Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Suggestion for new structure

As mentioned above, I'm keen that we start from a clear structure so that we avoid a lot of the duplication that exists in the current article. My suggestion for sections and subsections is as follows:

• Lead section

[I think we should do this last, but it will probably be pretty much like the existing one. Stick to events and facts. No opinions.]

• Meredith Kercher

[Brief biography of Meredith]

• Events surrounding the murder

[Factual events. No opinions. Should be completely neutral. Events of evening of 1 November and morning of 2 November up to discovery of body]

• Police investigation

[Factual events. No opinions. Should be completely neutral. Investigation by carabinieri. Interviews with suspects. Arrests. Extradition of Guede.]

• Evidence

[Should be factual about the evidence that was found. If relevance of the finding was contested later, we cover that later, not here. Actual events, no opinions. Cause of death. Blood. Finger prints. Bra strap. Knife. Apparent break-in. Footprints. DNA. Brief mention of what was not found (eg no Knox DNA etc in murder room). Summary, not DIY CSI.]

• Defendants

• Rudy Guede

[Brief biography of Guede. Well-sourced material only. Not a discussion of the evidence and trial. Not a discussion of whether he is guilty.]

• Amanda Knox

[Brief biography. Well-sourced material only. Not a discussion of the evidence and trial. Not a discussion of whether she is guilty.]

• Raffaele Sollecito

Brief biography. Well-sourced material only. Not a discussion of the evidence and trial. Not a discussion of whether he is guilty.]

• Rudy Guédé trial and appeal
  • Fast track trial

[Summary of the trial and verdict]

• Appeal

[Summary of appeal and its outcome]

• Subsequent events

[Filing of second appeal. Stuff about Alessi's statement]

• Knox and Sollecito trial and appeals
  • Committal hearings

[Summary of hearing]

• Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito trial

[Summary of trial and verdict. Include summary of prosecution case and defence case.]

• Judges' report

[Summarise rationale for court's decisions]

• Filing of appeals

[Summary of the filings]

• Controversial aspects of the case

[Discuss the controversies here, not all over the article]

• Claims of police mistreatment
• The double DNA knife

[Include controversy regarding low copy number DNA testing etc]

• DNA disputes about bra clasp
• Claim of bleaching of the crime scene

[I'm not sure if this really is a controversy but, if so, put it here]

• Issues of pretrial publicity

[Claims that this was prejudicial to the trials]

• Giuliano Mignini and his portrayal by the US media

[Unusual fact that prosecutor has been demonised by some US media]

• Support for Knox

[Describe the media campaigns, lobbying, Friends of Amanda, etc. Here, not all over the article.]

• Knox's family's PR campaign

[These seems like a notable aspect of the case. David Marriott, etc]

• Senator Maria Cantwell's accusations of anti-Americanism

[and State Department response]

• Friends of Amanda

[Surely worth a mention]

• Civil actions
  • Lawsuit filed by Kercher's family
  • Patrick Lumumba's lawsuit against Knox
  • Lawsuit filed by Amanda Knox
• Books and documentaries

[Portrayals in books and TV documentaries

• References

I would anticipate that some of these "sections" might end up as just paragraphs, so we could end up removing some of the headings when we have written the text.

What do others think about my suggested structuring? Bluewave (talk) 09:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It is definitely a start, but imho still way too long. But as you have suggested above yourself, some subsections might just get integrated in the main sections. Never the less, I would ask anyone participating in (re)writting any of the sections, to stay as brief and neutral/objective as possible.

Always ask/tell yourself:

• Is this particular information needed? And if yes, does it necessarily provoke a counter response, which needs to be included than as well?
• Always ask the "So what?" question.
• With any inclution of information: Would you expect this bit of information to be found in an encyclopedia or rather in a blogg/discussion/entertainment TV show/book. Only include it, if you are certain it needs to be in an encyclopedia. If in doubt, leave it out.
• If one sentence does the trick, do not write a second one.
• No unsourced claims! (no hearsay)
• Only use reliable, well regarded secondary sources. (No bloggs, small town newspapers, entertainment books etc.)
• Keep emotions and your opinions out of it, no matter what you think or believe.
• Report what happened, not what might have happened or you think has happened.
• Don't jump to conclusions.
• No hinting!
• And remember, this is an encyclopedia article, not the place to advocate for either of the controversial sides.
  

