Misplaced Pages

Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Faceforward (talk | contribs) at 01:39, 5 August 2010 (→Banning of Reliable Sources Violates WP:BLP for Amanda). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:39, 5 August 2010 by Faceforward (talk | contribs) (→Banning of Reliable Sources Violates WP:BLP for Amanda)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Skip to table of contents
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.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38Auto-archiving period: 10 days 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis 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.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography
WikiProject iconThis 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.
WikiProject iconDeath
WikiProject iconThis 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.
WikiProject iconItaly
WikiProject iconThis 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
In the newsA 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.
Misplaced Pages
Misplaced Pages
Articles for deletionThis 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.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38Auto-archiving period: 10 days 

References

A Better Introduction

Meredith Kercher was a 21 year old British exchange student who was murdered in Perugia, Italy on November 1, 2007. The killing shocked the medieval hill town 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 controversial because of questions about whether Knox and Sollecito received a fair trial.
Guede, who was linked to the crime by substantial physical evidence, was convicted 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. By the time of the guilty verdict on December 4, 2009 the trial and the police investigation had come under sharp attack in the United States. Shortly after the verdict which was shown live on US television members of the Washington Press Corp and at least one United States Senator were asking US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton if the US government planned to intervene.
Note: TLC documentary says "petty criminal." Nadeau and Gary King book say drug sales so it's OK to use that term here.
Note: Jill Dougherty on CNN 7-Dec-09 "Senior State Department officials tell CNN the US will review the trial but is being cautions about commenting while an appeals process is underway."PhanuelB (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Think this is a decent proposal, but there are one or two things I would take issue with:
Slightly too journalistic in style in a couple of places (eg "shocked the medieval hill town")
"Petty criminal" is obviouslt in issue in other discussions, and even if it is contained in the TLC source, it appears to be contradicted elsewhere.
"Substantial physical evidence" is true of all three killers, so it is misleading to highlight this in the case of Guede.
"Under sharp attack" would quickly get a "who?" tag.
--FormerIP (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I took this out of the current lead:
She was lying partially unclothed under a duvet in her bedroom. There was blood on the floor, bed and walls. Forensic pathologists concluded she had been choked, after which her throat was stabbed, causing fatal bleeding. Her body had 40 bruises and scratches, plus knife wounds on the neck and hands, and there was evidence of sexual assault.
On the basis that those details are contained later in the article and didn't really enhance the lead.
--FormerIP (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Is it necessary to describe Sollecito's family as "wealthy" in the first paragraph? The term is rather vague, and furthermore what is its import? However, the last sentence of the first paragraph is a fair assessment. The current lead section would benefit from a few sentences summarising public reaction, but the second paragraph above (which aims for that) has a definite skew which lends prominence to Guede's guilt while omitting the evidence raised against Knox and Sollecito (the subject shifts to focus on reception in the media). Lumumba, as a former detainee, requires a mention, but his name is nowhere to be seen. SuperMarioMan 18:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree the article needs a better introduction. The one proposed may need a couple of minor edits but if it sounds a trifle “journalistic”, I think it’s certainly a lot closer to “encyclopedic” than the existing introduction. And perhaps it should say even more about the controversy.
There have been many tragic and brutal crimes within the past few years (as always). I don’t mean to minimize the tragedy of Meredith Kercher’s murder but most of them are unheard of outside the local area and are not recorded in Misplaced Pages or any other encyclopedia. The thing that makes this case internationally notable is the controversy over whether Knox and Sollecito received a fair trial or were unfairly prosecuted without proper cause or evidence. That fact needs to be brought out clearly in the introduction and not relegated to a paragraph toward the end of the article. (As a comparison, the article about The O.J. Simpson murder case brings up doubt about DNA evidence and allegations of police misconduct in the introduction.)
