Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:12, 6 September 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: 7 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.

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

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: 7 days

Events surrounding the murder

To say that Meredith and her friend parted ways "at 8:55 pm" is apparently not accurate and is in disagreement with Judge Micheli's report which indicates Sophie arrived at her home at about 8:55 pm.

From the Meredith Kercher wikipedia article; "Events surrounding the murder On 1 November 2007, Kercher's two Italian flatmates were away for the night. At 8:40 pm, a witness knocked on the door of Sollecito's flat and Knox answered. Kercher spent the early evening with three friends. At about 8:45 pm, she left with one of her friends. They parted company near the friend's flat at 8:55 pm.: 24 Kercher then walked the remaining 500 yards (460 m) to her flat."

THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH IS SOPHIE PERTON'S NOV 1 2007 STATEMENT FROM JUDGE MICHELI'S REPORT: "Exit the house of A. and Via Roscetto: Here you were separated because Via del Lupo R, K. and she had come down the hill at the bottom of Via Bontempi, reaching po is on the right, while M. had continued the journey along the Via Pinturicchio, then other walks down to Via della Pergola (at least, so the witness assumed, this being the usual route and shorter). The P. was sure that I have checked the schedule in her return home, and it was 21:00 ."

Sophie Perton (Meredith's friend that walked partway home with her)was guessing about what time she parted ways with Meredith. The following quote is from Judge Micheli"s report: "On 17 November, P. made a new prosecuting magistrate deposition, confirming the initial statements without time to clarify where the four friends had begun to eat in the house of A. and R. (perhaps 18:00 , or maybe first): instead correcting the time that she was back in Via del Lupo, recalling that it was still 20:55 ."

I have a question. Above I see an icon of a lock on the link, and 4 unrelated documents above. I'm guessing the lock icon is because the link is to an unqualified source. I don't have a clue why the unrelated document links are showing above the source link unless they are contained in the source. Before I delete the unqualified source please explain this to me. Yoyohooyo (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Based on Sophie's statement made to police investigators on Nov 17, 2007 Sophie arrived at her home around 8:55 pm so they did not part ways "at 8:55 pm". They parted ways slightly before 8:55 pm.

From the motivation report we know that the last call to Meredith's mother was placed from Meredith's UK phone at 8:56 pm (This call was interrupted in a matter of seconds and before data about the call could be recorded, so it's not known which cell tower the phone connected with or the length of the call). Considering Meredith is walking home on a cold dark night it's safe to assume that Meredith made this call after she arrived home. I am aware that I can not include my assumptions in the article but I think the interrupted phone call at 8:56 pm should be included in the article and allow the reader to make their own assumptions.

Also in Micheli's report Sophie stated it takes around 2 minutes to walk from her home to Meredith's apartment, however I calculated it would take about 4 minutes to walk (at a fast pace) 500 yards, so Meredith and Sophie must have parted ways about 8:54 pm or 8:52 pm respectively, assuming she called her mother from her apartment at 8:56 pm. However we must consider Sophie guessed at the time she arrived home based on her TV program coming on at 9 pm, a few minutes after she got home. She never said she looked at a clock, so the exact time they parted ways can not be determined, therefore it is not correct for the article to say they parted ways "at 8:55 pm". To say they parted ways before 8:55 pm would most likely be correct. To say Sophie did not know exactly what time they parted ways would be totally correct. I'm not sure how this discrepancy should be corrected but I think it should be corrected because it's not accurate. Yoyohooyo (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoyohooyo (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Yoyohooyo (talk • contribs) 02:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The Massei report states "She said good-bye to Meredith about ten minutes later, at 20:55 pm. She remembered the time because she wanted to be home at 21:00 pm to see a television programme she was interested in." (page 37 of the PMF translation). Since it could be off by a minute or two, inserting the word "about" before 8:55 PM is probably appropriate. If I remember correctly Sophie's home was only a few meters from the goodby spot. --Footwarrior (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I changed "8:55 pm" to "about 8:55 pm" to conform to the source. The Massei report indicates the 8:56 phone call never connected to the network, it was only recorded in the phone's memory. It could just be an indication that Meredith was in a bad spot for cell reception, such as the narrow lane where she said goodbye to Sophie. (Follow the "Goodbye spot with Sophie" link on the main page of the Perugia Shock blog if you are curious). If we mention the phone call in the article, we need to be careful about the wording. --Footwarrior (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

@ Footwarrior, Since nothing is known of Meredith's activity after 8:53 pm, I think the phone records should be included under this topic but I would rather start a new discussion about the phone records. BTW, As I recall, a representative from the phone company testified if there are no charges, then data is not recorded, so apparently it's unknown if the 8:56 pm outgoing call connected to a cell tower or not. After Meredith was last seen there were only two outgoing calls (mom & bank) and no data was recorded for either (It seems Meredith had her money on her mind at bed time, and forgot she wanted to call her mom). We can take up the issue of phone calls later. Yoyohooyo (talk) 03:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Footwarrior from yoyohooyo: According to Google maps it's 34 meters from the corner where Meredith and Sophie parted ways to Sophie's home. There is another discrepancy. According to Google maps it's only ~200 meters (219 yards) from the house where they spent the evening, to the corner where they parted ways, and according to Google maps it would only require 2 minutes to walk the distance, not about ten minuted as stated in the Massei report, so if they left the friends home about 8:45 pm they would part ways about 8:47 pm. Either Google maps is not very accurate or Sophie's time and distance estimates are way off. If Google maps is correct then Sophie is saying it took abut ten minutes to walk 200 meters (219 yards), and two minutes to walk 500 yards. Again I don't know what should be done about the time and distance discrepancies. Maybe a note should be added to point out the times shown are only estimates and apparently are not very accurate. The only accurate time we have from 8:45 to 9 pm on Nov 1 2007 is the phone call to Meredith's mom at 8:56 pm (which I suspect was rounded off). So what do you do when your referenced documents do match up with reality? That is if Google maps is close to reality. Page text. Yoyohooyo (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This all sounds like it's getting into the realms of interpreting primary sources, and that's not part of our job description! Bluewave (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It may be possible to walk the distance in a fraction of the 10 minutes Sophie indicated, but we shouldn't assume Sophie is wrong. Sophie would know if they took their time or chatted for a while before Meredith headed home on her own. As for reference sources being wrong, that does happen. When it does, the best solution is to find a different source that is correct. --Footwarrior (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sophie did not say that she looked at a clock. She doesn't know exactly what time she got home. Information that is obviously incorrect should not be presented as fact. Sophie said they started walking home at 8:45 so they would have parted ways at 8:47 pm which is not about 8:55 pm. To support your argument you assumed conditions that Sophie did not say occurred. Sophie said they started walking home at 8:45 pm. That's all she said. For it to take 10 minutes to walk 200 meters they would be walking at 1/5 normal walking speed on a cold dark night. This is not logical and not a fair assumption. All I'm asking for is a note that says the exact time is not known and Sophie assumed the time because she arrived home before her TV program came on at 9 pm. As mentioned this information is in the Massie report. As we all know, Sophie guessed at the time. Why not make that clear to the reader? Yoyohooyo (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoyohooyo (talk • contribs) 01:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We really shouldn't be getting into the business of investigating whether we think the facts presented by the witnesses make sense. If a reliable source has done this then that's another matter. But there are all sorts of things we might not know about which would explain why the timings are different to what you might expect from looking at Google maps. Perhaps the road layout has changed in the last few years. Or maybe they stopped to stroke a cat.

On the other hand, I'm not really sure why it is important to tell the reader this level of detail in the first place, so maybe it could be shortened to something like: Kercher spent the early evening with three friends. She walked part of the way back to her flat with one of the friends and they parted company a short distsance from it at around 8:55 pm. --FormerIP (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a known fact that Sophie estimated the time she arrived home. Judge Michel's report, Massie's Motivation report, and all the news articles indicate Sophie estimated the time. I can't understand why you don't want to acknowledge this fact in this article. On Nov 2, 2007 Sophie stated to the police investigators that she arrived home at 9 pm. Later she remembered she got home before her TV program started at 9 pm so on Nov 17, 2007 she gave a statement to the police investigators and estimated she got home at perhaps 8:55 pm. The time given is definitely an estimate and the fact should be noted. Sophie Perton was the last person to see Meredith alive and the time a person was last seen alive is important to any murder investigation. The fact that Sophie is estimating the time should be acknowledged in this article. A blurred figure of perhaps a woman entering Meredith's apartment driveway was captured on the parking garage CCTV cam at 8:53 pm Nov 1 ,2007. There was no cam footage of anyone entering the driveway later in the evening. This is a strong indication that Sophie's estimate of the time was wrong. I know this can not be included in this article but the fact that Sophie estimated the time should be. Yoyohooyo (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoyohooyo (talk • contribs) 14:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Does the word "about" which is currently in the text not sufficiently acknowledge that this is an estimate? I think most readers would take "about 8:55 pm" to include the possibilty that the actual time was 8:53. I don't understand why this is so important. --FormerIP (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The blurred figure seen on the garage camera is presumed to be Meredith, but the 8:53 pm time found in some news accounts may not be accurate. Is 8:53 pm the time recorded by the CCTV camera or an adjusted time? (The prosecution claimed the camera clock was 10 minutes fast, the defense claimed it was 10 minutes slow). An 8:53 pm camera time adjusted for being 10 minutes slow is 9:03 pm. This is consistent with the 8:55 PM parting time Sophie gave in her deposition. But without a RS for this explanation, it doesn't belong in the article. --Footwarrior (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

@ FormerIP: Given the girls started their walk at 8:45 pm, the calculated time Meredith would have arrived at the corner is 8:47 pm which is not about 8:55 IMO. Yoyohooyo (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC) @ Footwarrior: 8:53 pm is the adjusted time for Meredith arriving in front of the parking garage cam. It is a 5 minute walk from the corner to the parking garage entrance so 8:47 + 5 = 8:53. The footage was time stamped for 8:43 so 8:43 + 10(time adjustment) = 8:53 which is the approximate calculated time Meredith would arrive at the parking garage entrance given they started walking home at 8:45 pm. There is sufficient proof on Perugia Shock that the cam timer was actually 10 minutes slow. I'm not asking for the cam timer debate to be included in this article. All I'm asking for is a note that indicates Sophie estimated the time based on her arriving home before her TV show came on at 9 pm. As you know this statement is in the referenced document. Yoyohooyo (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoyohooyo (talk • contribs) 17:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not getting it. Why does "about" not give us the information we need (ie that the time is estimated)? You seem to be agreeing that 8:47 is just based on original research, as is 8:53 and so we can't discuss those times in the article. So what we are left with is "about 8:55". Why do we need to know more than this? Why would it be of interest to know that Sophie got home in time for a TV show at 9 pm? --FormerIP (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Me neither. "About" is synonymous with "approximately" here. What is the relevance to this article of attempting to ascertain a more accurate time than that?  pablo 15:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I request that you quote the source document in it's entirety to clarify the bases of the time recalled by Sophie. The Massei report states "She said good-bye to Meredith about ten minutes later, at 20:55 pm. She remembered the time because she wanted to be home at 21:00 pm to see a television programme she was interested in." This would approach reality more effectively than saying it was about 8:55 pm, given she did not say she looked at a clock. I'm obsessed with accuracy, especially when it involves the time a murder victim was last seen alive. A quote from the source is the best accuracy we can achieve under the rules we must follow, therefore I suggest that the quote would be the proper way to do this. What do you think about the quote? I don't know of any qualified source more accurate. I don't think Google Maps is a qualified source so we can't state the distance traveled although average walking speeds could likely be found in many qualified sources, but would be of no value given Sophie did not say if they stopped along the way or did not stop. I guess the best we could go with is a quote from the sourced document. Even if it is possible for us to state distance and average walking speed the fact that the time they left on the walk was also an estimate creates a problem also. The only thing we can do under the wiki rules is quote the source verbatim. I clicked on signature but it's not working right??? . Yoyohooyo (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It's an approximate time. If the article said "between 8 and 9pm" for instance, I might understand why you would want a more accurate statement. But it doesn't. She didn't look at the time. Many of the clocks and devices in my home show slightly different times. It could have been 8:54, it could have been 8:55:59 or even 8:56. We don't know, we never will. Why does it matter?  pablo 08:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

@pablo, to understand why accuracy is important about the time Meredith was last seen alive you must be familiar with some specific details about this case and police investigation techniques. As a minimum you must read my comments. You said "we don't know the exact time". This is the point I'm trying to make. Sophie did not know the exact time and the only way we can make this clear (hopefully clear) to the reader is by quoting the sourced document verbatim. Sophie determined the approximate time of her arrival based on the fact that she arrived home shortly before her TV program came on at 9 pm. In regard to time, distance, and average human physical performance, to say at, about, or approximately 8:55 pm is out of the ball park with known details. Judge Micheli often uses the word "perhaps" when someone is guessing about the time, but the word perhaps was not used in this instance, so abiding with wiki rules we can not say perhaps 8:55 pm, leaving no choice but to quote the source verbatim in-order to approach reality as much as possible under the circumstances. Reality being Sophie doesn't know she arrived home at, about, or approximately 8:55 pm (I suspect she had help deriving about 8:55 pm as the time of her arrival, but that is irrelevant to this conversation). Without unknown circumstances not stated in the sourced document being factored into the equation, logically, based on what is indicated by the known details about this case, Sophie arrived at her home about 8:47 pm, so the reader should not be mislead to believe she arrived home about 8:55 pm. Yoyohooyo (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

But according to the RS we have she did arrive home at *about* 8:55 pm. Your version may well be more accurate, but it is what the RS says that is important. You don't seem to be disagreeing with this, so I really am struggling to understand the point here. --FormerIP (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't understand resistance to producing an article that most accurately reflects reality by quoting verbatim from the RS. Reality being that Sophie doesn't actually know what time she got home because she used her TV program starting at 9 pm as the bases for her estimation for her time of arrival. IMO picking and choosing portions of the RS sentence which could be misleading is not proper. This will not accurately reflect the information contained in the RS. The referenced sentence contains the words at and about. Initially the word at was selected which implies a willful intent to mislead the reader. "At" was totally misleading. "About" is closer to reality however by quoting the entire content of the referenced sentence verbatim the article the statement will be even closer to reality because her 9 pm TV program is not a very accurate bases for her time estimate. The time of event occurring this close to the crime are critical. In this case the 8 minutes difference between 8:47 and 8:55 are critical and you must be very familiar with the details of this case to understand why. The authorities determined the murder occurred between 9 pm and 4 am. There is only 5 minutes difference between 8:55 pm and 9 pm. The margin of error between the logical time of arrival and the poorly estimated time of arrival is to large to be tolerated for events occurring this close to the possible time the murder occurred. Yoyohooyo (talk) 05:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you should reconsider your accusation of "a willful intent to mislead the reader". I'm quite sure there was no such intent. Bluewave (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

@ Bluewave. I did not accuse anyone. I don't know who chose to present 8:55 pm as an exact time, which is contrary to the RS. However I suspected it may have been deliberate. But I'm not saying that it was deliberate and I did not say it was deliberate, although it's possible it was a willful attempt to deceive. It could have been an honest mistake because the editor only focused only on the part of the RS sentence that contained the time and missed the meaning of the statement. That is very possible if someone is in a hurry and they failed to understand that 8:55 pm was not an exact time. I can understand that could happen when someone is not familiar with the details involved with this crime. When I saw it, it stuck out like a sore thumb. Also I must consider it's likely the source document did not translate accurately or the statement wasn't written properly to start with, in regard to at and about applying to the same subject. I must admit that when I initially read the RS I did notice the odd wording that contained a contradiction within the statement. A mistake is likely to occur. Yoyohooyo (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Yoyohooyo (talk) 06:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Yoyohooyo (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

@Yoyohooyo: I am reasonably familiar with the details of this case, but thank you for telling me what I must and must not do, that's always a pleasure.
I have no interest in amateur sleuthing however, whether or not it uses such high-powered detective toolz as estimating distances via Google Maps and guessing at the speed some people I have never met may have walked on one particular night or how long I think it might have taken them to say goodbye.
You appear to have now pulled a figure of 8:47 out of nowhere.