Akuram (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Akuram, with regard to the length, I see what you mean. But I feel that, even if we just wrote one sentence under each of the headings, then removed most of the headings, even that would probably be an improvement on what we've got today. I agree with the points you make...and I'll try very hard not to write a second sentence, where one would do!! Bluewave (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Generally this sounds good. I'm not to sure about the "Controversial Aspects" section. This sounds like a "criticism" section, which is kind of discouraged, so I wonder if the controversial aspects shouldn't be merged in the respective paragraphs (evidence and media). As for the length/detail argument - I'm not opposed to detail as such, where it makes sense. The main focus should be to make this article readable for a normal person. Averell (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm also in two minds about the controversies but decided it was the least bad option. Take the "double DNA knife" for example. This is likely to be first mentioned in the section about the evidence that the police collected. If we add the "controversy" to that section, it would risk encouraging a debate about every piece of evidence and I was trying to avoid that. I don't want to follow every fact with things like "but the defence claimed that this evidence had been contaminated, although the trial judges accepted its validity, but this is being challenged in appeal...". Ideally we'd cover controversies when they occurred but, again taking the knife, it was challenged at the trial but has also been discussed by DNA experts not directly connected with the case (eg New Scientist) and I think this is notable enough to mention. So I'm not sure there is a single place where we can discuss the controversy, unless we artificially create one with a "controversies" section. I would also say that there should be a difference between controversies and criticisms (though maybe the present article has blurred the two). A controversy is, of its nature, two sided, and I would anticipate the controversies section putting both sides of the argument in a balanced way. Bluewave (talk) 08:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

In the spirit of "Boldness", I have added my proposed structure to the working page. I appreciate that it does not have any consensus at present, but it can be edited, hacked around or indeed be replaced by something quite different, more easily on that page, than in the list format above. To be clear, I am not trying to prevent further discussion of it: quite the reverse—I hope that making it editable will facilitate discussion and improvement of the structure. Bluewave (talk) 09:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You can be as bold as you'd like at that page. I (as the "owner" of the page) and nobody else can and should say different . BRD applies to that page as much as any other basic talkpage guideline. I should clarify that, although the page is in my userspace, It can and should be handled just like being in neutral space and I do not and will not hold any kind of ownership now or at any point in the future.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Umh. I've tried to add a template which looks fine here but can't get it work at the mainpage. Don't have time to figure it out now but either someone will or I will at some point. I had some different template style in mind anyways.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've taken up on the offer and inserted the biographies into the new structure. Mostly copy&paste, with most of the trivia removed. Feel free to revert and improve as you like Averell (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• About the draft:

Please take a look at the new draft and the draft's talkpage and voice your opinion. Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Amanda Knox ready for separate article?

Should Wikipedia not have gossip type subjects? If so, Amanda Knox and many murder articles should be deleted.

If Wikipedia can have articles on gossip type subjects as long as they are notable by Wikipedia definitions, then Amanda Knox might qualify for a separate article. In part, she is developing a biography not directly related to the murder. She is charged with slander. http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/01/italy.knox.hearing/index.html?hpt=T3

I do not have a strong opinion either way Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A widely reported murder case is hardly "gossip". And no, she is charged with murder [Did you read the article at all?] and the slander charge is just a side issue.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe Amanda Knox should have her own article per notablitiy of her own. Oprah Winfrey visits by family etc etc..--ÅlandÖland (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

We where there before. She is (like all the others evolved in this case) notable for wp:ONEEVENT and this didn't change and policy trumps opinions of editors.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Then why start a discussion at all. wp:ONEEVENT is somewhat questionable in this particulat case concerning Amanda. Her families participation on Oprah. and the extremely high coverage on amanda as a person in comparison to the case itself and the other suspects makes her notable beyond wp:ONEEVENT.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in noting "extremely high coverage" confers notability beyond wp:BLP1E. The individual notability of Knox was clear when the Italian television poll listed Amanda Knox as a bigger personality than Carla Bruni (in June 2009, NYTimes.com: [1]). Thus we have bio articles, such as Lizzie Borden acquitted of murder. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

