Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about Murder of Meredith Kercher. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Unfair Interrogation Techniques; False Confession

I think it is appropriate to include in the article the issue of unfair interrogation techniques being used resulting in a false confession. A useful discussion of this type of problem can be found at false confession.

Please also see the text of Amanda's memorandum of November 2007 concerning her interrogation. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570225/Transcript-of-Amanda-Knoxs-note.html

I note that in the text of her memorandum of November 2007 she says that she was told by the police that they had solid evidence placing her at the Kercher house at the time of the murder. Yet, this appears to have been a trick that confused Amanda. I am not aware that there was any such evidence. Amanda apparently was vulnerable to the technique of suggestion. She started to believe that her own memory that she was not at the house was incorrect and that the police must be telling the truth that she was present because of course the police would not lie to her. It is remarkable that such a technique would have worked, but she was very young, immature, frightened. This technique led her to doubt her own mind and 'confess' to being present at the time of the murder. That led to her arrest. This seems to be a remarkable case of unfair interrogation techniques causing an innocent person to confess. The situation is well documented in her memorandum and was raised by Amanda and her lawyers at trial, as reflected in numerous press accounts. As reflected in the Wikipedia article noted above, there is an actual phenomenon known as false confession, and Amanda' memorandum shows many earmarks of this. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless Knox or her lawyer used the defence of false confession [which I don't remember and indeed they may yet do in the forthcoming Lemumba v Knox case, we can't use it, because it is WP:OR. You are surmising that this is what happened, but editors' opinions cannot be included. --Red King (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Red King:

The issue of a "false confession" was raised in the trial by Knox's lawyers. This article says that the theory was raised on the first day of the trial. http://www.newsweek.com/id/180004 The false confession theory seems to have been an important part of the defense and was covered during Amanda's testimony. So, I would argue that it is appropriate to include that theory in the article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is another article on the topic, which claims Knox raised false confession as part of her defense. I can't formally link to this article, but this is the address: examiner.com/x-8922-Skepticism-Examiner~y2010m2d14-What-everyone-should-know-about-false-confessionsZlykinskyja (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Knox, Sollecito and Guede were heavily into drugs especially marijuana. This is the reason she gave for her confusion.:- "But something happened to her in those three months, according to people within the university community of the Umbrian hill town. At some point, apparently quite early on in her stay, she lost control. In the town’s seedier bars, she soon became known as someone who was capable of intense jealousy and rage. She dedicated her free time to the drink, drugs and easy sex of Perugia’s nightlife. ... In the story, Baby Brother, a man called Edgar asks his brother, Kyle, whether he carried out a rape with a drug called “hard A”.... Drugs remain at the heart of the case. Marijuana was grown by the students at the whitewashed cottage Ms Knox and Ms Kercher shared with two Italian girls and Ms Knox and her boyfriend admitted smoking on the evening of the murder, which they claim accounts for their confused accounts and memory lapses." Kwenchin (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kwenchin, Your comments also speak to one of the points that the Knox supporters don't address - the Friends of Amanda wants everyone to envision Amanda as the eight year old girl running around on the football pitch, and not as a 20 year old that has made some very questionable life decisions in Italy. While I don't think that anyone can ever know the extent to which drugs played a role here, they certainly can explain some of the erratic behaviour.

Zlykinskyja Confused accounts, memory lapses, and a lot of Amanda and Raffaele's actions during police questioning are also consistent with what you could expect of two people that had been "free" for four days after the murder, and suddenly were faced with charges. There were probably more than one moment during those four days when the thought that they had eluded arrest. Anyone that thought they had "gotten away with" such a serious crime would suddenly panic, be frightened and all the other actions that the Knox supporters are lumping under the "false confession".

Also, I would also not classify Knox as "very young" - as a twenty year old she had reached the Age of Majority in both Italy and the State of Washington, fully responsible and legally accountable for their actions. Jonathan (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

New section on Lumumba witnesses

Wikid: Just curious on where this new section is going. I'm curious as to whether this new section really hits on the central issues in the story. I mean, isn't Lumumba now out of the picture entirely in the criminal case? Also, there was a glitch in the new text that seemed to be related to a defect in the cites, and was causing several lines to be invisible. So I removed the two cites to "Owen". Not sure how to put those back. Can you fill me in on how this new section is needed? Also, do we really need the section on the mobile phones? That seems to be a minor issue as well. Meanwhile, the big issue of the knife/DNA does not have its own section.Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to the "Mobile phone evidence" section? During the trial it was not considered a minor issue, as it showed a common action of Sollecito and Knox on the evening of Kercher's murder, and covering the time of the killing. Before that evening, Sollecito had turned off his mobile phone only for very short periods of time. --Catgut (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Convictions were profitable

This section is a mess. Some of the points have nothing to do with profit or money and it is rambly. Regarding another section, I note the controversy about 'bleach receipts' is completely removed now, after several dozens of pages of discussion to finally include two opposite points of view. Well and good, the controversy about receipts should be forgotten as no receipts were entered in evidence in the trial. Still it is annoying that people put a few weeks of work into a section and it is then just simplified, while another messy section about something else is started with people adding irrelevant points here and there. Also, what is the reason for including various material or not? Editors don't seem to have read very widely, such as the Micheli report, its strengths and weaknesses, controversies about changing alibis etc etc. One difficulty is that a 'reliable source' means a journalistically reliable source, which isn't really that reliable. Wish there were some higher standard of reliability than that because some things just are unclear about all this even after reading the article, basic facts of evidence are obscure somehow. Perhaps one virtue of the article as it is now is that irrelevancies do get winnowed out over time.78.150.79.35 (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The section is a disgrace. It seems to suggest that the Kercher family and Lumumba have profited from the convictions. They haven't, and are never going to. The civil cases against Knox and Sollecito are about establishing a principle, but I doubt if anyone will ever get any money from Knox or Sollecito, especially while they are in prison. This is why Lumumba (who has been pilloried in the world press and has lost his business because of this case) is taking his case to the European court to seek compensation from the Italian state. Bluewave (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, agree with Bluewave. Seems there are violations of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE here.Malke 2010 23:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it as it was completely wp:OR and wp:synth.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead section

I just had a look at this page after several days doing other things and noticed that the following had been added to the lead:

"In the U.S. the case is particularly controversial, with claims of miscarriage of justice, due to concerns that the interrogations of Knox and Sollecito had been conducted without a lawyer, questionable forensic evidence, the prosecutor's theory of a Halloween ritual sex orgy or sex game, and prejudicial pre-trial publicity."

This is all over-simplistic and opinionated. For instance, the particular "interrogations" of Knox (I don't know about Sollecito) that had been conducted without a lawyer were not admissable in the criminal trial, so it is difficult to claim that they resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Calling the forensic evidence "questionable" is entirely an editor's POV. We know that the Halloween theory was dismissed by the pre-trial hearing, so none of the defendants were sent to trial on the basis of that theory, nor convicted based on it. Summarising the prosecution case in that way is grossly misleading. Unless this is all explained (and it would unbalance the lead to do so) it is best left out of the lead. I would also add that a similar proposed addition to the lead was discussed a few weeks ago, with the consensus being against adding it. Bluewave (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have divided this discussion into two sections because we are talking about two different sentences.

As for the deletion of the info on the controversy, your objection that the statement is 'oversimplified' is not well founded. This is an introductory section. It introduces what will be discused below. Some of the info discussed in the story includes issues that folks in the U.S. find disturbing about the case. That is the "other" side of the story, which should be included in the article under NPOV standards. Since this info can be included in the article, merely including a brief reference to these issues in the intro is appropriate. Then the reader will be intrigued to continue reading down further in the article to learn more. It is not necessary that the whole story be clarified in the lead, only enough to let the reader know what will be discussed below so that the reader can determine if the story interests him/her or not. All of what I included in the sentence is discussed below in detail and is not merely my opinion. The prior paragraphs that were rejected a few weeks ago were much longer and were rejected on the basis that they made the lead too long. What I did here was condense the info down to one sentence to avoid the objection that the info made the lead too long. Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________________

I've also deleted the phrase "after lengthy interrogations by the police and prosecutor without an attorney present (suspects were arrested)" from the lead. Once again, this is highly misleading. Knox only acquired "suspect" status at 0145 on 6 Nov 2007. She was then arrested on the morning of the same day. We know she was questioned around 0545 and made a statement but we don't know if this was a "lengthy interrogation". She was also interviewed on previous days, but as a witness, when one would not normally have an attorney present. Once again, putting in a statement like this without all the explanation, presents the reader with a highly POV summary. So best left out of the lead, I suggest. Bluewave (talk) 09:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have re-worded to read "after many hours of questioning". This is a crucial fact of the case. It plays into many aspects of the story. It is what brought the whole machine of prosecution down on A and R. There is no justification for leaving it out of the lead, since it is such a big element of the story. In the U.S., such tactics would lead to a very solid Appeal. This case presents to American readers the issue of how seriously does Italy take the right to counsel, the right against self-incrimination, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, which are all considered paramount rights in the U.S. The absence of an attorney is part of the international controversy and one of the reasons why the U.S. public finds the case so disturbing.Zlykinskyja (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC).

Italy is not Iran.

The self-incriminating statements were deemed inadmissible. And the many hours of questioning may amount to some six or seven not even in a row, since Amanda's questioning was interrupted at least once. Salvio giuliano (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Six or seven hours is a lot of hours to be questioned without an attorney. We are talking hours, not minutes. The fact that the statements were ruled inadmissible does not make the absence of an attorney irrelevant to the story. The declaration made to Mignini at 5:45 am was made without an attorney. Clearly, he had to know that his questioning of Amanda and the seeking of the signing of a written declaration without an attorney was unlawful. It is hard to believe that this could have been an oversight by the prosecutor. Yet he did it anyways. Then he had her arrested and jailed on the basis of her statements and declaration unlawfully obtained. The absence of an attorney is by no means irrelevant to the story and rightfully belongs in the lead due to its importance to her arrest. 19:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlykinskyja (talk • contribs)

Zlykinskyja please do not persist in adding this stuff against consensus. The "interrogations of Knox and Sollecito conducted without a lawyer" were provably immaterial to the conviction. The "theory of a Halloween ritual" was provably immaterial to the conviction. The level of detail in which you are describing the controversies is greater than the level of detail about the trial and convictions. This doesn't belong in the lead. Bluewave (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave: Please do not falsely claim that you have 'consensus' when you do not have that. It is comical for you to say that the interrogations were "provably immaterial." Amanda was arrested largely (if not solely) on the basis of the interrogations. She was jailed on the basis of the interrogations. She became a suspect on the basis of the interrogations, which then caused the prosecutor to search for forensic evidence that would match up with her. She became reviled in the press and by the public on the basis of the interrogations and her alleged "confession". It was reported in the press in several countries that she had "confesssed." Her interrogations resulted in the charges against Lumumba and then his suit against her. Her interrogations were discussed at trial. Her memorandum about the interrogations was admitted into evidence. Thus, it is "provably wrong" for you to call the absence of an attorney at these interrogations "immaterial". If Amanda had had an attorney during the interrogations she probably would not be in jail today. Now that last part is just my opinion, but the rest is pretty much fact. I notice that it is okay to say in the lead that Guede was arrested on the basis of forensics, but it is not okay to say that A and R were arrested on the basis of their interrogations. You are simply trying to block crucial, central info about the other side of the story from being included in the lead.Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not entirely correct: the Prosecution did not ask the Judge to order Amanda's arrest because she had confessed.

These are the pieces of evidence that justified it:

3. Il Tribunale riteneva che gravi indizi di colpevolezza nei confronti dell'indagata fossero costituiti dai seguenti elementi: a) risultanze dell'autopsia e della consulenza medico-legale; b) rinvenimento di un coltello delle dimensioni di cm. 14 di manico e di c. 17 di lama, sequestrato all'interno del cassetto delle posate posto nella cucina dell'abitazione di S., recante, sul manico, tracce di DNA riferibili alla K. e, sulla lama, tracce di DNA ascrivibili alla vittima; c) dichiarazioni rese dalle persone informate sui fatti F. R. e L. M., coinquiline della vittima, le quali concordemente escludevano che il coltello sequestrato fosse in dotazione del loro appartamento e riferivano che la K., il giorno del fatto, indossava una felpa, che non è stata poi rinvenuta; d) esito dei rilievi tecnici effettuati su un paio di scarpe marca N. n. 42,5 di proprietà di S., evidenzianti una perfetta corrispondenza tra le predette calzature e l'impronta rilevata sul luogo dell'omicidio, nonché sulla porta dell'appartamento di via della P. che non presentava segni di effrazione; e) risultanze degli accertamenti tecnici svolti sull'impronta palmare rinvenuta sul cuscino su cui era adagiata la vittima e risultata appartenere a R. H. G., cittadino della Costa d'avorio, soprannominato "il barone", conosciuto da A. M. K.; f) presenza del DNA di R. H. G. sul tampone vaginale prelevato dal cadavere della vittima al momento dell'autopsia e sul frammento di carta igienica prelevato all'interno del bagno più grande dell'appartamento, dove erano state trovate feci, risultate essere di G.; g) esito degli accertamenti biologici espletati sul sangue trovato nel bagno più piccolo dell'appartamento in uso alla vittima e alla K., che permettevano di stabilire che alla vittima erano riferibili le macchie di sangue presenti sul tappetino, alla K. quelle rinvenute nel lavandino, ad entrambe le ragazze le tracce di sangue rilevate nel bidet; h) dichiarazioni rese dalla cittadina americana R. C. B., la quale, tornata in patria alcuni giorni dopo il fatto, riferiva alle Autorità che la K., in attesa di essere sentita dalla Polizia la mattina del 2 novembre 2007, le aveva riferito di avere visto il corpo di M. su un armadio (o riflesso su un armadio), con una coperta sopra di lei e di avere visto un piede dell'amica dopo che un poliziotto aveva aperto la porta, circostanze confliggenti con le modalità dell'intervento presso l'appartamento; i) dichiarazioni rese dalle amiche di K. M. S. C., le quali concordemente riferivano che la ragazza aveva trascorso in loro compagnia il pomeriggio del giorno 1° novembre 2007 e aveva lasciato l'abitazione in compagnia di S. P., la quale, giunta intorno alle ore 20,55 alla sua dimora di via del L., si separava dalla vittima, il cui appartamento di via della P. distava meno di dieci minuti da via del L.; 1) dichiarazioni rese da F. R. e P. G., contattate da A. dopo la constatazione che la porta di ingresso del loro appartamento era aperta, che c'erano macchie di sangue e che la finestra della camera di K. M. S. C. presentava i vetri infranti; m) dichiarazioni rese da S. il 2, il 5 il 6 novembre 2007 in merito agli spostamenti effettuati sia da solo che con A. M. K. tra il giorno 1 novembre 2007 e il successivo 2 novembre, a quanto riscontrato all'interno dell'appartamento di via della P., alla richiesta di intervento avanzata alle forze dell'ordine, nonché al riferimento alla ricerca di emozioni forti contenuto in alcuni suoi scritti apparsi su un suo blog; n) dichiarazioni rese il 6 novembre 2007 ore 1,45 dalla K. che indicava in L., invaghitosi di M., l'autore dell'omicidio dopo un rapporto sessuale con la vittima; o) dichiarazioni spontanee rese dalla K. il 6 novembre 2007 ore 5,45 dalle quali emergeva che L. e M. si erano appartati in camera, che, ad un certo punto, M. aveva iniziato a urlare, tanto che A., per non sentire, si era portata le mani alle orecchie, che forse in casa era presente anche S.; p) contenuto del memoriale scritto dalla K. che ribadiva di avere sentito M. gridare, di essersi appartata in cucina e di essersi tappato le orecchie con le mani per non sentire le urla dell'amica e di avere visto sangue sulla mano di S. durante la cena che si era svolta intorno alle ore 23 del giorno 1 novembre 2007 nell'appartamento di S.; q) contenuto dell'intercettazione ambientale effettuata dentro il carcere il 17 novembre 2007 relativa al colloquio intercorso tra la K. e i genitori nel corso della quale la ragazza, tra l'altro, testualmente dichiarava" È stupido, perché io non posso dire nient'altro, io ero là e non posso mentire su questo, non vi è alcuna ragione per farlo"; r) accertamenti svolti sul computer e sul cellulare in uso a S., dai quali emergeva, contrariamente all'assunto difensivo dell'indagato, che il computer non era stato utilizzato durante la notte ed era stato attivato solo alle ore 5,32 del giorno 2 novembre 2007 e che, parallelamente, anche il cellulare era stato spento durante la notte ed era stato usato unicamente all'alba del 2 novembre 2007.

Amanda's statements are under n) and o) and were deemed inadmissible. Salvio giuliano (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Salvio, Thanks. Do you have the link to this document? Do you know the date and who the judge is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlykinskyja (talk • contribs) 22:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking that there had to be an earlier document prepared on or about November 6. That is the date on which Amanda was arrested. This document above must be much later, since it talks about Rudy Guede and evidence they did not yet have as of November 6. As of November 6 they did not have much other than the interrogations.Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It is the Cassazione's verdict I mentioned earlier (http://www.alphaice.com/giurisprudenza/?id=5285); unfortunately, I do not have - and don't know where to find - the ordinanza of the GIP or that of the TL (the Appellate Court)... Salvio giuliano (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I will also note that the fact that her statements were ruled inadmissible against her by the high court on the criminal charges does not mean that they did not come into the trial. It is my undertstanding that her statements were discussed in front of the jury in connection with the civil action by Lumumba. Thus, the jury would have had the information about her statements during the interrogation even though not admissible for the criminal charges. Thus, it is impossible to say that the interrogations did not influence the jury in some negative way on the criminal charges. Also, this article talks about the civil trials as well. Certainly, where she was found liable for defamation and the defamation occurred during her interrogation, the fact that no attorney was present is a crucial fact. Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, as for the other issues mentioned in the lead, those are discussed in the article. I referenced them in the lead, consistent with the very purpose of the lead---tell the reader what will be covered in the article. The article need not discuss only what led to the convictions. If that were the rule then a whole lot of stuff would need to be deleted. The article rightly includes what comprises the whole story. Part of that story is that A and R were held for a year on the basis of a bizarre motive--Halloween ritual. Then no evidence of that was ever presented. So how was that legitimate. The article goes on to discuss other issues about motive. I referenced also, problems with the DNA evidence and pre-trial publicity. The article also discusses these issues. So the one sentence I included in the lead presents the other side of the story, and there is nothing wrong with that under NPOV standards.Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The lead says there were trials and that people were convicted. It doesn't mention all the witnesses and itemise the evidence. Likewise it says there were controversies about the trial. Again it should not itemise them. This is about balance. Then there is the issue of stating the controversies factually. But the first point is that the specifics don't belong in the lead. Let's keep the lead to unassailable facts: there were trials...people were found guilty... someone else was exonerated...there are controversies. Then let's leave the more speculative things to the body of the article. If you say in the lead that there were "issues concerning DNA evidence" you would also have to first say there was "DNA evidence of Sollecito at the scene" and "there was evidence of Knox's DNA on a knife which matched one of the wounds". To give either side without the other is not neutral. Lets leave out both, and stick to the events. Bluewave (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, when I spoke about consensus, I was referring to the archived discussion of a few weeks ago when you tried to add similar material and were opposed by FormerIP, Rothorpe, EdJohnson and myself. I thought that was a consensus. I think the onus is now on you to get a consensus if you want to add the material. So please do not, as above, say that I "falsely claim that [I] have 'consensus'". Bluewave (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, You refer to an entirely different dispute involving entirely different language and entirely different issues from weeks ago and say that that somehow constitues consensus for the current dispute. Please try to be a little more genuine in some of your arguments.Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, the US Department of State monitored this trial. Any suggestion that "If Amanda had had an attorney during the interrogations she probably would not be in jail today" is quite frankly, ridiculous. 99.8.149.98 (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(US Dept of State maintains a fair trial)

([[User talk:99.8.149.98] 23:03, 24 February 2010 (edit) (undo)

I don't know of any jurisdiction anywhere where it is conventional for witnesses to have an attorney during interview. However, as in this case, if a witness makes a self-incriminating statement then she becomes a suspect and is entitled to legal representation during questioning. Anything she said when not under caution as to her rights is and was inadmissable. Yes, it is odd that the police extended the interview so late, but her stories were so confusing and inconsistent that it is not ever so surprising that they tried to get to the bottom of it. --Red King (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Red King: it is standard rights for the suspect or person of interest or even a witness, (they have rights too) to have an attorney present during all questioning/interviewing in all jurisdictions in the U.S. and it's legal territories. Agree with Bluewave and the IP. Also note that this article is not about putting on a legal appeal of Knox's conviction, or refuting that conviction by posting contrasting evidence or opinions, etc.Malke 2010 23:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the latter, I'm surprised by the former but happy to take your word for it. --Red King (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I like that you are so succinct. If you look at high profile U.S. cases you will see that the witnesses always show up with a lawyer.Malke 2010 23:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In Italy, during pre-trial investigations, a witness may have a lawyer, if he so wishes; it is not that common, but they may. A defendant, on the contrary, must. Salvio giuliano (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Good to know that, thanks Salvio.Malke 2010 02:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

With regard to Red King's point that it is odd that the police extended the interview so late, I can only speculate that they didn't want to stop Knox talking while she was giving them apparently damning evidence against Lumumba. At the time, they probably took this testimony at face value and thought they would have a watertight case against Lumumba and that Knox would never be charged with any crime. But this is only a guess. Bluewave (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, or they were hoping she would make a contradictory statement. The first thing the police look at is the people immediately involved with a victim since most victims are killed by people they know. And apparently, the break-in looked staged to them right away.Malke 2010 08:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The point is that when a suspect has the right to an attorney, and there is no attorney present, it is unlawful to question that person. Period. It does not matter that they were having an important discussion. Once the right to an attorney kicks in, any interrogation with no laywer present is a violation of the suspect's rights. In this case, Amanda was interogated for an extended period of time without an attorney present (and in a foreign language, no less). Under Italian law, as well as U.S. law, it was unlawful to continue with the questioning once she became a suspect at around 1:45 am (I forget the exact time). But here, the police and/or prosecutor actually went so far as to have her sign an incriminating document at 5:45 am with no attorney present. It was unlawful with no justification for it as far as I can find. Shame on them. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not know about Italy, but in America a suspect always has the right to an Attorney, but until and unless they REQUEST the attorney, they can be questioned legally. It sounds like Italian law provides more rights to the suspect than American law in that respect since the interrogation was deemed inadmisable. In my opinion, harping on whether the interrogation was fair or not does not really contribute to understanding the rest of the story. It is certainly reasonable to describe the circumstances of the interrogation but to characterize them as justifying "international criticism" is stating a bias. You make it sound like Knox was water-boarded (oh, whoops, that would have been okay !) when she was simply questioned by Police in probably the same way as every single suspect in Italy (or America) is questioned when the police can get away with it. Is it possible that the interrogation lead to further issues ? Sure, but the art of interrogation is not perfect and there are an abundance of cases in every country in the world where a suspect's interrogation leads to them being convicted of a crime they are innocent of.

Witnesses contradicted Lumumba section

This section seems to be trying to cast doubt on Lumumba's alibi and goes so far as to say that "if released on appeal, Knox could sue Lumumba for slander against her reputation", which is pure speculation. The citation for saying that witnesses contradicted Lumumba is a news report from the Times, from November 2007: a time when Knox's accustaion against Lumumba was still being taken seriously. This article tells us that a Swiss professor had contradicted his own previous statements about seeing Lumuba and therefore was no longer able to provide an alibi. This is not the same as contradicting Lumumba. It mentions unnamed "witnesses" who said the bar was closed at a time when Lumumba said it was open and it casts doubt on whether Lumumba's friend can provide an alibi. The fact is that Lumumba was completely exonerated in the investigation. There was absolutely no evidence to link him to the crime and his alibi proved, in the end to be watertight. I really don't think this adds anything of value to the article. I suggest deleting the section. Bluewave (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that section and thought the same. It's also a violation of WP:SYN and should be removed.Malke 2010 11:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, you should not be deleting whole sections without seeking consensus. Another editor put a lot of time researching and writing that section and now his work is gone. You should have at least waited until Wikid77 showed up, as he does every few days, to voice his opinion on his section. I am not clear about that section either, but it may be that with some tweaking his work could be preserved and add something to the story, and his time and effort not wasted. The bullying and rudeness going on with this article has to stop.Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I was being bold which another editor recommended regarding this article. But nothing is ever lost forever. If there is material from this section that people want to reintroduce that can be done, but personally I wouldn't recommend it. I will, however, be very happy if there is no more bullying and rudeness. That gets my vote. Bluewave (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Then why not put his section back with a note in the edit summary directing his attention to the Talk page and a discussion about deletion.Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Because it doesn't belong there as explained above.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, wp:BLP applies to all living persons mentioned in the article.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes that means that wp:BLP applies to Knox and Sollecito as well. Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Consider the Legal Status of the defendants at this time