The article must not try to convince the reader that the allegations in the controversy are either right or wrong. But it should give due consideration to the fact the controversy exists so the reader can understand what it’s about and look elsewhere for more information or to engage in debate if desired. Certainly we should all agree that an encyclopedia article should be clear, concise, and totally factual, as well as unbiased. It should give a reader (even someone with no prior knowledge who quickly skims through it) an overview of the salient facts even if they don’t read through every section. I think this is a step in the right direction. Kermugin (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to have this in the lead: "Shortly after the verdict which was shown live on US television members of the Washington Press Corp and at least one United States Senator were asking US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton if the US government planned to intervene." ... the US Department of State had monitored the trial all along and at best, Senator Cantwell was shown to be ill-prepared and out of line with her open letter. Nothing has been heard from Senator Cantwell since the verdict, so it definitely does not belong in the lead. This is a case of too much emphasis given to Senator Cantwell's open letter. Both Senator Cantwell and the Department of State belong to "the US government", however the DoS has jurisdiction in this matter. Jonathan (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed. I think the rewrite is OK with FormerIP's changes, with the second sentence ("The killing shocked...") removed completely (it's tabloidy and unnecessary), and with the last sentence either removed, or shortened and merged with the previous one, i.e. "After the verdict, at least one United States Senator asked US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton whether the US government planned to intervene." The three guilty parties need to be mentioned equally in the lead; attempting to skew guilt towards Guede is a WP:BLP violation. Lumumba also needs to be mentioned, I'd say. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Although the present lead section offers a clear and concise run-through of the murder, trials and convictions, it summarises nothing below point 7 in the table of contents. The re-write that is needed here should endeavour to provide a brief overview of the whole text. A two-paragraph structure as PhanuelB proposes would be suitable — perhaps the first to contain basic historical facts, the second reserved for responses. Ending the introduction with a one-line mention of Clinton makes for a rather abrupt finish — other reactions could be noted, and the resulting lawsuits against various involved parties should also not be excluded. SuperMarioMan 21:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The lead needs to mention at least two or three of the reasons why the conviction of Knox and Sollecito remains controversial. Reasons that might fit here include the alleged abusive nature of Knox's interrogation, the early declaration by the police that the crime had been solved, massive pre trial publicity, unconventional handing of DNA evidence and key witnesses that came forward only months after the crime. The controversy over the verdict is after all the reason this murder is notable enough to include in Misplaced Pages. --Footwarrior (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I think we can mention controversy in the lead, but this needs brevity, sourcing which is strong and clear, and balance. The lead is definitely not the place to directly argue the merits and weaknesses of the prosecution case. --FormerIP (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I also agree with the proposal to improve the introduction and also agree with the points made about improving PhanuelB's proposal. The tone should be less journalistic (eg the sections such as "the killing shocked the medieval hill town..." and " was closely watched in both Europe and the United States". we certainly shouldn't describe Guede as a criminal (he had no criminal convictions) and shouldn't imply that there was more evidence against him than the other defendants (opinion). The fact that the verdict was shown on US television and a US senator wrote to Hillary Clinton about it don't seem sufficiently significant aspects of the murder to warrant a place in the lead. Regarding the prominence we should give to the controversy, I honestly don't know what would be appropriate. Presumably we are talking here about the opinions expressed in reliable media sources, especially those in Italy, the UK and the US. Certainly a vast amount of the coverage of the case in news reports was factual and didn't express any obvious opinions. There was also a lot of the tabloidish focus on "Foxy Knoxy", her sex life, diaries, drugs, etc. In the UK I also read opinion pieces that questioned whether the court reached the right verdict and questioned the standard of proof required for a guilty verdict in Italy. However, these were a million miles from the "public lynching" opinions that PhanuelB has mentioned. They were also balanced by equally well-argued opinion pieces that presented Knox as being rightfully convicted. Perhaps some of the US-based neutral editors can give an assessment of how prominent the criticism of the case is in that country: to me it looks like a handful of very vocal people who have, for whatever reason, aligned themselves with the Knox family, but I may have got this wrong. We clearly have a difficult job to get the balance right, but it would certainly not be