So what is the "other" event she's notable for and not attached to the event already described here? Don't tell me it's about her "parents" appearance on Oprah... The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, arguably the treatment of Amanda Knox is more notable than the circumstances of her supposed involvement in the murder of Kutcher. Knox may perhaps not be notable in of herself, the circumstances surrounding her certainly are. Nevard (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Had there been no murder, she'd still be an unknown university student, not unlike any other. I think that TMC-k is right, here: Amanda does not qualify to have her own article. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Salvio and TMC-k. Surely all the notable circumstances surrounding Knox are related to the murder case and therefore best covered in the main article. Bluewave (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree with MCK and others. Knox is notable for her conviction for the murder of Meredith Kercher and nothing else. Also, wanted to add that I saw this interview with the parents: [2].Malke2010 15:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• At this point, the media coverage about Amanda Knox has surpassed WP:ONEEVENT, due to multi-year events:

1. 3-6 November 2007: Investigation & arrest after the murder.
2. 12 June 2009: Amanda Knox testified in Perugia, that she was pressured/hit and never heard Kercher scream.
3. 16 December 2009: Donald Trump states Amanda Knox is innocent and says to boycott Italy.
4. January 2010: Amanda Knox is charged with defamation of Perugia police.
5. 7 June 2010: Amanda Knox starts defamation trial.

When the media covered Knox on trial for defamation of the Perugia police, rather than any action involving Kercher, then clearly, WP:ONEEVENT no longer applied. It is a spurious argument to claim there would be no notability if "there had been no murder", as if saying a serial killer would be non-notable if the first murder didn't happen. A notable event cannot be "undone" to make a notable person non-notable. So, yes, Amanda Knox is notable for multiple events receiving broad, persistent coverage, and qualifies for a separate article as a "notable person" beyond one event (with notability beyond WP:BLP1E). -Wikid77 (talk) 06:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note that Wikid77 has requested unprotection of Amanda Knox here to allow User:Wikid77/AK to be moved into mainspace. Quantpole (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

In general, we can discuss if a separate article is needed - WP:ONEEVENT may or may not apply. For me the question is: If we had this article, what would be in it beyond the things covered in the current article? The User:Wikid77/AK draft doesn't convince me of that need, though. Frankly this looks more like a different viewpoint to me; and somehow I feel that it'd just spread out the POV discussion in more places. I'd rather see the current article resolved before creating more pages around it. My 2 cents. Averell (talk) 12:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Previously there was an attempt to create a separate article about the trial of Knox and Sollecito. Some people felt it was a "POV fork", whilst others pointed out the obvious overlaps with the main article and extolled the merits of trying to keep consensus discussions about a controversial topic confined to one place. The outcome was a deletion and a merge of material back into the main article. I fear that a separate Amanda Knox article is likely to take a similar course. It could encourage some people to try to insert POV material and avoid the scrutiny being applied to the main article; it would certainly make it more difficult to keep discussion focused in one place; and there would be a lot of overlap with the main murder article. I also think the argument that Knox is notable for more than one event is pretty weak. All the "events" that Wikid77 has listed are related to the murder and the ensuing judicial processes. All are covered in the main murder article (and belong there), except perhaps the bit about Donald Trump. Bluewave (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Individual notability comes from multiple separate events covered by major sources (WP:BLP1E). If the Kercher murder had occurred in Aruba, and then years later, Knox had been last seen with a female prisoner found strangled in Peru, that would clearly be beyond 1 event: 2 felony crimes (a murder, then a manslaughter). Instead, Knox is arrested for the first murder, then years later accuses the Perugia police of abuse: treated as 2 felony crimes (a murder, then defamation of police). Involvement in 2 widely reported felony crimes, years apart, is a case when WP:BLP1E no longer applies. The chain of connection is broken when the 2nd event is not a likely outcome of the first (instead, a choice was made): when the Perugia court declared a 2nd trial for defamation, they too were acknowledging there was a 2nd event, separate from the first trial. Ignoring either felony charge is not acceptable, just as ignoring either death, in Aruba or in Peru, cannot be used to claim if the first event had not occurred, a person would be just another student. Knox has notability from coverage of separate events, years apart. WP cannot delete the article of "Charles Darwin" by claiming a need to combine all discussions of Evolution, nor can WP delete "Earth" as a POV fork of "Flat Earth". For those reasons, a separate bio article is based on notability, not on content debates. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Averell and Bluewave. Amanda Knox is notable for being convicted for the murder of her roommate. She has not done anything else in her life that is notable. Everything about her in the news is related to the murder of Meredith Kercher. If Meredith had not been murdered, then Amanda Knox wouldn't be in the news. Bluewave makes a good point about the a separate article being used for POV, editing problems, etc., not to mention that everything about her is related to this article.Malke2010 17:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I also think that Wikid77 is stretching credulity a bit with the claim that Knox made her allegations about the police "years later". The murder happened on 1 Nov 2007; the alleged police brutality was on the night of 5/6 Nov 2007 when she was being questioned about the murder. I don't know when Knox first mentioned it, but probably fairly soon after. All the elapsed time is really that taken by the judicial proceedings. Bluewave (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I also think that Wikid77 is stretching credulity a bit with the claim that Knox made her allegations about the police "years later". The murder happened on 1 Nov 2007; the alleged police brutality was on the night of 5/6 Nov 2007 when she was being questioned about the murder. I don't know when Knox first mentioned it, but probably fairly soon after. All the elapsed time is really that taken by the judicial proceedings. Bluewave (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If a separate article is to be created - which is unlikely - it certainly won't be anything like the one in Wikid's userspace, which doesn't even mention Knox's main claim to notability - being found guilty of a murder. If you wanted an article to be deleted at AfD, leaving that out is certainly the way to do it. Wikid's draft basically says