The NPOV issues perhaps should be considered in reference to these issues:

This is an encyclopedia. What is the proper role of an encyclopedia in reporting a story when the ending of the story is not yet known.
The convictions are under appeal. The legal status of the defendants is not yet finalized.
In Italy as in the U.S, there is a presumption of innocence until the defendant is finally convicted.
The presumption of innocence continues through the appeals process in Italy and the U.S.
Note that the attorney for prosecutor Mignini has stated to the press that his client Mignini's legal status has not yet been determined because he still has two appeals left of his conviction for abuse of office and wiretapping (or whatever the official charges were.)
The appeals process is a long one, perhaps a few years.
It is possible that Knox and Sollecito could be acquitted on appeal.
Having information on here for a couple of years, tending to show that they are sex crazed killers who strangled and stabbed a girl and plotted to do so is highly damaging to them, when their guilt or innocence is not yet finally determined.
NPOV and BLP policies should be considered when publishing a story about someone when you cannot say for sure that it is true--at this time. After the appeals are finished perhaps that can be said, but not at this time.
Just points to think about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlykinskyja (talk • contribs) 23:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please cite sources. This talkpage is not a forum for your, or anyone else's, own outlook on the topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think, it's fair and in complete accordance with our policies that the events surrounding the killing and the trial, and all the evidence brought forward by all parties can be described in this article. I do not have the impression that the article portrays Sollecito and Knox as "sex crazed killers". Yet it is true that those two must be looked upon as innocent, as the appeals process is not over. But this does not mean that the article should be designed or altered in a way so that facts are only admissible if they support Sollecito's and Knox' claim of innocence. The decision whether they are innocent or not is in the hands of the Italian appeals court, and they will base this decision on judging the facts. We do not jugdge the facts, we simply mention and present them (if sourced, of course). In this context, it's quite important not to forget WP:SYNTHESIS, especially in a complex and complicated case as the present one. --Catgut (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, you also appear to be crusading for the Righting of a Great Wrong. WP: GREATWRONGS. Such items should go in if (and only if) their convictions get overturned. Jonathan (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree with Jonathan and Gwen and Catgut. Zlykinskyja, you're claiming this: NPOV and BLP policies should be considered when publishing a story about someone when you cannot say for sure that it is true--at this time. After the appeals are finished perhaps that can be said, but not at this time.

Yes it can be said at this time. They were found guilty. That is their legal status. Even on appeal, they're still guilty unless their appeals succeed and their convictions are overturned. You can't parse that into something it's not and think it will work here. That's called original research and it doesn't belong here. This is Wikipedia. We don't judge. We just go by the facts and the facts are that they have been found guilty. So for now, no more additions that make it seem otherwise. No WP:Crystal predicting something, and no WP:SYN. As Jonathancjudd said, you appear on a mission to correct a great wrong, WP:GREATWRONGS and this is not the place for that.Malke 2010 03:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Malke, you are totally incorrect, and throw in your usual insults to boot. A person whose case is under appeal does not have a guilty status. That is the point. Their status is NOT FINALIZED. That is the state of the law in the majority of US jurisdictions and from what I gather in Italy as well. Prosecutor Mignini has recently been convicted of a crime in connection with his prosecution of another murder case. His lawyer has been quoted in the press as saying that Mignini's legal status has not been finalized. His lawyer has said that his conviction will not be finalized until his two chances at appeal are concluded. So it sounds as if in Italy the situation is the same as in the US. You are making things up and stating them as if you know the law on this when you are merely concocting things. Zlykinskyja (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, please remain civil. There is nothing insulting in my previous post. By your logic then, Knox and Sollecito should be freed from jail since they are now not guilty. Have they been released from jail?Malke 2010 05:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not a matter of my own logic. This is how the procedures work. Once a guilty verdict is entered, the person is deemed guilty. However, once an appeal is filed the guilty verdict falls into a type of limbo. It is no longer considered a final judgment. There is a trial de novo procedure that the Court of Appeals in Italy uses. Under the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 6, there is a presumption of innocence. During the trial de novo at the Appeals Court the presumption of innocence will apply. At least that is how it would work in the US if there was a trial de novo. So until the appeal at the Appeals Court is completed it cannot be said that they are guilty because the presumption of innocence will apply. Once it goes to the Court of Cassation, I am not sure about the presumption of innocence, but this case will not be at that point for a few years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlykinskyja (talk • contribs) 06:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

But why are they still in jail? What is keeping them there? Do you have citations that prove they are now innocent in the eyes of the law?Malke 2010 06:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union

There is some info here. But in terms of why they are in jail, well they have been in jail for two years. They have been in jail way, way before they were found guilty. They were held in jail because a judge ruled that they might kill again. So on that basis he could hold them without release on bail. Recall that in the US many defendants do get released pending appeal, often with restrictions. I think Knox requested release to a half-way house pending appeal but the judge denied her request.Zlykinskyja (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Surely the point here is that we, as editors, shouldn't make value judgements about the people who are the subjects of articles. We don't describe people as "guilty" or "innocent": we do say "they were found guilty" or "they maintain their innocence". The former are value judgements whereas the latter are facts. Likewise, we don't describe people as "sex-crazed killers". This is nothing to do with the legal status of Knox and Sollecito, but is just how reference works, such as encyclopedias, are written. In the context of this article, it applies equally to Guede as to the other two accused. But, of all the things that are wrong with the article, I don't actually think this is one of them. It doesn't "show that they are sex crazed killers who strangled and stabbed a girl and plotted to do so". It says they were found guilty of murder (and some other things) by a court of law. That is a fact. Bluewave (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Legally, it is true: they're still presumed innocent, because their convictions are not yet irrevocable; but Italian Law does not overlook the fact that a judgement was rendered by a Court - even though it does not have the particular imperviousness to change of res judicata yet -. After all, should their appeal be declared inadmissible - it means rejected de plano, without a full review, on account of procedural errors -, this judgement would become res judicata.

