Jump to content

Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

Breaking News: Guede has claimed unidentified person with him at murder

I reverted the edit with the "Breaking News" bit. This isn't CNN. Please don't add that back.Malke2010 05:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Umh, no, you didn't and neither did I. You can see my reasoning here.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Umh, you're right, I didn't. Sorry, didn't see that.Malke2010 06:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The Lead of the article contain this embedded bit of breaking news "However, according to a report on the CBS News website on March 5, 2010, Guede told his cellmate that Knox and Sollecito were not involved in the crime, but that a second person had been present with him at the scene of the murder ... " That sounds very dubious and should probably be vetted for accuracy, context, the exact name of the cellmate, the validity of the translation and so on. The "breaking news" flash also makes the sentence one paragraph below sound odd in contrast: "Guede maintains he is innocent", I would think it is hard to maintain your innocence if you are also placing yourself at the scene of a murder. Should we perhaps hold off on placing the "cellmate testified ..." statement? Jonathan (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Jonathan, my thoughts on the cellmate's claim is that Guede's lawyer will first ask to see the deal the cellmate made with prosecutors to shorten his sentence. This could just be a case of a cellmate getting the guy to talk and then taking it back to the prosecutor. This seems an old ploy to get a bargaining chip for themselves. What it comes down to, whether it's true or not, is that now the prosecutors have a new witness, whether he's lying or not doesn't seem to matter to them. He's willing to make the claim, that's what matters. And after he testifies, he gets a shorter sentence or some other accommodation.Malke2010 18:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Deleting this information from the lead is compeletly unjustfied. This is cite. I expect this will soon be all over the world press and Internet. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/03/05/crimesider/entry6271397.shtml CBS news is a major news organization, so the information is being reported by a reliable source. This article paints two living people, Amanda and Raffaele as guilty of an horrendous crime. Yet, they may indeed be innocent and entitled to their good names. This new information is described as "blockbuster" information by CBS News, and indeed it is. If there was a second person with Guede, now all the pieces start to fit. Now there is also testimony under oath that Guede told his cellmate that K and S were NOT involved in the murder. This is a huge development and needs to be included in the article in the lead, since now this whole story may be starting to unravel. Wikipedia is not a news organization, but it should be keeping up to date at this situation unfolds. And now, there will be a lot of unfolding.Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Then should the statement that "Guede maintains he is innocent" be removed? After all, Guede himself is appealing the verdict, and the "breaking news" statement is not allowing Guede to be ".. entitled to his [their] good name[s]", Why should Wikipedia validate this jailhouse confession? Jonathan (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it's a bit early to imply that this changes everything in some way. Lots of evidence has been dismissed because the witnesses were unreliable. For instance the van driver who testified in court that Knox had attacked him with a knife and he had to defend himself by throwing olives at her. When he first came forward, some of the press claimed that as a prosecution breakthrough and described him as a "super witness", or some such. In this case we have statement from a convicted child-killer about a statement from a man who has repeatedly given different versions of his story to suit the occasion. This may well prove to be a bombshell, and we should certainly include it in the article, but I would say that it was premature to put it at the same level as the other stuff that's in the lead. Bluewave (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I would say that this is a major break in the mystery, and that now that mystery will be solved. It does change everything. The police from the beginning were looking at K and S as suspects due to their behaviors and befuddled interrogations. Then when they got more forensic data, they focused on Guede. Then they grouped the three together, since there were indications of more than one person being involved. Yet there was DNA found in the room that belonged to others that could not be identified. The cops may already have the DNA of the person who was with Guede in the room. So now, they will have to go back and look at who that other person is who was with Guede. Meanwhile, Guede is saying that K and S are not invloved in the murder. That should be prominently featured in the article to the same extent as this horribly damaging stuff in the lead. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If my understanding of the chain of process here: Guede told the story to his cellmate, the cellmate told Sollecito's attorney, Sollecito's attorney then made the statement in Italian, the statement was then translated into English and the English translation was reported by CBS News ... is this the chain? And are we sure that each of these links in the chain are correct? Jonathan (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. The cellmate gave testimony under oath during a deposition. It was sworn testimony in Italian. Then it was reported in the Italian press. Then it was picked up by CBS new and reported by CBS news as a "blockbuster". Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It is true, Guede is reprted to have told another convict (called Mario Alessi), that Meredith and Raffaele were not on the scene of the crime. But it is important to note that Guede himself has denied ever talkint to Mario Alessi about his trial. http://www.ansa.it/web/notizie/rubriche/cronaca/2010/03/06/visualizza_new.html_1730341164.html Salvio giuliano (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Salvio, you beat me to it in an edit conflict! The source I was looking at went on to say that Guede (of course) is going to take legal action for defamation![1] Surely this doesn't become a bombshell (for an encyclopaedia) until it has been reviewed by all sides. Until then, it just another pice of evidence in a case where there are many contradictions and many lies. Bluewave (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


At the very least, could the sentence be augmented to include "Guede denied ever saying this to his cellmate ..." ??? In which case it puts the cellmate's "confession" into a very different light. Jonathan (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

And we should also contextualize who this person is: he has been convicted for the kidnap and murder of Tommaso Onofri (a child who was seventeen months old, when murdered, because he was crying too loud). He has been convicted by the Corte d'Appello and his sole hope of getting any benefits is to cooperate with the police or the Judiciary... Salvio giuliano (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, you've argued that this should be "featured in the article to the same extent as this horribly damaging stuff in the lead". I would agree if there was actually horrible damaging stuff in the lead, but I think we have pretty much kept the controversies out of the lead. For instance, the lead could mention the "double DNA knife" or the bloody footprint with Knox and Kercher's DNA mixed, or it could mention Sollecito's DNA on the bra-clasp. At different times, these have all been regarded as bombshells, or words to that effect, by the media. However, we have kept them out of the lead because they are the subject of contention fromt the opposing side. Surely this falls into the same category. Bluewave (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
While the quote can be said to be accurate as attributed to Alessi, it is also just as accurate to say that Alessi's has ulterior motives for making this statement, his crediability is dubious, he is being sued for this very statement by Guede and he is contradicted by Guede himself. Jonathan (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Salvio, you seem to be saying that Mario has a reason to say these things because "his sole hope of getting any benefits is to cooperate with the police or the Judiciary." That is not accurate. Mario was NOT cooperating with the government. He gave testimony under oath when being deposed by Sollecito's attorney. Mario was NOT being questioned by the government. So Mario was not making some kind of deal with the government. Mario had NOTHING to gain because he was giving the testimony to Sollecito's lawyer, who had no ability power to give him benefits. Furthermore, the information is incredibly damaging to the government's case against K and S, so the government would not be giving out benefits in exchange for this testimony--which Mario gave just several days ago. Yet, Guede has a lot to gain by now denying what he said, because it can be construed as an admission to murder. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

PM INCHIESTA TOMMY, ALESSI RITENUTO INATTENDIBILE - "Mario Alessi continua evidentemente nel suo trend di bugie e di trasfigurazione della realta". Lucia Musti, procuratore aggiunto di Modena e all'epoca del sequestro di Tommaso Onofri pm della Dda Bolognese che coordinò l'inchiesta sul rapimento, contattata dall'Ansa, mette bene in chiaro prima di esprimere giudizi: "del caso di Perugia non conosco gli atti" ma, aggiunge "però conosco l'individuo". Musti infatti non solo ha partecipato all'indagine, ma ha sostenuto l'accusa in primo grado a Parma assieme al collega Silverio Piro. "Alessi da noi è sempre stato ritenuto inattendibile". "Forse ha trovato il modo per passare il tempo in carcere - ha aggiunto -. O forse, come credo, lui dice queste cose perché spera di ottenere dei benefici. Visto che l'appello ha confermato la condanna (all'ergastolo, ndr) e che difficilmente ci saranno sorprese in Cassazione, l'unica strada percorribile per lui è quella del beneficio".

This is what the Prosecutor in Tommaso Onofri's murder case has told the newspaper: that they have always considered Alessi to be untrustworthy. And the benefits he hopes to get are not to be granted by the Judge of the trial, but by the Magistrato di Sorveglianza. If he shows that he wants to cooperate with the Justice - it does not matter whether with a lawyer or with the prosecution - he might just prove to the Magistrato di Sorveglianza that he is changing, repenting, trying to make amends and to become a better citizen. Salvio giuliano (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Does that prosecutor work for Mignini? Isn't Mignini a top guy? It is not surprising if the government closes ranks to minimize such damaging info about the government's case. I doubt that Mario actually thought he would win accolades in high places for blowing the government's case out of the water. Mario was under oath, and maybe he simply told the truth, since to do otherwise would be a CRIME.Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No, they are completely unrelated: Mignini works in Perugia; Musti, in Parma. And the Prosecutor, in Italy, must look for the truth, not for a conviction; so, if the Procuratore Generale (the Prosecutor attached to the Court of Appeals) thought that an innocent was convicted, he would have to appeal the conviction. That said, Mario was under oath, and maybe he simply told the truth, since to do otherwise would be a CRIME: do you really think that a murderer and kidnapper, sentenced to life imprisonment, would care? Salvio giuliano (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no motive for Mario to lie. But I can see that he now could be subject to adverse consequences for his testimony--retaliation by the government. I expect him to be charged with the crime of obstruction of justice any minute now for telling the truth under oath. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


I propose that we take it out of the lead altogether (but include it elsewhere in the article) on the grounds that:

  • Its significance to the case is a matter of contention (because Guede has denied that he said this to Alessi) and we have not included any other contentious points in the lead.
  • Its significance depends on how events unfold in the future and we should not be trying to guess the future. By putting it in the lead, we make it look like the most significant piece of testimony in the whole case (because we don't mention any other testimony). But we don't yet know its significance.
  • Its reliability can be questioned because it the testimony of a known criminal, quoting the words of someone who has repeatedly changed his story. Also, the criminal in question may have something to gain by giving this testimony. Nothing else in the lead is based on a similarly questionable source.
  • If we leave it in the lead, we have to surround it with qualifying statements and will end up completely changing the balance of the lead.

For these reasons, I propose we remove it from the lead. Bluewave (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no credible basis for saying that Mario gave the testimony because he had something to gain. Furthermore, his statements were under oath, reported by a reliable source, CBS News. CBS News found the info credible enough to describe it as "blockbuster" information. This was big news in Italy yesterday and is today now showing up in English sources. The significance of the info is that it could change the whole story, as that story has been told for two years. That is why it should be in the lead--to grab the reader's attention to a potential major change in this murder mystery. Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Bluewave. The cellmate has his own motivations. Testifying against a cellmate is a bargaining tool because, whether it's true or not, the prosecutors now have a 'new' witness, and can claim they have new evidence. Putting this in lead seems more like the "Breaking News" banner but without the banner. And it will need to be surrounded with balancing information such as the tendency for cellmates to make these claims as bargaining chips.Malke2010 19:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
You misunderstand the situation. As noted above, Mario was testifying AGAINST the interests of the government--as to the K and S case- under oath. He now has no basis for seeking benefits from the government. The situation you are thinking of is when a cellmate gives testimony to HELP the prosecution and then gets a reduced sentence or some other benefit. Also, CBS news is reporting this, which is a reliable source.Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Is there a RS that lays out "the interest of the government"?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
He's giving testimony against Guede's interests. He's reinforcing the government's case against Guede.Malke2010 21:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
That's one interpretation. Above I read another one so I asked for clarification from a RS.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Knox/Sollecito trial again

Having just written a section above, arguing that the time may not be right to put a lot of work into summarising the prosecution and defence cases, I read through the trial section again. Currently, it consists of:

  • A paragraph of scene-setting
  • 2 about Knox pleading her innocence and describing her alleged mistreatment by the police.
  • A long paragraph about Guede's previous petty crimes (largely repeating material from an earlier section of the article)
  • A final paragraph summarising the verdict and U.S. media coverage.

This is a bizarre way to summarise a trial that lasted a year, involved over 100 witnesses, and included some 10,000 pages of prosecution evidence alone. I still think this is the wrong time to embark on a major summarising of the trial events, but I'm unsure what is the best way to proceed. I've added a neutrality warning to the section for the moment, but suggest we need a bit of discussion about how to make a short-term improvement, pending the judge's report. Bluewave (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, your summary seems accurate, these sections do read a bit dis-jointed and choppy 99.8.149.98 (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree how covering only Knox testimony or the Guede booking would lack balance, and it needs more to avoid NPOV problems. I suggest, to start with at least 1 sentence for all 12 months, January - December (with summer break mid-July, August, to mid-September), but perhaps note in August that some documents were transmitted between prosecution & defence. I'm not saying to burden anyone to write this now, just long-term as 12 monthly entries. Perhaps edit them below (#Knox/Sollecito trial events), then expand for the article later. -Wikid77, 18:49, 28 February 2010
I'm not entirely convinced the calendar approach will work, but let's give it a go and see what happens. Bluewave (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Knox/Sollecito trial events

Please edit the 12 months below as a summary of the 2009 trial:

  • January - declaration of innocence
  • February - Postal police, Kercher's housemates and their friends are cross-examined about the day Kercher's body was found; Kercher's classmates are cross-examined about the prior night. (Intruders ransack the house crime scene, leaving 4 knives and candles inside.) Forensic evidence of bloody footprints presented (including woman's footprint under body).[2]Evidence presented that the break-in was staged.[3]
  • March - Prosecution called on police evidence (Sollecito's statment, computer evidence and ISP evidence) to show that Knox and Sollecito did not have provable alibis for the time of the murder.[4] Testimony from a homeless man, who says he had seen Knox and Sollecito "chatting animatedly" on a basketball court, within sight of Kercher's house, "around five times" between 9.30pm and midnight on the night of the murder.[5]
  • April - Judge, jury & lawyers visit house crime scene on Via della Pergola.
  • May - Expert testifies about 61 hand and fingerprints found: 1 from Knox on glass in kitchen sink, 5 from Sollecito (2 outside Kercher's door), 1 from Guede as palm-print under body.
  • June - Knox testifies about interrogation, under cross-examination. The 2 Perugia lawyers and Milan school director testify about Guede's stolen knife & property.
  • July - Witness testifies window broken from outside, showing video of stones shattering similar window;[6] witness testifies saw Guede at nightclub later dancing unwashed. Summer break begins.
  • August - evidence documents are exchanged
  • September - break ends. "Double DNA" knife shown to court and discussed by both sides.[7]
  • October -
  • November - closing summaries
  • December - jury deliberation and verdict

Please insert any phrases into those 12 months. -Wikid77, 18:49, 28 February 2010

This timeline format makes mountains out of molehills by stretching the discussion of all evidence - important or insignificant - to the same length (a month). More important evidence might seem the equal of insignificant evidence with this format. A more equitable format would be to discuss all the evidence of one type in each paragraph. The most important evidence is the direct evidence, like eyewitnesses (or lack of) to the murder. Less important evidence, for example, would concern evidence that does not directly prove or disprove the murder.

Faborn (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC) FAborn 3/11/2010 6:31 PM

Remove claims based solely on Italian source. Need an English reliable source for article in English.

These sources (95, 107, 112, 146 and 158), in Italian, on the contrary can remain, can't they? http://www.perugianews.it/it/procdesso_meredith_sollecito_aiuta_il_pm_al_pc_per_la_proiezioni_delle_immagini.html http://www.repubblica.it/2009/06/sezioni/cronaca/meredith-processo-2/meredith-processo-2/meredith-processo-2.html http://lanazione.ilsole24ore.com/perugia/2009/09/03/226486-mignini_contro_scrittore_statunitense.shtml Salvio giuliano (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure they can. There is no policy that prohibits foreign RS's. Otherwise we would need to take all Italian sources out of the article.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks; that's my point, exactly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher&action=historysubmit&diff=348163024&oldid=348161715 Salvio giuliano (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Salvio: It may be that those sources were included in addition to the English source. Or it may be that the point was not particularly controversial, so no one raised the issue of not having an English source. But the info that you are trying to include based SOLELY on Italian sources is highly controversial and is an unfolding event. Reliable sources for this stuff is crucial. I can't even figure out what these sources are saying, and I know this case very well. How can an English reader less familiar with the story who does not speak Italian rely on this source? Can you try to find something which backs up what you are saying in English? It is noteworthy that super-strict scrutiny is being given to the CBS News report, while zero scrutiny is being given to the questionable claims of prosecutors written solely in Italian, which most of the same editors may not even be able to read. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment Italian sources can always be cited on en.Wikipedia if need be, but care must be taken. See Wikipedia:V#Non-English_sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

In the strongest terms possible, Rudy denied ever having talked to Alessi about these matters, Biscotti said. Alessi's appeal of his life sentence was denied, so he is not credible. He is doing what those who are desperate do grab onto someone else in desperation. But Guede is bothered by the fact that he is always being dragged into the middle, Biscotti said. Authorities who interrogated Alessi in the Onofri case said Saturday that they do not believe he can be considered reliable and had given misleading declarations in the past.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/416314_knox06.html
Is this source better? Salvio giuliano (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
In general, whenever a foreign language source can be replaced by an English (language) one which is reporting the same it should be switched.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
In accordance with the policy at Wikipedia:V#Non-English_sources I wish to request that a translation of the entire newspaper article be provided for any Italian sources utilized to support a controversial assertion of fact in the article. Salvio: The English source you found is much better, since I and other readers can actually read it. I hope you will delete the others for which there is no translation on this highly controversial issue. Thanks. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Why requesting a translation after an English source that verifies the Italian one was provided?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
And, having gone off on this particular tangent, I hope we can now agree to remove this controversial item from the lead, where we have previously only included stuff that is not controversial. Bluewave (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I concur with the arguments made above and agree to remove it from the lead.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
So do I.
And as far as translations are concerned, I'm always happy to help. Salvio giuliano (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted it from the lead, on the basis that it is inconsistent with the other stuff in the lead, as discussed above. It may completely change the course of events, but we have no way of knowing that now. Until we do, it should be treated like all the other controversial evidence and left out of the lead. Bluewave (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The bias in the way the sources and text are being handled is just remarkable. If the information or news story favors the defense it gets put under a microspcope for hours and is deemed not credible even if a major source like a national news network presents the information. But sources that the US readers can't even read are okay (in an English language article),so long as they can help the prosecution. This information should be included in the article somewhere, since it is indeed now part of the real world story. The information is now being reported by ABC News, in addition to CBS News, and various TV stations. The information should not have been deleted from the article. If your problem was its location, it should have been moved, not deleted. This type of censorship is one of the reasons why I think some sort of mediation is necessary. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Nobody said it can't or shouldn't be in the article at all. In my opinion it can be included in the main body of the article. I'm just not sure which section would be the best place. Any suggestions?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I would think somewhere in Guede's section and maybe move it somewhere else as things develop.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I had thought it was already somewhere else in the article (as the lead is only supposed to summarise other parts of the article). So I'm sorry if I deleted it completely. I agree that Guede's section looks a reasonable place to put it. I do, however, strongly resent the suggestion that I'm acting in bad faith by removing it from the lead. Bluewave (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Courtroom events yet again