a balanced view to imply that criticism of the court has been the only reaction to the case. Bluewave (talk) 08:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Slightly refactored. On re-reading that, it sounds like I'm saying that some US-based editors are not neutral! That was not my intention. Bluewave (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps some of the US-based neutral editors can give an assessment of how prominent the criticism of the case is in that country ... whenever I casually mention the name Amanda Knox, most people barely remember the case, and those that do recall the case remember her as "the college student that killed her roommate". Unfortunately for us in America, there have been a series of college & high school violent episodes (Columbine, Virginia Tech, et. al.) and an accompanying drugs problem that is becoming more publicized. I think these two things lessen the shock value of such tragedies, and as there is always some new story coming right around the corner, people have forgetten about Amanda Knox. This is most evident in how every "new" story about Amanda Knox gets its comment section flooded with the same cut & paste arguments. Jonathan (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Have you also noticed that most of the cutting and pasting is done by one person?  pablo 09:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Pablo, yes, I have indeed noticed that all the comments seem to be derived from a singular source, I was just trying to be a polite as possible! Jonathan (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
"Perhaps some of the US-based neutral editors can give an assessment of how prominent the criticism of the case is in that country"? First of all, the personal experiences of other editors is not how Misplaced Pages works. It's supposed to be a consolodation of what reliable sources are saying. And that is not what is happening now. When a source is presented, a litmus test is applied. If the source has the wrong POV he gets ignored. Now for some WP:IAR. Let's cut the crap. There aren't any neutral editors here and there aren't any neutral administrators. Why not just admit it? At this point those who believe in guilt are up about 3 to 2. PhanuelB (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I am neutral, and have done a lot of tidying & copyediting since the early days of the article. But I find I have to take long rests from it these days, such is the endless controversy. But since you mentioned it... Rothorpe (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no coverage or mention of this case in the U.S. at this time. If you Google, Amanda Knox, you'll see that there are virtually no news stories that have been written this year about this case. Senator Maria Cantwell has not said a single word about this case during the entire year. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has still never once commented on this case. If there is criticism of the case in this case, it's invisible. Except for a few blogs that are dedicated to the case. But the site traffic on those blogs has dwindled to less than zero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The above post is pure fantasy and illustrates how some will report not what reliable sources say but what they want to believe. TLC Documentary, 4 books, Trump, dozens of newspaper articles. The US State Department has said they will not comment while the appeals process is ongoing. PhanuelB (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Until such time as further official comment is made, there isn't much more that can be added to the article on the issue of US executive or senatorial involvement. Also, claiming WP:IAR as an excuse for berating other editors on their (supposed) lack of a neutral perspective is not really that WP:CIVIL, is it? You have been warned about this before; please do not continue to post messages that contain a hostile tone. SuperMarioMan 22:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The notable event is that the Washington Press Corp was asking the US Secretary of State if she planned to intervene. I know of no other non-political criminal case where this has occured in the last 50 years in a modern western democracy. The US State Department has NOT said they think the trial was fair. They have said they would not comment while the appeals proccess is underway. BTW... asking for neutral editors to comment on something does imply that some aren't neutral.PhanuelB (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Is this assertion of the absence of precedent in the last half-century attributable to a source? I'm not arguing that the current facts of the governmental connection to the subject matter should be removed from the article, and I accept that the point is notable. SuperMarioMan 23:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The "current facts of the governmental connection" are not in the article. Senator Maria Cantwell stated that the judge and jury were not impartial -- strong words in the legal community. The reference to anti-Americanism was a minor point. This reminds me of the tortured passage above about The witness saying he only knew of the burglary of his law office because Rudy Guede told him about it. The words are being painfully twisted to make a point 100% opposed to what all the reliable sources are saying. PhanuelB (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Material about Mignini