So, we cannot go as far as to say they are murderers, or that they are guilty, but we can say they were found guilty; as long as we do stick to reliable sources, we have nothing to fear. Even if their convictions were overturned in appeal, we could still report they were found guilty by the court of first instance, for this is history, provided we precise they were then acquitted. Salvio giuliano (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Salvio, Thank you for your interesting insights. One thing I am uncertain of----while it is clear the presumption of innocence would apply during a trial de novo at the Court of Appeals, would the presumption also apply during an appeal at the Court of Cassation?Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It definitely would.

In terms of how the story is presented, the fact that they are currently presumed innocent due to their status not yet being finalized should be reflected. For example, the fact that there is not a final determination of guilt supports the view that BOTH sides of the story should be included. The facts have not yet been conclusively determined since the Court of Appeals can conduct a trial de novo and could reach a different view of the facts. The problem with this article is that some editors want to present the facts and findings of the prosection and lower court as if this case has been finalized, when that just is not the reality. This case is a work in progress, in a state of flux, and the story needs to reflect that. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It still must be very plain in the article that the lower court has found them guilty and that their presumption of innocence is for the appeals court. They are still convicted of murder and this is why they are still in jail. The article can reflect a presumption of innocence for the appeals court only.Malke 2010 17:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

They're not in gaol because they were convicted; they're in gaol because they're deemed dangerous (because they might flee, or commit another crime).

Anyway, legally they're still presumed innocent, but, at the same time, they've been convicted by a Court. It is extremely complex, because, even though the Court of Appeals may basically retry them, there's also the principle of presunzione di completezza istruttoria in primo grado (they presume that what has been ascertained by the Court of Assize is what actually happened), but this presumption can be, even ex officio, refuted. I'd love to explain it more precisely, but we'd be off topic, I fear... Salvio giuliano (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Section 3.3 Prosecution: Amanda Knox section.

The Section 3.3 Prosecution: Amanda Knox contains this sentence:

“During an intercepted Skype call between Rudy Guede and a friend while he was a fugitive in Germany, Guede stated that Knox had not been present at the house the night of the murder”

Is this from a WP:RS? The website it is sourced to is written in Italian, and also appears to attribute a statement to Guede along the lines of him being invited to Kerchers flat. This is also dated November 2007, in the earliest stages of the investigation.

Can someone fact-check this sentence? Jonathan (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The cited Italian text doesn't say anything about a Skype or any other kind of telephone call at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If he said it, that would also be at odds with the story that he gave at his appeal, where he said that Knox and a man were in the house and that Knox argued with Kercher then ran away. This was widely reported at the time of Guede's appeal.[1]. If there was clear evidence that contradicted this, it is surprising that it didn't get equal reporting. Bluewave (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It is the website of a cultural project, whose aim is to study, promote, spread and defend Italian culture; this association also publishes a web newspaper.

The article reads as follows:

Spuntano le relazioni dettagliate delle conversazioni intrattenute nei giorni scorsi via chat tra Rudy Hermann Guede (attualmente in attesa dell’estradizione dalla Germania) e l’amico/spia che l’ha consegnato alla polizia.

Omicidio Perugia. Tutti i pezzi

Rudy dice chiaramente: “Amanda non c’era, quella maledetta notte”. Sostiene di aver avuto un rapporto sessuale con Meredith (che lo aveva invitato a casa), di essere andato in bagno (sue le tracce di dna sulla carta igienica, compatibili con quelle di fluidi corporei rinvenuti sul corpo della vittima) e di aver sentito le voci di qualcuno che entrava. Quando è tornato nella stanza ha visto “un ragazzo italiano, castano, senza occhiali da vista” che sgozzava Meredith. “Abbiamo avuto una colluttazione”, ha rivelato in un racconto confuso, “mi sono anche ferito ma non ricordo precisamente il volto di quel giovane (il presunto killer, ndr)”, poi sono scappato, avevo paura. Non sono stato io a ucciderla”.

Questa versione (almeno la parte relativa alla fuga) sarebbe in accordo con la testimonianza di una ragazza perugina che ha raccontato: “mentre scendevo le scalette che portano al parcheggio di Sant’Antonio il mio ragazzo è stato urtato violentemente da un uomo di colore che correva verso via Pinturicchio”. Poco prima dell’una un’altra testimone giura di aver sentito un “ghigno” vicino a casa di Mez.}}

Aside from the fact that, to my knowledge, it is impossible to intercept a Skype call, the article states that:

the detailed accounts of the conversations between Guédé - who's now waiting to be extradited - and his friend/spy who handed him over to the police are emerging;
Rudy clearly maintains: "Amanda was not there on that bloody night"; he holds that he had sex with Meredith (who had invited him over to her house), went to the bathroom (leaving DNA traces on the toilet paper, that are compatible with those left on the victim's body) and heard someone entering the house. Upon coming back to her room, he saw: "a brown-haired Italian boy, with no glasses" butchering Meredith. "We fought", he revealed in a confused account, "I got hurt, but I don't recall his face (the alleged killer's), I then ran away, I was scared. I did not kill her."
This versions (at least as far as the running away part is concerned) seems to be consistent with the testimony of another girl from Perugia, who has witnessed: "while I was coming down the stairs, that lead to the Sant'Antonio parking lot, my boyfriend was violently bumped into by a coloured man, running towards via Pinturiccio". A witness swears she heard a "sneer" near Meredith's house, shortly before. Salvio giuliano (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This Skype call was intercepted by the police because when Guede talked to his friend he did not realize that his friend was at the police station. The police listened to the whole call and Rudy's friend was cooperating with the police. As Bluewave says, it is indeed surprising that this call was not reported by the world press. But this just shows how prejudicial and biased the press reporting was. One U.K. newspaper did report a transcript of a PORTION of the Skype call, but did NOT include the portion where Guede says Knox was not there that night!! Guede did indeed state that Knox was not there that night. He did not change his story till much later when it was clear the press and prosecution were so very interested in the fascinating pretty American rather than him and that this could help his own case.Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja , what is your WP:RS for your reply? Can you identify the “…one U.K. newspaper … “? It sounds like you are trying to conjecture what Guede’s intentions were after the fact.

I can see no reason why such a statement should be allowed to stand in a Wikipedia article as it is written now:. It is poorly sourced, contradicted by Guede himself, taken out of context and misleading. Or at the very least, couched in such language that indicates that this was just one of many statement in the multiple versions of the stories that Guede told - all of which were subsequently rejected as untrue..Jonathan (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I edited the statement in the article to refer to the fact that this was reported in a specific Italian newspaper. It is not poorly sourced if it is reported in a newspaper. The fact that it is in Italian does not make it an unreliable source. Guede changed his story several times, and that should be reflected in the section discussing HIS case. But the fact that he ORIGINALLY stated that Knox was not there is a crucial fact which should be reflected in the story.Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It also should be noted that Guede was never a witness against Knox and Sollecito. He was called as a witness but refused to testify, claiming his right against self-incrimination. Thus in the story about Knox and Sollecito, Guede's accusations against them should not be part of the story since Guede's accusations were not part of the trial at all. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

.Zlykinskyja, Then answer is not to simply attribute the quote to the specific newspaper within the text of the article itself; that is what the footnotes are for. The question is rather, is this a valid statement at all? The quote itself is dated 22 November 2007; while perhaps at in 2007 it might have had some validity, but in 2010, it no longer does. So, again I will repeat my question: what was the WP:RS that Fondazione Italiani, got its quote from? Jonathan (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan: I would say that Fondazione Italiani, is the reliable source. It is a newspaper. We don't need to verify where the newspapers get their information. If that were the standard, we would not be able to write this story at all because we would need to investigate where the reporters got their info on each and every fact stated. We just quote the newspaper as the reliable source. Zlykinskyja ([[User

talk:Zlykinskyja|talk]]) 16:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is a quote from WP:RS "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed" Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't comment on this specific instance, because I haven't researched the sources, but in other parts of the article we have had lots of problems over newspaper accounts which, unfortunately, are virtually the only source available. For instance, there are lots of examples of newspapers mixing opinion with fact, stating things as facts when they are only the opinion of one of the protagonists in the case, reporting apparent 'facts' from unofficial police sources that are subsequently 'corrected', and generally jumping the gun on events. For instance, we could find cited sources from November 2007 that pretty much present Knox's accusation of Lumumba as fact. So, unfortunately, in this article I think we have to dig a little deeper than simply taking every news story at face value. The Wikipedia quote above doesn't require us to do so but surely good editorial practice does. Bluewave (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave , Thank you for helping me make the point here. That specific quote might indeed have been valid on 22 November, 2007, but since it has subsequently disproven. then I would suggest one of two actions: Either place the quote in context, or remove it completely. And I’m not entirely convinced Fondazione Italiani is either “mainstream” or a “newspaper”, which is why I was asking for a fact-check - FI does appear to have some elements of a blog. Jonathan (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Bluewave and Jonathan, agree. These sources are the slippery slope to WP:SYN. And in terms of sorting out fact from fiction, contradictory stories sell newspapers. The stories, the presentation of them, the headlines, are all crafted to appeal to a broad range of readers. They aren't meant to convey truth. If you look back in history at other crimes, even if you just go back to recent times like Scott Peterson, there were all sorts of stories out there. Remember the mysterious van that was parked out in front of the Peterson house and the break-in of another house? No? Well, probably that's because it got dropped a long time ago as not true. And I suspect a lot of what is being put over in these sources is in that category.Malke 2010 18:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I just did a simple New York Times search and they have extensive coverage, same for Newsweek, U.S. World Report. I just copied this directly from the New York Times:

In the press, Ms. Knox is often portrayed as an innocent girl unwittingly caught up in the Kafkesque Italian justice system. But even one of her lawyers, Carlo Dalla Vedova, said that he believed the trial was fair. He added that he “disagreed” with news media coverage that depicted it otherwise. [2]Malke 2010 18:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan and Bluewave: There have been reports in newspapers in 2007 that were subsequently shown to be untrue. It is not appropriate to rely on those article, but instead to rely on more recent articles. However, this report about Guede has not been subsequently reported as being untrue. There are no news reports that I have seen that demonstrate that Guede did not initially make that statement to his friend. The fact that he keeps changing his story about what happened that night does not mean that he did not state to his friend in 2007 that Knox was not there that night. This report is very important and should not be removed unless the report is shown to be untrue. I notice how quick some editors are to include damaging information that has not been particularly vetted, but this important fact now gets strict scrutiny. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, please refrain from uncivil comments. This is not about taking sides or attempting to divide editors.Malke 2010 19:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Malke, you should take that advice yourself, especially given your behavior the last few days behind the scenes. Please do not keep interrupting the discussion. Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan and Bluewave: Well, I have found an English newspaper dated December of 2009 which presents this very issue of Guede's statement as one of the central unresolved mysteries of the case. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/6727242/Amanda-Knox-trial-the-unanswered-questions.html I have added this cite to the article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have also found this cite that I will add. It presents this issue as a possible appeal issue. http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/57088,news-comment,news-politics,grounds-for-appeal-the-evidence-amanda-knox-will-contest-meredith-kercher-murder Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