• "Amanda Knox is an American college student, being held in custody in Italy on multiple charges. (trivia snipped) In June 2009, an Italian television poll listed Amanda Knox as a bigger personality than Carla Bruni, due to all her court hearings.[2] In November 2007, she had been arrested as a suspect in the death of her roommate. (She was) then charged in October 2008 with slander against her former boss, and in January 2010 charged with defamation against the local Perugia police. (trivia snipped)"

What's notable there? Answer: nothing. All her possible notability rests on the murder case. Thus, the content belongs there (where it already is). This carries previous consensus; traditionally at AfD those only notable for one event are almost exclusively redirected to the article about the event itself. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Another Knox supporter bites the dust. Who will be the last one standing?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/theblotter/2012059797_commission_blasts_king_county.html

Jonathan (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Black Kite has pointed out the lack of content in the current version of Wikid's draft article. However, I would be even more concerned if it turned back into the longer version that existed until mid-morning today. Bluewave (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

At that time (and to some extent now) it was not an article about Amanda Knox so much as Wikid77's preferred version of this article.   pablo_hablo. 21:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

*stares in amazement* That version would last about five seconds (although I suppose we could keep it as an illustration at WP:POVFORK). Please tell me that the picture is a joke, btw Black Kite (t) (c) 22:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Prepare to be amazed: Amanda Knox, complete with lovely painting is now up. Quantpole (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There we go again. Never giving up the hope, I'd like to remind everyone to remain WP:Civil and (at least try to) assume good faith. Just in case. Averell (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Please go here to give opinion on AfD: [3]. Malke2010 18:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Distance to Rome

The distance of Perugia from Rome has been added recently. Firstly this is in a very curious place. Why not with the first mention of Perugia? In the middle of the paragraph about Knox and Solicito's trial. And why is there mention of the location of this trial but not of Guede's which was also in Perugia? Why in the introduction at all since this is trivia and anyone not knowing about Perugia can follow the link.

Anyway this distance is incorrect. Perugia is 135km = 84miles Kwenchin (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Amanda Knox

Who decided that the Amanda Knox page should be redirected here? There certainly did NOT seem to be consensus on the matter during the discussion. Was the discussion real, or was the redirect already decided and the discussion just a cover? These types of actions make people afraid to create articles. Michaelh2001 (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the admin felt there was a consensus for "redirect" on the basis that the keep !votes did not carry strong policy arguments (in the view of the admin). Personally, I think this was a good call, but if you want to pursue the matter, perhaps commenting on User_talk:MuZemike would be a good first step. --FormerIP (talk) 10:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's ok. I don't feel THAT strongly about it. My point of view is that the murder became notable because an American was the suspect. Although I feel that the suspect (and her behavior) generated the international interest (not to disparage the victim here in any way), I'm more than willing to accept the admin decision here. The admins have to make a lot of tough calls, but generally do a great job! Michaelh2001 (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Draft new version

As discussed above, MLauba recommended that we should rewrite the article as a factual account, and there was a consensus to go ahead with this. Also above, at the end of May, The Magnificent Clean-keeper notified people that a draft was ready for discussion. I have now proposed that the draft should be moved here, to replace the current article and there is a straw poll in progress on the draft's talk page. Please take the opportunity (on that page) to say if you agree with this proposal. Bluewave (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This was little more than a few people with an agenda hijacking a prefectly good page in the dark of night when no one was looking. The present page is not NPOV and is not well written.PhanuelB (talk) 10:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed para

I removed this:

In the early stages of the investigation, well before the trials of the defendants, some of the details of the evidence were made known to the media and were commented on freely around the world. The UK media, who, at home, are constrained by the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (which criminalises the publication of information about cases which are sub judice), freely published details of the evidence and opinions about events surrounding the murder.

This seems to me to be an unnecessary amount of detail and I can't see how it helps the reader. --FormerIP (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The difference is important in this case. English law is unusual in that there is an almost complete moratorium on the release of information about a case prior to the verdict. In Amanda's case Italian authorities relied heavily on the release of information prior to trial, much of it false and known to be false, as a strategy to influcence the jury. Barbie Latza Nadeau in The Trials of Amanda Knox stated that "there was a time when they[Italian authorities] were handing out crime scene photos like business cards." Judge Michael Heavey in his letter to the Italian judiciary details a number of false statemnts made by Italian authorities prior to trial to the media. One example was the lie that Amanda Knox's diary said she had had sex with 7 men in Italy. She had not had sex with 7 men in Italy and her diary did not say she had. The version of her diary that corrupt prison officials had provided (presumably sold) to European tabloids had been improperly translated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhanuelB (talk • contribs) 02:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You may well be right about all of this, Phanuel, but we should be careful not to slip into Original Research. Do you know of a Reliable Source that thinks that the UK Comtempt of Court Act is particularly relevant to the Kercher case? --FormerIP (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The UK law is not particularly relevant to the case although comparison to other legal systems is a legitimate part of the discussion of the deficiencies in the Italian system and of its failure in this specific case. The leakage of false information to the news media prior to the trial is an essential part of this story. Of course those who are apparently controlling this page do not permit criticism of the court. PhanuelB (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I was again the culprit in mentioning UK Contempt of Court act. My point was that the UK press, when reporting on their home patch, are accustomed to having a virtual news blackout on any case that is sub judice. In this case the UK rules did not apply and it seemed like the UK press had a field day and wrote the kind of articles that would have put them behind bars if the case had taken place in England. However, I'm happy to go along with FormerIP's deletion. Bluewave (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Despite repeated requests prior to and during the rewrite, the article still is very heavily based on sensational news reports. Is it really necessary to start tagging them all with {{better source}}, or will editors exercise some modicum of academic self-discipline about this? Few if any of the useful points need these sources. If it is absolutely necessary to use news sources, try to find better ones that are not from Italian, US, or UK sources pandering to their national audiences. Try English-language services in other European nations, though there might also be some coverage in Australia, Canada, India, or even China. Google News Archive can help with that. In the rare cases where it might be constructive to discuss national viewpoints (though nothing really comes to mind) it should be from first-tier news publications, not slashervision. The article should also lose the refs to ambulance chaser television programs such as are seen on many Fox News affiliates. Treating these as WP:reliable sources is indefensible. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I generally agree, but think that what type of source is used ought to relate to the likelihood that a statement will be contentious. So, for example, I've just replaced a few dead links such as one for the amount of damaged awarded to Lumumba. I've used Sky News for this, just because it came close to the top in Google, and I can't see why that type of source isn't suitable for that type of info. Also, I think some of the reports in what people might think of as "quality" publications also appear quite lurid (for example, we have a source from The Times which has "I will drink your blood" in its headline). --FormerIP (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Clearly that's an instance of a headline writer getting carried away. The article puts the line in context as a lame bit of Facebook humour. But still, what statement does that source provide support for that can't be done using a less partisan source? LeadSongDog come howl! 20:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm probably one of the main culprits for referencing The Times. This is for several reasons: one is that it's the only daily paper that I read, so I'm quite familiar with its coverage of the case; second, it still has some credentials as a "quality" paper (though not many!); third, The Times does not seem to have had an editorial policy on the case and its coverage has included a range of views. However, I agree that the article would benefit from some better sources. To make things worse, The Times is now making its archive into a subscription-only site, which will really bugger all our references. Just one caution on using non-UK/US news media: quite a lot of the English-language material is traceable back to the same UK journalists who write for the national papers. For example, Nick Pisa's material crops up in lots of publications internationally, although he writes for the Daily Mail. Bluewave (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Timings

The article quotes Amanda Fox and Raffaele Sollecito phoning people starting at 12:07pm on 2nd November and the police then arriving. This fits in with the quoted time in Seattle being 4:00 a.m. but did this happen 13 hours after the murder at c.11:00 p.m. on the 1st Prestonmag (talk)

Recent additions

These recent additions are, I think, problematic. The quotations are from, among others:

1. John Q. Kelly
2. Paul Ciolino
3. Doug Preston
4. Judy Bachrach
5. Peter Van Sant
6. Timothy Egan
7. Donald Trump

and a lot of them are sourced to youtube.

This raises some questions, including;

Are these commentators themselves reliable sources? Is Donald Trump qualified to opine on a murder case? Who the hell is John Q Kelly? should youtube be a reliable source for programme content?

  pablo_hablo. 15:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought the whole newly-added material unbalances the section on media coverage. But I have held off editing it for several reasons: for one thing I was a major contributor to the new version of the article and am now trying to stand back a bit. This is also one area of the article where I have strong personal views (I get quite irate at the arrogance of people who don't appear to have troubled to examine the case in any depth but consider themselves better able to comment on the verdict than the judges, who spent almost a year of their lives studying thousands of pages of evidence, over a hundred witnesses, etc). For instance Judy Bachrach has also claimed that the Italian justice system is based on the "the inquisition" and that, in Italy, you are "guilty until proven innocent". Bluewave (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The last time I had looked at this page it provided a reasonably balanced view of the case. In an outrageous violation of NPOV, it has been extensively edited (attacked) by those who see Ms. Knox as guilty. Who let this happen?

The quotes that I provided are the defining editorial commentary on the case.

John Q. Kelly was chosen as a commentator on this case by the CNN Larry King Live, one of the most respected and credible outlets in the history of television. He has provided commentary on other cases prior to his appearance in this case.

Paul Ciolino was hired by CBS news to investigate the case and was put on site in Perugia for this purpose. He is one of America's leading private investigators. His words are from his appearances on a segment of CBS 48 Hours.

Doug Preston was chosen by CBS news to comment on the case. He also had firsthand experience with the same prosecutor in the Amanda Knox case.

Judy Bachrach was chosen by both CNN Headline News with Wolf Blitzer and by Larry King Live to provide commentary on the case.

Peter Van Sant is a CBS news correspondent with 25 years of experience. He was chosen by CBS news to provide commentary on the case.

Tim Egan is a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist chosen by the New York Times to provide commentary on the case.

Donald Trump was chosen by KOMO news in the Seattle area to provide commentary on the case.

The links to YouTube videos are legitimate as they document the spoken words of those quoted in television appearances.

PhanuelB (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Think this material should be removed per WP:Quotations#Overusing_quotations. Perhaps a line such as "Commentators including x, y and z have declared their belief in Knox's innocence" would be okay, but we don't need the verbatim contents of every such opinion that can be found on YouTube. There should also be balance, so that countervailing viewpoints are also included (ie we should not be building one-sided collections of quotes into the article). It also doesn't appear balanced to include only news sources with which the Knox family have a contractual relationship (it has been reported that the family only give interviews on condition that positive coverage is guaranteed). --FormerIP (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That would make sense.   pablo_hablo. 18:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Rothorpe (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The condemnation of this tribunal by commentators in major media outlets in the United States has been all but universal and is essential knowledge for those who seek to learn about the case. It is not OK to just say "oh somebody criticized the trial" and "some others didn't", implying that the neutral point of view must be somewhere in the middle. The readers need to see exactly what was said for themselves. What really kills me is that the hijackers of this page have left their own utterly obscure quotes in place. BTW, Amanda's lawyers were not free to comment publically on the fairness of the trial.

