Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:07, 9 July 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38Auto-archiving period: 10 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Italy This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Italy may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

A news item involving Murder of Meredith Kercher was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 5 December 2009.

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Trial of Knox and Sollecito was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 December 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Murder of Meredith Kercher. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

The contents of the Meredith Kercher page were merged into Murder of Meredith Kercher on 13 November 2007. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

The contents of the Amanda Knox page were merged into Murder of Meredith Kercher on 13 November 2007. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38Auto-archiving period: 10 days

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Restored omission: Police released Guede days before murder

11-Feb-10: The article has been re-expanded to note that Rudy Guede had been caught with a large stolen knife (16-inch, 40-cm) inside a closed Milan school on 27-Oct-07 (5 days before the murder) with a laptop PC reported stolen 14-Oct-07 from a Perugia law office burgled with a rock breaking an upstairs window. The Perugia police were notified Guede had the laptop, plus a cellphone also stolen from the Perugia office with the broken window. However, Guede was released by the Milan police, and not transferred to the Perugia police, as testified by the two Perugia solicitors (attorneys) at the Knox/Sollecito trial hearing on 26-June-2009 and by the school director 27 June. Hence, the reports of Guede holding a woman's watch, a hammer, a stolen knife and stolen property from a prior upstairs-window burglary could be confirmed by Milan police, Perugia police, and the 2 solicitors (lawyers Palazzoli and Paolo Brocchi) whose PC, printer and mobile phone were stolen on 14-Oct-07. I regret these major events had been omitted from the article, even until late December, while the details had been in major news reports in June 2009. The details are not rumors, but rather, confirmed by Milan police, Perugia police, Judge Micheli, and court testimony of 3 professionals. See source "Knox Trial Witness Points Finger at Guede" by Ann Wise (Rome) 26Jun09, web: ABCNews. -Wikid77 23:49, 11 February 2010

Deleting the Defense Side of the Story Will Violate NPOV and BLP

This proposal to substitute a one sided, pro-guilt/pro-prosecution article, drafted in virtual secrecy mostly by one or two people, for the far more balanced article that currently exists--and which dozens of people have contributed hundreds of hours to-- is simply outrageous!!!

I don't agree with the way this is transpiring at all. This new proposed substituted article is highly POV, and was drafted behind closed doors by editors who all agree with one another. Meanwhile, there is unwelcoming, sometimes hostile and bullying treatment of those who do not hold similar views. All editing should be done out in the open, with fair and equal opportunity for everyone to participate. That means, editing should be done on the article page, not some page that people clicking on here don't know about. This is not a procedure that is consistent with the Wiki policy of having articles open for everyone in the world to participate in.

No one group "owns" this article or Misplaced Pages. By removing almost all the info that supports the defense side of the story, the proposed article is clearly unbalanced. The reader will come away with the view that A and R are certainly guilty, although that is disputed by thousands of people and no final determination of guilt or innocence has been made. The substituted article in no way complies with NPOV or BLP. I have contacted the Misplaced Pages Foundation because what is going on is in no way consistent with the rules and polices of Misplaced Pages. I have contributed financially to Misplaced Pages on the basis that all editors can contribute to an article, and that basic policies like NPOV and BLP are to be followed. But it seems that things are just getting worse and worse and worse with these efforts to block out the defense side of the story, or to make the defense side sound ridiculous, and now also trying to block any other information about Amanda Knox from being included in other articles on the website, and trying to get those with other opinions blocked or banned. There needs to be compliance with NPOV, BLP and basic fairness and respect for those with other views. Throwing away hundreds of hours of work of other editors, just because you don't want the defense side of the story included, is beyond unfair. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There should be no removal of this article, with substitution of a pro-guilt, pro-prosecution article, until someone at the Misplaced Pages Foundation approves of this. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not wish to comment on the alleged pro-Knox and anti-Knox factions, because that's a matter of opinion: I believe that no such thing as an anti-Knox cabal exists; you disagree. You're entitled to your opinions. However, I object to your claim that the new article was drafted behind closed doors. Since May 16, there has been, at the beginning of the article a rather visible template, informing all users of the drafting attempt, as can be seen here; and you've been personally notified on your talk page of said attempt, as can be seen here. You chose not to intervene. It's, once again, your prerogative, but you shouldn't claim that TMC-k and the others acted surreptitiously.

And, by the way, even if the draft gets moved to the mainspace, as I hope it will be, for I think it is a much better article than the one we have here, it's not set in stone. All editors can, collegially, edit it. Salvio ( ) 23:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I note that people on here just got Wikid77 blocked for three months because he allegedly communicated behind closed doors, called "canvassing." Why isn't re-writing a whole article just with a group of people who all agree with each other, with no clear notice to the public what is going on or where this draft is located, or how they can participate, even worse? This sure looks worse to me, like some sort of Tag Team situation, even if it isn't exactly canvassing. I don't see why it is okay for a group to plan to remove a whole article behind closed doors, while what he did is so egregious you wanted him blocked for three months. In my opinion, this attempted re-write behind closed doors violates Misplaced Pages policy on openness. That is all I am going to say for now at this level. Have a nice day. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikid77 is not blocked; he has just been topic banned, you can read why here. Anyway, that's not the point, IMHO. The point is that the existence of the draft has never been hidden. Even as we speak there's a notice on this article, pointing there. If you wish you can edit the draft or wait for it to be moved and the edit it, here. Nobody is trying to approach this in a cloak and dagger fashion. Salvio ( ) 23:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The notice at the top of the page reads "This article is going through a major rewrite which was outsourced to a subpage. You are welcome to assist by editing it." If you have not accepted the invitation that the Magnificent Clean-keeper left on your talkpage, I hardly think that you have grounds to complain on this page that the rewrite has been "drafted behind closed doors". Could you also attempt to explain the glaring discrepancy of your allegation that the draft is "highly POV" when it includes a section titled "Support for Knox"? Finally, for someone who claims that there is "unwelcoming, sometimes hostile and bullying treatment of those who do not hold similar views", it does not appear sensible to place misrepresentative and aggressive notices such as this on an AfD discussion page. SuperMarioMan 01:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, user Zlykinskyja was blocked for a month this morning. Salvio ( ) 12:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What has happened to this page does not stand so we might as well begin mediation or arbitratiion. Anyone who has studied this case here and elsewhere knows there are two strong minded camps on this subject and almost no one in between. For a long time this page had been pretty fair -- I watched it but didn't edit anything. Now I come by and I'm sorry but those of one opinion have hijacked this page while nobody was looking. What we have now is not NPOV, not even close.PhanuelB (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, that the article was being reworked was explicitly noted at the top of the page, so assertions that some sort of conspiracy has been permitted to unfold without other people's knowledge is both inaccurate and a slur on the characters of the editors involved. Having examined the history of this talk page, I respectfully suggest that this topic has already generated enough personalised conflict and drama without a (second) attempt at mediation. SuperMarioMan 11:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest that you extend a bit of good faith - you might get off a better foot with other editors without suggesting that there is some sinister cabal that hijacks the article. And you're of course welcome to improve the article; maybe starting by specifically pointing out what makes this article so "far from NPOV". I find it pretty balanced, to be honest, and I agree with the change as IMHO the previous version was an incoherent mess. However, if you make a concise point, you might be surprised that it is actually possible to work constructively with many people here.