I just deleted a new paragraph that had been added about Mignini. It began "Prosecutor Mignini has a history of bringing false charges against people" which accusation would require a great deal better citations than were given! It also included things like "...prosecutor Mignini decided that..." which implies that the source knows a great deal about Mignini's thought processes. In any case, none of the material added was concerned with the trial of Knox and Sollecito, so I'd question its relevance. OK, so someone's made a Bold edit; I've Reverted; can we Discuss (WP:BRD)? Bluewave (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

For a number of reasons that specific edit was revertible. Questions of Mignini's conduct in related cases calls into question his judgment and fitness to hold office in Amanda's case and this has been pointed out by numerous reliable secondary sources. Such issues are best summarized on this page and discussed in detail on a page dedicated to Mignini. Doug Preston's firsthand account of his interrogation by Mignini (CNN AC360 5-Dec-09) refers to him as "crazy" and "obsessed." According to Preston, Mignini accused Preston of being an accessory to murder. That's a joke; Preston and Spezi weren't doing anything to keep a serial killer out of jail. And Ohhhhh yes that has everything to do with Amanda's case.
Doug Preston is of course one of a number of banned subjects for this article. Others include Rudy's criminal acts prior to the murder and the condemnation of the trial in the days following the verdict by numerous reliable secondary sources on US cable channels. See also Anna Momigliano's Dec-09 article in Foreign Policy Magazine that very much states that this case is all about putting the Italian Judicial System on trial. I've been busy lately, but don't worry we're headed for arbitration. PhanuelB (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Mignini is a non-notable figure. Yes, he holds a senior position within the criminal justice system of Perugia, but this doesn't entitle him to his own article. A reminder that BLP also applies on talkpages. The investigation against him is already referred to in the article, but we don't need the whole history. If we do, we also need balance, which given the history of the page will mean citing every reason why he's a creep followed by every reason why the source in question is not to be taken at face value which, empahtically, would not be an improvement to the article. Arbitration? Can't wait. I assume you're aware you will need to show other attempts to resolve any issues there are, though. --FormerIP (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Mignini is of course not a notable figure because of accomplishment. He is notable because of his notoriety. It's fair to say he is the most heavily criticized judicial figure in post-war Europe. The reliable sources that say this (a dozen commentators appearing on CBS,NBC,CNN, TLC, which I have repeatedly cited previously) have been banned from this article.
Misplaced Pages has pages for literally hundreds of US judges and prosecutors both sitting and from the past. The page for America's counterpart of Mignini,Mike Nifong, is longer than the MK page. And the criticism is in three separate cases: His criminal conviction mostly to do with the MOF case, the MK trial, and his handling of Spezi and Preston which provoked the ire of human rights groups such as the New York based Committee to Protect Journalists. Events related to Spezi and Preston were NOT part of the criminal case against him BTW. Of course he gets a page. A reminder WP:BLP also relates to AK and RS. PhanuelB (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Repeated claims that sources have been "banned" will do rather little to advance the argument being made here. The worthiness of these sources respective to their inclusion in the article has been evaluated and discounted in previous threads. Talk pages are not the place to label biographical subjects "notorious" in accordance with the BLP policies — however, I do not see defamation of the convicts Knox and Sollecito on this page. And, on the subject of the prosecutor's independent noteworthiness, there is a the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS counter-argument. It's fair to say he is the most heavily criticized judicial figure in post-war Europe — oh really? SuperMarioMan 22:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Mignini's conviction for abuse of office and his other strange behaviors such as the arrest of Mario Spezi are all related to his investigation of the Monster of Florence case. Instead of creating a separate article for Mignini, I would suggest first updating the MOF article by translating