"Sophie doesn't know she arrived home at, about, or approximately 8:55 pm"
"logically, based on what is indicated by the known details about this case, Sophie arrived at her home about 8:47 pm" Yoyohooyo (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This is your own conclusion drawn on your own research. It is ridiculous to assert that Sophie does not know what time she got home, but you do. The article matches what it says in the Massei report, "Salutò Meredith una decina di minuti dopo, alle 20:55." I'm not sure what you want, here.  pablo 09:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

@ pablo. Your conclusion that this request is the result of my own research is difficult for me to understand. From reading the RS my conclusion is that Sophie is not sure about the time she arrived at her home. On Nov 1, 2007 she stated to police that she arrived at her home around 9 pm. Later on Nov 17, 2007 she stated to police she got home about 8:55 pm because she had remembered that her TV program that started at 9 pm had not started. My conclusion is she is not sure when she arrived home. The fact that her time of arrival is based on her TV program coming on at 9 pm and not looking at a clock further demonstrates she isn't sure what time she got home. This information is contained in the article from which I drew my conclusion. Is this my research or is this what the article indicates. It is my conclusion that Sophie is confused, but my conclusion is based on the information contained in the referenced source. If the sentence in the RS is not quoted in it's entirety the concept that should be gathered by the most casual observer is lost. From my own personal research which I stated above, I further confirmed Sophie is confused about her time of arrival, however I am not requesting that my research be included in the article. I was only demonstrating Sophie's obvious confusion by demonstrating that her time and distance estimates stated in the RS did not approach logical conclusions within acceptable boundaries, IMO. I repeat. I am not requesting that my research be included in the article. I only request a verbatim quote from the RS for the purpose of clarity. I consider accuracy a must when creating an article involving the murder of an innocent young girl, or anyone. Yoyohooyo (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel as if I must be missing something really important about the timing. We could introduce a lot of discussion and translations of primary sources but I can't see that any of that would get us any further than saying she arrived home at "about 8:55". It is only worth doing that if the time is of critical importance to the article. Otherwise, we would create a false impression of its importance. I have read loads of secondary sources about the article's subject, but don't recall anything highlighting the criticality of the timing. For the benefit of myself, and anyone else who is struggling with this, could Yoyohooyo please explain the importance, and why a simple statement of "about 8:55" doesn't suffice? Thanks Bluewave (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's talk about accuracy in in respect to conveying the information contained in the RS to the reader. This article title is "Murder of Meredith Kercher" and this topic is "Events surrounding the murder". When a murder investigation is conducted, the recent movements of the victim just prior to the crime are closely analyzed, which results in a time line. The time the victim was last seen alive is on the time line, and it is significant to establishing the time of death (I don't think an explanation is needed here). The Massei report states "She said good-bye to Meredith about ten minutes later, at 20:55 pm. She remembered the time because she wanted to be home at 21:00 pm to see a television programme she was interested in." (page 37 of the PMF translation). Specifically "She remembered the time because she wanted to be home at 21:00 pm to see a television programme she was interested in." should also be included in this article, because this is how she actually estimated the time. By quoting the RS verbatim it accurately establish that the estimated time is questionable, because of the bases of her time estimate. Initially the article read "at 8:55 pm" which was misleading/deceptive. It was agreed on to make the change to "about 8:55 pm" which is a tremendous improvement, however, based on the statement in the RS "about 8:55 pm" is still questionable, given the estimate is based on the time a TV program started. It seems the only way to remedy the lack of clarity within the wiki rules, is by inserting a direct quote which allows the reader to know and understand that the time stated is not reliable. If under the wiki rules it's possible to say "perhaps 8:55 pm", I would be happy with that because it more accurately represents the statement in the RS. As I demonstrated in my previous comments, it is not logical that "about 8:55 pm" is near accurate, so the reader should not be lead to think the estimated time is near accurate. People keep asking why this is important so I'll attempt to explain this one more time. A blurred image that appears to be female entering Meredith's apartment driveway is captured by the parking garage CCTV cam, time stamped ~8:53 pm Nov 1 2007. This is thought to be Meredith, and likely/logically (explained in my previous comments) is her. If the girls parted ways at "about 8:55" pm it is not logical that this is Meredith. By clearing up this discrepancy it can be understood that the time of Meredith's death is likely after ~8:53 pm. All I'm requesting is accuracy and clarity when incorporating information obtained from the RS. Yoyohooyo (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

But it gets us no further. "about 8:55" and "≈8:53 by a clock whose accuracy is not known" are not mutually exclusive. And we are not investigating the crime here.  pablo 00:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

@ pablo, I'm confused. Why do you think I was discussing the accuracy of a clock. I never mentioned a clock. Also I never requested information from my investigation to be included in the article. I can't understand why you continue to think I did. Yoyohooyo (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yoyohooyo, in your explanation of why this is important, you begin by talking about "accuracy". The problem we have here is that however much detail we provide, we are not going to get a more accurate time than "about 8:55". Secondly, you say that we need to make it clear that the stated time is questionable: for me "about" does convey this, but maybe we're interpreting the word differently. You also mention the comparison of this time with that of CCTV footage, which may lead readers to a wrong conclusion. However, we don't mention the CCTV image in the article, and the timing of that was, in any case, the subject of some debate, so I'm not convinced anyone would be misled by this. Also, if I was reading this, I would think that "about 8:55" and "8:53" were completely consistent. Are we simply disagreeing about the degree of imprecision implied by "about"? If so, let's choose a wording that expresses the imprecision to everyone's satisfaction. What about "shortly before 9pm" or some such wording? Bluewave (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

@ Bluewave, now you are talking. I hope we can reach an agreement and move on along. What does everyone concerned think about " perhaps about 8:55 pm" or "perhaps 8:55 pm"? I think it accurately reflects the statement in the RS and is the word normally used in Micheli's report when a witness is guessing at the time of an occurrence. Would the word perhaps be acceptable under wiki rules? Yoyohooyo (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I still don't really understand the issue about this but, if it is about finding words that adequately express the imprecision of the timing, surely we can find some words that are agreeable to all. I think "perhaps" is too vague and I certainly don't like "perhaps about", which doesn't sound like English. Personally, I'd settle for something like "before 9pm", which must be true if SP started watching TV at 9. What do others think? Bluewave (talk) 10:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

@ Bluewave and all parties concerned. I agree. If all are in agreement I suggest we proceed. The statement would read, On 1 November 2007, Kercher's two Italian flatmates were away for the night. At 8:40 pm, a witness knocked on the door of Sollecito's flat and Knox answered. Kercher spent the early evening with three friends. At about 8:45 pm, she left with one of her friends. They parted company near the friend's flat before 9pm .: 24 Kercher then walked the remaining 500 yards (460 m) to her flat. Yoyohooyo (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

@ All parties concerned. This is an open item. Is there an official guideline in place to track open items? If so who's responsibility is it to maintain administrative control of the open item list? I would like to enter this issue on the list and agree on a targeted completion date? Yoyohooyo (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Like I said on your talk page, you have made a proposal and have given people the chance to comment. No-one has, so why don't you make a bold edit? There isn't an official guideline to track open issues. It isn't anyone's responsibility...it's everyone's (including you and me). There is no overall administrative control. There is no deadline. If you make your edit and someone dislikes it, they can revert and then you can invoke the WP:BRD process. It may not be pretty, but it's how things work here. Bluewave (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

@, Bluewave, you said "It may not be pretty, but it's how things work here". That was funny. Thanks for the laugh :) I would rather not proceed until everyone has the opportunity to express an opinion. If they have issues maybe we can reach an agreement. Yoyohooyo (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm new to this and I need to learn quiet a bit. For one thing, I need to study the wiki rules for determining if a source is acceptable and once familiar I would like to have a plain English discussion on that topic. I've read many news articles on the internet that in my opinion were not formated properly, and were not IMO reliable. In many cases the source given was not a verifiable and/or reliable source, if they bothered to state the source at all. I found this to be disgusting and thought something should be done about this. IMO the media should be required to meet some standard rules (an ongoing can of worms about which I can't reach an agreement within myself). I intended to do an evaluation but never had the time or education for the task. I think now is the time to evaluate the articles using wiki rules, but first I need to get a clear understand of the rules. Yoyohooyo (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"Knox was arrested later on the morning of 6 November. Some time afterwards she made a written note to the police, in which she partially retracted her earlier statements, explaining that she "doubted" her statements because they were made "under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion" and that she was "hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly". She "stood by" her accusation of Lumumba, but said that she could not clearly remember whether she was at her flat or Sollecito's house." I expanded on this area a bit to capture the written note better. Jaberryhill (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Forensic evidence

From the article: The body was found on the floor of Kercher's bedroom, with blood and footprints in various locations in the room.:10.

Just a question. Is "footprints" a typo? I am aware of Guede's bloody shoe-prints being found on the floor in Meredith's bedroom, but I don't know of any foot-prints found in her bedroom. Anyone?--Yoyohooyo (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I checked the source and it does not mention footprints. It mentions the naked foot ("piede nudo") of the victim. I think someone has just misread this, so I have removed the reference to footprints. --FormerIP (talk) 10:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The article said both a fingerprint and a handprint from Guede were found in Kercher's bedroom. But in fact, only a handprint was found. I changed the article to reflect this. --Footwarrior (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I added this about the footprint found under the pillow: The defense expert Francesco Vinci said the print was actually a partial print from Rudy Guede's shoe.

I restored this information, using the Massei report page 367-8 as a source (see page 343 of the PMF translation). "Comparing the sole of the right shoe of Guede’s Nike Outbreak model 2s with the enlargement of the 105 print found on Meredith’s pillow (cf. tables of the technical report), the expert witness reconciles imprint 105 with the pattern on the sole of Guede’s right shoe." --Footwarrior (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The sentence "Chemical analysis revealed footprints in the flat, which prosecutors said matched the feet of Knox and Sollecito." Doesn't appear to be supported by references 49 and 50. Does someone have a better reference for the footprints revealed by Luminol? --Footwarrior (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you reach the conclusion that the Mail source doesn't support this, although I couldn't find any reference in the other one. I've added a citation to the Massei report, which should remove any doubt. --FormerIP (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Reminder: take a deep breath, and Assume good faith

I'm noting that some arguments have been heating up recently, and would like to remind everyone that honest disagreements about the article is not the same as excessive advocacy.

To all editors who have spent many months debating a very small group of extremely vocal editors who resorted to soapboxing and personal attacks, remember that newcomers proposing a similar angle, even passionately, deserve to be heard and treated without being bitten as long as they refrain from the behaviour that has, in the past, caused so many tensions.

Similarly, new editors are reminded of a few core rules governing Misplaced Pages: Our purpose is to present an encyclopedic article on the Murder of Meredith Kercher. As such we provide the reader with the known facts: A crime happened, an investigation was conducted, a trial was held, a media controversy exists, appeals have been filed. It is not our purpose to convince the reader that the verdict was right or wrong, that the trial was just or slanted, or that the forensics were sufficient or deficient. Or even further to sow doubt in the reader or give him the means to play armchair CSI. Excessive details detract from an encyclopedic coverage; such excess has, in the past, led to an article that was an endless list of continuous refutations, a he said / she said debate that was completely off the mark, devoid of value to the uninformed reader, as well as devoid of value to the partisan reader as they would invariably estimate that the opposing arguments were given too much prominence.

Bearing that in mind, please remember to:

• assume good faith: honest disagreement is not only possible but healthy, and doesn't indicate that someone disagreeing with you is part of a hostile faction out to paint guilt or innocence.
• Our policies on coverage of living persons are very strict for good reasons. Misplaced Pages is not the place to speculate who did it and propose theories of what could likely have happened. If reliable sources have proposed something, we can echo that point of view (provided we don't give it undue weight). Original research, speculation and synthesis are prohibited - Misplaced Pages cannot and will not tolerate postings, even on talk pages, that could be construed as libel.
• Sources usually considered as reliable aren't so in all circumstances. An opinion expressed on a talk show or an interview, even aired on CNN, is typically not subjected to fact-checking and editorial control and does not qualify as reliable in this context.
• Don't attack other editors. Argue the points, don't throw around accusations, and accept that it will have to be a give and take. When possible, don't hesitate to propose new wording, but for practical reasons, keep them manageable.
• And remember that Misplaced Pages's role is not to right great wrongs, nor even to find the Truth(tm) - we only report what can be verified.

This page has suffered from a toxic editing climate for nearly a year. Nonetheless, it is important that all parties take a deep breath before posting, and if they feel so passionate that they cannot concede an argument no matter the strength of consensus against them, it may be time to take a step back and perhaps work on other articles. Editors who give in to the temptation to attack others, whether individually or as a group, risk having their editing privileges suspended. MLauba 09:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a danger in this. By removing people who have the most interest it could potentially weaken the article. Who is more likely to spot mistakes? A person who knows the case well or someone with just a passing interest? I think there is tremendous value in having someone with great interest on board. That may come with passionate views. I think it would be a mistake to take away the voice of someone who is knowledgeable about the case. They should be considered an asset. Should they concede to a clear mistake? The views should be expressed civilly, of course.Jaberryhill (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm new to wiki. Is this warning directed at me? Yoyohooyo (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a reminder directed to every interested editor on this talk page. If I felt it required to issue a warning to one specific editor, I would most likely bring it to their own talk page, or in a short two-liners directly connected to something of grave concern they had posted. MLauba 13:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"Sources usually considered as reliable aren't so in all circumstances. An opinion expressed on a talk show or an interview, even aired on CNN, is typically not subjected to fact-checking and editorial control and does not qualify as reliable in this context."