Much of the drama, in my eyes, came from the fact that some of the editors fell into a "us vs them" mentality and always assumed that there was an evil mob out to get them. They appeared to take any attempt to change from "their version" to something else as personal attack. Others lost their calm, too, things got nasty and good faith was lost on both sides.

As for the mediation - it appears to be a bit pointless as this point, as some "key players" are currently blocked (and thus cannot participate) or may have moved on. In other words, at the moment it would make only sense if you required mediation - having already decided that you find it impossible to work with the other editors here. However, if any of those (now or after an unblock) requested another mediation, showed a willingness to work constructively and to recoup some of the good faith that was lost, it would be a way to go.

If the drama flares up again, Arbcom may be the final result. However, remember that an arbcom case wouldn't deal with the content issue at all, but with the behaviour of the editors. Averell (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee of the English Misplaced Pages website (ArbCom) is fully empowered to deal with content issues.PhanuelB (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

They will look into content disputes, but they won't make content decisions, which they state quite clearly. Anyway, this is kind of premature and I only brought it up to remind editors that no "higher power" will make decisions on how the article should read. Averell (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

One of the reasons that his article is poorly written (more on no NPOV later) is that the first paragraph doesn't properly sum up why the case is important. This is a fundamental of good writing, at least as it was taught to me. There is only one reason that this case is news: the questions about whether an American exchange student received a fair trial. And the story is big news (Italy's trial of the century) because of widespread, credible allegations that the trial was a "kangaroo court", a "public lynching", and a "railroad job from hell." It is an outrageous violation of NPOV that a small group of editors are determined to see that this article should not state this obvious truth. Young adults die tragically everyday from natural causes, accidents, warfare, and criminal acts. It's not world news. A modern day Salem witch trial, as alleged by the New York Times, is news.PhanuelB (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

So, you would like the introduction to state that the case is primarily important because there are credible allegations that Knox' didn't receive a fair trial? That controversy is certainly part of it (and it is mentioned) in the intro - but it'd be in the news even without it. I can only speak from the point of someone living in Italy at the moment, but it seems that the importance of this gets blown out of proportion. Yes, it still pops up in the news every now and then, but it is certainly not "world news". And even though the case made news here, those news rarely touch the controversy you mention. When they do, it is reported as an American sentiment. I also don't see a "pro" or "con" camp - most people I know are just disinterested, and otherwise they'd probably say that while there is some evidence it isn't quite clear if the accused are guilty. Outside of Britain and Italy the case is hardly news at all, being reported as sideline news at best. I can't tell anything about the US because I'm not living there, so I can only take what the American editors report. Frankly I'd love to hear the opinion of an American editor who is not "into" this case, to see if its really that world-shattering over there. Averell (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

To be a bit more constructive: How would you propose to change the first paragraph, concretely? Averell (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The matching of the knife

Currently, the article says, "The knife matched one of the three wounds on Kercher's neck." This was introduced by this edit which is entitled "Neutral tone". However, the statement lost neutrality in that edit. As currently written, it implies that the knife matched the wound in the same way that a fingerprint matches a finger. However, that's not true. That's not how that kind of matching works. Any knife of the same size and shape could have made that wound. Some number of knives with different sizes and shape could also make the wound It is conceivably possible that that knife could have inflicted that wound. However, a simpler explanation is that all three wounds were made by the same knife, as stated in this reference (94).

The issue is that the wound in question does not give a lot of evidence as to the nature of the knife that made it. It could have been made by any number of knives. The previous wording was "could only have made" which was more accurate. The knife did not make the fatal wound nor a third knife wound. The prosecution acknowledged this with its two knife theory. It conceivably could have made one of the wounds, but there are other, simpler explanations. "Matched" is neither accurate nor neutral (although it is shorter and more concise). I don't insist on the "could only match" wording, but the wording should indicate that the knife could have made the wound without indicating that it did.

I'm not commenting on the rest of the edit at this time. I introduced the "could only match" wording and am confident that something like it should be retained. Given the removal of the other exculpatory evidence in that edit (the statement used to be in a list of statements with the same general purpose), a more accurate and neutral wording might be "The knife could not have made two of the three wounds." Both the prosecution and the defense agreed on that.