I've previously pointed out that the section on courtroom events does not reflect what happened in the courtroom. I have had a go at drafting a new version of the text, based on the lists that I posted earlier and the calendar of events that Wikid77 produced. I'll post it here for comment rather than doing a major edit of the article, which would probably be contentious. I think I have all the cites, but they are not fully edited into this version:

On 16 January 2009, the trial began before the Corte d'Assise of Perugia, presided over by Judge Giancarlo Massei. Hearings were held nearly every two weeks (except for a summer break) until 4 December 2009. Rudy Guede attended the trial, but declined to testify.[8]During the first session, judge Giancarlo Massei rejected a request by the Kercher family to hold the trial behind closed doors. He ruled that the trial would be public, but with closed sessions to be decided on a case-by-case basis.[9]
The case was opened for the prosecution with witnesses from the Postal police, Kercher's housemates and their friends, to establish the events leading up to the murder and on the day the body was found. The prosecution sought to prove that the break-in at the murder scene had been staged. Evidence was presented that shards of glass from the broken window were found on top of clothes that had been strewn around the room, suggesting that the window had been broken after the room had been ransacked.[10]
The prosecution presented a range of forensic evidence which included analysis of the bloody footprints found at the crime scene. In particular, a footprint believed to be a woman's, was found under the body. It did not match Kercher's shoes but was the right size to be Knox's, although it had not been matched to any of her actual footware.[11] Another bloody footprint at the apartment was claimed to match Sollecito's foot. Forensic evidence was produced regarding Kercher's bra strap, with Sollecito's DNA on the clasp, and the kitchen knife retrieved from Sollecito's apartment which had Knox's DNA on the handle and a minute trace of Kercher's DNA on the blade. The prosecution claimed that this was the murder weapon.
Police evidence was presented to show that Knox and Sollecito did not have provable alibis for the time of the murder. Sollecito maintained that he was at his apartment, using his computer, but police computer analysts told the trial that Sollecito's computer had not been used beteween 21:10 on the evening of the murder, and 05:32 the next morning.[12] Knox has maintained that she was with Sollecito at the time, but in his statement to police, he said that he could not remember if she was with him or not. Their version of events was further contradicted by a homeless man, who testified that he had seen Knox and Sollecito "chatting animatedly" on a basketball court, within sight of Kercher's house, "around five times" between 9.30pm and midnight on the night of the murder.[13] A Perugia shopkeeper gave evidence that Knox had gone to her supermarket at 07:45 on the morning after the murder, at when a time when Knox was, according to her own account, still at home with Sollecito.[14]
In June 2009, the defence lawyers began to present their case, and Knox testified for the first time on 12 June 2009, pleading her innocence. She told the court that she had been with Sollecito in his apartment on the night of the murder. The defence pointed out that, despite having put forward several different theories, the prosecution had produced no convincing evidence of a motive for murder. Knox testified that she regarded Kercher as her friend and had no motive to kill her. She also testified that during her interrogation by the police and prosecutor she had been intimidated, threatened with incarceration and hit on the head, causing her to give false testimony implicating Patrick Lumumba.[15] The Corte Suprema di Cassazione had ruled her remarks during part of her initial questioning were inadmissible because no lawyer had been present.[16] They were, however, admissible in the concurrent action against Knox for falsely accusing Lumumba. Her voluntary handwritten note, partially retracting her statements was also available to the court during the trial.
The defence sought to show that Guede could have been a lone killer. Two Perugia lawyers and a school director testified that Rudy Guede had been caught with a large (16-inch, 40-cm) stolen knife inside a closed Milan school on 27 October 2007 (5 days before the murder) with a laptop PC reported stolen 14 October 2007 from a Perugia law office burgled with a rock breaking an upstairs window. The school director testified that money was also missing from the school office, following Guede's alleged break-in. An expert witness for the defence testified that the window of Kercher's flat had been broken from the outside, and presented a video of stones shattering similar window.
The defence challenged the prosecution's DNA evidence, suggesting that the quantity of Kercher's DNA on the "double DNA" knife was too small to be reliably tested and that, in any case, that knife only matched one of the three wounds in Kercher's neck. The bra clasp had been overlooked in the initail police crime scene investigation and the defence argued that it could have been contaminated with Sollecito's DNA some time before it was finally tested. Furthermore, the defence pointed out that there was not a single piece of Knox's DNA found in Kercher's bedroom, where the crime had been committed.
Towards the end of Novemeber, the prosecution and defence began summing up their cases. On 4 December 2009, Knox was convicted by the Corte d'Assise of Perugia of all counts except theft and was sentenced to 26 years in prison.[17] Sollecito was found guilty of all five charges attributed to him and was sentenced to 25 years in prison. The decision was delivered by the presiding judge at around 11:45 pm local time, following 13 hours of deliberation. The final hours leading up to the verdict were closely covered by American television stations across the country utilizing "countdown" clocks on their screens.

Sorry for the long post! Comments please? Bluewave (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow! That's outstanding. Well done, Bluewave. I think the reader will have a complete understanding after reading this. I was confused about this before, but now I understand it. Thanks for doing this.Malke2010 18:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Going over your proposal it seems to be a fair and very well written summary of those events. You might want to wait a day or two to see if other editors have reasonable objections or additions/changes they would like to be made to the substance.
In regards to the third paragraph: At this CNN citation given in the article (cite 121 at this time) there is an interactive future [Interactive: The evidence] which explains Sollecito's footprint. Don't know how to cite it though. Anyways, let's see what editors have to say about it and thanks for your time and effort, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
PS: I didn't examine your proposed edit in detail yet so I might have more input when I have more time.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, both, for the supportive comments. I hesitated for a while before posting, because this article is so contentious but, believe it or not, I am honestly trying to achieve balance! This section doesn't have to be perfected on the talk page: if it goes into the article it will no doubt be repeatedly edited by everyone anyway. (And hopefully magnificently cleaned at some point.) I think the main questions are:
  • Is it an improvement on the current section?
  • Is it balanced between the prosecution and defence cases?
  • Is anything glaringly wrong, missing or over/under-stated?
  • Have I got citations for everything? (I think so and will make sure before editing the article).
I agree that I should leave it a while and get other views. Bluewave (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Bluewave, you are really carrying the water here fella, no pun intended.

1) Yes, it's an improvement. Major improvement. No doubts there.

2) Seems balanced. And I understand things better.

3) Don't know if anything is wrong.

4) Citations will need review before I can say if they're okay, but at first glance, I'd say yes. Very good.

5) Agree to let it sit here for a bit before it goes live. Give other editors a chance for a look see.

Thanks for this well done effort.Malke2010 21:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Just a note on the side: I believe you and so do others. Not only me and Malke but I'm sure most editors here do so. You and other Britain editors (no offense to Scottish and Irish ones intended) have shown no more potential bias towards one side as American ones. I was thrown into the "British-bias-crowed" as a matter of fact even so I'm American but never clearly revealed it. My mistake? No! Because on Wiki it shouldn't and doesn't matter where we come from as we all have to edit by the same policies. So cheer up, Bluewave, as you're one of the main contributors to the page who in my opinion tries very hard editing in WP's spirit. Kudos for you and my (and for sure others) appreciation and keep up the good faith work here as you showed repeatedly in the past despite reasonable and unreasonable resistance, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Magnificent Clean-keeper! I'd leave you a very nice note on your talk page, but I daren't go there again, in case I get caught by your "You have new messages" joke for a third time! Bluewave (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Just a few minutes ago I felt for it by myself. Imagine that. XD The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
but now you really have a message.Malke2010 23:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Yep! XXXXXDDDDD The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Bluewave, good show! Although the only minor suggestion I might raise - purely playing Devil's Advocate - is the prosecutor's apparent changing of the motive, but that is indeed minor. Proving a motive is not really required anyway. Also, as an aside, like Magnificent Clean-keeper, I am also an American, and like MCK, I have also chosen to deliberately keep my nationality on the back burner in the interests of impatiality... I have served on a US jury (even appointed foreman) on a trial here in my home state, and while it is not quite the same as Italian law, there are similarities that I have tried to parlay in my thought, opinions and editing. Jonathan (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Jonathan. I've added a bit more on the motive in bold above. Bluewave (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

For me, it's thumbs up. Salvio giuliano (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ditto, and I think you could make your proposed edit "live"by now, citing consensus at the talk page. As you pointed out earlier, editors can work on this clearly better summary version of the events you've layed on and put foreward. And responding to a point you mentioned above, I'm confident your citations will match the edit and still can be "detailed" if needed.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
OK I've replaced that section as agreed in this discussion. I've been checking all the citations and I think they are all valid, though it would be worth people doing some checks. The only thing I couldn't find a cite for was the countdown clocks preceding the verdict (which came from the original version of the text). I've left this in (with a cn tag) because it doesn't look very controversial. The part about the changing prosecution theories could also do with a stronger citation...this has been much talked about but comes out less clearly in the actual trial reporting, as far as I was able to find. Bluewave (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I went to the effort of getting consensus for this section, here on the talk page, before editing the article. I am therefore disappointed that Zlykinskyja chose not to engage in the discussion but has, instead, made about 20 edits to the text without seeking any consensus at all. Personally, I don't think these edits improve the article: the numbered list embedded in the text (which includes repetition of some of the points made later in the paragraph); a list that mixes fact (no Knox DNA etc) with opinion (the knife was not the murder weapon); increasing the section on the defence (so if we had balance before, we don't have it now); adding some sources that seem to be opinions about the evidence rather than reports of courtroom events (which is what the section is about) and so on. Come on, Zlykinskyja, Wikipedia is supposed to operate by consensus! Bluewave (talk) 09:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I reverted to the agreed version reached by consensus. Let's discuss more editing of this section here first. Please participate so that all editors can contribute to proposed changes. Also, I'm concerned about embedding text. Is this even allowed? And the original research of combining the DNA and the knife, this can be reverted on sight under WP:BLP rules.Malke2010 12:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I've added:"Before making major edits to this section please discuss them at the talk page as it reflects the current consensus. Thanks", which is allowed and common practice in such cases.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Efforts by Anti-Knox Editors to Restrict Participation by Pro-Defense Editors

It is quite clear that the majority of editors on here are editing and commenting in a persistent pattern of the anti-Knox persuasion (which could also be described as "pro-prosecution" of Knox or "pro-guilt"). Only a few of the pro-defense people are left(who could also be described as "pro-Knox" or "anti-prosecution"). It is possible that I am currently the only editor remaining who is not anti-Knox. Nevertheless, this article requires NPOV and compliance with BLP. The fact that the majority of editors are anti-Knox does not excuse compliance with NPOV and BLP. The anti-Knox editors cannot reach a "consensus" to edit the article in an anti-Knox manner, and thereby block participation by the pro-defense editors. The anti-Knox editors cannot control the text of the article by all agreeing on the Talk Page first, despite previous objections stated on the Talk page by me, a pro-defense editor, that Bluewave should not have a final lock on the positions of the defense, given that he clearly does not agree with or believe the defense positions. I expressed my objections to an anti-Knox editor writing the Knox position, yet the anti-Knox editors did it anyway, and now will not allow me to add or contribute to the text stating the Knox position. To tell me I need to seek the permission of the anti-Knox editors before I can contribute to an article section on Knox's defense is just a form of censorship by those who believe that Knox is guilty.

The attempts by the anti-Knox editors have been very aggressive in trying to discourage and intimidate the pro-defense editors from participating. Magnificent Clean-Keeper has gone so far as to repeatedly delete my new text while I am actively trying to write it and my intention to add the cites was expressly noted, as I was adding the text. To delete someone's text while the editor is writing is disrespectful, harassment and is very discouraging to an editor. For this to occur while he has it posted on his Talk page-- with he and Malke laughing-- about how he intends to file a complaint against is just another form of intimidation. The anti-Knox editors are throwing away the hard work, time, effort, and contributions of the pro-defense people, because they keep deleting our text over and over and over. The anti-Knox editors are treating the pro-defense editors in a disrespectful and hostile manner, and have basically taken over the article. Now the article will be less and less NPOV, as more and more of the contributions of the pro-defense editors are deleted, and more and more the pro-defense editors are discouraged from participating. But the objective is supposed to be NPOV, and without the pro-defense editors counteracting the obvious anti-Knox bias of the majority of editors, the article will end up with an anti-Knox slant that will likely violate BLP. There needs to be equal participation, equal opportunity, equal rights, equal respect for the pro-defense editors, in order for NPOV and BLP to be achieved in this article. But as I have said over and over, that is not what is happening. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think your presumption that editors can be divided into "anti-Knox" and "pro-defense" factions is simply wrong. Personally, I find your attempt to pigeon-hole me as "anti-Knox" to be highly offensive. Bluewave (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Whether you want to term the groups of editors as anti-Knox or pro-prosection vs. pro-defense or pro-Knox, there are CLEARLY two camps divided along the guilt or innocence of Amanda Knox. That is beyond a doubt. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with you, and I'd kindly request that you stop accusing your fellow editors of bad faith. Townlake (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The pov of editors doesn't matter so long as they are able to edit by consensus to a neutral point of view. Malke2010 18:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
And Townlake is correct. You must assume good faith to get to consensus.Malke2010 18:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
NPOV needs to include the MINORITY position. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What is going on in this article is merely a reflection of what is going on in the Internet in general. There are websites and postings all over the Internet where people have developed these hard and fast opinions about the guilt or innocence of Amanda Knox. Those same hard and fast positions are reflected in the way the editing is going on here. If the pro-defense editors are being discouraged from participating, then the slant in the article will turn largely pro-prosecution/anti-Knox/pro-guilt. That is the simple reality. I am saying that this issue needs to be addressed for the long haul. Obviously, if the topic concerns guilt or innocence and only those who believe she is guilty can contribute to the article, the article will not end up as NPOV. That much should be obvious. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"Consensus" can't mean majority vote, if the majority of editors are of one persuasion, and only a tiny minority of the other editors of the other persuasion. If that is the case, then NPOV can never be achieved, since the minority side of the story will always lose the vote. Since the minority side is needed to achieve NPOV and BLP checks and balances, utilizing a "voting" system to achieve consensus will always derrogate from the goal of achieving NPOV. Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The issue is how can the minority view be included if the minority editor will ALWAYS lose a consensus vote, and then will be promptly ignored and his or her work deleted. How does a minority view get included if the other editors seek consensus for their proposed text via their Talk page but do not include an editor of minority persuasion? "Consensus" that is aimed at silencing the minority view required for NPOV does not seem appropriate. But for weeks that has been the pattern on this article, and now I am the only pro-defense editor left. This situation will not lead to a NPOV article, which needs to include the pro-defense side since the guilt or innocence of the accused is still undecided and will not be finally decided for a few years. Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
As I have said over and over, this article needs formal mediation so that BOTH sides can contribute and create a NPOV article. The way it is now, it is just too difficult for a minority view editor to contribute to this article. For such a persistent problem, some sort of formal process like formal mediation or even informal mediation needs to be adopted. I notice that Magnificent Clean-Keeper did not agree to mediation although some did. We need everyone to agree to mediation. Mediation is the only solution if NPOV is to be achieved. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
May I point out that I was the first one that pointed you to where to find the links for dispute resolution at your talk page Gwen Gale gave you a general link before and I helped you to find what you're looking for within] which you deleted and then asked the same question about where to find information regarding this again on this talk page here? Do I have to give link to it again or do you concur that I did? The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
As for the mediation, I didn't "agree" nor "disagree" at any point. I was waiting for specifics laid out (and never happened). The mediation would have been rejected right away at this stage.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The need for mediation is obvious: 1) deletion of materials; 2)use of sources; 3) inclusion of minority viewpoints, ect. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
This is how I stated it before: Mediation for the types of issues that keep coming up, such as NPOV, BLP, deletion of material, legitimacy of sources, ect. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
As long as you keep ignoring what you were told about how mediation works you're not getting anywhere with repeating the same old. Take a look at my last post here and ask a mediator how to proceed.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It is wrong to describe people who think this article should reflect the truth as being anti-Knox. All three have been found guilty of murder. So all three should be described as murderers. This is the neutral position. Compare this case with Linda Carty an English grandmother on death row in the US. She is described as a murderer even though she is appealing against the conviction because she was framed. Kwenchin (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Negative portrayal of Guede

I've been reading through the biography section of Guede and, to me, it reads like we are going out of our way to portray him negatively (in contrast to the biographies of the other two accused). I wanted to check if other people agree with this. Some examples are:

  • "Guede knew a backstreet route to the Kercher-Knox house which enabled him to avoid travelling near the Sollecito flat" seems to suggest something furtive, without actually explaining the significance.
  • The quote that he was a "tremendous liar". According to the cited source, Caporali actually said "we knew he was a bit of a liar".
  • "According to some witnesses at trial, harassed women and stole from their handbags". The cited source says something like thus but it was written in 2008, before the details of Guede's "closed" trial had been released and before Knox's trial had begun. The source doesn't mention trials at all, it just says "witnesses", without identifying them.
  • There is a lot of stuff about break-ins and knives which reads to me like it is trying to make a comparison with the Kercher case. In particular, it is a bit biased to make a great deal about Guede carrying a knife, without mentioning that Sollecito habitually carried a concealed switchblade or that a witness claimed that Knox threatened him with a kitchen knife.
  • The previous break-in with a rock through the window is an obvious attempt to suggest a link with the Kercher murder, despite the fact that Guede has never actually been charged with this former break-in.
  • The biography does not really read like that of someone with no criminal convictions and no history of violence.

Most of the material is from cited sources, so, apart from a few specifics, this is about balance. Do others agree that it looks a bit unbalanced at the moment? Bluewave (talk) 10:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Overall, I think that section is quite balanced, but I think we should include that Guede was banned from the nightclub where he claimed to have met Kercher, because Guede was known, by the bar's owner, to rob people at knifepoint. Also, we should perhaps add that Guede was thought to be lying about his activities inside the closed Milan school office and was seen looking inside office cabinets, not just "looking for a place to sleep" at the school. So, I guess you are right, that section is somewhat unbalanced: it should state that unlike a switchblade which is commonly legal in Italy, the knife that Guede had concealed and was carrying was considered an illegal deadly weapon. Does anyone know if the hammer he had concealed is also considered such a weapon. On 29-Oct-2007, according to sworn testimony, Guede appeared at the burgled law office and shocked one lawyer by saying that he had purchased, not one but both, the stolen computer (with accessories) and stolen mobile phone at a train station in Milan over 200 miles (320 km) north of Perugia. Then, during his appeal, when Guede carefully recalled listening to his iPod in the remote bathroom so he couldn't hear Kercher being threatened, he instead claimed that he now heard Kercher arguing with Knox's voice, listening through his iPod, in a remote room 4 doorways away from Kercher's room where all the bloodspatter was found: there is no evidence the struggle and knifing of Kercher occurred any closer to the remote bathroom. So, as far as balance, the section about Guede needs more, not less, detail to accurately reflect all the issues documented during the trial/appeal hearings. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I haven't seen any sources that mention Guede robbing people at knifepoint. If there are reliable sources for this, you are right that we should include them. But, if not, this needs to be removed even from the talk page, because that certainly is the kind of accusation where BLP applies (even Guede has to be treated like any living person!) Bluewave (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Source for Guede/knifepoint: "48 Hours: American Girl, Italian Murder", Peter Van Sant, "48 Hours: Mystery", CBS News, 7 December 2009, p.2, web: CBS-286.
Thanks. Do you mean the bit that says "People knew who Rudy was," says Abraham. "We found out he tried to rob one of our bartenders, where he went into his house, had a little scuffle with a knife. He was one of those people you kinda - you knew him, but you stayed a little far away from him." If so, that's not quite the same as saying he was known to rob people at knifepoint. Bluewave (talk) 12:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree. The arrangement of the edits on the these break-ins, and the business about the knives, appears to be there to suggest that he's already showing an interest in knives and one can infer from there. Also, the edits there seem to be conclusive that he's guilty. And this sort of edit, "With no mother to watch him. . ." Sentences like this seem original research to explain why Guede supposedly became such a bad fellow. No Mummy to watch out for him, Papa has left him, etc. It's like a thesis is being advanced. And notice also that the overall effect is that he's guilty. Nothing exculpatory is being offered. For example, the wound on his hand, might that have been a defensive wound? And the quote he gives about the assailant saying that Guede is black and a black man will be blamed. The New York Times mentioned that there was a racial element in all this. Are there any media outlets that have suggested problems with the Guede prosecution? If so, they should be included.Malke2010 16:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikid77, this "...unlike a switchblade which is commonly legal in Italy" is a False Choice. A legal knife can still be a murder weapon, and some illegal knifes are never used in a crime. Jonathan (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
And it is wrong too: in Italy, it is illegal to carry a switchblade knife; it is considered arma propria (an object that can only be used as a weapon). Actually, it is illegal to carry any other kinds of knife too, unless one has a good reason. Salvio giuliano (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

More bias by "Friends of Amanda"

  • "With no mother to watch him..." Yet Amanda Knox's parent's divorce was removed as irrelevant. No discussion of her background or criminal record.
  • "Caporali stated that he had been disappointed by Guede's behaviour," after "Caporali initially had high hopes for Rudy Guede's future"
  • Guede "skipping school". But nothing about Amanda Knox's school (Internet search shows she went to a 'Jesuit school' / 'competitive prep school'. but it would be speculation to say that people who go to these types of schools sometimes go weird when they encounter the freedom of university).
  • "According to Guede, his nickname was "Byron Scott" after the legendary high scorer for the Los Angeles Lakers basketball team." (implies grandiose/delusion) This is trivia so why no mention of "Foxy Knoxy".
  • Guede worked in pubs and nightclubs whereas Amanda Knox worked in a "bar-restaurant" "occasionally" (actually 3 nights a week 10pm til 2am)

All it says about Raffaele Sollecito is that he came "from an affluent family". Kwenchin (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your concerns: Guede's section seems to have been written with the sole purpose of casting Rudy in as bad a light as possible, so as to put across the idea that he was Meredith's murderer and that he acted alone. Salvio giuliano (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The information about Guede's break-ins was evidence presented at the trial. Removing it to cast him in a better light to look less likely to be guilty is not appropriate and is POV. There is a lot of detail in the story about him because the research was done and time and effort was put in. Just because more work was done on his section but not on the sections on the other two defendants does not mean that all that work in his section must now be deleted. Other information could be ADDED about the other two defendants, to create more balance. But deleteing all that information about Guede to create "balance" is not appropriate. That means that the huge time and effort that other editors put in to find all that information is wasted. As noted above in the section on CENSORSHIP, writing an article does not mean DELETING information, it means ADDING information. The balance should be created by doing the work to provide fuller detail on Knox and Sollecito. Sollecito in particular has a skimpy section. If you want to achieve balance by DELETING information, then we end up with very little information. You do not write an article by DELETING information. The work needs to be done to beef up the sections on the other two defendants. Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Zlykinskyja, I agree that simply deleting stuff may not be the best way to get balance, but I still feel the current section is not balanced. We'll see what others think, in due course. It would indeed be POV if we tried to make him look "less guilty" and that is not what I'm advocating. By the way, although the stuff about break-ins was presented at trial, it was Knox and Sollecito's trial, not Guede's. So, at the time, he did not have a lawyer to cross-examine any of the witnesses who spoke against him. Bluewave (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2010

(UTC)

There is no rule that only cross-examined information can be included in the article. But the bigger issue is deleting huge amounts of other people's hard work to try to make Guede less guilty and therefore Knox more guilty. That is just not appropriate and is a type of censorship of the information. The focus should be on full and complete information, not censoring information so that one defendant looks less guilty. Before something like that is attempted, I think this article should go into mediation or arbitration of some sort so that huge amounts of other editor's hard work and dedicated hours are not thrown down the drain. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"...information about Guede's break-ins was evidence presented at the trial ... " and do you know specifically what relevance and importance the jury gave it? There is no way of know if the jury believed theh break-ins it without reservation, or whether the jury rejected it out of hand or if the jury was ambiguous about it. Loads of evidence gets presented at trial - and you can go on ad infinitum pulling out all the points you wish; but without having one of the jurors implying something along the lines of "the evidence that Guede had break ins was a major factor in our verdict", it is ponitless to bring it up Jonathan (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So now to include negative information about Guede it must have been subject to cross examination AND we need proof of what weight the jurors gave the information!! That goes way beyond any Wikipedia policies on including information. Again, this article is badly in need of mediation, arbitration, or some such procedure. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
If there is a demand for a balanced article then the background information and character investigation should be equal for all 3. I do not say that the negative information about Guede is false but that some editors are being economical with the truth by overloading the article with too much information about Guede and at the same time having virtually nothing about the others involved. Kwenchin (talk) 16
00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Zlykinskyja, I can't see any suggestion of "deleting huge amounts of other people's hard work to try to make Guede less guilty and therefore Knox more guilty" other than in your post above. Let's keep the discussion to the subject of achieving balance. Bluewave (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree! Rudy's previous break-ins, his previous convictions (if any), his criminal record has nothing to do with Meredith's murder. This article is about her death, not Rudy's character. I think that these pieces of inormation are not worth mentioning here, because their only possible use is to convey the idea that Rudy is a ciminal and, so, he's the only murderer. To me, that's not evidence, it's a load of innuendoes. A character assassination. Salvio giuliano (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, I think is that it is difficult for editors to classify pieces of evidence into neat boxes such as NEGATIVE or POSITIVE / or CREDIBLE / NON-CREDIBLE. The defence or proecution can present any piece of evidence with the hope that it will support their side of the story, however the jury may consider that more damaging than helpful, or the jury may disregard it completely. My point is that nobody knows exactly how the jury places any one individual piece of evidence, when the jury has teh obligation to consider all the evidence in its entirety. Jonathan (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My bet is that the "jury" (strictly judges) would have paid no heed at all to the evidence of previous break-ins by Guede, seeing as Guede was not on trial at the time and this evidence told them nothing about the guilt or innocence of the people who were on trial. However, I may be completely wrong, but within the next few days, we will know for certain because the deliberations of the court will be made public. Of course, we as editors are quite entitled to include this stuff in the article, irrespective of whether the jury considered it important. What we need to consider, though, is how prominently it should feature in a brief biography of Guede. In doing that, we must surely give consideration to the fact that it consists of allegations that have never been tested by, for example, cross examination. And my original point is really that this is just an example of what seems to be an excessively negative portrayal. Bluewave (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The information about Guede is factually correct. It is well cited. The information is negative because he has a negative history, according to what has been reported about him in the press. If there is positive information about him in the media reports, then feel free to include it. But I have not come across a lot. The information about his interest in basketball and his admiration of a famous US basketball player I included as a way to be positive, but now someone is saying it was included to make it look like he has illusions of grandeur! So to some extent how the article "reads" to someone is influenced by whether that editor is in the anti-Knox group or the pro-defense group. The anti-Knox group wants Guede to look like as nice a guy as possible, since that makes him look less guilty and Knox look more like the really bad person. But the way to make Rudy Guede look like a better guy is to ADD positive information, not DELETE well sourced information to censor it and create a more favorable impression of him. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
A suggestion: ADD positive information about Guede to the article. Then ADD some negative information about Knox and Sollecito to the article. Then it will look more balanced. But DELETING the information is the complete opposite of the goal of WRITING the article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Facts balancing:-

  • Guede parents divorced (no mention of Amanda's parents' divorce)
  • Guede skipped school (no mention of Amanda's Jesuit school)
  • Guede good at basket ball (no mention of Amanda's football)
  • Guede nick name (no mention of Amanda's nick name)
  • Guede's prior record, but no convictions (no mention of Amanda's conviction)
  • Guede drug use (no mention of Amanda smoking cannabis)
  • Guede played with knives (no mention of Amanda playing with machine gun at museum)
  • Guede gave up job gardening (no mention that Amanda gave up job at Bundestag)
  • Guede disappointed father (no mention of Amanda's disappointed uncle)
  • Guede wore basketball shoes and baggy trousers (no mention of Amanda's fashion sense)
  • Guede enjoyed the nightlife (no mention of Amanda's partying and dancing)
  • Guede a tremendous liar (no mention of Amanda's lies)
  • Guede threw rock through window (no mention of Amanda's fine, $269, after rocks were thrown at a neighbours house).
  • Guede climbed through high window (no mention of Amanda's rock climbing hobby/skills)

Kwenchin (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Then add some things in that you feel would be informative and appropriate. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher/Archive_15&oldid=1136252954"