The efforts by a handful of editors here to re-write history and remove from public view some of the most important elements of the case are like nothing I have ever seen on Wikipedia. PhanuelB (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you ease back on your attacks on other editors, PhanuelB.
It very much is OK to state that some journalists criticised the trial and others did not. It is not OK, however, to unduly weight the article with many verbatim quotes which happen to agree with your self-confessed^{first ever edit} 'Knox is innocent' stance.   pablo_hablo. 15:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Attending Trial

I have changed the wording that Rudy Guede "attended the trial." This implies that he was there for much or all of it. It is undisputed that he made a single appearance when called to testify by Mignini and asserted his right to remain silent. ~~PhanuelB~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhanuelB (talk • contribs) 18:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It's probably better the way you have it now, but he certainly did attend.   pablo_hablo. 19:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

There maybe issues of incomplete understanding of the English language by those who are bilingual in Italian and English. In the context above "attended the trial" cannot be construed to mean a single appearance.PhanuelB (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There do seem to be issues of misunderstanding, but they don't seem to be related to bilinguality:

attend (v)

To watch over, wait upon, with service, accompany as servant, go with, be present at.
To present oneself, for the purpose of taking some part in the proceedings, at a meeting for business, worship, instruction, entertainment. 
e.g. to attend church, school, a lecture, a meeting, a funeral, the sittings of a court, also a place of worship.
To be present in readiness for service, or in answer to an authoritative summons.OED

"attend" can be construed as a single appearance; that's how I read it. I agree that it is best avoided in this instance, however, because it can also be construed as being present over a longer period, and that's how you read it.   pablo_hablo. 10:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Original Research in footnote

I removed this:

An English language summary by Salvio Giuliano states that the Court of Cassation points out that the self-incriminating statements can be utilised, during a trial, in a particular way: if they were rendered by someone against whom there was already circumstantial evidence that he or she had committed the crime or a connected crime, they cannot be used either against the stating person or against his or her co-accused. If this circumstantial evidence was not present, they can be used only against his or her co-accused. In keeping with these principles, Amanda's 01:45 statements could be used against the co-accused. After these statements, the interview was interrupted and the girl was turned over to the Judicial Authority (the Prosecutor). Amanda's 05:54 statements could not be used either against her or against her co-accused, because Amanda was interviewed without a lawyer.

I do appreciate Salvio's efforts, but this appears to be OR, which is no more permitted in footnotes than in articles in general. Also, there appears to be something wrong with the wording. It seems to be saying that if there is already circumstantial evidence, self-incriminating statements can be used but not against any of the accused. Who could they be used against, then? --FormerIP (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it really OR to summarise a source? Regarding the meaning, I thought it meant the following. At the time of the 01:45 statement, there was no circumstantial evidence against AK (she was not a suspect) so her incriminating statement could be used against the person she was accusing (PL) but not against AK herself. Having made that statement, there was now circumstantial evidence against her (she had become a suspect), so her 05:45 statement could not be used against either PL or AK. Bluewave (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I actually didn't know I was quoted; it's flattering though. xD

Seriously, I don't think it is OR, it's just a translation from a Judgement rendered by the Court of Cassation, regarding the admissibility of Knox's statements (this one), which reads

(in Italian) 2. Con riferimento alla seconda censura difensiva la Corte osserva che le dichiarazioni indizianti sono caratterizzate da un differente regime di utilizzabilità sotto il profilo soggettivo. Nel caso in cui esse provengano da persona a carico della quale già sussistevano indizi in ordine al medesimo reato ovvero a reato connesso o collegato con quello attribuito al terzo le stesse non possono essere utilizzate, oltre che contra se, neppure dei confronti dei coimputati dello stesso reato (o degli imputati di reati connessi o collegati). Il regime di inutilizzabilità assoluta di cui all'art. 63, comma secondo, c.p.p. è, invece, da escludere nell'ipotesi in cui il dichiarante sia chiamato a rispondere, nello stesso o in altro processo, per un reato o per reati attribuiti a terzi, che non abbiano alcun legame processuale con quello per cui si procede, rispetto ai quali egli assume la qualifica di testimone. Infatti, mentre nel primo caso, in forza dell'intima connessione e interdipendenza tra il fatto proprio e quello altrui sorge la necessità di tutelare anche il diritto al silenzio del dichiarante, nel secondo caso, invece, la posizione di estraneità e di indifferenza del dichiarante rispetto ai fatti di causa lo rende immune da eventuali strumentalizzazioni operate da parte degli organi inquirenti (Cass., Sez. Un. 13 febbraio 1997, Carpanelli).

I recognize, however, that this can be construed as a primary source.

In short, anyway, it means that if there was no way of knowing that a person had committed a crime when they made self-incriminating statements (and they contain something that can lead to or support someone else's indictment as accomplice or accessory), these statements can be used against the co-accused; if there was circumstancial evidence (basically, if the Prosecutor knew, should have known or suspected that the person he was questioning was involved in the crime), these statements cannot be used against anyone. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 08:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see. So we have an Italian legal document, which could be cited in a footnote. And I suppose an English translation can be provided. However, what was in the footnote seems to go further, by giving an outline of how the law might have applied in this case. Surely that counts as OR (?). --FormerIP (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's the Judgement that gives an outline of how the law might have applied in this case, it's not me commenting on it. However, I have no objections whatsoever to it being removed. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 10:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, then I also don't have objections to it being included. But the quote you give above is dated 1997. --FormerIP (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Err... What quote are you referring to? If it's the judgement you're talking about, it's dated 21.04.2008 (n. 16410/2008). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I now see! The Knox Judgement (21.04.2008) quotes the massima (point of law, you might say) from a 1997 Judgement by the Sezioni Unite. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Restored omission: Police released Guede days before murder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As a side note, user Zlykinskyja was blocked for a month this morning. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some of you could be helped tremendously by some exposure to the writing of Hemingway. You need to write simple sentences. The number one thing this article suffers from are the one hundred repetitions of the statement that Knox and Sollecito maintain their innocence. Say it one time. Everyone gets that they say they're innocent. Say it one time and let it go. And whatever there families say is totally irrelevant. Did you ever know of a murderer who didn't have a mommy going around saying that the murderer couldn't possibly have done it? Whatever the Knox family thinks is irrelevant to this article.

The matching of the knife

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

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

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

Possible alternative paragraph, "Knox's DNA was found on a kitchen knife, recovered from Sollecito's flat, and Kercher's DNA (although not from her blood[42]) was found on the blade.[43] The knife could have made one of the three wounds on Kercher's neck, but not the other two.[44][20] The prosecution suggested two knives, while the defense argued that all three wounds were made by another knife.[94] At trial, Knox's lawyers argued that she used knives for cooking at Sollecito's apartment.[45]" Mdfst13 (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Think the main change you talk about to "The knife could have made one of the three wounds on Kercher's neck, but not the other two.[44]" is okay, but the other two changes are not. The word "necessarily" should stay in "not necessarily from her blood". The source tells us that the knife tested negative for blood, but this does not mean that the DNA sample was not from blood, it just means they couldn't tell what it was from (it was a very small sample). "The prosecution suggested two knives, while the defense argued that all three wounds were made by another knife" does not seem to be supported by the source (I am looking at the right one - The Telegraph, right?). Common sense says the statement itslef is likely to be true, but in general I think we should keep "defence said this but prosecution said that" to a minimum anyway. --FormerIP (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd also be in favour or removing "(although not from her blood[42])" altogether. Too much detail. --FormerIP (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are verifiable facts that a lot of people said a lot of things about the case, both for and against Knox and the validity of the trial. However, since we're not a newspaper, and since the article doesn't have infinite length, we can't include them all; and we certainly can't cherry-pick quotes that agree with us. Also, some of them are clearly POV - the Kelly quote was from the Larry King show on which he appeared with Knox's parents ([4]) - so he was hardly going to say she was guilty, was she? I did look for "kangaroo court" in reliable sources but found only this article in which someone who I presume is you contributes at the end; really, you can hardly complain about NPOV here in that case. Black Kite (t) (c) 05:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CNN HNL, Larry King Live, CBS, and the New York Times are among the most important news sources in the English speaking world. Their commentators have called this a "kangaroo court", a "public lynching" and, "a railroad job". Along with the FACT that the Washington Press Corp is asking the secretary of state what she plans to do about this means they think the Perugian Justice System IS on trial. I know of no other non-political case in post war Europe where the US Secretary of State is being asked by the media if she will act. These are verifiable FACTS that the current editors of this page are determined to suppress. This is a violation of NPOV. The fact that trial might at a later date be challenged in the European Court of Human Rights is irrelevant.PhanuelB (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)