Possible alternative paragraph, "Knox's DNA was found on a kitchen knife, recovered from Sollecito's flat, and Kercher's DNA (although not from her blood) was found on the blade. The knife could have made one of the three wounds on Kercher's neck, but not the other two. The prosecution suggested two knives, while the defense argued that all three wounds were made by another knife. At trial, Knox's lawyers argued that she used knives for cooking at Sollecito's apartment." Mdfst13 (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Think the main change you talk about to "The knife could have made one of the three wounds on Kercher's neck, but not the other two." is okay, but the other two changes are not. The word "necessarily" should stay in "not necessarily from her blood". The source tells us that the knife tested negative for blood, but this does not mean that the DNA sample was not from blood, it just means they couldn't tell what it was from (it was a very small sample). "The prosecution suggested two knives, while the defense argued that all three wounds were made by another knife" does not seem to be supported by the source (I am looking at the right one - The Telegraph, right?). Common sense says the statement itslef is likely to be true, but in general I think we should keep "defence said this but prosecution said that" to a minimum anyway. --FormerIP (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd also be in favour or removing "(although not from her blood)" altogether. Too much detail. --FormerIP (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Remove the "detail" that the knife alleged by the prosecution to be the murder weapon was tested for blood and came up negative? If it didn't have blood on it wasn't used in a stabbing incident. And if they cleaned it up with bleach, there would be blood in the sink or drain pipes. Competent police forces always examine drain pipes BTW. If ever there was an example of the warped efforts to violate NPOV that define this page, this is it.PhanuelB (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Phanuel, "came up negative" does not equal "didn't have blood on it". Furthermore, even if we could be sure there was no blood on it, this would not equal "wasn't used in a stabbing incident". There was some kind of organic material from the victim's body on the blade of the knife. The negative test result means nothing more than that we can't say for sure that the sample found was blood. It may have been skin or muscle tissue, for example, but this would still be consistent with the victim having been injured by the knife. In any event, I support the removal of that sentence, because it doesn't contain any information which is useful to the reader. We are not supposed to be providing information for amateur sleuthing here but, even if we were, I do not think that this negative test is a material factor in determining whether S's knife was or wasn't used in the murder (and, clearly, the court did not think so either). --FormerIP (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe just maybe some will begin to see a pattern here. When there is no DNA in the room, then it's because Amanda cleaned it up. When the knife doesn't fit, there must have been two knives. When Rudy's DNA, and not Amanda's or Raffaele's, is found everywhere, it must have been Amanda directing Rudy to do everything. When they can't find Amanda's fingerprints in her own room, it means that she was cleaning up evidence elsewhere. When a semen stain is found underneath the victim it must have been from before the crime. And now when scientific testing for blood indicates that no blood was present then it doesn't mean that no blood was present. The idea is that you go where the evidence takes you, not where you want to go regardless of the evidence. By the way, in democracies courts of laws are accountable to the public. In virtually all cases this scrutiny can be called "amateur sleuthing." It is more difficult in this case because of the lack of public access to the trial record. That is why the words "Public lynching", "kangaroo court", and "railroad job from hell" as stated by multiple commentators on news segments broadcast to much of the English speaking world belong in this article. That is but one of many reasons this page is devoid of NPOV. PhanuelB (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that this article should go "the way the evidence takes you". It should go with recording the known facts about the murder, together with a brief summary of the trial and its outcome, as reported in reliable sources. It should not be an attempt to re-try the case based on any editor's interpretation of what they imagine the evidence to show.   pablo_hablo. 17:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It is historical fact that this trial is being called a "kangaroo court", a "public lynching", and a "railroad job from hell" by commentators from the most important media outlets in the western world. The effort to leave this out of the story is historical revisionism at its worst. Go to the articles on the Salem witch trials, the Sacco and Vanzetti case, and the Rosenberg trials. They record opinion about the case and they very much examine in considerable detail whether the trials were fair. Also note that the first paragraphs sum up why the case is historically important. PhanuelB (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Salem witch trials, eh? A trial on suspicion of witchcraft is never going to be fair, certainly not by modern standards. I must check on this article in 300 years or so to see why or if it is, by that time, 'historically important'. What are your sources for the quotations you mention above?   pablo_hablo. 21:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That's right, Salem witch trials. Tim Egan writing in the New York Times asks, "what century is this? Didn't Joan of Arc, the Inquisition and our own American Salem witch trial teach civilized nations a thing or two about contrived sexual hysteria..." The sources were fully specified in my original edit. The first thing that any encyclopedia article needs to say about this case is that it is being condemned in unprecedented language by neutral commentators chosen by the most important media outlets in the world.PhanuelB (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There is already a sentence in the lede saying that, and an entire section about Knox's supporters and what they have said. The last thing the article needs is to become a repository of random commentator's opinions. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. We report facts, not opinions derived by our editors from other sources - that's a violation of WP:SYNTH, which is policy, and will be removed wherever it is seen. As for the quotes above; they don't belong in the article because they're from POV sources (Ciolino, Kelly). If such language had been used by multiple reliable sources, rather than reported in a few sources, then there may be a claim to do so. For similar reasons we have not reported some of the allegations against Knox, i.e. her supposed bizarre behaviour during questioning. If we included everything that had been written about the trial the page would be too long to view. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact history often documents the opinions of society. Black Kite is just deleting verifiable facts that disagree with his/her editorial viewpoint. Public criticism of the trial is news and it is a fact. John Q. Kelly, Paul Ciolino, Judy Bachrach, Doug Preston, Tim Egan, Peter Van Sant and others were chosen to provide neutral commentary. Black Kite doesn't like what the commentators choosen by the most important media outlets in the world are saying so he/she is re-writing history to make sure that the readers of this article don't find out about it. The disregard for NPOV is breathtaking.PhanuelB (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to point out where I have "deleted verifiable facts". I have only edited the article a couple of times, and that was to remove unsourced information. I would suggest that making things up to support your viewpoint is not the greatest idea in the world. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough; the edit history does show that the edits in question were done by FormerIP. Also fair was my belief that your words above were taking credit for the deletions. Besides, there is a stated intent to do precisely what I'm talking about in the event that somebody else doesn't do it for you. The verifiable facts were that commentators on CNN and CBS called the trial a "public lynching", a "kangaroo court", and a "railroad job from hell."PhanuelB (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There are verifiable facts that a lot of people said a lot of things about the case, both for and against Knox and the validity of the trial. However, since we're not a newspaper, and since the article doesn't have infinite length, we can't include them all; and we certainly can't cherry-pick quotes that agree with us. Also, some of them are clearly POV - the Kelly quote was from the Larry King show on which he appeared with Knox's parents () - so he was hardly going to say she was guilty, was she? I did look for "kangaroo court" in reliable sources but found only this article in which someone who I presume is you contributes at the end; really, you can hardly complain about NPOV here in that case. Black Kite (t) (c) 05:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a verifiable fact that some people say the Holocaust happened and some say it didn't (Ahmadinejad on LKL no less). Historians, including the editors of Misplaced Pages articles, make educated decisions on which events, statements and facts are more important than the others. The documentation for "kangaroo court" (LKL, Judy Bachrach, 5-Dec-09) has been previously provided. John Q. Kelly was chosen by LKL to provide neutral commentary on the Amanda Knox case. This obligation was not compromised because he appeared on the same show with the Knox family. He has appeared on LKL on other subjects and specifically stated that he did not know the Knox family. One of the reasons that there is no NPOV in this article is that we have an administrator (Black Kite) with an agenda.PhanuelB (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are trying to relate Holocaust deniers to those who disagree with you here, I would stop that right now because the only outcome of it will not be helpful to your ability to edit here. As for myself, an administrator who has edited the article a few times out of thousands of edits of the article is clearly not someone with an agenda, but in reality an administrator who is trying to point out to you why you cannot include - per Misplaced Pages policy and consensus - the material you are arguing for. I have no particular interest in this article or subject, frankly. However, I would appreciate it if you stopped - now - attributing attitudes to me that are completely false. In the real world and at Misplaced Pages we call that "lying". Do I make myself clear on both points? Black Kite (t) (c) 21:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not alleged that anyone here is associated with the evil of the Holocaust and my paragraph did not say that. The point is that NPOV does not have to be half way between what two people are saying. The example of Ahmadinejad (an elected leader of an important Nation) refusing to say that the Holocaust happened exquisitely illustrates that point. As we all know the Holocaust happened, period. The point is relevant because editors here are refusing to allow into the article the reality that the most important by far commentators in this case are using extraordinary language to condemn the trial. For the moment this page is dominated by those with an agenda. I don't see how anyone can deny that in good faith.PhanuelB (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Equally, one could argue that if there is indeed an "agenda" of many editing here, perhaps it is to ensure that the article isn't again used - as it was previously - as a political football by those wishing to portray Knox as an innocent convicted unfairly. The fact that some people think that the trial should be condemned is mentioned in the article already. That is exactly the way the article should be. It clearly needs to be said again; Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid newspaper or a vehicle for the opinions of agenda-driven commentators whichever side of the "argument" they are on. Purely because the article must be factual does not mean that we have to include everything ever written about it; that would be ludicrous. As for your point about NPOV not being between two viewpoints; that's a straw man. WP:UNDUE applies here; we do not give additional exposure to people, whether they be Holocaust deniers or commentators on the Knox trial, purely because they shout the loudest or are in the public eye the most. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying not to get too involved in discussion here, because I contributed a lot to the new version of the article, but I must just correct one point. PhanuelB speaks of "the lack of public access to the trial record". Unless I have misunderstood the point, this is quite wrong. The trial record has been published in full and runs to over 400 pages. I agree that "in democracies courts of laws are accountable to the public" and, in the case of Italy (a democracy), this includes publishing the complete rationale for the court's decisions. Bluewave (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The trial record cannot be published under Italian law and that is an important element of this case that belongs in the story. Exactly two documents are available on the Internet: the 427 page Motivation Document, and the so-called Judge Micheli report. This is not the trial record. Does anyone else have trouble understanding this? I have not seen even one trial document in its full unaltered form on the Internet. See the case of Carlo Parlanti, an Italian in jail in California who many Italians feel is innocent. Documents from his case, chosen by the defense, can be downloaded without charge from websites advocating his innocence.PhanuelB (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems like I'm having trouble understanding! When you speak of the trial record, are you expecting that the courts will publish a compete transcript of the entire proceedings? If so, I agree, that this has not happened. But, following each of the court hearings, the courts have published their findings in some detail. As you say, Massei's report on the Knox/Sollecito trial runs to 427 pages. I think Micheli's report of Guede's trial runs to over 100 pages. There are plenty of other democracies (eg England) where courts are not required to provide anything like this level of accountability. However, even if there were complete transcripts of all the court proceedings available to us, that would make little difference to the article, because they would be primary sources. Bluewave (talk) 08:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a fundamental lack of understanding here of the importance of public access to the trial record, a concept fundamental to all democracies. The right is there so that the public can see for themselves if judicial decisions have been arrived at properly. It doesn't end with the Massei/Micheli reports, it begins with them. Trial records include many things: evidence exhibits, trial testimony, motions, court opinions, jury instructions. There are sound reasons that some documents can be sealed. The issue in this case is the prohibition of the publication of documents.PhanuelB (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, Phanuel, I am not sure what you are expecting of the Italian courts, but there do appear to be transcripts of hearings on the internet, as well as phtographs, CCTV footage, video from the flat and other evidence presumably released by them. Large parts of the K and S trial were on TV (try YouTube), and journalists seem to have had a lot of access to both the defence and prosecution lawyers. So there does not appear to be a strong case for saying that the Italian authorities were overly secretive about allowing material into the public realm. Secondly, there also does not seem to be a very strong case for saying that access to such material is a "concept fundamental to all democracies", since many (democratic) jurisdictions (the UK has been cited above as an example) withold material on the basis that this protects the democratic right of the accused to be tried by a jury of their peers and not to have their trials or appeals compromised by newspaper reporting. Pretty please can we get back to dicussing reliable sources rather than our own opinions about the Italian legal system. --FormerIP (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There are no official court transcripts on the Internet. There are not large parts of this trial on Youtube. The distinction is important because so much of the public information in this case is based on Internet blog hearsay. The British system is careful not to release information prior to trial but in the end the trial record is public knowledge. The most "reliable source" for what happened at trial is the trial record. PhanuelB (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If the trial record cannot be published under Italian law and if that is "an important element of this case", then presumably there will be a number of Reliable Sources that make this point. --FormerIP (talk) 10:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