the Italian Misplaced Pages article and then adding more details about Mignini to the section on the Narducci wild goose chase. --Footwarrior (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Get the idea in principle, Footwarrior, but think the type of material being talked about would be equally wrong inserted over there. Mignini didn't work on the Monster of Florence case and he's a very tangential figure in relation to it (notice how he isn't mentioned in the Italian article). It would be be total WP:COATRACK to expand that article just so a place can be found for non-notable BLP violations that an editor can't get inserted into this one. --FormerIP (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
You need to talk to the court in Florence who convicted Mignini of abuse of office in connection to the Monster of Florence case and show them your evidence that he didn't work on the case. --Footwarrior (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
No I don't. He didn't work on the case. If you don't believe me, do some research. --FormerIP (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I did do some research and that is why I don't believe you. --Footwarrior (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
You clearly didn't. Mignini didn't work on the Monster of Florence case. He worked on the Narducci case, a different case where there seems to have been some sort of obscure theory of a link but which turned out to be unconnected.
ie Mignini is a hopelessly tangential figure in relation to the Monster of Florence case, and so that is not an appropriate place to dump a laundry list of allegations against him. --FormerIP (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The Narducci case was a suicide that Mignini claimed was a coverup for the MOF case. That is why the Italian Misplaced Pages article has a section on the Narducci investigation. Mignini's abuse of office conviction was for illegal wiretaps done to prove the coverup. Mignini also arrested Mario Spezi on charges of interfering with the MOF investigation. When a prosecutor files charges and has people arrested, it's not tangential to an investigation. --Footwarrior (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
No, it is not tangential to the Narducci investigation, but it is tangential to the Monster of Florence investigation. --FormerIP (talk) 03:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
PS Mignini was not convicted for illegal wiretapping. Per WP:BLP you should remove that false allegation and do some research as to the actual facts of the case. --FormerIP (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Facts that can be verified are not false allegations and do not violate WP:BLP, see WP:V. Source for my claim about Mignini's conviction.. --Footwarrior (talk) 04:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that the wiretaps in question were not ruled illegal in themselves, it was the way in which the evidence was handled. So I think the wire story (edit: just noticed the Freudian slip there) you have is inaccurate. But that's a side-issue. The main point is that he is not notable enough for his own article and there should also not be a POV fork into the Murder of Florence article, because POV forks are a bad thing and because he is not notable enough in relation to that article either. There particularly should not be a POV-fork created with the unusual belief in mind that Mignini is "the most heavily criticized judicial figure in post-war Europe". --FormerIP (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I can't think of a European judicial figure who has been ridiculed and dragged through the mud on cable channels broadcast throughout the world in the way that Mignini has. Name somebody who's more heavily criticized. In the years following WWII there were probably figures who's wartime records caught up with them, particularly in Germany, but that isn't what we're talking about. There would of course also be those who were removed from office for various common violations of the law, but that doesn't result in an international debate about them and it probably doesn't call into question the quality of their past work in court. Reliable secondary sources say there IS a nexus between Mignini's crackpot theories in the MOF case (Preston an accessory to murder for example) and his crackpot theories in Amanda's case (Amanda directing Rudy to assault Meredith.) There's a litmus test here, if a reliable source says something it gets thrown out if it's not what somebody wanted to hear. I think this Misplaced Pages page violates NPOV. PhanuelB (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Banning of Reliable Sources Violates WP:BLP for Amanda

First of all, let's clear any confusion about whether previous statements about Mignini are out of line. Here are the WP:RS who are :"dragging him through the mud" on cable channels seen throughout the world. Let's see another European judicial figure who's been criticized like this in broadcasts seen or read by this many people.

FormerIP writes: "Substantial physical evidence" is true of all three killers, so it is misleading to highlight this in the case of Guede." Three killers are strong words so a comprehensive citation of reliable sources that disagree is legitimate.

The following are WP:RS. To ignore them is to violate Amanda's WP:BLP rights.

Anna Momigliano (Foreign Policy Magazine 10-Dec-09)
"U.S. cable shows declared the verdict a sham, shredding the evidence and the court's conduct. And now, the Knox case is turning into an international trial on the reliability of Italy's justice system."
"Speculating wildly, prosecutor Giuliano Mignini accused Knox of harboring hatred against Meredith until the time came for taking revenge, and drunkenly attempting to drag Kercher into heavy sexual games."
Paul Ciolino (Private Investigator retained by CBS speaking on 48 Hours)
“I’ll probably get indicted in Italy for saying this. I don’t care. He is ruining the lives of two kids who have done nothing.”
"They’re so desperate to make a case against this kid that they’ll do anything.”
Doug Preston (commentator for CBS, CNN, and NBC)
“he interrogated me. He accused me of committing horrendous crimes including being an accessory to murder…. I’m a professional journalist; I have a very good memory; I know what happened in that interrogation.”
“this prosecutor thinks he knows what happened at that crime scene. The facts don’t matter to him.”
Steve Moore (Retired FBI Agent)
"In the U.S., this type of prosecutorial misconduct would almost certainly have resulted in a mistrial, and likely jail time for the prosecutor."
Judge Michael Heavey (12-Aug-08)
“The prosecutor’s office, police and prison employees have made illegal and false statements to the press. These false reports have wrongfully poisoned the well of public opinion against Amanda."
Tim Egan (NY Times correspondent)
"Preposterous, made-up sexual motives were ascribed to her...What century is this? Didn’t Joan of Arc, the Inquisition and our own American Salem witch trials teach civilized nations a thing or two about contrived sexual hysteria with a devil twist?"
Judy Bachrach (Guest on CNN)
"I have always thought that Amanda was going to go to a Kangaroo court and unfortunately I’ve been proven correct."
"there isn't a scintilla of evidence.. the prosecutor is famously incompetent."
John Q Kelly (Guest on CNN Larry King Live)
"This case is probably the most egregious international railroading of two innocent young people that I have ever seen... This is actually a public lynching based on rank speculation and vindictiveness."
Donald Trump (Real Estate Magnate)
"This is a miscarriage of justice. I think the president should absolutely get involved and I think people should boycott Italy."
Peter Van Sant (CBS News Correspondent)
“We have concluded that Amanda Knox is being railroaded.”
“She’s an innocent woman. And I would stake my reputation as a journalist and I have been in this business for a quarter century.”PhanuelB (talk) 23:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
We've had this discussion here before, started in pretty much the same way. I think it would be useful to know if you have anything to say that is either new or more specific. --FormerIP (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
WP:BATTLEGROUND applies once more, it seems. How does being a guest on a talk show make one's opinions on a court case more authoritative and meriting inclusion? What legal experience does Donald Trump, a "real estate magnate" have? So much as to place him on an even keel with officials of an Italian court? How is Preston, a horror author, qualified to offer definitive analysis? A fresh surge of sensationalist, tabloid-ish pseudo-commentaries is not needed here at this time. If one wanted to assess the theory of global warming and how accurate it is, would the best source for authoritative comment be a mass of media personalities who know nothing of science? SuperMarioMan 00:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
"Paul Ciolino (Private Investigator retained by CBS speaking on 48 Hours)" This is what makes the CBS documentary 48 Hours not a reliable source, it is essentially a self-funded and self-published source. CBS is not presenting news in a journalistic manner as it would on the CBS Evening News, rather, CBS is manufacturing the news. That is why many documentaries should be considered in a similar manner to blogosphere, almost all of which is self-published. Jonathan (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Link for Facebook Members who may want to edit this article

Greetings! As many of you may know, Facebook recently reached its 500 million member mark! As Facebook has grown, it has added new features to accommodate the interests, talents and abilities of its members.

In April of 2010, Facebook and Misplaced Pages entered into an arrangement to incorporate some of the Misplaced Pages content onto Facebook, so that Facebook members and Misplaced Pages can mutually benefit and Facebook members will come over here to write and edit.

"Misplaced Pages articles on Facebook will further increase the reach of free knowledge on the internet. Facebook has hundreds of millions of users, and now more than 70% of their traffic is coming from outside of the US. Our hope is that many Facebook users (if they are not already) will also be inclined to join the large community of Misplaced Pages contributors. Facebook will follow the free licenses (CC-BY-SA) and help us find more ways people can share knowledge. Furthermore, we will be looking at other ways that both parties can cooperate in the future."

You can read more about this here: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-April/057598.html

and here:

http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/21721

Because it is likely that many more Facebook members will become interested in participating in Misplaced Pages, including on this article, it would be helpful to have a link to the Facebook page on the Misplaced Pages side. That way, when Facebook members come over here to write and edit on the Murder of Meredith Kercher/Amanda Knox article, they will be able to click back and forth between the two sites. There is already a link to this article on the Facebook side to facilitate members coming over here to write and edit.

I did try to add that link, but it was deleted. I hope that the editors here will reconsider and allow the link to be added. Misplaced Pages can only benefit from mutual collaboration from the 500 million Facebook members from around the world. The Facebook page on this article is totally neutral, in that all points of view are allowed equally. It is not an advocacy page for any particular side.

I will leave the decision in your good hands and hope that after you have made your decision, someone would be so kind as to restore the link. Thanks ever so much. Faceforward (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Categories: