a reliably sourced piece of info from its correct place in the infobox. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ugh! Rothorpe (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- No, it has not been reliably sourced, becuase it is blatantly untrue. The Ethnicity line in the template should not be used in this case. Would anyone who thinks it should, please read Ethnic group, which is where Ethnicity redirects. There is no evidence to suggest that Kerchner family identify with any ethnic group. To give any data here is SP:Original research --Red King (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Previous convictions
I believe the article should state that neither Knox or Sollecito had any previous convictions, but that Guede did. Does anyone know the details of Guede's previous convictions? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Guede reportedly has previous convictions for drug-dealing: [6]. Knox has a conviction for "public disturbance", whatever exactly that means: [7]. --FormerIP (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Is Knox's previous conviction for a criminal offence? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert on US criminal law, but the (pro-Kercher) site truejustice reports that it has a crime number 071830624. If it has a crime number, then it's a crime, I would suppose. --FormerIP (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- This was a civil infraction rather than a crime See Citation for Noise for the ticket issued. Christaltips (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- So why does it have a crime number? The ticket doesn't say "this is a civil infraction, not a crime". In any event, it the past records of the defendants are to be mentioned in the article, it should be included. --FormerIP (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please refer directly to the Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 25.08 I do not know who referred to it as a crime number. The official citation and code are the best sources for this. Christaltips (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Christaltips, if you want to distinguish between a civil infraction and a crime in Seattle, you may well be perfectly right. However, it would be helpful if you could provide a specific source for this. I am not qualified to make a judgement based on reading through the Municipal Code. Like I say, though, in any event, if the records of the defendants are to be included in the article, this offence would form part of that. --FormerIP (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Mainstream media sources have reported quite prominently that Sollecito had no previous convictions and that Knox had either no convictions or only one very minor one. It is relevant as to why Guede's sentence is longer than Knox's and Sollecito's. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- It may be relevant, but think you would need a source in order to demonstrate that it is (and that what you are saying is true in the first place). --FormerIP (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Mainstream media sources have reported quite prominently that Sollecito had no previous convictions and that Knox had either no convictions or only one very minor one. It is relevant as to why Guede's sentence is longer than Knox's and Sollecito's. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Christaltips, if you want to distinguish between a civil infraction and a crime in Seattle, you may well be perfectly right. However, it would be helpful if you could provide a specific source for this. I am not qualified to make a judgement based on reading through the Municipal Code. Like I say, though, in any event, if the records of the defendants are to be included in the article, this offence would form part of that. --FormerIP (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please refer directly to the Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 25.08 I do not know who referred to it as a crime number. The official citation and code are the best sources for this. Christaltips (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- So why does it have a crime number? The ticket doesn't say "this is a civil infraction, not a crime". In any event, it the past records of the defendants are to be mentioned in the article, it should be included. --FormerIP (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- This was a civil infraction rather than a crime See Citation for Noise for the ticket issued. Christaltips (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert on US criminal law, but the (pro-Kercher) site truejustice reports that it has a crime number 071830624. If it has a crime number, then it's a crime, I would suppose. --FormerIP (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Is Knox's previous conviction for a criminal offence? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
There is information in the media that Guede had been involved in past break-ins and thefts, and that some had occurred just prior to the possible break-in into Kercher's apartment. PilgrimRose (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
[Lengthy copyvio redacted - see the link below instead.] LeadSongDog come howl 03:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1234298/Amanda-Knox-The-troubling-doubts-Foxy-Knoxys-role-Meredith-Kerchers-murder.html#ixzz0ZbOlnAS1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by PilgrimRose (talk • contribs) 20:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify one point, Guede's sentence of 30years was automatic because of the fast-track trial he elected for (giudizio abbreviato). In that process, if found guilty of murder the sentence is 30 years, as opposed to life and is one reason why people chose to elect for it (presumably). See Italian_Criminal_Procedure rturus (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
When did Knox meet Sollecito?
The article says two weeks before the murder, [8] says they met in early October 2007, [9] says they met a week before the murder. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Downstairs neighbours
There is very little about them. How long had they lived there? When did they first become acquainted with Guede? Did they see or hear anything regarding the murder, or see the victim or any of the three convicted on that night? Did any of them appear in court? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Prosecution's version of events
Should the article state the prosecution's scenario of events on the evening of the murder? As they were all convicted, it would seem that the jury believed that to be what happened. Whilst none of us can know what actually happened, shouldn't the claim that Sollecito held Kercher down, whilst Guede raped her and Knox cut her throat be mentioned, as that is the version of events that was believed by the jury? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think this should be included, but it is problematic, because I am not able to find an RS giving a full account of the prosecution vesion of events (I am, however, able to find lots of sources giving improbable defences of Amanda Knox...). I think it is possible to draw it from multiple sources, but extreme care should be excercised, because there has been sensationalisation in the press. It is certainly offensive (IMO) to suggest that Kercher died as a result of a "sex game", as has been widely suggested. My understanding, which looks different to yours (which is why an RS is needed) is that the prosecution case is roughly as follows:
- All three defendants either forced or persuaded Kercher to kneel.
- Sollecito and Guede restrained her whilst Guede put his hand down the front of her jeans and sexually assaulted her.
- She struggled and was violently restrained and assaulted by all three defendants, and strangled by one of the defendants (which defendant is not known).
- This continued for a while, then Knox stabbed Kercher in the neck, twice with a pocket-knife belonging to Sollecito (which has not been recovered), then once with a kitchen knife (later recovered at Sollecito's flat). The last of these wounds caused her death.
- The three defendants then fled. Guede went home and then to a nightclub (supposedly in the hope that this would give him an alibi) and Knox and Sollecito went to Sollecito's flat, where they discussed a plan to cover up the crime, which they began to put into effect the following morning.
- --FormerIP (talk) 02:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- I believe that the assertion was that Knox delivered the fatal knife wound (because of her DNA on that knife) but that it was not known who made the other wounds because that weapon was never found. The presence of one small knick on one of Meredith's hands but several larger cuts on the other hand was submitted as evidence that she was restrained, possibly by two people of different build/strength. rturus (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- More evidence that we need solid sources, I'd say. If the info is to be included, we may also need to distinguish between what the prosection assert was the case, and what they speculate might have been the case. On the pen-knife wounds, I think the idea is that it must have been Knox, because the other two were busy restraining her. But we need sources, rather than my or your recolections of things we have read.--FormerIP (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think the article should include both the prosecution's and the defence's version of what happened. Is it claimed by the prosecution that Guede, Knox and Sollecito planned it? That they only intended to sexually assault her, but it turned into a murder? Did the prosecution claim that all three began attacking Kercher at the same time, or that, for example, Guede started attacking Kercher first, then Knox and Sollecito joined in later? That there is so much misinformation on and offline about the case and those involved, makes it even more important to clarify in the article what each side asserted / claimed happened. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- One problem with presenting the prosecution version of the actual murder is that it was presented behind closed doors at the request of Meredith Kercher's family due to the graphic and disturbing nature of it. The prosecution summing-up described this but I have not seen a full translation because the final 15 minutes of Meredith's struggle were apparently so sad and disturbing that the website wouldn't post the translation. There was a computer simulation of this also shown in the summing-up which appears to show that the two figures holding down the victim each had a knife and the figure doing the sexual assaulting did not - however I have not seen this clearly. (Was it reported in USA? I don't remember it here in the UK.) Since I don't have good enough Italian I wouldn't attempt to translate the Micheli report[10] but I have at least waded through a fair portion of it and see for example that the number of wounds and injuries is much more than is given on the article page. The only source of seemingly accurate (partial) translations I have would not I think be acceptable to many of the editors of this article and I am new to the case so I don't know of it's partiality, therefore of course I have not used that source in any reference. If anyone wants to look at the site it is at: [11] rturus (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think the article should include both the prosecution's and the defence's version of what happened. Is it claimed by the prosecution that Guede, Knox and Sollecito planned it? That they only intended to sexually assault her, but it turned into a murder? Did the prosecution claim that all three began attacking Kercher at the same time, or that, for example, Guede started attacking Kercher first, then Knox and Sollecito joined in later? That there is so much misinformation on and offline about the case and those involved, makes it even more important to clarify in the article what each side asserted / claimed happened. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- More evidence that we need solid sources, I'd say. If the info is to be included, we may also need to distinguish between what the prosection assert was the case, and what they speculate might have been the case. On the pen-knife wounds, I think the idea is that it must have been Knox, because the other two were busy restraining her. But we need sources, rather than my or your recolections of things we have read.--FormerIP (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- I believe that the assertion was that Knox delivered the fatal knife wound (because of her DNA on that knife) but that it was not known who made the other wounds because that weapon was never found. The presence of one small knick on one of Meredith's hands but several larger cuts on the other hand was submitted as evidence that she was restrained, possibly by two people of different build/strength. rturus (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
If the article is rewritten to form a more logical structure then it would be easy to reconcile the wishes of Lkjhgfdsa 0 and others. The prosecution case is I believe (essentially) the same for both trials since the murder is a case in itself. The two trials are as a result of one defendant having elected to be tried fast-track (giudizio abbreviato). So basically the whole prosecution case can be added as a summary at the end of the Murder and investigation section or a sub section at the head of the Trials and convictions section. Each trial sub-section could then précis the defence case for each defendant, highlighting (without undue weight or prejudicial language) defence refutations. Once the trial judge publishes his judgement, that can be summarised at the end of each trial sub-section (the Guede one can be done now). As each appeal is held / completed a sub-section of a new Appeals section can be constructed, again finalised with a summary of the published reasoning behind the court's decision. I also think that it would be productive to create a new section in the article to cover the Amanda Knox campaign, thus separating that information from the media section. This would allow detailing of the campaigns and their points of contention because it is certainly seems to be a significant element. I see no reason why any perceived injustices (beyond the defence refutations) cannot be contained within that section. I believe that my suggested approach would prevent any tendency to edit-warring by separating the two approaches - submitted evidence and refutations. Unfortunately this article has become extremely messy for a variety of reasons and there is a need for the whole thing to be tidied up and presented in a balanced, clear and logical structure. The prevalence of editing to try to present a less-than-favourable view of the prosecution case and also to present a more favourable view of Amanda Knox is making this article very painful to read. (I won't mention the trials sub-page since it is so obviously a POV span and is on the AfD list.) rturus (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that it will give undue weight to give the prosecution arguments in full because then we need to give the defence arguments in full. Furthermore, as there is no trial transcript, we can't do so accurately. We have multiple instances of inaccurate reporting in news media - it sometimes seems that they make stuff up to catch a deadline. In my view, we should say the minimum about the allegations and wait until we have the judicial decision. In particular, we certainly can't assume that a guilty verdict means that the Judges' bench believed the Prosecutor's theory about how it happened, only that they believe that the defendants participated in the murder in some way. --Red King (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree that we should not be going into the arguments in full, either for or against, just a précis in each section. However I don't think that undue weight would result either way, I think it would be a logical presentation of facts. After all this is an encyclopaedia - not a blog or forum. I was certainly not suggesting that the objections and refutations were invalid, nor that all the prosecution evidence was accepted by the judges. I also believe that more detailed information about the Sollecito/Knox trial should wait until the judgement is published, although the Guede judgement could be covered. Unfortunately there are some editors who are determined to drag out every objection and criticism of the Sollecito/Knox trial at every opportunity for some reason (I wonder why?). So I doubt if they would be happy to accept that situation. rturus (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The trial is over. The case is closed. Knox is guilty.
Why should it be relevant that some Americans still think Amanda is innocent? The fact is, she was convicted by a court of law, and therefore, in text, it should always be "Amanda Knox is guilty", and never "Amanda Knox is allegedly guilty" anymore. It is no surprise that certain Americans say she must be innocent, regardless of how compelling the evidence is (or is not), they would have supported Knox either way. The trial is done, finished and over. Amanda Knox is guilty. Now this article should reflect that this is a solved and closed case, and not an ongoing trial. Especially not by giving credit to those whose only argument for her innocence is that she is American.
This should be an article on a closed case which has been solved. Not an ongoing debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IainUK (talk • contribs) 01:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- As there are appeals to be heard and an unusually large amount of support for one of those convicted, it is not really a closed case. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 11:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Michelli judgment
Pilgrim Rose has been deleting references for the judgement from the Rudy Guede trial, apparently on the basis that it is not fair on the defendants in the Knox/Sollecito trial to include this information. This seems in no way logical to me, but, in any event, I'd point out that this is not an article about the Knox/Sillecito trial, it is about the murder of Meredith Kercher, which involves all three murderers, and so the judgment in the Guede case is logically our top RS (given that the full judgment in the Knox/Sillecito case has not yet been published).
The point at issue here is whether hypothetical arguments about physical evidence given by the defence in both trials (in my view, these are vague and specious arguments, which are only in the article because they have been promulgated by gutter journalists) should be included, whilst an official judgment of an actual court that has considered all the evidence should be excluded. I don't think so, but I would be grateful for some comment. --FormerIP (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- You were including the ruling in the Guede case in response to claims made by the defense attorneys for Knox and Sollecito in their subsequent cases. This is extremely confusing. Certainly, there are citations from the prosecution in the Sollecito and Knox cases that could be found and included. Why not do that? Why go to the extreme of mixing the two trials? To mix the two trials together is confusing because the reader will think that there has already been a written ruling by the judge on the arguments presented by the lawyers in the Knox and Sollecito case, when that has not yet been published and released. You don't know what the judge will say in response to Knox and Sollecito's arguments in the most recent trial. Why not wait till he releases his statement, but use citations to the news reports of the prosecution's arguments in the meantime. These were two different trials and that should not be ignored or minimized. There would have been no reason for Knox and Sollecito's lawyers to have made their arguments in the second trial on these issues, if there already was a binding ruling that applied to them on these issues. There has been no such ruling by the judge applied to their case published to date and to imply otherwise will be very confusing to the reader. PilgrimRose (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- My edits were clearly attributed to "the judge in the Rudy Guede trial", so there is no chance of confusion there. You suggest citing from the Knox/Sillectio trial, but you also acknowledge that the judgement in that case is not yet published, which gives me a bit of a problem in that regard. Yes, they are different trials, but some of the arguments were identical. If we can cite failed defence claims, then surely we can cite published judgments giving an opinion as to what is wrong with those claims. --FormerIP (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Mixing the two trials together creates a total mess of an already confusing situation. The judge's ruling in the Guede trial was an actual determination of the evidence as applied to Guede only and a determination of Guede's guilt. The text in the ruling that applies to Knox and Sollecito's issues was preliminary only. It was not an actual determination of the evidence as it applied to them. Such a determination was to be done in the second trial. So how is the reader to know all of that? The way you want it to read, the reader will be left thinking the judge has already made his findings on the arguments presented by the defense in the Knox and Sollecito trial. Certainly, it is more accurate and simpler to keep the two trials separate. PilgrimRose (talk) 03:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Preliminary yes, ignorable no. PilgrimRose, I wasn't expecting you to agree. I think it will be more worthwhile to see if other users have comments. --FormerIP (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Mixing the two trials together creates a total mess of an already confusing situation. The judge's ruling in the Guede trial was an actual determination of the evidence as applied to Guede only and a determination of Guede's guilt. The text in the ruling that applies to Knox and Sollecito's issues was preliminary only. It was not an actual determination of the evidence as it applied to them. Such a determination was to be done in the second trial. So how is the reader to know all of that? The way you want it to read, the reader will be left thinking the judge has already made his findings on the arguments presented by the defense in the Knox and Sollecito trial. Certainly, it is more accurate and simpler to keep the two trials separate. PilgrimRose (talk) 03:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- What you are trying to do injects a great deal of illogic into the article. The judge made remarks in the Guede ruling that apply to Knox and Sollecito on a preliminary basis only. Then, the case went to trial against Knox and Guede where there was a full hearing on the evidence as it applies to Knox and Sollecito before a jury. The prosecution made certain arguments. The defense made certain arguments. The reader should be presented with both sides to undertand what happened at the trial. But instead of including the prosecution's arguments, you want to include what the judge said in a totally different trial, on a preliminary basis, and BEFORE the lawyers for Knox and Sollecito had their chance to a full hearing on the evidence. That would confuse most any reader.PilgrimRose (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what I want to do, but I don't think any reader will be confused. I think they will be confused by being given every trivial, dispoven defence argument without proper legal opinion to counterbalance it. Again, I would like you to withold your comments - I already understand them - so I can find out what other users think. --FormerIP (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- What you are trying to do injects a great deal of illogic into the article. The judge made remarks in the Guede ruling that apply to Knox and Sollecito on a preliminary basis only. Then, the case went to trial against Knox and Guede where there was a full hearing on the evidence as it applies to Knox and Sollecito before a jury. The prosecution made certain arguments. The defense made certain arguments. The reader should be presented with both sides to undertand what happened at the trial. But instead of including the prosecution's arguments, you want to include what the judge said in a totally different trial, on a preliminary basis, and BEFORE the lawyers for Knox and Sollecito had their chance to a full hearing on the evidence. That would confuse most any reader.PilgrimRose (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I have added some clarification that I think helps distinguish between the two trials. But I still think it is illogical, since you are offering a rebuttal to the Knox-Sollecito defense arguments based on a ruling made BEFORE they had their trial and their detailed arguments were presented. Any such purported rebuttal is fraught with the risk of error and confusion since it preceded the trial. So a messy, confusing article becomes messier. PilgrimRose (talk) 04:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Trying to look at this dispassionately, I think the basic problem comes from the structure of the article. The Forensic Investigation sub-section stands apart from the two trial sections and this seems logical since this investigation is an integral part of the Murder and investigation section and is common to the two trials. We have to rely on the written reasoning produced by Judge Micheli as to the specifics of the forensic investigation as a primary source because of the lack of (accepted?) English-language translations of submissions in the Sollecito/Knox trial (as well as the fact that some were produced in closed court and not part of the public record?). The forensic investigation section in the article is inadequate and unsatisfactory at the moment and should be reworked to provide only an account of that investigation and it's submitted conclusions. The paragraph about the supposed motive does not belong within the forensics section at all and should be moved to the police investigation sub-section. The rebuttal and supportive arguments about the investigation's submissions belong within a discussion of the trial and / or any appeal. So I suggest that the Forensic Investigation sub-section be rewritten to consist of a more acceptable description of the investigation and the discussion about any disputed evidence be incorporated into a Forensic Evidence sub-section of the Trial sections. rturus (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, the Michelli judgement is the only primary source statement we have got and should have precedence over all the journalistic guesses. It absolutely should be included. --Red King (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- There is an English language summary at http://www.truejustice.org. Is this what people are using? Bluewave (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Media coverage
I think could be interesting to note that a delegation of the Italy USA Foundation met on Sunday December 13, 2009, in Capanne prison on the outskirts of Perugia Amanda Knox, in an effort to heal any rift over accusations that Italy's justice system is unfair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.199.65.2 (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
VanityFair1
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "Larry King Live Transcripts (scroll down for Knox story)". transcripts.cnn.com. October 18, 2009. Retrieved October 23, 2009.
- ^ [ http://kellygrouppc.com/ JOHN Q. KELLY Attorney for the Estate of Nicole System]