Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher

Appearance Knox railroaded by police

29-Dec-09: The text of the article might seem to indicate that Amanda Knox was railroaded into conviction on little evidence. In fact, it has been difficult to explain why Knox was convicted, when detailed text from the article has been repeatedly removed or censored, which might have provided some insight that implicated her in the murder. However, to claim that the police railroaded Knox into conviction seems incorrect. Instead, it appears that false testimony by some witnesses might have bolstered the illusion that Knox was deceptive or concealing the truth. In general, it only takes a few false witnesses, in connection with police hostility, to sway a conviction. In particular, the hostile testimony by her Italian roommate Filomena Romanelli, seems to include false statements that condemned Amanda's behavior as deceptive. I'm not saying that Romanelli was intentionally lying, under oath, about all of Amanda's actions; however, Romanelli's claims seem to show a pattern of untrue statements that would contradict Amanda's alibi and veracity. Regarding mobile phone calls, there has been an insinuation that Amanda Knox had purposely avoided reporting the suspicious situation at the flat: the blood smears, broken glass, and Kercher not returning her calls. However, the logs of cell phone records seem to indicate that Amanda, earlier, called others to report the suspicious details, before the postal police arrived at the flat on midday 2 November 2007. Also, Romanelli was free to roam the crime scene, and move items, before the area was sealed by the 2 postal-police officers. Beware of other court testimony that might have falsely accused Amanda Knox of deceitful behaviour, and be sure to seek reliable sources before adding more text to the article. Surely, there could be some evidence to convict Knox, but beware of false claims and try to include all viewpoints, considering that, at least, 8 people were walking all through the flat for hours before the floor was evacuated for formal investigation. -Wikid77 20:05, 29 December 2009

The conviction of Mignini in connection with his duties as a prosecutor seems to support the view that Amanda and Raffaele were railroaded. A leopard does not change his spots. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Contaminated crime scene

29-Dec-09: The article does not yet describe issues of crime-scene contamination. The number of people who were walking through the "thoroughly-cleaned-with-bleach" flat is staggering: at least 8, including Knox, Sollecito, 2 postal-police officers, roommate Filomena Romanelli, her friend Paola, and their 2 boyfriends (occupants 7 & 8). Meanwhile, there was blood (from a cat's ear?) outside the downstairs flat, so the police "kicked in" that door as well when Mignini arrived: it is not known how much cat blood was tracked into the upstairs flat. About 100 police officers arrived for the investigation. When Kercher's door was kicked open (4 kicks?) by Paola's boyfriend, at least 6 or 7 people were present at the doorway: the 2 boyfriends, plus Sollecito, Romanelli, Paola, and 1 or 2 police officers (Amanda Knox was down the hall). Reportedly, someone saw Kercher's lifeless foot lying under the quilt in the darkness, and screamed in Italian, "A foot! A foot!" (which Amanda claimed that she interpreted as a severed foot was found in the room). Anyway, this case is likely to become a notorious example of what happens when a crime scene is not sealed and coralled quickly. If you find cell phones discarded in a garden, and someone reports blood smears at that flat, then.... You get the idea. -Wikid77 20:05, 29 December 2009

Agree. The degree of contamination of the crime scene needs to be looked at more closely. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You (both) make it sound a bit as though you think we should do some original research about this. Surely the thing that we should look at closely is whether the reliable, independent secondary sources have suggested that the crime scene was contaminated and whether they suggest that this may have had an adverse effect on the investigation. Bluewave (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"Murder of Meredith Kercher" to "Meredith Kercher"?

Is the use of "Murder of" in the article name giving it an NPOV slant? Or should it be renamed to "Meredith Kercher"? I'm just checking because apparently some editors think that the term "murder" gives such articles an NPOV slant and are quoting this rule to justify their view, even though all news sources report it as a murder.Zhanzhao (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the mention of murder indicates a lack of neutrality. I have never seen any source that raised the slightest possibility of the case being something other than a murder. And surely the murder is the notable thing - if it wasn't a murder, there wouldn't be a Wikipedia article. Just naming it "Meredith Kercher" would imply that it was a biographical article about the person. It isn't...it's an article about the murder. Bluewave (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, not again. The naming is standard practice, and in particular this is not a page about Meredith Kercher, but on the crime. Averell (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you able to point to evidence ins support of what tou say, Zhanzhao? Agreed, there may be cases where a similarly formulated page title might be objectionable under NPOV (eg "Murder of Dr David Kelly"), but this doesn't seem to be the case, since there does not seem to be any significant doubt that Merdedith Kercher was murdered (as noted by Bluewave). There seem to be a lot of "Murder of..." pages on WP. --FormerIP (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Murder of 'x' is the typical title for articles about murders. There is no POV issue in describing Kercher's death as a murder; AGF has nothing to do with it. Whilst many people have disputed who killed her, no-one could honestly claim that she was not murdered. Calling the article Meredith Kercher would be wrong as the article is centred on her murder, not her life. She does not warrant a Wikipedia biography of her own as she is not notable; she was just an ordinary student. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to note: I had some discussion with Zhanzhao elsewhere. It turns out that he was trying to get views on the issue to support his argument on another talkpage, and was not trying to propose a name-cahnge for this article. He should really have used NPOV/N, I think, but he was in good faith and the issue on the other article is now resolved. --FormerIP (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Bleaching of the crime scene

Hi, I made two very precise edits of this section and Rothorpe decided to do an undo saying 'rv good-faith edits unnecessary.' Not sure what that means. I should probably have signed in and done it properly and will do that if that is the issue.

I posted a long explanation of the logic behind the edits which seem to me to be prudent edits along the lines of making things more precise and less misleading, I posted it to Rothorpe's talk page. Basic point that a shop owner testified in court that he sells bleach for 1.09 and had seen Knox in his shop the relevant morning but did not know what she had purchased. No till receipts for 1.09 were produced by the prosecution nor was there further confirmation subsequent to 2007 of the story that till receipts were found. Made sense then not to make a big deal out of this but just to change the assertion that they were found to the assertion that a November 19, 2007 story in the Times stated so. No subsequent assertion to the same effect was made so it seemed sensible to replace the statement of fact "till receipts were found" to say that such-and-such article stated that police had found till receipts. Similarly I changed 'the supermarket' to 'a supermarket' as it isn't established if the supermarket of the till receipts is the same one of the shop owner who said he sells bleach for 1.09 and had seen Knox in his shop the morning after the murder (but did not notice what she had purchased).

I'm not biased on the issue of this case one way or the other, I find it frustrating that the defendants can't tell a straight story but I also find it a bit frustrating that Wikipedia isn't making a clear effort to separate fact from fiction either. Between the assertions of Mignini and those of the defendants this is nonsense upon nonsense. Journalists also can add nonsense. Things stated to be established as fact should be things that are really established in a pretty absolute sense. That is really all I care about regarding this article, as a reader who had found it frustrating the amount of misinformation on both sides. 84.13.159.131 (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Do you have a basis for saying that the receipts weren't presented by the prosecution or that their existence was only reported by the Times? It seems to be that you ought to convince other editors before doing the relevant edits.

You are right in terms of the potential for "nonsense up nonsense" in the article. At the moment, it is a general problem. However, I don't think this can be solved by making edits where the only justification offered is "I believe this to be nonsense". Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, that is a good point. I should go and try to find all the documents I was looking at. I'm a bit tired to do it tonight. Thanks for explaining why the edit was undone. Makes sense. 84.13.159.131 (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

OK I am properly logged in, and I have the quote I had found which made me wish to change the statement that till receipts had been found to the statement that the Times article from November 19, 2007 stated that police had found till receipts.

Here is from March 2009, here is the link http://www.zimbio.com/Amanda+Knox/articles/80/Report+Courtroom+How+Saturday+Went and here is the quote about the testimony of the shop-owner Quintovalle

Quintovalle had asked his cashiers if they remembered her or what she had bought that morning, but they did not remember anything. Quintovalle stated that detergent bleach is sold in his store for 1.09 euro per bottle and he carries only one kind (ACE), and they are all 1.09 per bottle. Comment: if the prosecution introduces a till receipt for a 1.09 euro item sold at approximately 8:00am on November 2nd this would be very telling. So far such a receipt has not been introduced. The Police sequestered the till receipts, but have not officially released the findings. A possible problem is that many places don’t even ring up the items on the register to save the taxes

It is a reprint of an article written by Harry Rag for Truejustice.org. The article does not appear to be biased, Harry Rag reports things that are negative for the defendants freely, and there is no reason to think he is hiding anything he knows or found out. Note that he says "The police have sequestered till receipts but have not officially reased the findings." This is two years subsequent to the Times article saying that till receipts had been found.

The jury reads Wikipedia (esp the Italian one) and it is *absolutely* *not* *correct* for Wikipedia to report as fact things that have been stated to journalists but not officially released as evidence.

There are two very serious difficulties with this case. One is that there are contradictions among statements made by the defendants which are quite difficult to resolve. A second is that there are contradictions between statements made by the defendants and by the prosecution, and between statements made by the prosecution, or by the prosecution and by journalists.

Anyway, it is *not* an established fact that any till receipts specifically for bleach were found, and I am therefore, I hope with permission of the editors, going to undo the undo of my edit.

This means that the statement of what the Times article says will be replaced by a direct quote from the Times artcle. It is a fact that the Times article stated that receipts for bleach were found.

I am also reverting 'the supermarket' to 'a supermarket' because I really do not know which supermarket the till receipts which the Times article refers to are from. For example, maybe both RS and AK bought bleach, at two different supermarkets. Maybe neither did. I just do not know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Createangelos (talk • contribs) 11:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Createangelos. I appreciate you taking the time to do some research. However, there are couple of problems with the source you have found.

Firstly, it is a self-published source, falling under WP:SELFPUB. True Justice is an anonymously-produced blog, meaning that it can't be used as a WP:RS (Reliable Source) for claims about the case. I agree that the material you have referenced is probably accurate (the site is very well-produced), but it is not usable for Wikipedia purposes.

On a more practical, less bureaucratic level, imagine if we gave a green light for "pro-Kercher" and "pro-Knox" blogs to be routinely cited for information about the case. This certainly would not help the problems with the article you have correctly identified above.

Secondly, what you are claiming does not actually seem to be supported by what you have found on True Justice in any case. You say that the receipts were not produced in court. However, the True Justice story was published in March 2009, seven months before the end of the trial, so it is hard to see how it can be used to support this claim. It says "The Police sequestered the till receipts, but have not officially released the findings" - this doesn't tell us anything about whether they were produced during the trial.

The Times is an WP:RS and what it says is clear: "Till receipts found at the flat of Raffaele Sollecito...show that he bought two bottles of bleach allegedly used to clean the murder weapon at a time when he claimed to be asleep". Having personal doubts about this is all well and good, but we can only report what Reliable Sources have said.

I think, though, that it would not be unreasonable to change the reference to "a supermarket".

The article contains a lot of information which is sourced but which may well not be accurate. There's a limit to how much we can do about this. However, any statement that can be shown to be false using Reliable Sources can be excluded from the article. It is also full of things that were reported by newspapers but not mentioned at trial. I agree that this in unfortunate, but newspapers are a Reliable Source for information about news stories. Can you see how it seems inconsistent to question the reliablility of newspapers (not that this is entirely unreasonable) and then produce a blog in support of a different version of events? --FormerIP (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your comments. I have not reverted the undo as yet, until it is clear what is best.

By the way, my proposal, the change which I suggested, and which I propose we should revert to, is to include exactly the statement you quote from the Times. That very quote, which you give here in the talk page, is what was deleted when I inserted it.

Just to be very clear: my proposal is to include the quote from the Times article. I know that this is complicated, but the reason I have just now cited the anti-knox article about the Till receipts is because that article says as yet they have not been produced. Therefore the salient fact is that on 19 November 2007 the Times wrote "Till receipts found at the flat...claimed to be asleep."

I propose precisely that we should revert to my edit, which was to put in the article, in place of an editors' paraphrase of the Times article, the exact quote from the Times article.

My mentioning that anti-Knox blogs and articles concede that no such receipts were produced in court as of March 2009 is not because I care about what those blogs or articles say. The events in court include testimony of a shopkeeper and so-on, and I am also not proposing to include these. I am proposing just being very very clear, straightforward, and accurate as you have just been in your post above, and including the word-for-word statement that appeared in the times, in place of an editors' paraphrase.

It is an absoulute fact that on a particular date, a particular article was published stating a particular sentence. If there is any question here, as there certainly is, we should quote what that sentence says verbatim, just as you have done. Createangelos (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if people agree with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Createangelos (talk • contribs) 14:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of a reliable source saying the till receipts were presented as evidence at trail, should the article even mention them at all? Footwarrior (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The Times is a Reliable Source. :

I think there's an important thing to add here. The Times article talks about receipts found at Sollecito's flat. The True Justice site talks about receipts sequestered from the shop. These would not be the same receipts. They would be the copy given to Sollecito and the copy retained in the till, presumably. So, there is no inconsistency between the Times site and the blog. Plus the blog is not an RS in any case.

The blog says that it had not been confirmed whether there had been a repsonse to the sequestration, as at March. We can't use this info in the article, however (no RS), and we can't offer our own speculation as to what this implies or use it to throw properly-sourced information into doubt. So we really are left with just the Times to go off. There is no reason attribute this, because there is no particular reason to doubt it (that said, I also don't like the fact that we have so much newspaper reporting in the article - but we should be consistent - all kinds of claims are made in the article on a similar basis). If we put "according to the Times..." in there, we would by the same reasoning need an "according to.." in every other sentence or thereabouts.

We only report what has been said in Reliable Sources - we don't do investigative journalism.

It should not be long before the judgment in the Sollecito-Knox case is published, and hopefully that we clear a lot of things up. Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm not sure if I'm still logged in but anyway I'll go along with the suggestion made not to undo the revert as far as attributing the truth of the assertion that receipts were found to the Times (though I personally am unsure whether the Times was just wrong). But we'll leave it. And I'll do what was suggested and undo just the revert to change 'the supermarket' back to 'a supermarket' as there really is no information suggesting that the Times supermarket is the one run by Mr. Quintovalle. Createangelos (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh..I see someone has done it for me already. Good. Then I guess that really is the consensus. Createangelos (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I'm not saying you are being unreasonable by the way. IMO it would be good take out some of the detail in the article. We'll have to wait adn see if that can happen over time, I think. --FormerIP (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your voice of support. By the way, someone reverted it again to 'the supermarket' and I am now pleased that they did re-revert my edit as I realize it was more correct after all to say 'the supermarket', as Sky News and the Telegraph both reported in March that the supermarket which relates to the receipts claim from 2007 is indeed the Conad store in Via Garibaldi, which is run by Marco Quintovalle.

According to the Harry Rag article he attended court on 21 March 2007 and heard the testimony, including Marco Quintovalle stating that bleach in his shop costs 1.09 Euros. The Sky News article from the same day states "It is of interest that when police searched Sollecito's house days after the murder, they found a receipt for cleaning products from the shop where Knox was allegedly seen." The pro Knox site says that no such receipts were ever produced in court, and that their existence stems from a unique source, the 19 November 2009 Richard Owen article. The Harry Rag account states that he witnessed Marco Quintavalle stating in court on 21 March that he saw Ms. Knox in his shop, she had been there waiting for the shop to open, and that the cost of bleach in his shop is 1.09 Euros. Rag also quotes Mr. Quintavalle as saying in court that he only sells one brand of bleach, ACE brand.

If we must accept that reporting by a news organization like the Times, the Telegraph, or Sky is to be taken as fact, this does mean that the relevant receipts should be for the amount of 1.09 Euros. Here is from the Telegraph on the same day of 21 March, reporting Mr. Quintavalle's testimony to Judge Gincaarlo Massei, quoting the testimony and stating then that the shop is the same one as the police had found the receipt for cleaning products.

"For me the girl in the newspapers was the same girl."
Asked by trial judge, Giancarlo Massei, if he recognised
 the girl from the supermarket in court Mr Quintavalle  
 said: "It's her, I'm sure of it," there was no reaction
 from Miss Knox. Police who searched Mr Sollecito's house,
  just a few minutes walk from the murder scene, days after
 the murder found a receipt for cleaning products from the
 shop where Miss Knox was allegedly seen.

Note that the Telegraph article says Knox was 'allegedly seen' in the shop, but there is no 'allegedly' about the receipt which had earlier been reported by Mr. Owen in the times.

A slight majority of informal websites and blogs refer to the 'bleach receipt' as an example of misreporting/journalistic irresponsibility, not in connection with proving guilt or innocence of the defendants, but in regards to obfuscating attempts to clarify information and to determine the reliability of information.

In other words, the 'bleach receipt' journalism is in a slight majority of informal websites and blogs viewed with the same frustration as the Lumumba accusation of Knox, the satanic ritual theory of Mignini. Cannot anyone tell the truth? In my case, the question, cannot Wikipedia tell the simple truth?

Generally speaking, what is the standard of truth here? To my view, a convicted killer is a convicted killer. That is very slightly different from a killer, logically speaking. A news story stating that a receipt has been found, is a news story stating that a receipt has been found. It is not, in itself a receipt.

Wikipedia has an opportunity to be something different than a newspaper or a court. Something higher. I am a bit disappointed that even Wikipedia has not been able to rise above the nonsense upon nonsense propogated by all three sides in this case: the defense, the prosecution, and the Third Estate. Createangelos (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The Fourth Estate, you mean. You are right that a story that a receipt has been found is not a receipt. We don't have direct access to the hard evidence, and we are not here to reconstruct the trial (a problem with the article at present). We just report what others have reported before us and try to bring it into a whole. What are you thinking of exactly when you say we should be "something higher" than a newspaper or a court? We should maybe do a better job in terms of distilling what is really important in an article like this, I would agree, but we are at least in a position to aspire to that. --FormerIP (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the article is pretty good actually, if a person reads it and also reads the references. If a person interprets "x is true" and a reference as meaning "reference y says x is true," there is considerable wisdom in this and other Wikipedia articles about controversial subjects. The statement after all is in a section headed controversies. Then an article should be allowed to have mutually contradictory statements of truth without people worrying about how to resolve them. It does make sense and it is the same idea as the notion that 'according to Wikipedia...' should be considered a vacuous and meaningless phrase. No judgement is made about credibility of sources, all reports from reliable sources reported as facts even if they are disputed by other less reliable sources. In that sense some facts may contradict other facts, and it is to the reader to reconcile it all, not an editor. I think it's OK actually. Createangelos (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I do feel v. slightly uneasy leaving it at that, though, even though I know it is right, so just for the record, I'll summarize. According to the reliable reporting (combining the Owens Times article, the Telegraph article, the Sky report and others), a receipt was found by the police in the apartment of Raffaele Sollecito, with the date of 2 November 2007, for the amount of 1.09 Euros, the time of 8:30 AM, from the Conad store in Via Garibaldi which is owned by Marco Quintavalle, for the purchase of a bottle of ACE bleach.

According to a great amount of less reliable reporting (blogs, websites, etc) no such receipt has ever existed.

The existence of the questions -- essentially a challenge for someone to produce the receipt -- on informal sites and blogs mean that the statement that the receipt exists is put in a section about controversies, but it remains an assertion of truth because it should be treated just like any other assertion of truth from a reliable source. Is that a correct summary of how things were done? I don't think I disagree with it, and I do see that it means there should be no attempt to reconcile 'facts' to make any particular consistent story. Createangelos (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Does this comment from an Italian source help?[1]

Luca Maori, il legale dello studente di Giovinazzo, giura poi che gli scontrini trovati dalla polizia nel monolocale del ragazzo (tre in tutto e datati in tempi lontani dal delitto) non hanno nessuna importanza nell' inchiesta.

Translation from Google seems to indicate the dates didn't match the time of the crime.

Luca Maori, the lawyer for the student Giovinazzo, then swears that the receipts found by police in the studio for the boy (three in all and dated in time away from crime) have no importance in the 'investigation.

Could someone fluent in Italian confirm that the translation is correct?Footwarrior (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Fluent, hmm, but I'd say more or less: Luca Maori, the lawyer for the student from Giovinazzo, then swears that the receipts found by police in the boy's bedsit (three in all and bearing dates distant from that of the crime) have no importance in the investigation. Rothorpe (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting that it is from the same date as the Times article by Richard Owens, which claims that the receipts are from the morning after the murder and even from 'a time when he claimed to be asleep.' The Owens Times article puts the title partly in quotes

Suspect `bought bleach to clean murder weapon after Meredith Kercher's death.' 

But there is no particular quote to that effect in the article. I'm pleased people are continuing to think about this subsequent to my being curious about it. It should be a matter of simple fact, a receipt is a written document. I wish we had it to display on the side of the page so it doesn't need to be discussed so abstractly, and sorry for taking up so much space about it. Nice one by the way Rothorpe. I didn't know you know Italian.

Also I know this is only a talk page but I'll also 'indent' this quote since I have made the times quote prominent on the talk page

Repubblica — 19 novembre 2007   pagina 13   sezione: CRONACA  
"(three in all and bearing dates distant from that of the crime)"  
[with round parentheses as in the article, not sure what the parentheses signify this is part of the quote]

Createangelos (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Since we have a reliable source claiming the receipts were not dated the morning after the crime, I added a mention of that to the article. The witness that testified that Knox wasn't at the store that morning should also be mentioned to keep this part of the article neutral. Footwarrior (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Should one change 'police recovered' to 'police reported' in the ref to Owens Times article? Rothorpe? Createangelos (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No, & I've already changed it back to 'recovered'. It's a matter of linguistic collocation: police make statements, which journalists report. Rothorpe (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Biased Editing of Article and Harassment of Those Attempting to Include Minority Viewpoints

I must object to the conduct of FormerIP, who has gone through this article for weeks taking out every statement and citation that supports the minority view that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito might not be guilty. He has also deleted most every statement that presents the concerns of Americans, such as that the prosecution Halloween theory and other theories on motive were bizarre, that there was a lack of credible forensic evidence, and that the prosecutor had engaged in questionable conduct in this case and another murder case. FormerIP's editing violates the NPOV policy that minority views should be included. He went so far as to delete a paragraph that I was still trying to type--on the basis that I had not included sources!!! Yet, by deleting my new paragraph he was intentionally preventing me from adding the sources that I was trying to type in at that very moment!! FormerIP's biased editing must stop. Minority points of view MUST be included in an article--and therefore the views of many Americans who think these convictions are quite dubious should be allowed into the article under NPOV policy. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You say that "the views of many Americans who think these convictions are quite dubious should be allowed into the article". If you are talking about the views of editors, no they shouldn't be allowed. Where there are minority views expressed in reliable, verifiable sources, they should of course be mentioned but, if they are minority views, this should be represented in the balance of the article. Bluewave (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The hypocrisy is stunning! There has been heavy editing in an obviously biased manner by British editors to delete or change much of what was added by American editors. Looking over the edits that have gone on here for weeks, they have all been very one-sided. That is so obvious, Mr. Bluewave from Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlykinskyja (talk • contribs) 20:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Concerns about recent edits to the lead

Zlykinskyja has recently added a chunk of stuff to the lead section. I am concerned for several reasons:

• I think it gives undue weight to perceptions in the US and material about the prosecutor. To my mind, this unbalances the lead and I would suggest that the material was moved elsewhere, with the lead left pretty much as it was yesterday.
• The citation for the satanic rite is a UK newspaper, quoting an Italian newspaper, which seems to be quoting a defence lawyer quoting the prosecutor speaking during a closed session of the court. And the newspaper quotes from a blog. This is not a suitable source for the lead.
• The conviction of the prosecutor is completely unrelated to the case. Worth a mention somewhere, but not as a major part of the lead.
• This reads like someone's personal manifesto for why they think there was a miscarriage of justice. Not like an encyclopaedia.

Bluewave (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I notice that Bluewave (British editor) didn't raise concerns about creating imbalance or undue weight while FormerIP (British editor) spent weeks deleting and editing this article to read in more much more biased way against the American Amanda Knox. The article has been greatly changed from the more balanced article that it used to be and now reads more like a manifesto of someone's belief that the American and her boyfriend are guilty. The new lead text should stay because it reflects the essence of the debate from the perspective of millions of people in the U.S.--and their views deserve to be included just as much as the British and Italian views. Stop with this biased editing. Also, if there is a particular source that is weak, that does not justify deleting the text. It only justifies a comment that a better source needs to be looked for. As for the prosecutor who is now a convicted criminal, that is a crucial issue from the US perspective. It is shocking and unacceptable to Americans that a man who engaged in criminal misconduct as a prosecutor in a murder case would be trusted to handle another murder case. That would not happen in the US and so this is a major issue from the US perspective. 20:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for being British, Zlykinskyja.