As I’ve said before, no source is going to be considered completely reliable by everyone as to what the truth is. But in some cases, the opinions expressed in a documentary or talk show are the “facts” we are talking about; i.e. we are documenting the controversy, not claiming that the opinions being reported are known to be absolutely correct. A lot of very knowledgeable and influential people have raised issues claiming deficiencies and injustice in the investigation and the trial. That these opinions exist are facts whether you agree with the opinions or not; and the documentaries and talk shows are reliable sources to report those claims. This controversy is precisely the reason this case has drawn so much attention and due weight must be given to reporting the reason for it. Editors should not try to dismiss these sources as “unreliable” just because they don’t agree with the opinions being expressed.

Regarding policies on coverage of living persons, let’s apply these reasonably and evenly. I don’t think we should suppress documented facts from reliable sources just because these facts might cause a reader to form an opinion about the character and potential tendencies of an individual. And regardless of your personal opinion, let’s not "strain at a gnat and swallow a camel," trying to protect the reputation of one person while ignoring insinuations against others. Kermugin (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

@ MLauba, subject, "Sources usually considered as reliable aren't so in all circumstances. An opinion expressed on a talk show or an interview, even aired on CNN, is typically not subjected to fact-checking and editorial control and does not qualify as reliable in this context." Is this a copy and paste of wiki policy or is this your interpretation of wiki policy? The reason I ask is that I'm surprised that CNN is not a reliable source? I was under the impression that a large professional cooperation like CNN would have an editorial staff that checks facts and a legal staff to guard against liability. Does this mean all information in all wiki articles where CNN was the RS was deleted? If so I am shocked because I relied on CNN as my primary cable news source. Yoyohooyo (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read the part you quoted again. My point was specifically about opinions expressed on talk shows. There is a vast difference between me, a Joe Random, appearing on eg. Larry King Live and stating that the world will end by 2012 (CNN lets me make my own claim on air), CNN stating "MLauba has appeared on LKL and claimed the world will end by 2012", and CNN stating themselves that the world will end by 2012. The network only has to stand behind the third statement, the first two are imputable to me and don't magically transform my opinion into a reliably sourced fact, or automatically confer to me peer-reviewed expertise or journalistic fact-checking (unless I'm speaking as an astronomer who found a killer meteorite or something, but I digress). And as far as such treat with BLP issues, particular care should be taken to ensure that reproducing claims and opinions expressed on talk shows even under the form of "such and such appeared on TV Show XYZ and said" are not given WP:UNDUE weight. MLauba 12:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

@ MLauba, I understand your reply clearly, but I see problems in the application. I see many problems in the wiki guidelines (my comment in it's entirety is only my first impression and should not be taken as an opinion at this time). The first problem I see is they are only guidelines and not instructions, and I noticed the word ' should ' appearing frequently which caused me many headaches when I was assigned to oversight/monitoring. The word shall instead of should used in instructions avoids debate. I was a technical writer/supervisor/etc for many years (I consider myself a student here). In general our objective was to arrive at truth based on logic and scientific knowledge, which surprisingly truth is not the objective for wiki article content. Logic could be applied to the wiki guidelines in respect to go/no go, but the bottom of the chain is not the place to create instructions/guidelines. As I learn here I will be applying what I have learned in my field to my education here. I absolutely do not intend to influence wiki guidelines without compensation and I would not want the job anyway. But I would like to explain to you my opinion of the problems I see as we go. Now I would like to give you an example of what I'm saying. The melt down at Three mile Island was in part caused by the failure of upper management to recognize the need for instructions with a two column format (For what ever it's worth; The reason upper management failed to do this is the Peter Principal/incompetence. Rumor had it the plant manager at Chernobyl was executed for his incompetence, however reliable sources told me this is not true). Basically a two column format can be thought of as a logic diagram. In fact we used logic diagrams to develop the instructions. My first impression of wikipedia is the articles are like alphabet soup with many people (not all cooks) constantly stirring the soup, due to a lack of adequate upper management. Recently we spent a lot of time discussing at/about/perhaps/etc 8:55 pm. Wiki gave an example of this but I like mine better. An airliner was attempting to land when a wheels down and locked light did not come on. The entire cockpit crew was busy trying to change the light bulb when the airplane flew into the ground killing everyone aboard. My first impression of wiki is that it is an exercise in futility, however interesting. I look forward to our discussions. Yoyohooyo (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead Section

According to Misplaced Pages:LEAD, the lead section should "define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies". The lead for this article does not explain why this crime is interesting, notable and controversial. I would suggest mentioning two or three major controversies about the conduct of the investigation and the fact that 5 books have been published about the murder. --Footwarrior (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this point is on the right track. The title is misleading, as the article is not about the murder itself. It is not a description of the crime. Rather, it is a description of the controversy surrounding the crime and its ongoing resolve. Perk10 (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Perk10

As such, the article is about the ongoing trial and aftermath of the murder. Perk10 (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Perk10

Perhaps the statement by Cantwell deserves a sentence in the lead. The (largely localised) controversy is mentioned in the article, certainly, but I disagree that the article is not "about the murder". If you feel it's not, what information do you think should be removed?  pablo 19:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The distinction I am making is between a description of the murder as an event versus a description of its legal bearing, the ramifications and resolution. If someone sees the title, he or she might think it is an article about the details of a murder, rather that the details of the trial and aftermath as a result of the murder. Perk10 (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Perk10

Surely one of the notable features of the case is that a student was murdered and her female flatmate was charged with the crime. I can't think of another murder that I've read about where that happened. At present, the lead doesn't mention that Kercher and Knox were flatmates. Bluewave (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bluewave. It is a stand-apart feature of the case. Perk10 (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)Perk10

Here is what I believe the introduction should say.

Meredith Kercher was a 21 year old British exchange student who was murdered in Perugia, Italy on November 1, 2007. She had been studying at the University of Perugia where thousands of foreign college students come each year to study Italian language and culture. Three people have been convicted in the killing: Amanda Knox, a fellow exchange student and housemate of Kercher’s from the Seattle area; Rudy Guede, a petty criminal originally from the Ivory Coast; and Raffaele Sollecito, the son of a wealthy Italian doctor. The case received widespread media coverage and remains the subject of intense international criticism by those who believe that Knox and Sollecito did not receive a fair trial. It has been called Italy's trial of the century.

Guede, whose conviction is not seriously being questioned, was found guilty in October 2008. The trial of Knox and Sollecito took place between January and December 2009 and was closely watched in both Europe and the United States. The verdict was covered live on US cable channels where legal commentators openly dismissed it as a "public lynching" and a "kangaroo court." Shortly after the December 4, 2009 verdict, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, appearing on national television, fielded questions from journalists about possible US Government action in the case. The US State Department has indicated that they will refrain from comment while the appeals process, which in Italy is often successful, is underway. The extent of any possible US Government intervention remains an open question.

I have placed a Neutrality challenged banner in the Introduction area.

PhanuelB (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• And I have removed it. If you wish to place a NPOV tag, you need to explain here exactly why you believe the article violates NPOV, pointing to exact sections and text - you can't do it just by posting your preferred version (which I note is 75% about the trial's controversy, and therefore completely fails WP:UNDUE). Black Kite (t) (c) 18:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead section does not say that the trial is notable because of controversy over whether AK and RS got a fair trial. It is a WP:BLP violation against AK and RS to ignore that. I do not have to point out an "exact section of text" because the problem is what is not there. This has been pointed out previously in unresolved discussions about the deficiencies of the lead section.

PhanuelB (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest therefore that you draft a short section, no more than a couple of sentences to avoid the UNDUE problem, which you would like to see added to the lead. It can then be discussed. And please give it up with the BLP violation issue; the mere location of the text about the controversy clearly can't constitute one. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

NathanWard1234 (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Anyone who has done any research on this case knows the case is notable because of controversy. This case gained worldwide attention due to the controversy. Misplaced Pages does not have a page for every murder that occurs throughout the world. This article will remain incomplete until this topic is properly addressed. It is not always what is said that can make a body of work biased. It is often what is not said. Controversy is the main reason that this case is still in the news today. The details that led to the controversy should be one of the main talking points if this article. Refusal to discuss these points in great detail shows that the article has not been written in a neutral fashion. Therefore, PhaneulB was correct to add the banner. It is disturbing to see that those who are supposed to be neutral in this discussion, certainly are not.

The case is not "notable because of controversy". When you consider the size of the world, the 'controversy' is extremely local, centred on Seattle. Much of the 'controversy' on the internet regarding this case consists of identical or similar posts made across a huge number of venues by a person or people known as "PhanuelB". pablo 20:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks and outing of another editor are not in the spirt of Misplaced Pages. --Footwarrior (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither is contained in my post above.  pablo 21:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The only personal attack I can se is Nathan yet again accusing people of non-neutrality. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Nathan, I removed the tag because Phanuel did not follow the procedure for placing one, which clearly explains that you must outline why the article is not NPOV. That doesn't mean "I don't like this version, here's mine". Black Kite (t) (c) 21:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I strongly urge that the banner indicating that the neutrality of this article has been challenged be reinstated immediately. The current article is not by any stretch of the imagination a neutral article. Every piece of key evidence in this trial was fiercely, even bitterly contested. The adequacy and fairness of the trial and verdict have also been contested by a number of credible sources. Commentators of considerable standing have excoriated the verdict. The article, as it stands now, does not fairly reflect this controversy. It relies, for the most part, on a handful of published sources that have largely ignored the case of the defense.PietroLegno (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That The Murder of Meredith Kercher has been investigated, documented and the responsible parties charged and convicted is a fait accompli. What remains now is The Trial of Amanda Knox & Raffaele Sollecito and the controversy as to whether they received or can receive a fair trial. The two topics, although related, are very separate issues and both deserve a page dedicated to them. As little completely new evidence is likely to be introduced regarding the specifics of Ms. Kercher's murder, the ongoing and growing controversy surrounding their trial begins to overshadow the otherwise very straight forward facts of the murder investigation. To suggest, as some have, that no real controversy exists over the conduct of the trial or it's verdict is pure wishful thinking. Journalists employed by major news networks, news publications, gossip tabloids and internet blogs across three countries have been following the case religiously for three years. The only thing that's kept the story out of the news on a day to day basis is the snail slow pace of the Italian legal system. In its current form, WP article The Murder of Meredith Kercher, perhaps in an attempt to keep the focus on Ms. Kercher's murder rather than spinning off into controversy, has been pared down so far that it reads like a dry laundry list of facts with weak, ineffectual verbs and adjectives used wherever possible. This sort of milquetoast compromise, while technically accurate, does no one justice. It doesn't accurately convey the horror of Meredith's final minutes nor the overkill which defines the crime. It doesn't accurately described Rudy Guede's prior criminal inclinations nor the strength of the defense's objection to obviously compromised evidence and methodology. In short, limiting language like Big Brother trying to control thought crime, you paint an inaccurate and misleading picture that treats neither the accused nor the victim fairly. My suggestion would be to split the issue of the trial and subsequent appeals onto a new page (e.g. The Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito) and limit details of the trial to a bare minimum in the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. If separating the articles is not acceptable then I must support PhanuelB in his argument that the Intro section needs rewritten to include a more prominent statement regarding the international controversy that exists surrounding the case and that numerous phrases need reworded to more accurately express their importance. Tjholme (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the Neutrality banner should be reinstated and it should be made known very early in the article that the Murder or Trial is notable because of the controvery involved. My first choice would be a seperate article about the trial and controversy itself. Otherwise it should be the most prominent portion of the article. The murder of Meredith Kercher is tragic, but most noted for the controversy surrounding the case. When I consider the case I would put priority on 1. The contoversy of Knox and Sollecito's guilt or evidence. This includes the interrogation, investigation, forensics completed, Perugian judicial problems and the trial itself. 2. The role the media has played in the case. This would include the name Foxy Knoxy, prosecution leaks, international opinion, claims of possible anti-Americanism and notable opinions.Jaberryhill (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with reinstating the banner. The controversy surrounding this case exists for a reason. The present article is not neutral. In part this is because it is based on news coverage that is shallow, one-sided and in some cases flatly misleading.Charlie wilkes (talk) 08:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with reinstating the banner (because I think the article reads pretty neutrally) but I do agree that much of the news coverage was shallow (often), one-sided (sometimes) and flatly misleading (very often). I spent a lot of time researching the news sources for the article and agree that the standards of journalism were poor. However, we don't really have any other sources (even the books aren't very good and were mostly written before the Massei report). As an example of the worst of reporting, there were a lot of newspaper accounts of the committal hearing for Knox and Sollecito: some of these gave verbatim accounts of what the prosecutors had said at the hearing. I think only one UK paper made it clear that the hearing was held in closed court without reporters present and that the accounts of the proceedings were actually based on a later interview with the defence counsel! Several other UK papers reproduced the same story, but giving the impression that they were actually reporting from the court. In the worst cases, news reporting has been by journalists who weren't even in Italy and didn't even speak Italian! This all makes life difficult for us, but I don't think the solution is to stick a banner on the page. The best we can do is to compare the best of the reporting, try to separate the facts from the opinion and give more weight to reports which state their sources rather than reporting hearsay. Bluewave (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree that there is no need to restore the controversy banner. And DEFINITELY no need to have a seprate Trial of Knox & Sollecito page. Been there, done that. Jonathan (talk) 11:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Opinion noted Johathan but there are six editors who say it goes in because this section and article are not NPOV. The consensus is that a sufficient dispute exists.

The claim that I have a requirement to make suggestions of a couple of sentences is not supported by Misplaced Pages policy. My disagreement with the current lead section was clearly defined by the rewrite I provided and has been extensively discussed before. The article violates WP:BLP against Amanda Knox because it does not state the POV that she did not receive a fair trial. The subject is notable solely because of questions about whether AK received a fair trial and the current lead does not say that.PhanuelB (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Phanuel, Misplaced Pages is not a majority vote. Jonathan (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It was a brutal and horrible murder.
The trials attracted attention because these three young people were accused, tried, and found guilty of this brutal and horrible murder.
The job of the defence team is to defend, in part by contesting the evidence brought forward. Evidence in many, if not most, trials is contested and examined. Does that make those trials "unfair"? Does it make it "NPOV" or a "BLP violation" to report the verdict without adding sentences effectively saying "despite being found guilty the accused stated; "I never done it, honest""? Obviously not.  pablo 14:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Pablo: I'm not sure there's such a thing as a murder that isn't "brutal and horrible." The tragedy of Meredith's loss is not lost on any of us. The trial is notable not because defense lawyers say she didn't do it -- that happens often but not always. In this case the US Secretary of State was asked if the US would take action. That means a lot of credible people questioned the trial and the verdict. Commentators on US cable channels declared it a sham. That cannot be withheld from the readers here. PhanuelB (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Can't see that it is being witheld.
"A number of commentators in the United States have harshly criticised the Italian legal process, including Donald Trump, Timothy Egan and journalist Judy Bachrach. Other commentators, including Wendy Murphy, Ann Coulter and Jeanine Pirro, have viewed such criticism as misguided."
"Cantwell said she would seek assistance from US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Secretary Clinton herself has not commented on the case, but a spokesman for the US Department of State stated at a press conference on 7 December 2009 that the Department had followed the case closely and would continue to do so. He said that the State Department's role is to ensure that any American citizen is treated fairly, according to local law. He added: "It is still in the early days but...we haven't received any indications necessarily that Italian law was not followed"."

seems to cover it. Still no comment from the Secretary of State so far.  pablo 16:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

And lest anyone think the US Department of State has given up on assisting Americans in trouble abroad, think again. That is what is notable and what should not be withheld from the readers. Jonathan (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(1)I am never impressed when someone tries to shut off debate because we've "been there and done that." Any decision can be revisited. The idea is that articles can be improved over time through through the addition of new points of view. (2) The implication that the U.S. Secretary of State has accepted the verdict because she hasn't attacked attacked it in public is absurd on a number of levels as I should hope would be obvious. (3) Listing Coulter, Murphy, and Pirro on one side and Eagan, Trump, and Bachrach on the other is a specious attempt at balance. Coulter, Murphy, and Pirro are about the only notable commentators who have been pro-guilt (and Murphy is hardly notable). There are far, far more credentialed people who have excoriated the verdict. Since Phanuel has listed them I needn't do so again. The point is that a truly neutral article would point out the obvious: responsible opinion in the U.S. has been strongly against the verdict. To be fair we must make sure the article reflects this. PietroLegno (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect; balls. We could list every talking head who has ever commented on this case either way, but it would not in the end point out anything apart from the fact that people comment on the news. There is no "US position" on this case (as has been claimed in the past)- neither is there a "British position", and "Italian position" or a "European position". 'Responsible opinion', whatever that is, seems open to subjective interpretation; if you don't like an opinion (Murphy, above) then clearly its not 'responsible'. What is notable about Moore and Ciolino for instance? I've been waiting to see what their credentials are for some time.  pablo 19:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we add a sentence at the end of the lead which says The murder of Meredith Kercher received much media attention in Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States with the guilty verdict of Knox and Sollecito being disputed by some commentators. We had something like this in an earlier version of the article. It mentions the media attention (which is notable) and the fact that some (but by no means all) commentators have questioned the verdict. It expresses this in one sentence, which is the same weight as we give to the murder itself in the intro, so it might be argued that that this gives too much weight to the controversy, but I still think it merits a mention. What do others think. Bluewave (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to something like: "The case attracted much media attention with some questioning the fairness of the trial." to be added to the lead. Just keeping it simple and to the point.TMCk (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that this either of those would be fine; no more an excessive amount of detail than this is is not needed in the lead as the various comments on the trial are already covered in the article.  pablo 14:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC) clarified  pablo 14:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Also think that would be fine. --FormerIP (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

TMCk has said was I was trying to say...but more succinctly! So I'd agree with TMCk in preference to my own proposal. Bluewave (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Given that "some commentators" are mentioned by name further down the article, would actually using the phrase "some" or "some commentators" leave us open to people placing a tag in the lead?  pablo 15:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There probably would be some editors that would do just that but the lead is a summary of the sourced article and can (and should normally) stand without citations.TMCk (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to support a combination of Bluewave's and TMCk's wording. I think the naming of the three countries involved (primarily) in the controversy is more accurate. "The case received much media attention in Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States with some questioning the fairness of the trial." Still kind of weak but reasonable and acceptable IMO. Tjholme (talk) 04:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS Anna Momigliano of Foreign policy magazine states that "US cable channels declared the verdict a sham." That's not "some questioning the fairness of the trial." PhanuelB (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I would accept Tjholme's version. Does anyone object? (I'm not sure whether PhanuelB's comment expresses agreement or dissent.) If there are no objections within a reasonable time, I'll ask Black Kite to make the change. Bluewave (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine with that one too. Singling out one of the many people who have acommented on the case in the lead (which I think is what PhanuelB is suggesting, but who knows) is not appropriate for the lead; belongs (if anywhere) with the others, further down.  pablo 20:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You have my blessings for Tjholme's version.TMCk (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}The proposed edit is to add the following as a new paragraph at the end of the current lead section:

The case received much media attention in Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States with some questioning the fairness of the trial.

I believe the above discussion constitutes consensus for this edit. Bluewave (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead Section continued

I have a further proposal for the lead section. At present, the relationship between MK and AK is not mentioned but I think that it is a notable feature of the case that one of the people convicted of the murder was the victim's flatmate. Currently, we have a sentence that says: On 6 November 2007, police arrested three suspects: Amanda Knox, an American student, Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian student, and Patrick Lumumba, a bar owner.

I suggest that we amend this to say something like: On 6 November 2007, police arrested three suspects: Amanda Knox, an American student who shared a flat with Kercher, Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian student, and Patrick Lumumba, a bar owner. What do others think? Bluewave (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is a notable feature, and that it should be included in the lead.  pablo 20:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I support that edit although it raises the question if we should include Sollecito's and Knox's relationship at the time.TMCk (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean, though I think the fact that an alleged murderer was a student flatmate is quite notable, whereas the fact that two of the accused had a romantic attachment is less notable. Bluewave (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning and was merely thinking about what others might expect to be added (with some good reason).TMCk (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Time of postal police arrival

Here is the WP text as it now stands:

"At 12:35 pm the Italian Post and Communications Police came to investigate the discovery of two mobile phones in a nearby garden. One was registered to one of the flatmates and the other to Kercher. Knox and Sollecito were standing outside and told the police that the premises had been burgled, that a window had been broken and that there were drops of blood in several rooms. At 12:51 pm and 12:54 pm, Sollecito made two calls to the Carabinieri military police, reporting a possible burglary.:342"

This is a point that secondary sources have not adequately addressed, with the result that WP presents a 12:35 arrival of the postal police as fact, when it is actually in dispute and the court seems to have tacitly accepted the position of the defense.

Here is what came out in the trial:

Sollecito called the emergency number twice, at 12:51 and 12:54. The Postal Police claim they arrived before that time on the basis of images from a garage security camera across the street from the scene of the murder. These images, time-stamped 12:36 pm, show a dark sedan, which the Postal Police say is the one they were driving.

Sollecito's defense analyzed the output from the camera in conjunction with cell phone records. The phone records show that the Carabinieri officers sent in response to Sollecito's calls placed a call to Knox's cell phone at 1:29 pm. They made this call to ask for directions because they could not find the address. The call lasted 4 minutes 56 seconds, ending at 12:34. The camera, however, showed a car marked "Carabinieri" in the street adjacent to the address, as well as the striped trouser leg of a Carabinieri officer on foot, in images with a time stamp of 1:22, several minutes before the call was made to get directions.

This, the defense argued, is proof that the clock on the camera was at least 10 minutes slow. Therefore, the postal police are shown arriving by car at 12:46 or later, not at 12:36. A pair of legs is seen to cross the street, moving from the parking lot toward the cottage, in a clip with a time stamp of 12:48. The defense argues that this clip shows the postal police walking toward the cottage at about 12:58 pm, shortly after Sollecito finished his second call to the emergency number.

Following the arrest of Knox and Sollecito, Judge Claudia Matteini issued a report in which she cited the emergency calls made after the arrival of the postal police as a fact. Judge Paolo Micheli, who ordered Knox and Sollecito to stand trial, also cited this sequence of events as a fact. In his report explaining the verdicts against Knox and Sollecito, however, Judge Giancarlo Massei does not address the matter.

I have a pdf of the actual presentation made at the trial, showing the output of the camera as well as the phone records. You can view it at:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/postale.pdf

Charlie wilkes (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is finding a source acceptable under WP:RS that explains this part of the defense case. Do you know of any newspaper, magazine, or book that reported on this defense presentation? The report doesn't have to be in English, an Italian source would also be acceptable. --Footwarrior (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any secondary source that has addressed this issue head-on. I studied the WP policies and noted the following:

"A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."

I am describing the argument of a primary source and attributing it to that source. Any educated person can verify that the presentation makes the argument I have described. Charlie wilkes (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

We have a situation where one judge examined the evidence and came to a conclusion which agreed with the prosecution, and this was reported in secondary sources. A second judge looked at the evidence and came to the same conclusion and this was again reported in secondary sources. A third judge looked at the evidence and said nothing, which you are taking to mean that he agreed with the defence. You are asking us to re-examine the same evidence, but in a form presented on a website devoted to proving Knox's innocence, and for us to agree with the defence and to state this as fact. I haven't looked at the primary source that you mention, but surely the fact that two judges examined the evidence and came to a different conclusion from yours must mean that any conclusions require some interpretation of the evidence. The first two judges were presumably educated and had access to the original sources, so why did they come to a different conclusion than you have? Is it possible to confirm that Massei agreed with the defence argument? If so, there would be an argument for taking out the time of the postal police's arrival from the article because there would be serious doubt about it. At present, though, the only citation we have for that doubt is in the version of events presented on a website which is trying to prove Knox's innocence. Bluewave (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The three judges were the prosecutor, the judge in the trial of Rudy Guede and the judge in the trial of AK and RS. The lawyers for AK and RS didn't participate in the trial of RG. Only that third judge's conclusions were written after seeing the defense presentation matching cell phone records and the garage camera. Unfortunately, none of the English language newspapers mentioned that evidence being presented. I would suggest digging into the Italian language reports of the trial for a source. --Footwarrior (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not asking anyone to agree with the defense. Per WP policy, I have summarized a primary source because no secondary source exists.Charlie wilkes (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

What's the primary source you are summarising? The court report would be a primary source, but it looks like you are saying this is silent on the matter. A document taken from the Friends of Amanada website would not be usable, because it would not pass RS. --FormerIP (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Charlie's document is the presentation created by the defense lawyers and shown to the court. --Footwarrior (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

How do we know this, and how should we interpret it? --FormerIP (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I had forgotten where I found this presentation, but I tracked it down again, and it is still on the web, at:

http://lnx.giovinazzo.it/images/postale.pdf

I believe this is the newspaper in Sollecito's home town of Giovinazzo. Charlie wilkes (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If it was posted on a newspaper's web site, there is a good chance the newspaper wrote an article explaining the document. That article should qualify as a WP:RS. --Footwarrior (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree, but we would need to find the article. --FormerIP (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I found it:

http://issuu.com/sergiopisani/docs/la_piazza_di_giovinazzo_dicembre_2009

The relevant discussion is on page 9. I have re-keyed it and run it through Google translator, as follows:

Ancora ombre e sospetti su Raffaele: l'arrivo della Polizia Postale

Raffaele dichiara di aver gia allertato con due telefonate i Carabinieri prima dell'arrivo della Postale (ore 12,51 e ore 12,53 come si evince dai suoi tabulati telefonici). L'Accusa da del bugiardo a Raffaele poiche, su dichiarazione degli stessi agenti, la Postale sarebbe arrivata sul posto alle 12,25 quindi prima della telefonata di Raffaele ai Carabinieri. Si tratta di un'affermazione per nulla veritiera alla luce de tutte le altre prove ricavate da una attenta analisi delle immagini di una video-camera di sorveglianza del parcheggio Sant'Antonio situata di fronte all'ingresso della casa di Meredith. In base alle immagini la Punto nera della Polizia Postale sarebbe arrivata nei pressi della casa alle ore 12,38; e lo stesso Pubblico Ministero a mostrare in udienza una foto con orario (ore 12,38) che riprenderebbe l'arrivo dell'auto. Ma l'autovettura prosegue, non avendo gli agenti indivuato il civico 7, come da loro stessi dichiarato in udienza. Il loro reale arrivo viene ripreso dalla videocamera alle ore 12,48, momento in cui si accingono a varcare a piedi il cancello del casolare. Per quale motivo due differenti versioni di orario? Semplice: algi agenti della Postale, e non solo a loro, viene riferito che l'orologio delle telecamere registra un errato orario: andrebbe 10 minuti avanti. Solo durante il processo in corso la difesa di Raffaele riesce a dimostrare inequivocabilmente che quell'orologio registra, si, un orario sbagliato, ma di piu di 10 minuti indietro e non avanti, quindi gli orari predetti vanno corretti, aggiungendo almeno 10 minuti e non sottraendo 10 minuti: la Polizia Postale arriva effettivamente sul posto non prima delle ore 12,58. Ecco svelato l'arcano grazie a controlli incrociati sull'arrivo dei Carabinieri, anch'esso ripreso dalle telecamere Sono proprio le telefonate dei Carabinieri (confermate dai tabulati) ed il loro arrivo la dimostrazione dell'ulteriore "svista" della Procura e della sincerita di Raffaele.

Even shadows and suspicions Raffaele: the arrival of the Postal Police

Raffaele says he had already alerted the Carabinieri with two phone calls before the Post (at 12.51 and 12.53 hours as evidenced by his phone records). The Prosecutor Raffaele be a liar because, upon declaration of the same agents, the Post would arrive at 12.25 and then at the first call of the Carabinieri Raffaele. This viewpoint is not at all true in light of all other evidence from a careful analysis of images of a video-camera surveillance Anthony parking located in front of the house of Meredith. According to the images of Black Point Postal Police would come near the house at 12.38, and the prosecutor at the hearing to show a picture with time (12.38 hours) which repeats the arrival of the car. But the car continues failing agents indivuato the number 7, as they themselves said at the hearing. Their actual arrival is taken by the camera at 12.48, when are going to cross on foot the gate of the house. Why two different versions of time? Simple: regulated and agents of the Post, not only to them, it is reported that the watch of television cameras recorded the wrong time: 10 minutes would go forward. Only during the ongoing process of Raffaele defense can prove unequivocally that watch that record, a wrong time, but more than 10 minutes back and forward, then these times should be corrected by adding at least 10 minutes and not subtracting 10 minutes: the Postal Police arrived on the spot actually not before 12.58 hours. That's the mystery revealed through cross-checks on the arrival of the Carabinieri, also recorded by the cameras are just calls Carabinieri (confirmed by printouts) and the arrival of further demonstration "oversight" of the prosecutor and the sincerity of Raffaele.

Charlie wilkes (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting article Charlie. It covers parts of the defense case that were missed by most reporters. A citation template for that source would be:

"Un delitto con troppe ombre". La Piazza de Giovinazzo (in Italian): 9. 2009. Retrieved 2010-08-31. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

The next question is how do we change the article to include this information? --Footwarrior (talk) 09:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is the wording I suggest:

"At 12:08 pm the following day Amanda Knox called a flatmate, telling her that she had returned to the flat and found the front door open, a broken window, some blood, and that Meredith was missing. At some point in the next hour, the Italian Post and Communications Police came to investigate the discovery of two mobile phones in a nearby garden. The authories claimed these officers arrived before Sollecito placed two calls to the emergency number, at 12:51 pm and 12:54 pm. During the trial, however, Sollecito's defense countered this allegation with an analysis based on cellular phone records and output from security camera across the street from the crime scene. They say these records prove the Post and Communications Police arrived after Sollecito made the emergency calls.

"One of the phones in question was registered to an Italian flatmate, and the other was registered to Kercher. When the Post and Communications Police arrived, Knox and Sollecito were standing outside and told the police that the premises had been burgled, that a window had been broken, and there was blood in the bathroom."

Note that I am also changing "blood drops in several rooms" to "blood in the bathroom," because I think that is what they said. The only blood outside of Meredith's room was in the bathroom and the shoe prints on the floor of the hallway, but nobody had noticed the shoe prints at that point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie wilkes (talk • contribs) 11:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the value of "the authorities said ... however Sollecito's defence said ..." Obviously most assertions are challenged in the court(s) by various defence lawyers; that is, after all, their job. The police turned up, that is the relevant fact here.  pablo 11:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

As long as the reference to their arrival time is deleted entirely, that is fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie wilkes (talk • contribs) 12:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This source seems to have been written during the trial, and to be speculating as to what the defence might argue: "Solo durante il processo in corso la difesa di Raffaele riesce a dimostrare inequivocabilmente che" (Only during the ongoing trial can Raffaels's defence demonstrate unequivocally that..). So this isn't a source for something that happened at trial, only for something that some magazine (it is arguably only barely an RS) thought might happen. This isn't splitting hairs, because there does not seem to be any reference to this line of argument in the Masei report, which I would suggest means it is something that was not, in the end, brought up at trial. --FormerIP (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion for wording this section:

"At 12:08 pm the following day Amanda Knox called a flatmate, telling her that she had returned to the flat and found the front door open, a broken window, some blood, and that Meredith was missing. Knox also called both of Meredith's mobile phone numbers. Sollecito made two phone calls to 112, the Italian emergency number, at 12:51 pm and 12:54 pm. Before the Carabinieri arrived in response to his calls, two officers of the Italian Post and Communications Police came to investigate the discovery of two mobile phones in a nearby garden. Knox and Sollecito were standing outside and told the police that the premises had been burgled, that a window had been broken, and there was blood in the bathroom. One of the mobile phones belonged to Kercher, the other was registered to the flatmate Knox had called, but had been loaned to Kercher."

The controversy over Sollecito calling the police after the Postal Police showed up belongs in the trial section. --Footwarrior (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no basis to remove the arrival time of the police, which is very well documented and which AFAICT no RS contradicts. What we definitely don't want to do is start doubling up again by covering the same details in different sections. --FormerIP (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've provided a primary source in the form of a presentation that was actually delivered during the trial and a published source that describes the gist of the argument. I've met the standard to which you agreed above. I don't understand your objection.Charlie wilkes (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the status of what you call the "primary source" is unclear, Charlie. I see no actual evidence that it comes from the trial, although it may do. In any event, I think it is difficult to use without applying WP:OR. In the images, we see a car and we see some legs. In all probability, these do belong to police officers who visited the flat, but who really knows?

In terms of the secondary source, I would first note that it passes RS just barely IMO, but is not a strong source (it is a hyperlocal magazine). What has been quoted from it breaks down into two parts. To give the gist:

• Part one: CCTV footage shows the arrival of the police at a later time that the police recorded. Investigators explained this by saying that the clock on the CCTV footage was ten minutes fast. - this part is potentially includable in the article, but I don't think it adds much to what is there or to anyone's understanding of the case.
• Part two: Maybe Sollecito's lawyers can succeed in arguing that the clock was actually ten minutes slow, which would remove one piece of damning evidence against him - this is the speculation of a publication on the edge of RS, and no actual reason to suppose that the clock might be ten minutes slow is given. Besides which, Sollecito's lawyers don't appear to have actually made any such argument, so what we have really is non-notable speculation.

--FormerIP (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be that there is a discrepancy about the time-stamp across the court, by the prosecution and the defense, which is significant, especially because it bears on the defendant's testimony. Perk10 (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Another way to put my preceding comment is that the prosecution considered it (i.e. the arrival of the postal police compared with the time of Raffaele's calls) to be a significant detail in the trial. Perk10 (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, which means (in the context of an article which is admittedly over-heavy on this type of detail) that the comparison between the time of the arrival of the police and the phone calls should be included in the article. Details about the video time-stamp don't appear to have been relevant in the court case or in any RS yet presented which is expressing fact as opposed to speculation. It looks very much as if this is uncontroversial. --FormerIP (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It may seem uncontroversial to someone who has formed an impression of this case from British news sources, but in fact it has been effectively - even decisively - contested. The reason Massei didn't mention this subject in his voluminous report is not because it never came up during the trial.

I don't understand why you think the publication I have cited barely qualifies as a reliable source. It is a detailed review of the evidence presented by the defense, prepared by reporters with access to the case files. It was published in December 2009, the month the trial ended, so it does not lay out hypothetical arguments, but rather arguments that were really made in court, grammar notwithstanding.Charlie wilkes (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If it has been decisively contested, then provide sources. I've pointed out that the source provided is weak because it is a hyperlocal publication. It probably only has a circulation of a few thousand if that (the population it serves is, according to WP, 20K). I am not rejecting it as an RS, though. The important point is that it doesn't appear to say anything we can reasonably use to point to the innocence of Amanda Knox. Sorry, but it doesn't. I think the reason that Massei never mentioned this supposed controversy over the CCTV timings was indeed because it was never brought up at trial. His job is to address everything brought up at trial. What else are you suggesting? --FormerIP (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have explained my position as clearly as I can, and I have provided my sources. But I want to make sure I understand your position. Are you taking the view that Matteini's statement of November 2007, with regard to the time when the postal police arrived, remains an uncontested fact because Massei does not comment on this subject in his report? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie wilkes (talk • contribs) 02:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It's been my understanding that the prosecution is no longer challenging the idea that Sollecito called before they arrived. If it was still an issue it would clearly been brought up as one of the indicators of guilt that the Massei report rested the decision on. The Massei report would not have left out a reason for the convicted party to have been found guilty. The absense says that it is no longer part of the reasons for guilt. Matteini was cleary wrong and should not be used for a source for this issue. I suggest either include the correct times Sollecito made the call and the correct police arrival or just take it out of the article. As far as Matteini, perhaps that should be included in the controversy of how the Perugia judicial system came to the decision to not allow Knox and Sollecito house arrest. Jaberryhill (talk) 04:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"It looks very much as if this is uncontroversial." - FormerIP. That is an assumption as to the reason it was not included in the Massei Report. It could be taken as a concession, among a few of the reasons. I'm not sure that is enough of a reason not to amend the section in some fittingly comprehensive way. Perk10 (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Jaberryhill, you say that "It's been my understanding that the prosecution is no longer challenging the idea that Sollecito called before they arrived". Do you have a source that supports that understanding, please? Bluewave (talk) 08:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It is entered into the Misplaced Pages article as a consequential event, however, it was not included in the Massei Report as a consequential event. Perk10 (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10

Why such a regard action on a non-essential point? The time the police arrived is at best a not very interesting footnote. It may have seemed to have importance at one point; now it is clear that it doesn't. In my view Wilkes has the better of it here. We have several ways to proceed. The one thing we cannot do is pretend that the police version was uncontested.PietroLegno (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

We need some evidence that it was contested, which is what is lacking at present. --FormerIP (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps by not including it in the judge's report, Massei dropped it from the rank of a significant detail. Apparently, it did not have any bearing on the outcome of the trial. As Jabberryhill pointed out, "The Massei report would not have left out a reason for the convicted party to have been found guilty." It seems that the argument against the defendent by the prosecution was effectively thrown out. The reason it is included in the article is that in the trial, it was intended to as circumstantial or even direct evidence of (paraphrase) "intent to deceive" on the part of the defendent. Or, as was often worded by press reporting the prosecution's case, it was (paraphrase) "an attempt to create a (false) and pardoning alibi". But that is all it was - part of the prosecution's case that was not retained by Judge Massei.

Along these lines, did Massei detail elements that were rejected for the final ruling? Perk10 (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I've removed the reference in the article to CCTV showing a time of 12:58. This is not the time shown on the footage, only a time speculated on by a journalist. --FormerIP (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually it says evidence from the security camera. But we could agree that for whatever reason, possibly but not necessarily the timer on the security camera, the judge did not include it as evidence against Sollecito. Therefore, it seems that the time the police got there doesn't earn a place in the article. Perk10 (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I undid FormerIP's edit. The source reference he deleted was not a dead link. Even if it had been, the correct procedure is to tag it as a dead link, not remove the citation. --Footwarrior (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a dead link; it was a valid reference named "telegraph091107" that you deleted with this edit.  pablo 20:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have raised the use of La Piazza de Giovinazzo here: WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#La_Piazza_de_Giovinazzo. --FormerIP (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Article Title

Though the murder of Meredith Kercher caused the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, that event as the title of this article seems not to indicate the content of the article. I have yet to read the history of the discussion on this, and I will (if anyone can provide links to relevant discussions it would be appreciated), but wanted to mention it again. I suggest a slow discussion, not to be resolved immediately, on the topic. I am considering it carefully myself, trying to accumulate pros and cons for the article title continuing or being changed.

I am particularly interested, to start off, in precedents of other articles about murders and murder trials. Perk10 (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Murder of (victim) is commonly used on Misplaced Pages for articles describing a notable murder, investigation and trials. For another example, see Murder of Emmett Till. (Victim) murder case is also used, for example Peggy Hettrick murder case. --Footwarrior (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

While "Murder of (Victim)" maybe be commonly used as well as a perfectly functional title for an article primarily about a given murder case, the fact is, in this murder case the focus has evolved beyond the execution of the crime, beyond even the victim, into the controversy and criticism surrounding the conduct of the trial, the compromised evidence submitted and the subsequent verdict. IMO, the title should reflect the broader scope of the article better than "Murder of Meridith Kercher" does.Tjholme (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

At the very least there is precedent both ways. It is The O.J. Simpson Murder Trial, The Sacco and Vanzetti Case, the Leopold and Loeb Case, and the Louise Woodward Case. To me at least, given the fact that we will now witness dual appeals trials, a new trial entirely for AK, and possibly subsequent appeals to the high court, a title like "The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito" is most accurate and makes the most sense. Whatever title we end up with, provisions absolutely must be made for a fair explication of the defense case.PietroLegno (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

As long as the case for the defence is equally countered by the case for the prosecution, then there are no issues. What we certainly want to avoid is a day-by-day addition to the article detailing the minutiae of the appeal, as that is what is made the original article far too long and unwieldy, not to mention POV. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Support for Knox

I would like to include in this area information about Friends of Amanda, Injustice in Perugia and other support sites. It would certainly be relevant to a section called Support for Knox. This may also be the place to include Steve Moore, Donald Trump and others who have spoken out in support of knox.

In the section below, I think information about the PR firm belongs under media section instead of Support for Knox. It is about media and countering the Knox's negative image in the press and is not relevant to support for Knox.

"The Knox family's public relations campaign Knox's family engaged the services of David Marriott, of Gogerty Stark Marriott, a Seattle-based public relations firm, to handle the public relations aspects of their campaign.Marriott is a former television news reporter and has been the press secretary for a former Seattle mayor, as well as having run several communications consulting firms.

Marriott ensured that journalists in Perugia in the early stages of the case could only get access to the Knox family if they gave guarantees about positive coverage. As time went on the family opted to speak, primarily to the American television networks. Since then, they have appeared on several TV talk shows, such as the Oprah Winfrey Show on 23 February 2010."Jaberryhill (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC).

In terms of mentioning support sites in the article, it would be important to consider what reliable sources give us information about those sites and whether these sites have had significant enough coverage in the media etc to make them noteworthy for the purposes of the article. --FormerIP (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Mignini conviction for abuse of office.

Quoting the source for the statement about Mignini's conviction. "Mignini was convicted by a Florence court of exceeding his powers by tapping the phones of police officers and journalists investigating the still unsolved “Monster of Florence” serial killings between 1968 and 1985." I am revering the last edit to restore the name of the case. --Footwarrior (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

In keeping with Misplaced Pages:BRD policy, I reverted FormerIP's edit and started a discussion here. --Footwarrior (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

As said on your talk page :"tapping the phones of police officers and journalists investigating the still unsolved “Monster of Florence” serial killings". This is a true statement, but note that is is the "police officers and journalists" who were investigating the case, not Mignini.. In other words, the statement that Mignini investigated the MoF case is not supported by the source. It's just a matter of being accurate. There is a relationship between Mignini and the MoF case, but I think it would be far too much detail to explain that for the purposes of this article. All that is really relevant is that he was investigated for a case unrelated to the MK case. --FormerIP (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What case was Mignini investigating when he committed the offenses that led to his conviction for abuse of office? --Footwarrior (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe it was the suicide of someone called Narducci. --FormerIP (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Or as Mignini believed, the murder of Narducci to protect the conspiracy behind the Monster of Florence murders. The investigation is described on the Italian Misplaced Pages article on the Monster of Florence case. --Footwarrior (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. But he wasn't the investigator in the MoF case, hence my edit. --FormerIP (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You keep repeating this as if repetition would make it true. --Footwarrior (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Eh? I'm not following. You seem to be agreeing before that the case in question is the Narducci case - ie a different case to the MoF case. The source doesn't say that he investigated the MoF case, it just has his name and "Monster of Florence" in the same sentence. I just looked up the prosecutor in the MoF case. For information, it was it:Silvia Della Monica. --FormerIP (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be stuck on the idea that there was only one investigator in the MoF case. --Footwarrior (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

But you seem to want to include something in the article that is untrue and unsourced. --FormerIP (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I put back the link to the MoF case using wording from the reference. --Footwarrior (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll live with it, but it is really just adding more unimportant information to an article which already contains more information that will be useful to most readers. --FormerIP (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources have made clear that Mignini's heavily criticized actions in the MOF case relate to his work in Amanda's case. The MOF case went on for many years with different prosecutors and investigators. Mignini's idea that Narducci was involved in the MOF case has been heavily criticized. It relates to Amanda's case because it shows he has a history of not following evidence and of interrogations that are not in search of the truth. Preston says Mignini accused him of being an accessory to murder. Preston was not an accessory to murder. The Committee to Protect Journalists heavily criticized Mignini for his jailing of Spezi and harrassment of Preston. What I say here is what the reliable sources say and it isn't in the article. See the criticism section. It's all sourced dead nuts up there.PhanuelB (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This looks resolved Phanuel, although you are welcome to raise further points that might directly help to improve the article if you care to. --FormerIP (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This part of the MoF case should be covered on Misplaced Pages, but it belongs in the Monster of Florence article instead of here. --Footwarrior (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I was just about to say that myself. It's irrelevant in this article. And Phanuel - "It relates to Amanda's case because it shows he has a history of not following evidence and of interrogations that are not in search of the truth" - WP:SYNTHESIS, as you very well know - this would clearly not be allowed. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Footnote 29

In the interest of collegiality I am raising an issue before amending and reverting. We have been debating how to handle the question of when they arrived--be it 12:35 or near 1:00 PM. Now someone has taken it upon themselves to edit the section, making the time 12:30 and using Candace Dempsey as a source (note 29).

Unfortunately, this is a highly inaccurate use of the source. The relevant passage is on page 271 of my edition (not 270):

"He was supposed to shed light on the ever-growing controversy over whether Raffaele called the Carabinieri before or after the arrival of the postal officers. But like nearly everyone involved in the case, the officer told a baffling story. First, he said that he'd sent a squad car to the cottage around 12 PM, which would have meant that it arrived around 12:30 PM, definitely before Raffaele called the Carabinieri. But in his police log, Bartolozzi had jotted down 12:46 PM for the receipt of the second phone, meaning that he had probably not sent the squad car yet. So which was it? Barolozzi said he'd just goofed, when he wrote 12:46 PM. How had he gauged the time? Oh, he'd just looked at his watch. So how did he know when the unit arrived, if he had never left the station? Don't ask."

The official police version has always been 12:35--that is the signed statement of the officer who arrived. As the full quotation makes clear, what was said in the source cannot possibly be used as justification for moving the time back 12:30 in the article text. Dempsey's whole point is that Bartolozzo is confused and did not give very reliable testimony. Indeed his notation in the police log is further reason to believe the defense not the prosecution was correct about arrival time.

It is disheartening to have this kind of editing happening in the midst of a discussion.PietroLegno (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This edit left an orphaned reference, removed information about whom the mobile phones belonged to and reworded the information about the timing of the phone calls under the umbrella of "NPOV". I'm not convinced that this edit serves either NPOV or the facts of the case.  pablo 20:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Both mobile phones were carried and used by Kercher. Can you explain how knowing that one of them was owned by Filomena and loaned to Kercher is critical to understanding the case?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Footwarrior (talk • contribs)

Certainly less important than the times which you have fudged with the same edit.  pablo 20:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a new topic. (As well, who is the comment's author?) Re Footnote 29, we need a citation of the claimed 12:35pm time, that is, if the arrival time remains in the article. Perk10 (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it as the previous version seemed fairer, so long as 12:35 is used. Trying to move the time back 5 minutes using this source is not acceptable.PietroLegno (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the 12:35 time. It's only a rough approximation in any case. --Footwarrior (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agreed with the revision generally, except the detail of the more precise time of arrival. The revision itself seemed to try to convey the discrepancy of the time-stamp. Perk10 (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10

I just don't think we should include elements of the prosecution's case that were disregarded by Massei. That is, perhaps, unless it is in a special section for the case of the prosecution spefically. Perk10 (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10

I don't necessarily disagree with this type of idea, but we would need to be able to apply the same thing consistently in the article to both prosecution and defence claims. That's probably not achievable, so I think we are stuck because we cannot do it selectively. --FormerIP (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not convinced right away that it something outside of reach. I suppose it is a separate but related topic to the ones discussed here and in the time of arrival section above. It is something to consider. I see a stark difference between the article as-is and the Massei Report. The article as-is matches up more completely with the arguments of the prosecution's case. Perk10 (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Or rather, that is the impression I have. One of the significant factors of the case is that the Motivation document differed greatly from the prosecution's case. It diverged in a wholly new direction, which is also a unique characteristic of this case/trial.Perk10 (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10

You say "prosecution case" as if there is somewhere we can refer to know exactly what this is and compare it with the Massei and Michelli reports. If you mean that the article tends towards the POV that the defendants were guilty of the crime, then this might be true, but since they were found guilty, then that's hardly surprising. Anyway, do you think there is a way that the idea of bringing the article more in to line with the findings of the report can be progressed? (Like I say, I think this is sadly unrealistic, but I would be pleased to be proven wrong). --FormerIP (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP said: "If you mean that the article tends towards the POV that the defendants were guilty of the crime..." That is not what I am saying by distinguishing between the prosecution's argument's and the Massei Report. The way to address the issue is to establish that the former is identifiable, as it was widely reported that there was a stark contrast. So to answer your ending question, yes, I do think there is a way to do that. Perk10 (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Arrest of Rudy Guede Section

This is what the "Arrest of Rudy Guede" section should say:

Shortly after the murder in the early hours of November 2, 2007 Rudy Guede was seen dancing at a local discotheque. On the evening of November 2 he was also seen at local bars and there was a report that he did not stop dancing when a moment of silence was observed for Meredith Kercher. The next day on November 3, 2007 he fled Perugia.

By November 18, 2007 forensic evidence had come back linking Guede to the crime and a European wide man hunt was initiated. Police quickly learned that he had been accessing his various online accounts and made arrangements with one of his friends, Giacomo Benedetti, to talk with him via Skype. During at least three hours of secretly monitored conversations with Benedetti, Guede gave conflicting accounts of the night. At no time did he implicate Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito.

At one point during the conversation Guede stated, “I wasn’t there that evening. If they have found my fingerprints it means I must have left them there before… I have nothing to do with that night.” Later during the same call, Guede sketched out his eventual alibi that someone else had entered the apartment and killed Meredith while he was in the bathroom. During subsequent police interrogations Guede would stick with his story of other attackers and consensual sexual contact. It is not clear to what extent he has ever specifically identified Raffaele Sollecito or Amanda Knox as the real attackers, or to what extent he may have been subject to police coercion or suggestion. He did not testify at their trial.

Guede was apprehended on a train in Germany on November 20, 2007 and extradited back to Italy shortly thereafter. At the time of his arrest, 19 days after the murder, German police photographed cuts to the inside of the fingers of his right hand. Advocates for Amanda Knox would later point out that such injuries are characteristic of an attacker using a knife without a hilt in a stabbing incident.

PhanuelB (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

None of that is usable without cites, sorry Phanuel. You really should start focusing on detail rather than wholesale change - I think you are just wasting your time. --FormerIP (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

By all means anything that goes in must be cited properly. My record for citing what I say is pretty good. PhanuelB (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you are understanding the process for this wrongly, Phanuel. We are supposed to write material according to what is in reliable sources, not compose something we personally like then search out cites for it. --FormerIP (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Reviewing the existing article it's clear that that has not been the process in many cases. As an example, consider that the citation regarding Rudy Guede's history of criminal behaviour. The WP:RS reads "Perugia bar tender... heard a noise downstairs in his home and found Guede wandering around with a large knife. There was a confrontation between the two, which ended when Guede ran away. On four occasions, (bartender) went to Perugia's central police station to report the break-in, identify Guede as the culprit and to detail how the intruder was armed and threatened him. " After translation this important and significant statement became,"A bartender has also alleged that Guede entered his home uninvited and carrying a knife " IMO this is a clear and intentional attempt to downplay the information presented and to slant the tone of the article through omission. Some individuals have been very careful not to lie by presenting material not supported by WP:RS but have, IMO intentionally misled readers by paraphrasing reliable sources using bland and ineffectual language to lessen the impact of their message. And so "a break-in" becomes a 'trespass' and "criminal trespass" becomes "entered uninvited". If the process you outline had been followed the worst that could be said of the MoMK article is that it's too dry and lacks readability... but as it is I'd add somewhat misleading and slanted against Knox to that statement.. While we're on the subject I propose that the statement described above (under section: 'Rudy Guede') be edited to read as per the source material or faithfully paraphrased using the same language. Agreed? Tjholme (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and don't accuse editors of trying to mislead readers. I can't remember the editing history of the example that you pick...I may or may not have had a hand in writing that text...but if I was approaching that source afresh, some of the things I would be thinking about are:

• The source is the Daily Mail: not considered part of the "quality press" but not a tabloid. Citable, but with caution.
• The Mail employed an Italian-speaking journalist (called Nick Pisa) who reported on the trial from Perugia and is therefore a reliable source for factual events. However, this article was not written by him.
• This particular article was written just after the trial verdict and looks like an attempt to make some sort of story from old news reports, at a time when there is no current news about the case. So we need to be on the lookout for additional levels of "interpretation" by editors.
• Looking at the whole article, there are some signs that attempts have been made to make it a bit more "sensational": the image of AK with the machine gun, captioned "Bizarre: Amanda Knox fools around with an antique machine gun", the sub-heading "FOXY'S BEHAVIOUR", the mention of Knox's "pink Rampant Rabbit vibrator" and so on. I would therefore be cautious about reproducing any part of the article verbatim but factual material may be OK.
• Coming to the episode of Guede with the Perugian bar-tender, this is presented in the article as fact. So far as I now this was testimony presented at Knox and Sollecito's trial and has never been properly tested in court as evidence against Guede. For instance, in the court, Guede did not state his side of the story (he didn't need to: he wasn't on trial) and the bar-tender was not cross-examined in the way that he would be if Guede had been tried for the alleged offence. Once again, this would tell me to treat the account with caution and certainly not to repeat it verbatim.

So is the source convincing enough to be used by an encyclopedia to state that Guede committed a "criminal trespass" (as you put it)? I would say definitely not. Bluewave (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I quote from WP:AGF

"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism, but instead editors should not attribute the actions being criticised to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice."

The proposed section I have authored above "Failure to Arrest Rudy Guede Prior to the murder" documents and sources these issues dead nuts. Of course Guede committed "criminal trespass" in the Cristian Tramontano incident. In fact he committed a far more serious crime. Nathan Abraham provides a first hand statement about it in the 48 Hours documentary. Guede was inside somebody's house behind closed doors while they slept. He brandished a knife in his escape.

This modus operendi was often cited by lawyers for AK and RS. See also the first hand statement of Maria del Prato in the TLC documentary. It's a big deal when you find somebody armed with a knife prowling behind closed doors in your private space. Her statement is so compelling that it overrides that fact that he wasn't charged or convicted in the crime. It's a BIG deal when you're doing the same things that were observed at the crime scene in the weeks before the murder.

The problem is that a large majority of reliable sources say that AK is charged with something Guede did. Detailed discussion of Guede's bad acts prior to the crime is essential to arguments that she didn't do it. The question of whether MK would still be alive if the Italian police had done their jobs properly is implied in the TLC documentary and is specifically stated in the cites in my proposed section above. PhanuelB (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

@Bluewave - Then again, was Rudy Guede's behavior so benign as to be accurately described as "uninvited entry" ? He wasn’t a pushy door-to-door salesman with his foot in the door that wouldn’t take no for an answer.. He broke into an occupied residence armed with a knife and threatened the occupant with it when he was discovered. That is significant and relevant to the MoMK case. I'm not proposing that the Daily Mail source material be cut-n-pasted to this article. Only that the material be paraphrased in good faith using words that accurately express the gravity of the event. The mischaracterization of the bartender statement is the perfect example of the kind of downplaying of information that supports reasonable doubt of Knox's guilt that I've repeatedly written of. Tjholme (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

An encyclopedia does not state that someone has committed a criminal act (eg criminal trespass) unless there is an extremely good source. The usual requirement for making that statement would be if the person had been found guilty by a court of law. Declaring someone guilty of a criminal act without due process of law would require an extraordinarily convincing sources. In my view, the Daily Mail article does not come close. There is a law (in Europe at least) that someone is considered innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. Declaring them guilty when they have not been tried for an alleged crime is probably libellous and might be described by such terms as "kangaroo court". That is not the role of Misplaced Pages. Bluewave (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Mail article and a number of others reflect what was said in a deposition submitted at trial by Cristian Tramontano. The Motivation document talks about it but the translation is pitiful. My source above is ABC news. There is also available on Frank Sfarzo's site (Perugia shock) a first hand statement by Frank of his conversation with Cristian Tramontano. Somebody has gotten Perugia Shock blocked from Misplaced Pages and that needs to be changed. There is significant reliable information there including many crime scene photos and Sfarzo's eye witness statements of what happened in Court. He of course was there throughout the trial and speaks in the TLC documentary. Autopsy photos released by police which never should have been in the public domain are there also.

There is an increased burden to say somebody did something illegal when he wasn't convicted of anything. The eyewitness statements and other sources that I cite meet that burden.

"Cristian Tramontano, whose summary information made on 7.1.2008 were acquired hearing on 26.6.2009, reported being robbed in a home by a boy who, seeing himself discovered earn the Scythian Deer and found the closed door, pulled out a knife with which he threatened the same Tramontano, who had chased him out of the house. The Tramontano stated that he seemed to recognize the author of that fact in which Rudi saw the pictures published in newspapers." Page 35 Motivation doc... the scythian Deer?

PhanuelB (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There may well be other sources but I was answering Tjholme's point which was specifically about the Daily Mail article. Bluewave (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

@Bluewave - Does the quote from the Motivational Doc cited by PhanuelB rise to the standard of "Extremely Good Source' IYO? In other words, would it be acceptable to paraphrase Guede's actions using words like "attempted to rob", "threatened with knife", "scythian Deer" as stated in the document , and recite the new source? Ok, maybe not scythian Deer.. Tjholme (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The article currently says: "A bartender has also alleged that Guede entered his home uninvited and carrying a knife", which I think covers it. --FormerIP (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"Uninvited and carrying a knife" does not say that he drew the knife as a weapon. There's a big difference.

Here is the correct translation from the English translation of the Motivation Document. The translation I had provided above was from an earlier effort.

"Cristian Tramontano, whose brief deposition the subject of July 1, 2008 was acquired at the hearing of June 6, 2009, testified about an robbery in his home, carried out by a young man who, seeing that he had been observed, tried to exit the house and, finding the door locked, pulled out a jackknife with which he threatened Tramontano, who was following him to make him leave the house. Tramontano declared that he believed he recognised that the thief was Rudy when he saw his picture published in the newspapers."

By contrast here is the statement of Frank Sfarzo who talks of his conversation with Tramontano. Frank runs the Perugia Shock web site and has been a close observer of the case. He lives in Perugia and knows many of those involved. His English is not perfect. A thorough police investigation of the murder would have included an extensive investigation of this incident. I also question why this deposition cannot be put in the public domain where those with an interest in the case can see it. Guede's lawyer, Walter Biscotti, has never denied that this was Guede.

"I just finished speaking in some way with Christian T., who I reached in his hometown. It was a difficult way to speak, with someone in the middle. But that's what Christian said. It was a warm night in September, he was sleeping with his Polish girlfriend Monika in his elevated loft bed. Some noise woke him up. He looked down and he saw a black boy searching in their drawers. The guest had entered through a window they had left open and he wasn't aware that someone was sleeping in the room, since the bed was elevated. Christian realized it was his neighbor, Rudy, who he knew only by sight. He told him to go away. Rudy thought it would be better to leave the house like a gentleman, through the door and not through the window. But the door was defective and he had trouble opening it...Then Christian says he called the police, and they arrived immediately, in just 2 hours. The police said he could come to the station the next day and report the intruder. But Christian let it go. It must not have been a very frightening experience for him and his girlfriend if they didn't even have the time to file a suit....Naturally, when three months later he saw that the same uninvited guest was the main suspect in the murder of Meredith Kercher, he took the time to go to the police station and testify."

PhanuelB (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

What Perugia Shock says is irrelevant, because it is not an RS. Basically per WP:BLP, we need to go by secondary sources and not refer to the Michelli report, particularly because this concerns unproven allegations about serious criminal activity. What's currently in the article reflects what is in the secondary source cited. --FormerIP (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Perugia Shock is not a reliable secondary source but Frank Sfarzo may be a reliable primary source in the quote above. He is saying what Tramontano told him. Frank was used as a primary source on the TLC documentary which really is the defining commentary on the case. There are plenty of reliable sources that confrim what they saw in the Tramontano deposition. I used ABC above. There are no WP:BLP violations WHATSOEVER with what I say about Guede and/or Mignini. Any allegations to the contrary are false. It's all sourced dead nuts. Allegations or suggestions of WP:SYN are also false. The quote above is not from the Micheli report, also not a reliable source. The Massei report is a reliable source for the fact that Cristian Tramontano made a deposition that was submitted in court, nothing more. PhanuelB (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Phanuel, I think you are still confused about the distinction, for WP purposes, between sources and people. Perugia Shock is not an RS, so nothing on there can be used on WP. --FormerIP (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest using this reference, already used in the article? "School Owner Testifies in Knox Trial That Convicted Killer Stole Knife". ABC news. 27 June 2009. Retrieved 11 March 2010.

This current article says "A bartender has also alleged that Guede entered his home uninvited and carrying a knife". The reference makes it clear the encounter was much more serious. "The thief -- who Tramontano identified as Guede -- first used a chair to keep Tramontano at a distance, and then pulled out a switchblade knife." --Footwarrior (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Footwarrior - Agreed. @ FormerIP - With due respect, Sir, did you read any of the previous dozen or so comments or just drop by to slip in the WP:BLP tripwire? Re FormerIP "What's currently in the article reflects what is in the secondary source cited." The wording regarding Guede's burglary of Tramontano's apartment as it currently reads (i.e. uninvited guest, etc) is nothing at all like what appears in the cited source material or any other source I'm aware of, though it does, oddly enough, echo of Frank Sfarzo's voice in the last line of his Tramontano interview piece. I wonder if perhaps some editor from this project may have read that line at Perugia Shock back in the early days of the investigation when Frank exhibited a decidedly "Knox Guilty" bias? Just one of those weird coincidences I guess. In any event, the point of all this discussion is that the description of the Tramontano incident as it exists is so watered down as to be misleading in its banality and needs to be changed to more faithfully echo the language that has been used in any number of sources. I'm going to try an work up a new, more accurate paraphrasing of one of the bolder (but wp:rs) sources and present it for consensus tomorrow so we can move forward constructively in advancing the article. Thanks for bringing up the Day Care lady as well. We'll need to work on that flaccid description next. Tjholme (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Protected

Steve Moore a Reliable Source

Former FBI agent Steve Moore appeared on ABC Good Morning America today, 2-Sep-10, and was interviewd by George Stephanopoulos. He is a reliable source and his credentials have been verified by a major news organization. PhanuelB (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

An interview on ABC would be a reliable source (although this doesn't automatically mean include it in the article - it depends what was said and how significant it is). It wouldn't make other material by the same person RS, though. --FormerIP (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

An interview with Steve Moore on ABC is a reliable source for the opinion of Steve Moore.  pablo 19:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Steve Moore has now given interviews on ABC, CBS, and NBC as well as a local Seattle station. He is without question a reliable source. I would submit that people who challenge Mr. Moore's reliability while accepting Ms. Nadeau's without question even when she is writing for the Daily Beast are not serious or neutral.PietroLegno (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding, Pietro. The source for RS purposes is the material, not the person. Unless the person has a tatoo containing useful data for Misplaced Pages. An interview on a national TV station will be an RS in most cases. An essay on a personal website will not be an RS in most cases. Whether Steve Moore has said anything in the TV interview worth noting in the article is another matter, but I haven't seen the interview so I can't tell you. --FormerIP (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The InjusticeinPerugia site where Steve Moore has published his articles is best classified as an advocacy site. It was there before he came along so it's not a personal site for him under the meaning of Misplaced Pages policy. Note that none of the pro innocence side is suggesting that Anne Bremner, Ted Simon or any of the other material on the Friends of Amanda or InjusticeinPerugia sites are reliable sources of fact or neutral opinion on the case. Steve Moore, because of his background, has been designated as an important commentator on CBS, NBC, and ABC. All three segments today were in the range of 9 minutes. This means his writings, even if not published, carry that prestige. He was selected because of his background and his opinion, not as a spokesperson for one side. Because of confidentiality issues FBI agents don't normally publish anything for the public to see. Their work is peer reviewed but not where the public can see it.

So Moore is one category of commentator. John Q. Kelly, Judy Bachrach, and Paul Ciolino were brought in as outside experts by the networks which make them a higher level of RS. This is in contrast to Moore who wouldn't be there if he didn't have an opinion on the case. Doug Preston was writing a book about the MOF case so he can speak with expertise about the Italian legal system. He is an eye-witness to events which call into question the fitness of Giuliano Mignini to hold office. He is a reliable secondary source on issues of the quality of Italian criminal investigations, particularly those involving Giuliano Mignini.

Note that ALL (as far as I can see) Misplaced Pages pages relating to controversial criminal convictions publish links to the relevant advocacy sites.PhanuelB (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a personal site. The fact that it is also an advocacy site doesn't contradict this. It's a personal site because it is produced by a private individual. ("Text contents of this website are copyright, 2010, Bruce Fisher"). --FormerIP (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please suggest any relevant addition of Moore's statements based precisely on what has been presented on the reliable TV shows, properly referenced, using {{editprotected}}. And I again caution you in the strongest terms against any further attempt to build any synthesis on the prosecutor on this talk page. MLauba 22:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I quote directly from Misplaced Pages's own article regarding common law - evidence - expert witness. "An expert witness, professional witness or judicial expert is a witness, who by virtue of education, training, skill, or experience, is believed to have expertise and specialised knowledge in a particular subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially and legally rely upon the witness's specialized (scientific, technical or other) opinion about an evidence or fact issue within the scope of his expertise, referred to as the expert opinion, as an assistance to the fact-finder. By the above definition, 26 year FBI veteran Steve Moore certainly qualifies as an expert witness. Mr. Moore's bonfides have been vetted by the three largest news networks in the United States (ABC, NBC & CBS) and his opinion presented as expert opinion regarding the conduct of the MK murder investigation and the evidence collected. As these three WP:RS news sources as well as numerous smaller or hyperlocal news sources (KOMO, KING5 et al) are satisfied as to Steve's identity, expertise and specialised knowledge I move that we agree in general to accept Mr Moore's opinion as expert testimony in whatever form it appears (text, audio or video) and allow it to be quoted as WP:RS in the same way that the observations of journalists such as Barbie Nadeau are quoted now. I understand the position that it is the source and not a person that is considered WP:RS and I dont suggest changing that, only that we start by agreeing that Mr Moore is in fact an expert witness. The "Go-To" arguements that have been used regularly for months to restrict use of Moore's statements, i.e. that "Steve Moore" is actually an internet construct; that his work is only found on a single Knox advocacy website; that his bonafides cannot be established as he has not published books or articles in the way an academic would, have clearly been overcome by his recent national news exposure. In the interest of creating a fair and balanced article which seeks to genuinely educate the reader rather than leading them to a predetermined conclusion I respectfully request that we move to consensus on this general concept. Tjholme (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• By its very nature, someone's opinion can never be a reliable source - it can only ever be their opinion, and be quoted as such - i.e. "Smith claimed that X was the case". For anything contentious, it certainly cannot be used as a single source. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that opinion is opinion, and should be stated as such. However, inclusion of 'opinion' has been regularly rejected because it is not objective "fact" published in a recognized WP:RS. My point is not that a carte blanche should exist for all Steve Moore statements to be quoted wantonly in the WoMk article, but rather that we agree that Moore does represent an Expert Opinion and his statements viewed and considered in that light, at least in so far as explaining the significance of evidence that was or was not collected as well as the investigative procedures and methods used.Tjholme (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct, but as in the previous discussions (now in the archive) the problems with Moore are twofold. Firstly, his findings are presented on a website whose banner headline is "A website detailing the wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox". Now this wouldn't be an issue in itself, subject to the above caveats, but as mentioned before, a lot of Moore's testimony is speculation - "Amanda did not bring up the name Patrick Lumumba. The police did. And they repeatedly told her to “imagine” Patrick and herself being at the cottage that night.", or "the reason they interrogated Amanda all night was to break her. Not get the truth, not get answers, not make Perugia safer; but to break her so that she would say what they wanted her to say". (Source: ). Now this is speculation at best, at worst it is fiction. As was discussed earlier, we don't do fiction; we may include opinion, but it would have to be an opinion that clearly wasn't one person's view on what happened that night. Previous consensus is that it's unreliable; I have to agree with that. Obviously, we are able to report Moore's views; but they must be countered by an opposing view that this is complete speculation. Otherwise Misplaced Pages itself could end up in legal problems. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: "we don't do fiction," I can assure you, as someone who has more complete information than the reporters who covered this case, that you've got some fiction going in this article, reliably sourced though it may be. I'm not sure how to fix that within the parameters of WP policies, but I'd like to see it happen.Charlie wilkes (talk) 07:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Charlie, if you think you are better informed than the secondary sources, you are likely to have a very frustrating time at Misplaced Pages! You will no doubt have seen that Misplaced Pages has a strong preference for secondary rather than primary sources and that both original research and synthesis of sources are not permitted. The insistence that verifiability is more important than truth can also be very difficult to live with. Plus there is the fact that everything must be achieved by consensus, which means that we all have to make compromises and this is probably most painful for the people who regard themselves as the most expert. Personally, I generally avoid editing articles on subjects where I might be considered an expert in real life, and I never go near articles whose subjects I care about passionately! By the way, I'm not trying to offer you advice here, just making some observations from my own experience. Bluewave (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to point out any factual inaccuracies in the article; if they are obviously wrong, I or another admin will fix them. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. To my mind, there is a kind of Orwellian weirdness in the concept of avoiding articles on subjects where you might be considered an expert. Maybe I should ditch this article and focus on cold fusion, or Madagascar, or cerebral hemorrhaging, or some other subject that is completely outside my field of knowledge.

I'm trying to figure out how I can contribute. I'm not a neutral source, but I do have a lot of accurate information. For example, Knox's DNA was not found mixed with the victim's blood in any footprints, even though reliable sources have said so. The fact pattern is as follows:

Four latent bare footprints were found and tested for DNA. None revealed the victim's DNA, which strongly undermines the claim that they were made with the victim's blood. Moreover, a sensitive blood test was performed on all of these prints, and the result was negative in every case.

One latent shoe print, in the corridor, revealed Knox's DNA mixed with the victim's DNA, but again, the blood test was negative. The blood tests were also negative in Filomena's room, where Knox's DNA was found mixed with the victim's DNA in a luminol reaction that covered a large area and had no shape.

The following is on the FOA site:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/selected_dna_results.pdf

I prepared this digest myself from the DNA test results produced by Italy's Polizia Scientifica, which I have and can provide. I understand that it's not a reliable source, but perhaps it could be used to benchmark the accuracy of some of the article content taken from other sources that are deemed reliable.Charlie wilkes (talk) 10:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Television documentaries

Sex, Lies and the Murder of Meredith Kercher is the only entry under this heading. Is there a reason why American Girl, Italian Nightmare from CBS is not on this list? --Footwarrior (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a good question. I had previously added that documentary, a second CBS 48 Hours documentary A Long Way from Home, the NBC Dateline segment, and the TLC documentary The Trials of Amanda Knox but they were deleted.PhanuelB (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

They were deleted in this edit, because of the youtube links. Strangely, the last one in the list was cited and didn't have a youtube list. American Girl, Italian Nightmare could be put back in with using this as a reference. --Footwarrior (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

TLC's The Trials of Amanda Knox is a puff piece with little to no quality information and hardly qualifies as a documentary. As for the others, I can't tell since I didn't see them (yet).TMCk (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: There are some discussions in the archieves regarding those. TMCk (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If somebody didn't like the links they could have edited the links out.PhanuelB (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed edit is to add this line to the Television documentaries section:

• American Girl, Italian Nightmare, CBS documentary broadcast in April, 2009 in the US.

With the reference as: "American Girl, Italian Nightmare - 48 Hours - CBS News". CBS News. 2009-04-11. Retrieved 2010-09-02.

Do we have consensus on this edit? --Footwarrior (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You do not have my conensus.PhanuelB (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain the reasons why you object, or propose a different edit? --Footwarrior (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have sound reasons but will be blocked if I discuss them here.PhanuelB (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Just watched it. While it is very opinonated (like almost all our TV documentaries in the US) I can see some value as the documentary provides an acceptable timeline of the events (up to the airing date) and IMO could be included.TMCk (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is fine. 48 Hours is a respected source of information. There really shouldn't be any question about its being included. PietroLegno (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

We are not citing these documentaries as reliable sources and are not endorsing the views expressed in them. We're really just saying that a list of documentaries has been made about the subject of this article. So I would be happy to include any that are made or distributed by mainstream media organisations and don't involve any conflict of interest. ie I wouldn't include anything totally non-notable or anything commissioned by any of the protagonists in the case, but would include pretty much anything else, however bad. Bluewave (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem if the documentaries are not being quoted as reliable sources. Make an editprotected request and I (or another admin) will add them. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I couldn't find a reference for the documentary from TLC, but here are the other three that were removed.

{{editprotected}} Proposed edit 2. Three lines with references to be added to the Television documentaries section.

• American Girl, Italian Nightmare, CBS "48 Hours" documentary broadcast in April, 2009 in the US.

"American Girl, Italian Nightmare - 48 Hours - CBS News". CBS News. 2009-04-11. Retrieved 2010-09-02.

• A Long Way From Home, CBS "48 Hours" documentary broadcast in April, 2008 in the US.

"A Long Way From Home - 48 Hours - CBS News". CBS News. 2008-04-12. Retrieved 2010-09-03.

• The Trial of Amanda Knox, NBC "Dateline NBC" documentary broadcast on December 4, 2009 in the US.

"Dateline NBC, The Trial of Amanda Knox". Dateline NBC. 2009-12-5,. Retrieved 2010-9-3. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footwarrior (talk • contribs)

• • Anyone have any objections to this? If not, I'll add it shortly. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Committal hearings

This statement in the article does not appear to be supported by the Telegraph article used as a reference.

"From a detailed analysis of bloodstains in the flat, and the cuts and bruises sustained by Kercher, Micheli concluded that Kercher had been sexually assaulted and then murdered by multiple attackers."

All the Telegraph reference has to say on the subject is:

"But he did say that there was enough evidence to suggest that Miss Kercher had been killed by more than one person ...".

We need to change the statement or change the reference. --Footwarrior (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This looks supported by me. I don't think there is much of a difference between a judge concluding something on the one hand and concluding that the evidence supports something on the other. Or am I misidentifying the hair you are splitting? --FormerIP (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between evidence to suggest and conclusive evidence. The article also doesn't say anything about a detailed analysis of bloodstains, cuts and bruises. --Footwarrior (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That's true, so I would support the removal of the part up to "...sustained by Kercher". --FormerIP (talk) 10:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the first clause, so that the sentence reads

"Micheli concluded that Kercher had been sexually assaulted and then murdered by multiple attackers"

 pablo 11:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I will go along with this change. --Footwarrior (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Conclude: If no citation for the first part in question will be provided ASAP it should go. If someone finds a source (for this part) at some point it still can be re-added. If there is no objection I'll go ahead and place an edit request soon unless somebody beats me to it.TMCk (talk) 04:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Remove the following text from the Committal hearings section: "From a detailed analysis of bloodstains in the flat, and the cuts and bruises sustained by Kercher,"

As supported by the discussion preceding this request. --Footwarrior (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Extradition

Currently there is a 'citation needed' tag at the end of the "Arrest of Rudy Guede" section, following the sentence

"He was extradited to Italy on 6 December 2007"

This link indicates that he was held in Frankfurt until the 5th and had been extradited by the 6th. I suggest adding

<ref name="Truscott06Dec2007">{{cite news
 |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/dec/06/world.italy
 |title=Germans extradite Kercher murder suspect
 |last=Truscott
 |first=Claire
 |date=6 December 2007
 |work=The Guardian
 |accessdate=5 September 2010}}</ref>

to replace the {{cn}} tag. Does the sentence need to be reworded? It does not explicitly state that extradition happened on the 6th.  pablo 15:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually this one has "was today extradited from Germany to Italy":

<ref name="Pisa06Dec2007">{{cite news
 |url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571739/Meredith-Kercher-suspect-extradited-to-Italy.html
 |title=Meredith Kercher suspect extradited to Italy
 |last=Pisa
 |first=Nick
 |date=6 December 2007
 |work=The Telegraph
 |accessdate=5 September 2010}}</ref>

so is a better source for the sentence as it stands.  pablo 17:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether he was extradited on the 5th or the 6th is irrelevant. PhanuelB (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That is your opinion, to which you are entitled. But a citation is needed; the article states a specific date therefore it seems to me that the citation given should back it up.  pablo 19:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} This seems to be uncontroversial. Please add the reference above, named "Pisa06Dec2007", to the end of the sentence "He was extradited to Italy on 6 December 2007" in the "Arrest of Rudy Guede" section, removing the {{citation needed}} tag.  pablo 15:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Locking of article

Why has this article been locked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HarvardMan2000 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Because of long-running arguments about the content, and concerns about the number of new accounts turning up to edit it. It's common practice to protect controversial articles in this manner. Any changes you suggest should be posted here for discussion first.  pablo 19:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This article needs to be unlocked so that everyone can participate equally. No one side of the content dispute should be taking control of the article like this. The abuse going on here is obvious. HarvardMan2000 (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You can request that the page be unprotected here. Your analysis that the protection is leading to "one side of the content dispute ... taking control" is bizarre given that you didn't know the reasons for the page being protected. The accusation of abuse is out of line.  pablo 20:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Formal Initial Request for Unlock and Request for Consensus

The instructions say that a request for unlock should be made first to the locking administrator(s), who appear to be Black Kite and MLauba. Accordingly, I hereby ask them to unlock the article. I have no illusions that they will comply with this request. However, this initial step is a requirement, before proceeding to the official page for submitting an unlock request.

I would like to know how other editors feel about this lock. Is there consensus here for this lock on the article? Whether or not there is consensus for the lock should be a factor in any decision as to locking an article.

Can we get some tally here as to the support for or the opposition to this lock?

Please state:

• 1) Do you support or not support this lock?
• 2) Please explain your rationale for your position.
• 3) If a lock is to be implemented, please state the appropriate length of time for the lock, and your rationale for your suggested time frame.

HarvardMan2000 (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

(Comment edited by HarvardMan2000 at 23:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC) . TMCk (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC))

• I do not support this lock. It obstructs and discourages participation by the editors. If a lock is to be imposed, it should be only for a short while, such as a few days, and not the present one month lock (which could even be extended). HarvardMan2000 (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• This article should never have been blocked.PhanuelB (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• The page lock which was endorsed by another admin should stay in place. Any consensus edit can be made by placing the {{editprotected}} template.TMCk (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The decision to lock the page was presumably based on the judgement of the admins involved, not any consensus of editors. However, I would support the block, too. As TMCk says, it doesn't stop us making consensus edits. It also has the advantage of avoiding our wasting our time in edit wars and other unproductive editing. Bluewave (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The exchange below this one demonstrates exactly why the page is protected. If that type of exchange is to be typical of a minor grammar change, the page probably ought to stay protected indefinitely. Regardless, the requirement for changes to be fed through editprotected request ensures that no disruption such as edit-warring can take place. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Very big ditto from my side.TMCk (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

...and I would vote to keep the lock until after the appeals have finished. The reason being that there is a big risk of "helpful" people adding daily updates with whatever is reported from the appeals court. The result is likely to be a complete dog's breakfast of conflicting reports. Bluewave (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the article will certainly have to be protected during the appeals. A quick look at this page during the period when there is no new content to be added will verify that. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Repost of Bluewave's comment after an attempt of refactoring an existing discussion (now reverted). MLauba 19:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, what's happening here. A request for a tally on people's views has suddenly become a more formal-looking VOTING SECTION. And some of the comments have been moved about so that Black Kite's response to my comment is no longer anywhere near it! Could I respectfully ask HarvardMan to put things back where he found them? Bluewave (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Harvardman2000, fair warning. Try refactoring an on-going discussion again in this manner and you'll find your editing privileges suspended indefinitely. MLauba 19:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Endorse ongoing lock. This article has been a battleground for months, with constant updates for whatever minutae of the day POV editors on both sides have seen fit to add. This is a better article as a locked article. Townlake (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

1. I do support the protection.
2. Everyone is able to contribute; discussion happens before the edit is made on a protected page; that is clearly a better method here. the bonkers refactoring of even the talk page confirms belief that protection is the way to go.
3. I do not have a timeframe, but sometime after the appeals have been heard and ajudiciated seems sensible.  pablo 20:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

MLauba, I was simply trying to make things tidy and clear so that others can figure out what is going on in this section. The comments and the voting are becoming a blurry mess. This is dysfunctional. On a going forward basis, I would like to see things more organized, neat, tidy and efficient. So I will add this new section below, so that hopefully there can be an actual vote/tally that actually reflects how the editors feel about this lockdown. I will now close off this section, for purposes of providing additional clarity. So please ignore this section, and start fresh with this new voting section below. It is imperative that votes and comments be kept separate. Much obliged.HarvardMan2000 (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oh do stop it. How many sections are necessary for this?  pablo 20:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Voting is not how things are done here; it is done by discussion and consensus. See WP:DEMOCRACY. Please continue the discussion below, I have removed the "voting" sections. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Section "Rudy Guede" - minor change proposed

Right now it reads: "A bartender has also alleged that Guede entered his home uninvited and carrying a knife and the owner of a nursery school in Milan has claimed that Guede trespassed on her premises."

From an encyclopedic standpoint "has" should be replaced with "had" in this sentence to read: "A bartender had also alleged that Guede entered his home uninvited and carrying a knife and the owner of a nursery school in Milan had claimed that Guede trespassed on her premises."

Can we go ahead with this uncontroversial edit?TMCk (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

no consensus.PhanuelB (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have no argument to make don't edit.TMCk (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The problems with that sentence have been clearly defined.PhanuelB (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you please explain yourself more clearly? Thanks.TMCk (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

How many does it take to change it?Malke 2010 (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Since the article is locked and the subject contentious I would say one or two more editors in favor should do it for a minor grammar change.TMCk (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not support this change. The present tense is necessary in this sentence. The testimony is not past tense, since the testimony is still viable and available and part of the ongoing procedure. The past tense should not be used until the issues connected with this testimony are resolved. HarvardMan2000 (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You're aware that the testimony was made in the past and changing the grammar just makes it more encyclopedic w/o implying (the testimony) to be void. So I'm really not sure what you're objection is.TMCk (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Rudy's conviction is in the past. Since this section is about him and his conviction, past-tense is relevant. But beyond that, TMCK is right. This is a very minor grammar change that makes the article read in a more encyclopedic way. It really shouldn't be generating this much disagreement.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Honestly I'm very surprised that even a minor grammar correction is objected by one editor . Maybe I should just place an edit request and leave it to the admin to judge if this can really be count as a content issue/dispute or not. Still, I hope for at least one more qualified comment before I'll ask for that tiny little change to be made.TMCk (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. It is just grammar, not content. I don't see where grammar needs a consensus.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to mention, that with this kind of contention, I think this page should stay locked for a while longer. If there's a consensus needed for that, please count me in.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not needed for a "lock down" but it certainly helps admins reach a decision. I plan on placing an edit request today and leave it to the uninvolved admin to decide as I mentioned above.TMCk (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} At the proceeding admin's discretion: It is proposed to change the word "has" to "had" as laid out above (at the top of this thread).TMCk (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Administrator, please note that there is no consensus for this change that TMCk is requesting. Please see discussion above. The proposed change is not merely a non-controversial grammatical correction. The concerns expressed are that the change alters the sense/meaning/significance of the sentence concerning crucial trial testimony. Without consensus, this change should not be made. HarvardMan2000 (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: Obviously PhanuelB's opposition can be disregarded straightaway. However HarvardMan2000 makes valid points, and may even be correct. If you cannot sort this out between yourselves, posing the question at Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Language will likely get you a quick answer to this! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Having arrived late on the scene, I'm totally baffled at all the controversy over what I thought was a minor, non-controversial grammatical improvement. Bluewave (talk) 08:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It is quite a kerfuffle over not much, but I suppose that the tense of "had also alleged" implies that the allegation occurred before another event.

Guede had no criminal record at the time of the murder. A defence witness in the Knox and Sollecito trial said that Guede told him of having been caught by police with a laptop and cell phone stolen from the witness's office, but Guede claimed that he had purchased these items at the Milan train station. A bartender has also alleged that Guede entered his home uninvited and carrying a knife and the owner of a nursery school in Milan has claimed that Guede trespassed on her premises.

If "had" is used then perhaps the paragraph does need rewriting to make it clear what the 'other event' in question is; the murder? The Knox/Sollecito trial?

"Has alleged" is not present tense, as HarvardMan claims; neither does the tense of this paragraph affect the currency of the allegation. The allegation was made in the past. Use of has/had depends only on whether we want to reference the time the allegation was made to other events.  pablo 08:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The context is the sentence about the trial, which is written in simple past tense: A defence witness in the Knox and Sollecito trial said... The following sentence (A bartender has also alleged...) is currently written in the perfect tense which surely implies that it is a more recent event than what has just been described (events at the trial). The proposal is to put it into the pluperfect tense, which implies that the bartender's allegations were earlier than the trial. Looking at the source for this (the Daily Mail article) it appears to be talking about allegations made before the trial, so I think the pluperfect "had" most accurately reflects what is citable from the source. Bluewave (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree.  pablo 10:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and Bluewave I'm most impressed with your command of grammar. I suggest we make another run at getting this changed.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Done without conensus. PhanuelB (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(irrelevant content redacted)

• And again: Would you please stop hijacking this thread which is about a minor grammar change and address the issue and purpose of this thread? Spreading arround soap all over the talkpage which is nowwhere near to be seen as an effort to improve the article doesn't help neither the article nor your cause and therefore doesn't belong on this page.TMCk (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed; I've removed it. Phanuel, if you want to keep on presenting your "preferred" versions of the article, don't do it in the middle of a conversation about something else. Either create a new section or preferably, do it in your own userspace and then link to it. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Double standard. If I and others use the word "hijack" we get blocked.PhanuelB (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Phanuel, your definition of "hijack" is anyone making changes to the article that you don't agree with. Please don't start wikilawyering on top of everything else, it's really not a good idea. You've been informed how to contribute constructively; please do it. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Improper Archiving by Misabot

This Diff was improperly archived. It's supposed to be no change for 7 days.

In addition there appears to have been alteration of archives 25 and 26 in a way that misrepresents the history of the threads.PhanuelB (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

see here. Archives 25 and 26 have been altered how?  pablo 14:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

OMG. The bot must be a "guilter".TMCk (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Archive 26 should have the criticism section that I authored. I would appreciate it if whoever did that would identify themselves. PhanuelB (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The bot (a program/software that was designed to archive talk pages) did this and there is no apparent flaw to be seen. It (the bot) worked just fine as it supposed to.TMCk (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The bot is supposed to archive threads that have not been edited in the last 7 days. It archived content that had been edited 4 days earlier. The discrepancy between archive 25 and 26 appears to be the result of human intervention.PhanuelB (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

see here, again. Your edit on 1 September was not timestamped. The bot is working correctly.  pablo 15:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This is correct. The bot works by analysing timestamps; since you didn't timestamp that post, the bot assumed the previous post was the latest. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Guede’s appeal to the Court of Cassation

The hearing has been fixed – perfect passive: does that imply an inappropriate POV? – for 16 December 2010. Is that worth adding to the section Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher#Appeal? Source: ‘Meredith: ricorso Guede in Cassazione 16: Difesa chiede assoluzione ivoriano’, ANSA news agency (Perugia, 27 August 2010, 20:15).

On a related point, it would be worth wikilinking at its first appearance ‘Court of Cassation’ to Court of Cassation (Italy). Ian Spackman (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• 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