But the article says that Guede made this Skype call from an Internet cafe, but you earlier claim that he was in police custody at the time of the call and that the police intercepted this call. Where is the citation for the police intercepting this call?Malke 2010 19:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No that is not what I said. I said Guede was in Germany and made the call to his friend. The friend was in Italy with the police. Guede was not taken into custody until later. Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so where is the citation for that?Malke 2010 20:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja , It is not that the statement itself is true or untrue, but that it is being presented out of context. By deliberately leaving out the part here that Guede had subsequently changed and recanted this statement, the reader is left with the impression that Guede had made the one and only statement which was that Knox was not there. So again, I would suggest that this quote either be removed or placed into the context of a statement that was later recanted or changed by Guede. The UK Telegraph article itself that you are referencing presents both statements, right now, the Wikipedia article is showing on the first statement. Jonathan (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree. It should be removed. Also, Zlykinskyja, please stop erasing the title of the section you are editing in the edit summary. You are making it difficult for other editors to figure out in what section the changes have been made. That is why the section title comes up in the edit summary. This is Wiki policy. Please follow it.Malke 2010 19:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan, the information can be clarified in the article. However, it is a bit tricky because Guede did not make any accusations against Knox at her trial. He was called as a witness but refused to testify at her trial. Knox had the right to cross-examine any accuser, but Guede refused to answer any questions at her trial on the basis of his right against self-incrimination. I can clarify the issue but I will need to do some research first. I do not want to include information against Knox which was excluded from her trial, because that will really confuse the readers. Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you , Zlykinskyja, also, if you kindly step back for a minute. Read this quote again, taken in isolation, out of context, as attributed to Guede … it is incredibly damaging: “During an intercepted Skype call between Rudy Guede and a friend while he was a fugitive in Germany, Guede stated that Knox had not been present at the house the night of the murder…“ This essentially provides Knox with an alibi, and significantly damages the prosecutions case. This is exactly why it needs to be couched in such language that this statement was later recanted and changed - in fact you yourself provided the recanting in the UK Telegraph article! By placing Guede’s contradicting statements cheek-by-jowl : that Knox was present | Knox was not present; this specific alibi for Knox disappears. This is the specific point I am trying to make. Jonathan (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, in this (first?) transcript of a skype conversation he says he wasn't there either. Seems he changed his mind at least three times.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"Dumping" a source in which he says "I was in the bathroom when it happened. One thing is certain, Amanda wasn't there." The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Everyone, my suggestion that that this entire "Skype" quote should be removed from the article completely, as it is not reliable sourced, to say the least. And it seems a bit pointless to justify placing additional conflicting statements just for the sake of keeping it in the article. Jonathan (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree.Malke 2010 20:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that removes sourced information from the article because it is "damaging" to the prosecutions case as you have just stated! That is POV editing!! The information about the call is documented by three sources, and I can probably find more sources. Furthermore, Guede's later statements were NOT PART OF THE PROSECUTIONS CASE, as I have stated. But since this article is saturated with POV editing I guess that and most other exculpatory information will be removed from the article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If we add one quote we would have to add all of them and it wouldn't really add anything to the article.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Magnificent Clean Keeper: Please look at this diff: [3]. On the left there, I didn't make that edit, but if you go back you'll see my edit on the next screen. So why does this diff make it look like I made that edit? Thanks. Malke 2010 20:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted (in part) an edit that was made earlier by Zlykinskyja.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

And thanks for the spell-fix.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome. I guess I've just got to get better at reading these diffs. Also, please look at the Guede background section. I'm concerned that instances of break-ins prior to the Knox thing might be inappropriate and could suggest POV pushing.Malke 2010 21:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I just removed some flagrant stuff from that section just now.Malke 2010 21:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I would go more with a more condensed summary style like "mini-bio" instead of detailing everything that was reported at some point. Also, this was discussed at some point so we might want to check the archives for it.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to look at the archives on that. As it reads now, there seems these things are linked to present a pov, an original research view. Yes, a summary would be better rather than a detailing.Malke 2010 21:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is one old discussion: NPOV of Rudy Guédé profile. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Malke, Please stop with all this removal of information. You have made numerous reverts and removals and are violating 3RR. Other editors have put a lot of work into this article. Please do not delete without consensus. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja: I take exception to these uncivil comments and I ask that you remove them or strike them through, or I will take this to the appropriate noticeboards. My edits are for this project and they based on Wikipedia guidelines as I've stated in the edit summaries.Malke 2010 21:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

And FYI, removing violations such as WP:NPOV vios and WP:SYN do not require consensus and neither are they violations of 3rr. Please read that policy. WP:3RR Malke 2010 21:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No that is not true. You have gone way beyond 3RR. There is no exemption for NPOV. It is BLP. You should not be deleting other people's work without consensus. In terms of deleting the info on Guede's prior break-ins that is not legitimate at all. That is all sourced and was an important part of his trial. This is all from the trial testimony as reported in the press. You don't know this case and should not be making deletions like that to support your view of the guilt of K and S. Any deletion should be discussed with the editors who did the research and put in the time to write up the information. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, I ask you to stop with these personal attacks WP:NPA. If you believe there is a violation of 3RR you are free to go to the noticeboards with that and make a case. Otherwise, remain civil WP:CIVIL, and listen to others here. WP:HEAR.Malke 2010 22:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja you seem to be missing the point here. This “Skype” quote, as it stands right now, in isolation, is incorrect, incomplete and when left unedited, is biased. We have two choices here: to remove the quote complete, or to add the subsequent quote in which Guede recants/contradicts himself. Both of these options would be correct and either choice would be neutral. Removing the quote entirely seems the better, cleaner thing to do. Are you able to see how this would correcting a POV statement? And please go easy on the ALL CAPS, it is quite aggressive. Jonathan (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan: Guede's Skype call was part of the K and S case. Guede's later statements were part of his Appeal and were not in the K and S trial. You are comparing apples and oranges. This is the problem. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja I think we are saying the same thing here … the first quote (that Knox was not present) was made early in the process, in November 2007, and the subsequent, contradictory quote (Knox was present), was made many months later during his appeal … are you suggesting that we judge and determine which statement is more accurate (you seem to believe the first statement was the correct one)? Or should we come to a consensus that he made two contradictory statement at two different points in time? I‘m trying to understand what is apples-and-oranges about this, the UK Telegraph makes no distinction or clarification of context. Jonathan (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Either put in that he recanted the statement or take out the whole call. It doesn't matter whose trial this came up in, it matters that he recanted and it goes with the original call.Malke 2010 22:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan, thank you for your sincere efforts to discuss the issues and your thoughful questions and comments. I very much appreciate that you have sought input from the editor who did the research and put the time in to come up with that information. However, it is very difficult to have a serious discussion in the present toll-like atmosphere. I think that perhaps we can discuss on your talk page after the weekend? If not, go ahead and do what you think best about that sentence in the article, but I will in the meantime research further and hope to have a further discussion about this with you later. Thank you and enjoy your weekend. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Having missed most of this excitement, I read down these edits with increasing despair. Zlykinskyja, you are clearly passionate about the subject and want to get particular information into the article. To do that, you need to build a consensus and get people on your side. I fear that by some of the things you are saying (like following Malke's posting with a remark about a "t[r]oll-like atmosphere"), you will achieve exactly the opposite and are in danger of building a consensus of people who are unlikely to support any of your edits. Can I respectfully suggest that we keep the discusssion, to the facts and the sources. Bluewave (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)