I do not think that it is inappropriate to include details of the pro-Knox POV in the article. However, your recent edit was not balanced, in that it increased the word-count of the lead to 160% of what it was previously. In order to make such substantial changes to the POV slant of the article, you really should attempt to gain talkpage consensus first. I would suggest copying the text that you want to add here so that it can be discussed by editors. Thanks, I hope you can understand the reasons why it might be good to work in this type of way. --FormerIP (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

When FormerIP made hundreds of anti-Knox edits to this article over the last several weeks, I did not see him seeking consensus first. Yet, he insists that someone adding ONE paragraph must first seek his permission. FormerIP has no respect for the work and time that other editors have put into this article. He trashed this article with his hundreds of one sided edits. He deleted my paragraph TWICE without first discussing the matter with me, just as he has deleted whole sections without first seeking consensus. FormerIP is not acting in good faith but with a lack of ethics as shown by his hundreds of one sided edits. STOP DELETING MY WORK. Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, are you the same person as Pilgrim Rose? As far as I understand, it is legitimate to return to Wikipedia under a new user-name, as long as you are open about this when you return to articles you used to edit. --FormerIP (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP, are you the same person as Bluewave? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlykinskyja (talk • contribs) 22:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Accusing FormerIP and me of being the same person is a very serious allegation in the Wikipedia culture. If you think you have the slightest shred of evidence, please state it! If not, apologise to both of us! Bluewave (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Efforts to Block the Addition of American Viewpoints

Now this is really disgusting. Someone, likely FormerIP, has gone and had this article locked so that only certain people can edit the article. That is truly disgusting. The locking of this article was NOT due to any vandalism. It was due to an attempt to block alternative viewpoints. This is the most extreme form of censorship. So now, only the British editors who trashed this article can edit the article, while any American joining in to add WELL DOCUMENTED, WELL SOURCED information is blocked. That is just despicable. Americans are asked to contribute financially to Wikipedia, but are being blocked from adding information about an American many believe to be innocent. I intend to vigorously oppose this. All Americans should oppose these sleezy tactics! Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It is reasonable to speculate that you are an alternate account of an editor previously sanctioned for edits to this article, per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikid77. If you can shed any light on that question, please do so. In the mean time, you are free to make arguments on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Zlykinskyja. I Have responded on your talkpage. --FormerIP (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

To Ed Johnson:

There needs to be a full analysis and consideration of the attempts by FormerIP and some other British editors to block, censor, intimidate other editors from adding some of the American viewpoint to the Meredith Kercher Murder article. FormerIP came at me today just for trying to add a paragraph that added some of the American perspective to the article. He deleted my paragraph just two or three minutes after I posted it claiming that it lacked sources, when I was actually in the process of adding sources. The paragraph is well documented, well sourced, quite legitimate. He deleted it twice without prior discussion. This is just one of countless actions by him and other foreign editors to delete information that presents the American perspective on the case. The reality exists that Amanda Knox could be in fact innocent. She is a living person entitled to her good name if she is innocent. FormerIp has made hundreds of edits to slant the article to make Knox sound more likely guilty. Yet I am being blocked for TRYING TO ADD ONE PARAGRAPH that presents the American view, which is well documented by U.S. media and Senator Maria Cantwell. Wikipedia solicits funds from Americans, but here we have a situation of discrimination against American editors. Wikipedia is not supposed to be about censorship but that is what is indeed going on here. If you look at FormerIp's hundreds of edits over the last several weeks, they are all about making Knox look more guilty, while my one paragraph offering an opposing view gets deleted and now I am blocked from editing the article for a month. It is very difficult to respect policies like this. I am requesting that the article be unblocked to stop the censorship. Furthermore, I am by no means a sock puppet. I post under one name only in compliance with Wikipedia policy. The issue of sock puppet is just an excuse for censorship. FormerIp will use any tactic to get his way, such as he is doing now. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

ED:

One further point. I do not know the procedures. Where can I formally report this situation for dispute resolution or arbitration? This is a serious matter, since some believe that Amanda Knox is being defamed by Wikipedia while she is pursuing an appeal for which the next 26 years of her life may be at stake. There needs to be compliance with the policy on biographies of living persons. By blocking the American viewpoint from being added to the article, her reputation is being unfairly damaged during the appeal process. There needs to be a full review of this situation by a Wikpedia board--not censorship which allows only the current British editors from presenting information about the American Amanda Knox. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlykinskyja (talk • contribs)

Well that just confirms it. FormerIP has once again deleted my well documented, single paragraph that presents the view held by Senator Maria Cantwell and American media on this case. Americans who are concerned that Amanda Knox is being defamed by British editors like FormerIP on Wikipedia have good reason to be concerned. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)