PhnauelB, I'm struggling a bit to understand your rationale here. Surely, the "trial record" is available in its entirety to Knox's legal team in Italy, as they will be using the "trial record" plus all of the evidence, testimonies, and so forth to build their appeal. The appeal process itself is taking 10+ months, and I would think that as long as Della Vedova et al has this information, I don't see it as an issue that the rest of the public may not have the same access to detail while legal proceedings are ongoing. Jonathan (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Defense access to the trial record is not the same thing as public access.PhanuelB (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a non-issue. Please bring some sources into it or else stop. --FormerIP (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

PhanuelB, you confuse me when you argue both sides of the issue. Did the courts provide too much information to the media, as you argued earlier, or were they too secretive, as you seem to be arguing now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Issues surrounding the release of information by authorities should be understood clearly by all those who seek to participate in this page. It's basic stuff. As an example police in Peru released hotel video showing Joran van der Sloot entering a room with a woman and leaving the room without her. Powerful stuff. Society probably benefited from that pre-trial, accurate information. In Amanda's case police virtually made their case by selective release of pre-trial information, much of it false and known to be false. So out of court release of evidence can be justified in some circumstances but is generally discouraged in democracies. Such pre-trial leaks should not be confused with the trial record which includes motions, opinions, evidence, and much more. The motivation documents is a small part of the trial record. Legitimate reasons exist for the sealing of some documents -- dignity of the victim, privacy or minors, safety of witnesses, etc. Outside of the Motivation document, not one trial document in its full unaltered form is available on the internet where those of us who study the case can see it. This is the exact opposite of the United States. Those on the TJMK web site (the presumed point of origin for those who control this page) do have documents provided to them by the prosecution but they state that they cannot publish them because of Italian law.PhanuelB (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is the TJMK website, and how is it relevant here?   pablo_hablo. 19:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here I start again: I must state beforehand this is going to be a WP:TLDR moment.
Seriously, article 114 of our Code of Criminal Procedure states:

Template:It1. È vietata la pubblicazione, anche parziale o per riassunto, con il mezzo della stampa o con altro mezzo di diffusione, degli atti coperti dal segreto o anche solo del loro contenuto. 2. È vietata la pubblicazione, anche parziale, degli atti non più coperti dal segreto fino a che non siano concluse le indagini preliminari ovvero fino al termine dell'udienza preliminare. 3. Se si procede al dibattimento, non è consentita la pubblicazione, anche parziale, degli atti del fascicolo del pubblico ministero, se non dopo la pronuncia della sentenza in grado di appello. È sempre consentita la pubblicazione degli atti utilizzati per le contestazioni. 4. È vietata la pubblicazione, anche parziale, degli atti del dibattimento celebrato a porte chiuse nei casi previsti dall'articolo 472 commi 1 e 2. In tali casi il giudice, sentite le parti, può disporre il divieto di pubblicazione anche degli atti o di parte degli atti utilizzati per le contestazioni. Il divieto di pubblicazione cessa comunque quando sono trascorsi i termini stabiliti dalla legge sugli archivi di Stato ovvero è trascorso il termine di dieci anni dalla sentenza irrevocabile e la pubblicazione è autorizzata dal Ministro di grazia e giustizia. 5. Se non si procede al dibattimento, il giudice, sentite le parti, può disporre il divieto di pubblicazione di atti o di parte di atti quando la pubblicazione di essi può offendere il buon costume o comportare la diffusione di notizie sulle quali la legge prescrive di mantenere il segreto nell'interesse dello Stato ovvero causare pregiudizio alla riservatezza dei testimoni o delle parti private. Si applica la disposizione dell'ultimo periodo del comma 4. 6. È vietata la pubblicazione delle generalità e dell'immagine dei minorenni testimoni, persone offese o danneggiati dal reato fino a quando non sono divenuti maggiorenni. Il tribunale per i minorenni, nell'interesse esclusivo del minorenne, o il minorenne che ha compiuto i sedici anni, può consentire la pubblicazione. 6-bis. È vietata la pubblicazione dell'immagine di persona privata della libertà personale ripresa mentre la stessa si trova sottoposta all'uso di manette ai polsi ovvero ad altro mezzo di coercizione fisica salvo che la persona vi consenta. 7. È sempre consentita la pubblicazione del contenuto di atti non coperti dal segreto.

The relevant sections are §§ 3 and 7. The former states that, when there's been a trial (as opposed to a special proceeding), the records and the images contained in the file of the trial (that is to say, all evidence gathered during the trial and which the Judge based his decision upon) can be published. All records contained in the prosecution's file (that contains the results of his investigations and of those carried out by the defence - and that the Judge of the trial never gets to see), on the contrary, can be published only after the second-instance judgement has been rendered. The latter states that to publish the content of all records that are longer secret is permitted. (And what has been used during the trial, by definition, is not secret). Salvio ( ) 02:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Salvio: I think there's more to it than that. As a challenge I'd like to see the Jury Instructions, Cristian Tramontano Statement, Complaint, Response to Discovery Request for fsa file and Interrogation Evidence. They must be the full unaltered document with court stamps. Anything I get goes on the internet without limitation.PhanuelB (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Phanuel, please find an appropriate forum somewhere else on the Internet for this. The purpose of the talkpage is to discuss improvements to the article, not our pet threories about the inadequacy of a particuar country's criminal justice system. --FormerIP (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that the only reason we are here is because the Perugian justice system is on trial. Young adults die tragically every day and they don't write books or make documentaries about it. The historical revisionism perpetrated upon this page by the present editors violates every principle of Misplaced Pages and will be challenged every inch of the way. The allegations by the most important commentators who have examined the case that this trial was a "kangaroo court", and a "public lynching" cannot be systematically removed by those who disagree with that commentary.PhanuelB (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

As FormerIP says, if you wish to find a forum on the Internet to push your opinions about the trial, Misplaced Pages isn't the place for it. We provide an encyclopedic media which deals strictly with facts, not opinions. Your first post here and your insistence that the commentators who are convinced of one side of the POV are "the most important" (in reality, most of the world has never heard of them) will only convince other editors that you are only here to push a particular POV, and as such it is unlikely that you will be able to insert your opinions into what is currently a very neutral article. WP:GREATWRONGS and WP:TRUTH are essays, but they are very relevant to this situation. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The Perugian justice system isn't on trial. However, if there is any evidence that due process rights have been denied in the name of expediency (ie "kangaroo court" behaviour), the Perugian court could be put on trial. In the first instance, the defence could appeal to the Court of Cassation, and I believe that they could do that right now, without even waiting for the appeal to a lower court, if there was evidence that the Perugia court had acted at all improperly. Furthermore, the defence could take the case to the European Court of Human Rights. In that case the Perugian justice system would indeed be on trial. If and when that happens, the article will need to reflect the facts. Bluewave (talk) 08:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

PhanuelB, Also, keep in mind that your opinion that the "Perugia justice system is on trial' is in direct contradiction to the US Department of State. They monitored the trial in its entirety and do not support your opinion at all. Your unsourced statements are more appropriate for a blog that has less rigorous fact-checking and sourcing requirments. They do not belong in an encyclopedia, there is no way that any editor's opinion could trump the unassailable statements made by the one entity that matters in terms of monitoring this trial: the US State Department.

MR. (IAN) KELLY: Well, I don’t have any indications to the contrary. I do know that our Embassy in Rome was very closely involved in this. They visited Amanda Knox. They have monitored the trial. They were present, I know, on Friday. Consular officers were present. I think at this point right now, it – the trial ended on Friday. We’re also looking ahead to the next step in this, which is an appeal. I guess she has 45 days to appeal her conviction to the court of appeals. And during this period, of course, consular officials will stay in close touch with her and with the family, and continue to monitor and provide assistance to both her and her family.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2009/dec/133266.htm Jonathan (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the knife

Previously (I just made an edit), the article said, "Apart from the knife, there was no forensic evidence, such as DNA, hair, fibre, blood or skin, directly indicating that Knox had been in the bedroom where Meredith Kercher was sexually assaulted and murdered." I disagree with the inclusion of "Apart from the knife" in that statement. I edited it out once, but it was reverted. The thing is that the knife does not indicate that Knox was in Kercher's bedroom during or after the sexual assault. I tried simply removing the statement, but the change was reverted. Even if you accept that the DNA on the knife was from Kercher (although that is disputed), there was no evidence that it occurred at the time of the murder. The knife itself has no evidence linking it to the bedroom, only the disputed DNA that might link it to Kercher. I've tried another revision, better explaining the knife and how it links Knox and Kercher. The rest of that statement is simply a rewording of what is said in the reference. The "part from the knife" is a rewording that confused the original meaning. The original statement does not make the claim that the knife linked Knox to the bedroom. My (new) revised version, "The only forensic evidence linking Knox and Kercher is a knife (found in Sollecito's apartment), but Knox had legitimate reasons to have touched the knife (explaining her DNA, e.g. using it to prepare dinner at Sollecito's) and the evidence identifying Kercher's DNA is disputed." Mdfst13 (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thank god. Zlykinskyja is back. I missed you dear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The DNA on the knife is mentioned in the citation already included, so no additonal citation needs to be included. The question of whether any DNA evidence links K to the murder scene is one of POV. Per the decision of the court, it does, because a murder weapon was found with her DNA on it. There is an alternative POV, which goes contrary to the findings in the case, that this was not the murder weapon and so no link is established. However, per WP:NPOV and WP:RS#Statements_of_opinion (the source is an op-ed), the article should not state this as if it were factual. --FormerIP (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The citation is not needed to establish the presence of DNA on the knife. The citation is required to establish that the knife indicates that Knox was in the room (which is what the current version of the sentence claims). The citation for that sentence clearly states that there was no evidence connecting Knox to the room. If the author had felt that the knife connected Knox to the room, then they would not have been able to make the unequivocal statement that they made. I don't believe that anyone can find a valid secondary source claiming that the knife established presence in the room. Thus, any claim that it does is either original research or synthesis.

The knife was not the murder weapon (as per *both* the prosecution and the defense theories). It is clearly established that the fatal wound was caused by a different weapon. Thus the prosecution theory that there were two knives, one of which made the fatal wound (and another wound) and the other of which made the indeterminate cut. The defense theory is that a single knife made all three wounds, and the forensic evidence is consistent with that (although it does not establish it; two knives or even three could have been used).

Also, even if you accept that the knife was used to cut Kercher, there is nothing about the forensic evidence relating to the knife that indicates that she was cut by that knife in that room. The knife was not found in Kercher's room but in Sollecito's apartment. The knife does not link Knox to the room. Any statement about the knife should be moved out of the sentence, "There was no forensic evidence, such as DNA, hair, fibre, blood or skin, directly indicating that Knox had been in the bedroom where Meredith Kercher was sexually assaulted and murdered." and into its own sentence. Mdfst13 (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The relevant phrase there is "I don't believe that...". What you do or do not believe is irrelevant to a neutral encyclopedia article. What your theories about the murder contain, are irrelevant. We only report on the facts about the case (i.e. what happened during the trial, and the result of trial and/or possible appeals). Anything else is synthesis. As I've said to PhanuelB above, if you want a forum to expand on your theories about Knox's innocence or otherwise, there are plenty of venues on the Internet. Misplaced Pages is not one of them. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. That's why I want the "Apart from the knife" removed, as it is synthesis. The knife does not indicate that Knox was in the room. The source citation does not include that conclusion (in fact, the source was claiming the opposite, that there was no forensic evidence indicating that Knox was in the room). Either someone should demonstrate a valid secondary source that explains how the knife indicates that Knox was in the room, or the synthesized conclusion that the knife indicates that Knox was in the room should be removed. Lacking such a citation, we should remove the conclusion about Knox's guilt or otherwise and only report the facts. The facts are that there was no forensic evidence in the room that indicated that Knox was present. The lack of such evidence does not make Knox innocent. It is purely a fact to be considered.

I've already said that I'm fine with people reporting separately the existence of the knife. However, as things are, it's confusing. Look at FormerIP's statement that the knife was the murder weapon. That statement is false (by all theories of the crime, including those of both the prosecution and the defense in the Knox case), but statements like "part from the knife" lead to that kind of confusion. The confusing portion of the statement should be removed. The knife should be discussed separately, either in a different sentence or a different paragraph. The sentence to which it is attached has nothing whatsoever to do with the knife.

Another possible alternate version: "There was no forensic evidence, such as DNA, hair, fibre, blood or skin, directly indicating that Knox had been in the bedroom where Meredith Kercher was sexually assaulted and murdered. All forensic evidence that was presented against Knox came from outside that room, for example, the knife (see above) that was found in Sollecito's apartment." This removes the synthesized conclusion that the knife proves presence in the room while retaining the explicit mentioning of the knife as forensic evidence. This statement reduces the confusion rather than amplifying it, as the current statement does. It reports the facts, rather than someone's synthesized conclusions. As stands, the current statement is simply non-factual. It should be revised to conform with the actual facts. Mdfst13 (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your edit, because I think that:

The only forensic evidence linking Knox and Kercher is a knife (found in Sollecito's apartment), but Knox had legitimate reasons to have touched the knife (explaining her DNA, e.g. using it to prepare dinner at Sollecito's)

is all but neutral. It looked like yet another attempt at soapboaxing for Knox's innocence. I think that the previous version:

At trial, Knox's lawyers argued that she used knives for cooking at Sollecito's apartment.

although meaning the same thing is far more balanced.

As far as the "apart from the knife" thing goes, I really have no strong opinion and will be happy to go with consensus. Salvio ( ) 22:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Mdfst, I think you're looking at the question the opposite way round to me. The source is an op-ed, so we need to treat it with caution in the first place (I think a lot of editors would be in favour of "don't use it at all, except for statements about the opinion of the author). Leaving that aside, though, what the author says, to paraphrase is: "There is no physical evidence linking Knox to the crime. Okay, there is the knife, but I'm discounting that". What is currently in the article is a fair version of that. It removes the editorial emphasis an POV of the original ("Niente, nada, nihil"), but that is a totally appropriate thing to do. What would not be appropriate would be to use the source to back up a misleading statement along the lines of "there is no physical evidence linking Knox to the crime", which is a misleading 50% of the relevant detail in the source. BTW, indicating that the knife links Knox to the crime is not synthesis or someone's original research, it is the finding of the court at the end of the trial. --FormerIP (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

PS I'd be totally in favour of revoving the sentence altogether. There is far too much he said she said in this article. --FormerIP (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting saying "there is no physical evidence linking Knox to the crime", even though it may be true. It's certainly disputed (obviously the prosecution says that there is and other sources say that it is not). I'm suggesting saying, something along the lines of "Limited physical evidence against Knox was introduced at trial, none of it was from the room where the body was found." This removes the questions of whether or not the evidence links Knox to the scene, as that is disputed. It retains the notice that there was no physical evidence of Knox's presence in the bedroom. I disagree with the statement that the current version is a fair summary. The current version implies that the knife is direct physical evidence linking Knox to the bedroom. However, the knife was not found in the bedroom. There is no forensic evidence indicating that the knife was ever in the bedroom. There is only a police theory, that says that Kercher touched the knife (disputed) near the time of the murder (disputed) and it in fact made one of the cuts on Kercher's neck (disputed). The only part of that theory that is not disputed by Knox's lawyers is that the murder occurred in the bedroom, and Guede may be disputing that. I'm fine with including that theory (and I think that it is already made elsewhere), so long as it includes the defense criticisms.

Without the "part from the knife", we'd have that anyway, as the knife has multiple paragraphs of discussion. If you are insistent that that's not enough, then a new sentence should replace "part from the knife" that eliminates the claim that the knife in some way establishes Knox's presence in the room and simply claims the knife as physical evidence that the prosecution theory used to link Knox to the crime. You haven't explained what you don't like about my more recent suggestion (with some slight revisions), "There was no forensic evidence, such as DNA, hair, fibre, blood or skin, directly indicating that Knox had been in Meredith Kercher's bedroom. The forensic evidence that was presented against Knox came from outside that room, for example, the knife that was found in Sollecito's apartment (see above)." That removes any attempt at dismissing the knife (what the cited source does) and only lists it as evidence used by the prosecution, without making any judgment on its value as evidence. It takes out the "he said, she said" opinions and leaves only the facts. Mdfst13 (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

"Limited physical evidence against Knox was introduced at trial" - this is your opinion. Who is to say what should be classed as limited? Clearly, there was enough to secure a conviction.

Knox's connection to the knife is not "just a police theory", it is the conclusion of the court.

I don't like any version which is slanted. There was enough physical evidence against Knox to convict, so to distort facts to try to make it look like the evidence was deficient is not acceptable.

You may think that you are just highlighting a true fact. I am not comparing you to one on a moral level, but you seem to be employing the same logic that holocaust deniers use when they point to the relative lack of physical evidence for gas chambers. The misleading implication is that there is a gap in the case, which there isn't. --FormerIP (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

"…The misleading implication is that there is a gap in the case, which there isn't."

That seems to me to be a personal conclusion and a strong statement for someone who doesn’t want to slant and distort the facts. There are many who say that Knox and Sollecito were convicted despite a lack of enough evidence. If we are going to stay neutral, how can we state as a fact either that the evidence was or was not sufficient for a fair conviction; or whether there is a "gap in the case"? Kermugin (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether there is or isn't a gap in the case is irrelevant. Unless we can cite reliable sources proving that there is, or isn't, we can't go anywhere near that type of opinion - it would be clear synthesis. There are many venues on the Internet for speculation of that type - an encyclopedia is not the place. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Replying to FormerIP's post above Kermugin's:

Who is disputing Knox's connection to the knife? I'm saying there is no forensic evidence of Knox's connection to the *ROOM*. What don't you like about "There was no forensic evidence, such as DNA, hair, fibre, blood or skin, directly indicating that Knox had been in Meredith Kercher's bedroom. The forensic evidence that was presented against Knox came from outside that room, for example, the knife that was found in Sollecito's apartment (see above)." What is slanted about it?

"Apart from the knife" is totally unacceptable as an attachment to that sentence. It is not factual, much less NPOV. It implies that the knife in some way links Knox to the room. It is especially egregious since it directly contradicts the cited source. What is your proposed alternative? I've suggested three now (four if one includes simply removing the misleading words). Mdfst13 (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

If the section is that problematic, and runs risk of violating WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, the obvious answer would be to remove it completely. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd be totally fine with taking it out altogether.

Mdfst, the slant lies in giving a misdirection to the reader. A statement such as "There was no forensic evidence..." appears designed to create doubt about the verdict in the case. Whilst it is appropriate for the article to reference the doubts of some commentators, directly trying to lay out the defence case is not appropriate. --FormerIP (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Black Kite, why not just fix the statement to be factual? It requires splitting into two statements, as one talks about evidence of Knox appearing in the room, see http://abcnews.go.com/WN/AmandaKnox/amanda-knox-murder-trial-evidence/story?id=9113616&page=2 for another reference. The other talks about other forensic evidence, specifically the knife. The knife is clearly forensic evidence, but just as clearly, it isn't forensic proof of presence in that particular room (what it does prove is highly disputed). It's only the conjoining of the two statements that makes it synthetic and non-factual. I remain fine with exploring alternative wordings. I have suggested several, which would seem to address the complaints that I've seen. I still don't understand why the current wording is unique in addressing such concerns. I would like someone else to take a try at a wording that fixes the factual issue and retains the statement about the lack of evidence in the room. Mdfst13 (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mdfst13; that sentence sounds kinda strange. I wouldn't say it's totally false, because if one believes the knife indicates guilt, it also indicates presence in the room, since that's where the murder took place.

But it really sounds almost surreal, like this you get the feeling the knife proves Amanda's guilt, and if that's already proven, then of course she was in the victim's room at the time of the murder. But the knife is highly disputed and therefore could be totally misleading here. The rest of the sentence after "apart from the knife" becomes almost irrelevant because the knife ("the murder weapon"!) is so powerful. Like, how is it relevant if there were no forensics of Amanda found in the victim's room, if the knife indicates she killed her all the same? So the point of that insert seems to me almost like an attempt to make these facts of the missing forensics in the victim's room meaningless, when they are actually quite powerful.

I see no need to mention the knife in this paragraph again, I suggest, instead of "indicating presence", just write what has been found or not found in the room, it's clearer then. Like this;

There was no forensic evidence of Amanda, such as DNA, hair, fibre, blood or skin, found in the bedroom where Meredith Kercher was sexually assaulted and murdered. The only fingerprints of Knox which were found anywhere in the apartment were those on a glass in the kitchen sink. Knox's fingerprints were not found in Kercher's bedroom, nor her own bedroom.

I know lots of people don't like that, but this is actually a fact, and an important one; there were no forensics of Amanda found in the victim's room, to water it down with the "apart from the knife"-part; I don't see a legitimate reason to insert that here, when the highly disputed knife is alreay mentioned and everyone can decide for themselves if that proves or indicates guilt and/or presence in the room. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aruu (talk • contribs) 20:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

And yet again - I think this is the sixth time I've mentioned this on this talkpage - people need to read WP:SYNTH. No wonder I had to ask for this page to be FP'd today. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The argument that there were no forensics of Amanda found in the room, is a nonsensical statement. Her DNA was found on the murder weapon. And Knox was convicted of Murder. You're not seriously saying that the murder weapon was never in the room? Because that is a ridiculous statement. The statement your trying to enter, is you trying to argue for Amanda Knox being innocent, and Misplaced Pages, for the millionth time, is not the place to argue for an imprisoned persons innocence. That is not what Misplaced Pages is for. Find another place to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Guede biography

I raised this subject previously, during the rewrite and it wasn't really resolved, so I think it's worth raising again. The biography of Guede says "According to Times Online, Guede was known as a small-time drug dealer, a drifter with a prior record of petty crime and drug offences who, according to some witnesses, harassed women and stole from their handbags." Although it is quite true, as proved by the citation, that Times Online said this, I think there are some issues that we should at least discuss.

• The bit about "according to some witnesses" doesn't give us any clue about who these witnesses might be. The piece was written at the time when Guede's trial was ending, but that trial had been held behind closed doors, with no journalists present, so the journalist is certainly not giving an account of something he saw during the trial. It really sounds like hearsay.
• The "prior record of petty crime and drug offences": I have trawled through all the accounts and can't find anything about Guede having actually been convicted of anything prior to the murder trial (I know there were a couple of run-ins with the police in the weeks before the murder, but Guede was released both times). This source speaks of his lack of criminal record, which is at odds with The Times' account.
• The term "drifter" appears in almost every newspaper article about Guede. It's a great journalistic word, because it conveys a negative impression but requires no factual basis to support it and is virtually unchallengeable. I would argue that it is a very poor encyclopedic term, for the same reasons.

What do others think? Bluewave (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the first point. It seems like an unsubstantiated rumour, but on the other hand Guede doesn't have much of a reputation to be damaged. Maybe raising it at the BLP board would be the thing to do.

On the second point, think this should be removed. If there are conflicting sources about this then we can't report it, particularly taking into account BLP considerations.

Agree that "drifter" too vague a term for us to use in Misplaced Pages's voice, but if it is true that he is consistently so described then maybe we can say "often described as..".

Given that there seem to be multiple issues about the reliability of this source, perhaps it should not be used at all. --FormerIP (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, regarding the use of the word drifter in your third point ... perhaps this may be an instance of ambiguity between British English and American English? In the US, the term drifter is used to describe a person that does not own or maintain a residence; acording to this source, Guede actually had an apartment in Perugia:

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archives/179047.asp

Although perhaps it is journalistic license in referring to someone who drifts from job to job, which it how it is occasionally used in the US... does the UK have a different connotation for the word? Perhaps "unemployed" or "jobless" is more accurate? Although I suppose those two words can be used to describe Knox & Sollecito. Jonathan (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "drifter", the OED defines it as "A man following an aimless, irresolute, or vagrant way of life". So it sounds as if the British usage is a lot broader than the more specific American usage. Bluewave (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've done a bit more research into the sources about the allegations of drug offences and harassing women. This piece from the Telegraph repeats pretty much the same story as The Times, but attributes the allegations to Abukar Mohamed Barrow, known as “Momi”. So it looks as though he is the witness and, in fact Barrow was lined up to testify at Guede's trial. However, in this piece by Candace Dempsey, of Seattle pi, she writes "Abuker 'Momi' Barrow, a Somali who used to play basketball with Rudy was supposed to describe Guede as a botherer of girls, a violent drug user and thief. But Guede's defense team once again rode to the rescue. Biscotti brandished a videotape recorded Sept. 17 by Studio Aperto of the Mediaset Group. He said the tape showed the witness negotiating with a reporter for cash to tell his tale. Reportedly (and rather confusedly), he'd also received 2,000 euro from La Nazione. Judge Michele threw this witness out." I suggest that, as this testimony was thrown out by the court, it should be thrown out by us too. Bluewave (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds sensisible. If we want to comply with WP:NPOV, the alternative would be citing the Timesonline article, then idenfiying the witness using the Telegraph article, then using the Seattle Pi article to discredit the witness. But that kind of "here is what a newspaper says" followed by "here is what is wrong with what the newspaper says" is exactly what the article has suffered too much of. Plus we are subject to WP:BLP --FormerIP (talk) 10:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if it was some really important aspect of the case, it would be worth going into the different sources and the chronology (I think The Times article preceded the throwing-out of the witness). However, to go into all that would seem to me to attribute undue importance to this aspect of the case. Bluewave (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I may be oversimplifying things here, but if the word "drifter" would be replaced with the phrase "Perugia resident" in describing Guede, I think it would be much more accurate and also neutral ... or would that be implying something that Misplaced Pages should be avoiding? Jonathan (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Issues related to Guede have been deliberately downplayed by the current editors because their agenda seeks to portray Guede in a better light and make it more plausible that Amanda Knox would have gotten together with him for a sex orgy. NPOV requires a more detailed discussion of Guede's criminal history. The fact that he might not have a criminal conviction is irrelevant because the evidence of his criminal acts is so compelling. These incidents are particularly important because he has no accomplices and it shows a past history of much of what happened at the crime scene. They also relate to the future section on the criticism of the police investigation. Three reliable sources:

1) Statement of Maria del Prato in TLC documentary (video 6 on Youtube.) He is discovered behind closed doors on her property armed with a knife. She describes him as a "dangerous person" and references the property stolen from the Perugian law office where the entry was the same as in Filomena's room.

2) Statement of Nathan Abraham in CBS 48Hours Documentary. He talks of Guede getting in a knife fight with a bartender.

3) Statement of Frank Sfarzo describing his conversation with Cristian Tramontano. Guede was caught robbing Tramontano's residence and brandished a knife in his escape. Police were contacted.

The above are primary sources but are appropriate for use here because Italian law does not permit public access to the trial record.PhanuelB (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Citations in Micheli Report

Ref the following footnote

"^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj "Judgement 28.10.2008", Dr. Paolo Micheli, dep. 2009-01-26, Court of Perugia Italy, trial of Rudy Hermann Guede, (Google Translation, Italian to English)Translate.google.com, Italian webpage: Penale.it . Retrieved 2009-12-11."

All 36 items that depend on the above citation do not meet WP:BOP and are not properly sourced. No page number is given for any item as required by WP:BOP. The source is not in English and cannot be understood by the audience. The translation tool above only does a poor translation of a portion of the document. Even in English, the above is a reliable source only to show what is stated in the court opinion. Because of the level of criticism of the trial, the the Micheli Report can only be used on a case by case basis as a reliable source for assertion of fact.PhanuelB (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

1. "Amanda Knox fights to prove innocence in the open". The Times. 11 January 2009. Retrieved 24 May 2010.
2. "Amanda Knox fights to prove innocence in the open". The Times. 11 January 2009. Retrieved 24 May 2010.

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• C-Class Death articles
• Unknown-importance Death articles
• C-Class Italy articles
• Unknown-importance Italy articles
• All WikiProject Italy pages
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Italy
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles