Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Keep expanding article

05-April-10: This is a short reminder to keep expanding the text of the article, to provide NPOV coverage that reflects all the controversies that make this case notable, beyond yet another daily murder. Wikipedia has over 33,000 articles about footballers, but only 1 article about this infamous murder case. A Google Search, to hunt for this type of murder case, reports 210,000 webpages for: murder "sexual assault" students Italy, and the major webpages are about this Kercher case. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Size isn't everything! I agree that the subject deserves a better article than it has currently got, but that will not necessarily be achieved by adding more and more material. With regard to the comparison with footballers, if you take just one well-known player of one variant of football, Google reports 17.4 million results for "David Beckham", compared with just 136,000 for "Meredith Kercher". So I don't think it is unreasonable that Wikipedia has lots of articles about footballers. Bluewave (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Although everyone should be mindful of WP:SIZE, not everything need be presented in this article. Jonathan (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Reference number 247

Come on! That is a reference to a commercial currency conversion site! Delete it someone!

78.145.86.97 (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Unresolved issue about Knox's lawsuit and pretrial publicity

I'm continuing the discussion from an above section under a new heading in case anyone is misled by the earlier title of "Censorship again". Salvio and Zlykinskyja disagreed about the coverage of Knox's lawsuit against Fiorenza Sarzanini for violation of privacy: Salvio wrote a short summary of the lawsuit, whereas Zlykinskyja developed it into a new section about pretrial publicity. Both versions were taken to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Murder of Merdith Kercher, where they can be seen side-by-side. The issue was not resolved there and Salvio has now closed the discussion there as "Unresolved". I have suggested a way forward: I think Salvio's summary fits very well into the "Civil actions" section and is proportionate with the other cases mentioned in that section. So I would cover the civil case in that way. Zlykinskyja's text is mostly about concerns with the pretrial reporting by the media and I wonder if we should rework the existing "Media coverage" section, along with Zlykinskyja's material, and focus on the main issues of media protrayals of the case. The pretrial publicity is one of these, but I think it is misleading to suggest that it is the only one. Other notable features of the media coverage are the influence of the Knox-funded PR campaign (which currently only gets a brief mention) and the personal attacks by the media on the prosecutor, Mignini. Both of these are unusual issues in the media coverage of the murder case. What do other people think?—particularly Zlykinskyja, who wrote the piece about pretrial publicity. Bluewave (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I put a lot of time and effort into that NPOV Board topic, and so have re-opened it for comment and advice. That NPOV Board has a backlog. Patience is needed. Eventually, my new section will be reviewed there and I look forward to hearing what advice will be given there. Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with your time, your effort or your patience; I put a lot of time, effort and patience there too. It's only a matter of staleness: nobody has intervened so far, excluding us and I think we should move on and try to get consensus here. You really ought to stop owning this article... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Salvio, please stop with these personal attacks. For me to simply try to add material to the article, and have that reviewed on the NPOV NoticeBoard, does not constitute an attempt to "own" the article. All indications are that "ownership" of this article is being claimed by you and others who are willing to allow only incriminating information about K and S into the article, while deleting, removing and watering down information that tends to show the "other side of the story." It is because there has been a persistent refusal to allow "the other side of the story" into the article that advice from the NPOV NoticeBoard is needed. You are the one who posted that NPOV NoticeBoard filing to begin with. You took up my time and effort with that NPOV NoticeBoard filing and it is unreasonable to now close the thread over my objections without receiving any input from disinterested parties. I am prepared to wait until disinterested advice is given on the NPOV NoticeBoard, which I would anticipate receiving shortly. If you look at the list on the NPOV NoticeBoard you will see that the article is slowly making its way up from the bottom of the list. This shows progress, and supports the view that eventually the Kercher article will have its turn at receiving review and advice. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If you truly wanted the article to be NPOV, you would stop editing it. Because you not only have a point of view, you're trying to make the article reflect your POV. Knox and Sollecito were found guilty of the murder. That's the fact this article should be wrapped around. Knox murdered Kercher. That's not a POV. That's what the court decided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that the NPOV noticeboard discussion has been closed again (after 2 weeks with no independent input) how about us having a go at resolving this here. So can we please discuss my proposal at the beginning of this section? Bluewave (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

If one makes a request for mediation it's a good idea to check on the current status. Hipocrite accepted and is now waiting for response. Please, everyone, indicate over there if you're accepting as well. Cheers. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It is vandalism to alter the text while it is under review on an official notice board; and discussions on crucifix.

I chose, as a courtesy — and to avoid the usual claim of censorship —, not to ask Zlykinskyja to remove the text she added, pending the review on the official notice board (after all, there is no reason her version of the text should remain, in lieu of mine, until this dispute has been resolved...), but nonetheless, I strongly object to this statement "copies of the diary and notebooks were somehow acquired by the journalist from the government": it is unsourced, it is biased, it is defamatory and it is wrong. Please, do remove the "from the government" part. I do not want to do it, because I fear an edit war might ensue, but I appeal to Zlykinskyja's good will to do that. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who believes this is vandalism is welcome to try to find such a statement in WP:VANDAL. They will not be successful. Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to make the encyclopedia worse. Edits made as part of a content dispute are not vandalism, because each party is trying to insert what they believe is correct. EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion! Anyway, I will not remove the text, hoping Zlykinskyja will oblige me... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

And, by the way, I'd very much like to hear your opinion on this dispute on the NPOV notice board, if you wished to comment on it... ^___^ 14:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

My point is that it is too difficult to conduct a review at the NPOV board if the text is altered. What is the point of including the exact text in a chart form, and then altering the text in the article, when I have asked that a review be done of the text in the chart WITHIN the context of the article. So if now editors start altering the text in the article, it no longer matches what is in the chart and the whole process becomes confusing, time consuming, and any result possibly moot. If time and effort is going to be spent doing a review of the text in the chart--and WITHIN the context of the article---, then having two different texts make no sense at all. Also, there is nothing defamatory about the information at all. The government seized the materials, and then the press got the materials. Saying that does not constitute defamation. So there is no emergency in needing to delete the information while a textual review is underway. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, apparently she will not oblige me...

By the way, there is no proof this material was leaked; a recent, unrelated episode was heavily reported, in which two journalists (of two different newspapers) sneaked into the office of a prosecutor and stole a copy of a wiretapping transcript; they're now about to be charged. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

And even if they were leaked by someone, it is, at least, incorrect to write that they were leaked by the Government: that would make it somewhat legal (or, at least, an action political in nature, which risks confirming the claims of anti-americanism). They could have been leaked - if they were! - by a crooked cop, who committed a crime and who would be incriminated, if he were to be caught...

Moreover, in the past, defence lawyers have been known to leak material to the press - for instance, wiretapping transcripts regarding the private life of a politician, episodes that were considered morally reprehensible, albeit not unlawful -, to grant a change of venue or to smear the prosecutor and the police, making them appear fraudulent... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The defense would never have leaked such highly damaging and profoundly private information to the press. That would be crazy. The government--either the police or the prosecutor or BOTH-- had possession of the seized materials. The materials were highly damaging. Then it all ends up in the media and in a book. This took place in the context of many other highly damaging leaks from the government. Judge Heavey of Washington has stated that Amanda was "demonized" and that the Italian government did that to her by many times leaking FALSE information and other damaging information prior to trial. That is what it looks like to many people. There was indeed defamation, but it was by the Italian government against Amanda, in the eyes of many. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

And so you're here to try and rectify it, is that correct? Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not a fair accusation. I am here to write a story that is non-defamatory against Amanda and Raffaele--and thus complies with BLP-- and is NPOV. But the fact that they have been villified in the media is not a minor issue. It is a very major issue mentioned countless times by public officials, public figures, U.S. media, family and supporters, and so it is fair to include that issue in the story. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

My point is that, in doing this — I mean to try and write a NPOV article, which is what we are all trying to do, I think —, we may risk defaming the prosecution or the members of the Court of Assize, if we're not careful; this is a good example of what I mean: In terms of Mignini's stupidity, well that was clearly shown in the documentary. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was not in the article, it was on a Talk page, so it is irrelevant to the content of the article. In terms of the documentary, almost the entire hour of The Learning Channel documentary on "The Trials of Amanda Knox" shown nationally on Sunday night focused on how Amanda was convicted in the court of public opinion by the villification of her due to government leaks and media sensationalism. The court and Mignini are not immune to criticism over the way this has been handled. If the US media is now making claims that the Italians mishandled this, and public officials are making those claims as well, then that is legitimate information for the story. In America, the US media is free to call it as they see it. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No, but that shows what you think of Mignini... In Italy, you can criticize, even harshly, a verdict (that's why our Judges publish written motivations: to allow for public review of their decisions), but not the Magistrates themselves as persons (attacks such as "mentally unstable" or whatever). I saw the documentary and I deemed it extremely POV. That's the prerogative of TLC, of course, but, still, I hope this article will be far more balanced. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you watch this on The Learning Channel? Is that shown in Italy? There are seven versions of the documentary so what was shown on The Learning Channel Sunday night and what was shown in Italy might not be the same version. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

TLC is not shown in Italy, as far as I know, but I managed to watch a copy of the documentary — I procured it in a not so legal way... :o) —. I read that Curt Knox complained about there being more than one version of the documentary, so I can't be sure that we watched the very same thing... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Where was the camera placed that recorded the courtroom scenes? Was that in a balcony or was the camera up on a pole or affixed to the ceiling? I ask because the camera position made the courtroom scenes look extremely intimidating. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it was on a pole, but I am not sure; after all, only very few scenes of the courtroom were shown — they preferred closeups of Amanda and her interpreter —. Anyway, I don't think that it could be intimidating, but it's my opinion. The courtroom was crowded, crammed with journalists because the trial was watched closely and journalists from at least three countries had gathered there... I also saw that you thought that the crucifix was intimidating. I don't know if it is - and it seems to me, but I could be wrong, that it is present in U.S. courtrooms too -, to me it wouldn't be. However, many people would like to have it removed — I am one of them —. It is a very interesting dispute, that has crossed our borders, but I fear this is not the place to discuss it... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There are no crucifixes in U.S. courtrooms. The U.S. Constitution guarantees separation of Church and State. And if you try to see things from a defendants' point of view, having any religious articles in a courtroom where you would prefer the surroundings to be as neutral as possible, could be interpreted as intimidating by a defendant. I don't know what Zlykinskyja's original post about it was, but she has a point about the courtroom proceedings being intimidating. I would imagine, any courtroom is intimidating to any defendant.Malke2010 19:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In Italy, that's true as well: the Church and the State are two different entities (art. 7 of the Italian Constitution). At the same time, though, under an extremely old executive order (dating back to Mussolini's times), in schools, in courtrooms and in every public office there must be an image of the President of the Republic and a crucifix. Since it is not a statute, the Constitutional Court cannot rule that this is unconstitutional. In Courtrooms, there must also be an inscription which reads "la Legge è uguale per tutti" (Law is the same for everyone) and "la Giustizia è amministrata in nome del popolo" (Justice is administered in the name of the people).

It's tradition, just like robes, sashes and "your honour"... It has no bearing whatsoever on the outcome of a trial... And I don't know if I would be intimidated by the presence of a crucifix or by the fact that my freedom is at stake... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 19:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Malke is quite correct. There can never be a crucifix in an American courtroom. That would be considered an outrage. I myself, even though a Roman Catholic, would be outraged. I can only imagine how upsetting the image must have been for Amanda and the entire Knox family, as Americans (although also Roman Catholics). This, especially while Mignini was painting Amanda as some type of crazy killer in front of that crucifix, as well as the whole world. How devastating. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've only got a couple of minutes, so can't enter into the wordy exchanges that are usual on this page. However, you might like to re-read the above comment and consider refactoring it (unless it's a quote from a citable source). BLP (and libel law) applies as much to talk pages as anywhere else. Bluewave (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

NO, I stand by my comment and opinion that Giuliano Mignini horribly defamed Amanda Knox before the world. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am an atheist, but I've never felt threatened or outraged, although cricifixes were in the university classrooms I studied in and in the courtrooms I've attended. I thought it should be removed, but it does not offend me or make me think that somebody's rights might be encroached on. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

For Giuliano Mignini to be presenting his delusional theories about Amanda, a Roman Catholic, in front of that crucifix, while characterizing her as some sort of crazy killer must have been totally devastating to her and her family. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that is an overstatement... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. As a Roman Catholic (yet American) female, that is surely how I would have felt. Furthermore, the American unrest against Mignini is only now coming to the surface. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20001171-504083.html Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that there's a great deal of difference between having to serve 16 months and 26 years — and that sentences of up to two years' imprisonment are almost always suspended —, Amanda's in gaol as a precautionary measure because she might commit other crimes, according to the Judges. And because, if freed, she would flee back home and we would never see her again. She is not yet serving her 26 years. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Really? Then consider this exact quote fron CBS NEWS in the bolded text that follows:

According to the Italian newsmagazine Panorama, investigators discovered that Mignini maintained computer lists entitled "Attacks to Remember" and "Orgy of Attacks." The lists contained names of journalists, government officials, and members of the Italian Parliament.

Mignini was convicted of launching investigations into his critics in the media, the police, and the government. The prosecutor illegally wiretapped phones and cell phones in his ambition to end the "orgy of attacks."

Because he violated the public trust, the Florence court banned Mignini from holding public office for the rest of his life. But, during his appeal, the prosecutor gets to remain in office. Mignini has not been called on to resign either.

Following his sentencing, Mignini told the media that he has a clear conscious and has done nothing wrong. Back on the job in Perugia, he is again in hot pursuit of some of his critics. Italian media have recently reported that the prosecutor has opened up criminal defamation cases against two Perugia lawyers associated with Amanda Knox's case.

The man who has been barred from ever holding public office in his lifetime, needs to now step aside. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's just the presumption of innocence, that you so vehemently advocate as far as Amanda is concerned... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The reality is that the truth is becoming known to the American people, thanks in particular to The Learning Channel. As more and more Americans become aware of the gross injustice, the hew and cry will only become louder. Mignini would be doing himself and the Italians a favor by backing off with this crazy killer theory, since there are few Americans who will believe it. The Italians need to realize that this problem will not go away until Amanda and Raffaele are freed. Until then, be prepared for battle. Americans are not, on the whole, stupid people. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That's how bullies behave; and I hope that the Italian Courts will not be easily intimidated... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I do not know if Amanda is guilty. To be honest, I do not even care that much about this. I only wish that our judicial system and our people in general are not painted as a bunch of idiotic witch-hunters who still try people by ordeal... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the die has been cast. There is no undoing it now. Italy has cast Amanda Knox as a nut who sexually assalted, beat, strangled and cut the throat of her roommate. There will be no stopping things now until the totally innocent Amanda is free and home with her family. Already there are Americans boycotting Italy and I am one of them. My family long had plans to meet in Italy this summer, but now none of us will go due to the way Italy has treated the innocent Amanda Knox. I have traveled all over Europe many times and never have had a single bad experience, but now I would not dare to go to Italy, nor would I allow any family member to go there. Italy has to deal with the public image it has created for itself due to the actions of [...BLP text omitted...]. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You keep repeating the totally innocent Amanda: have you read the Judges' report? Have you tried to examine the case without any preconceptions? If Amanda's innocent, she will be acquitted; if she's not, she'll remain in gaol. That's what I think. About the boycott Italy thing, it saddens me, but I, as an Italian, am not ready to give in. I think that our Judges must be free to convict, if they so deem. And I fear that, if push comes to shove, all this fuss the Americans are kicking up will backfire on Amanda... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The reality is that there is growing opposition in the U.S., including talk of boycott and fears of going to Italy. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

She should only be acquitted if she is innocent, not due to any boycott. But the fact is that she has been innocent all along, but too defamed for people to see that. In any event, the views in the US media seem to be moving in a certain direction and more people are realizing the problems with this case. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20000577-504083.html?tag=mncol;lst;1 Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, if you say that person X has described person Y as a "crazy harlot", and you publish this information globally, you must either be sure that you can prove your facts, or both you and your publisher can expect to hear from X's lawyers and Y's lawyers. In this case, you and Wikipedia are potentially [...BLP text omitted...]. Please provide a very clear source or edit the above as a matter of priority. Thanks. Bluewave (talk) 09:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well then, how about "crazy killer"? Is that better? The sources don't report what exact words he said, but the overall gist was defamatory towards Amanda. Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Kwenchin, you are right about the Bible. I was referring to religious artifacts in courtooms in the form of crucifixes, decorations, statuary, pictures, ect. None of that would typically be allowed in courtrooms. But I suppose there could be a courtroom somewhere in the U.S. which constitutes the exception. The same rules apply to government buildings in general, but I think as to those buildings some non-compliance has been noted on occassion. Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

For instance, we do not swear on a Bible to tell the truth, but the words of the oath call upon the witness's civic conscience and his civic duty to tell the truth. Frankly, to have to swear on a holy book would make me feel much more uneasy than the mere presence of a chunk of wood, no matter what my faith can be. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

In England, there is a royal coat of arms (like this) above and behind the judge's bench, but I don't think there are any other national or religious symbols in the court. The court has a range of holy books available, only one of which is the Christian Bible. It is also acceptable to make a "solemn affirmation" (without any holy book) rather than swearing an oath (with one). Criminal courts are nevertheless intimidating, and are probably intended to be so, with judges and barristers in gowns and wigs, for example. Bluewave (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Guess what? Italy is a Roman Catholic country. And it's courts are going to reflect that. You're right, it's not like that in America. If she wanted to be treated like an American, she should have [...BLP text removed...] in America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all I would like to point out that any democracy as we see it in the western world consists of three powers: The legislature, the executive and the jurisdiction. They are all separated in every western democratic constitution! Please bare this in mind, when you, Zlykinskyja, talk of the "government" (legislature) leaking information to the press. This is most certainly incorrect and untrue. What you probably mean, is that officials from the prosecution (executive) or the court (jurisdiction) has leaked information. I am German not Italian, so therefore I might be wrong, but to my knowledge, the government in Italy is represented in the moment by Silvio Berlusconi and his federal ministers. They most certainly have not leaked any informtion, as they don't have access to it. You might perceive the police, FBI or any legal court in the USA as the government, but in fact you are wrong there as well. -> The government of the USA is represented by President Barrack Obama and his officials, not a judge or the police.

Second, Italy is, like any other western european country, a christian country and the fact that a cruzifix is present in the courtroom only shows, that the legal system is based on the believes, morale rules and standards christianity has formed this country over many centuries. In fact, the presence of a cruzifix is therefore better than not to have one at all, because it reminds at any given time every person attending the trial, that this is a christian court with its christian standards.

To believe, that a person, which was lingerie shopping a few hours after the death of a close friend could be in any shape or form intimidated by a cruzifix in a courtroom is somewhat ridiculous.

Thirdly, the american outcry because of a girl convicted of murder in a foreign state is percieved in Europe with quite some (negative) amazement. The american legal system convicts foreigners according to the US laws on a daily bases. No outcry there, even so the legal system of the USA has been proofen faulty too often to be considered strictly just anymore. The case of Amanda Knox recieved a lot of media interest, which was definately not helping the case of Amanda Knox, but a lot of this media interest (if not the most) originates in the USA, because a sweet all-american girl gets tried for murder in "old Europe". Now, thats a story and a half, don't you think? So, if the press (and you) complain about the excessive publication of the case of Amanda Knox, it needs to blame itself (the press).

If you would like to boycott Italy because of a lawful trial with a verdict you don't like, than this is your decission and prerogative. Loads of Europeans already do that with the United States because of its "worldy" behaviour and this group of people is getting bigger every day. But to be honest, it is again quite ridiculous (from both sides).

You just miss out on things to see and to experience in other countries. Akuram (talk) 10:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

One of Sollecito's lawyers is one of the most prominent members of parliament and of the ruling party in Italy. Sollecito's father is wealthy and a prominent person as well. To suggest that anything about the trial was unfair is ridiculous. Sollecito was represented by one of the most important people in Italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

POV issue

I'd like to know why my minor edit was reverted for being POV [1]: Knox, Sollecito and Guedé were convicted, weren't they? So, to say that they maintain their innocence although they've been convicted is not really POV. It is merely a statement of fact... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't know about POV, but it's a bit redundant, and odd wording. The article makes it clear that all three have been convicted. They maintain their innocence. Them's the facts, and that's all that is needed. 'Despite' could be read as meaning 'although they are guilty'.   pablo_hablo. 12:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, the fact that they "maintain, that they are innocent", even though they are convicted should be stated togehter. I think it is crucial in this matter, that these two facts (innocence vs. conviction) are stated together, otherwise it might look to the casual reader, that the conviction might be unlawful or unjust and therefore one could get the impression that the article is taking sides (in favor of Knox, Sollecito and Guedé). The verdict comes from a respected Italian court, which cannot be disputed by a mere Wikipedia scribbler. Everybody please also take in consideration, that from the moment of the verdict, the principle "innocent until prooven guilty" is not applicable anymore. Instead it is: "guilty until verdict is successfully appealed". Akuram (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Aye, couldn't have said it better myself. As for the "odd wording", it's just that English is not my mother tongue... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't passing any opinion on the correctness of the verdict or the actual guilt or innocence of any of the three parties. I still think that wording's unnecessary, but that may just be my opinion. You could try asking whoever removed it in the first place.   pablo_hablo. 14:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Pablo. The intro and article make it perfectly clear that the two students were convicted. There is no necessity that the fact of conviction and their position of innocence all be stated in one sentence. It is not accurate that this verdict is necessarily correct. There stands a good chance that they could be found innocent at their second trial. They are still "presumed innocent" under both Italian and US law until a FINAL determination is made in this matter. The problem I have with the new additional phrase that Salvio tried to add is that, as Pablo noted, the phrase implies that they are somehow taking an incorrect position by stating that they are innocent. Yet, there is nothing incorrect about it at all. They may indeed be factually innocent of the crime, and as a matter of law they have the right to proclaim their innocence and are still presumed innocent at this time. So the additional phrase will only mislead the reader, and provoke a need for new additional language to clarify their status. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Au contraire my friend, they are not presumed innocent any more. The court gave a verdict and it states, that they are guilty of murder and other crimes. They have been convicted! I know, you think that the verdict might be wrong, but you are not in the position to dispute a rightful verdict. You have to go with it and wait for the outcome of the appeal, in which the verdict might get overruled or might not. Until then, even though you might not like that at all, they have been found guilty of murder. Please do not change this article in the way, you feel is correct or fair or just, as you are not the judge nor a member of the court and it is not a question of how one feels about it. Corrections you have made and you are still doing are all in favor of the position of at least Knox and Sollecito and therefore bias and don't represent a NPOV. Akuram (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• No, the Italian law is extremely different than U.S. or UK viewpoints. So, we're not sure about the meaning of "guilty" in Italy: it is a spoken verdict, but perhaps not a conviction, yet. Sollecito claims his computer had recorded his offline usage (all during the time of the murder), but Mignini's people destroyed Sollecito's PC and that evidence is lost. The problem was highlighted when Prosecutor Mignini was "convicted" of judicial misconduct for illegal evidence with the Monster of Florence journalists, but even still, he is allowed to serve in the courtroom, pending the appeal of judgment (like a fox in the henhouse with chicken confirmed in the belly, but was it these chickens?!?!). I hope this makes sense: the conviction is not really set until the appeal stages have determined that it is, in fact, a valid conviction. Hence, we believe that Mignini might have been tried, convicted, and guilty as a skunk for using illegal evidence, but he is free to falsify more evidence, in court, until his appeal-process lands him in prison for years. That's why we hesitate to say "convicted" for Guede, Knox or Sollecito. In Texas, a person can be judged "guilty" but released on appeal bond if the sentence is below 15 years and 1 day. -08:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the above discussion. Acuram states that Guede, Knox and Sollecito's are "are not presumed innocent any more" (unless and until the verdict is successfully appealed), whereas Zlykinskyja says they are still "presumed innocent" under Italian law (I don't think U.S. law is relevant to this). Can anyone please clarify exactly what their status is under Italian law (preferably with a citation)? I don't think it is our job to discuss whether they are guilty or innocent, but it is our job to be clear and factually accurate about their status under law. Thanks. Bluewave (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Technically, they are still considered innocent (under art. 27 of the Italian Constitution) — but that only means that they cannot be gaoled to serve their twenty-five or twenty-six years, and in fact they are gaoled as a precautionary measure —. But they've been found guilty, we cannot overlook that; if their appeal were deemed unreceivable, this verdict would become res judicata. Scholars in Italy have been debating for years over the meaning of the presumption of innocence clause in the Constitution — and the weight carried by a first-instance conviction —; suffice it to say, I think, that although still technically presumed innocent, a Court of Law has already ruled once on the matter — and convicted. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Salvio! Now I understand exactly why I'm confused :-) Bluewave (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Arkuram is wrong on this issue of the presumption of innocence. But we quite a while ago debated this at great length, so I don't think we need to revisit this issue all over again. The Italian system and the US system are very similar on the presumption of innocence. The presumption applies until conviction. Upon conviction the presumption disappears. However, if an appeal of the conviction is filed the presumption is reinstated upon the date of filing. On March 4 or 5, 2010 the lawyers for Amanda and Raffaele signed papers stating that they were appealing the motivation report "on all points." Thus, when they filed their appeal, the presumption of innocence was reinstated. Now they will have a trial de novo at the Court of Appeals with a new jury and new judges. They will have the opportunity to provide new evidence. Their lawyers have stated that they intend to introduce additional evidence on the DNA evidence. At the trial de novo, there will be new findings of fact, new determinations of guilt or innocence. Until there is a FINAL determination of guilt or innocence, the presumption of innocence still applies. That is how it works in the US and by everything I have been able to find, the Italian system is identical as far as the presumption of innocence is concerned. In terms of res judicata, in both the US and in Italy res judicata does not apply during the appeal period. In the US, for example, if someone is convicted of a crime and then dies AFTER he filed his appeal papers, but before the appeal is completed, his conviction is deemed vacated because the presumption of innocence was reinstated when he filed his appeal and there was no final determination of his guilt or innocence before his death. If he is convicted and then dies BEFORE he files his appeal papers, then the conviction stands under principles of res judicata. Thus, since Amanda and Raffaele have initiated their appeal as of March 4 or 5, 2010(although the specific points of appeal will not be revealed until the detailed papers are filed by next Monday) their current status is "presumed innocent." Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It is roughly correct. In Italy the presumption of innocence is not reinstated after an Appeal has been filed, but applies until the term to appeal has expired. And the death of the defendant during a trial estingue (literally, extinguishes, that is to say render null and void) the crime itself. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, my username is Akuram, not Acuram or Arkuram! :)

Second, I still contradict Zlykinskyja, since the presumption of innocence is to my knowledge not stated in any law in Italy (after conviction). The general principle is stated in the constitution, yes, but it is open to debate if and how this is applicable to a convicted person. And make no mistake, Knox, Sollecito and Guede are all convicted of murder! Their convictions still stand until they are appealed succesfully. So, it would be misleading to over higlight the fact that they maintain that they are innocent, while they are convicted. This would, in my humble opinion lead to a none NPOV. Akuram (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Akuram, Salvio is an Italian lawyer. He agrees with me that the Italian and US applications of the presumption of innocence are essentially the same. In both the US and Italy the presumption of innocence continues until the appeal process is completed. Unless you can cite to something backing you up, I think you need to concede the issue. It is impossible for the presumption of innocence to apply to the appeal process, and for the defendants to be viewed as "guilty" due to the first trial----at the very same time. A person cannot be officially guilty and officially presumed innocent at the same time. That is all I want to say about this dead horse. Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Really, folks, this is wikipedia. Rather than repeat an argument, please just link to it. Since Salvio is an Italian lawyer, it should be trivial for him to provide a cite to back up the statement and bring an end to this discussion. Just stating it carries no weight without the cite, per WP:V. User:LeadSongDog come howl 22:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Here you are:

1 The defendant is not considered guilty until final judgment is passed. (art. 27 const.)

2 Sono irrevocabili le sentenze pronunciate in giudizio contro le quali non è ammessa impugnazione diversa dalla revisione.

Se l'impugnazione è ammessa, la sentenza è irrevocabile quando è inutilmente decorso il termine per proporla o quello per impugnare l'ordinanza che la dichiara inammissibile. Se vi è stato ricorso per cassazione, la sentenza è irrevocabile dal giorno in cui è pronunciata l'ordinanza o la sentenza che dichiara inammissibile o rigetta il ricorso.

Il decreto penale di condanna è irrevocabile quando è inutilmente decorso il termine per proporre opposizione o quello per impugnare l'ordinanza che la dichiara inammissibile. (art. 648 c.p.p. — here the Code states which verdicts are irrevocable)

3 Salvo che sia diversamente disposto, le sentenze e i decreti penali hanno forza esecutiva quando sono divenuti irrevocabili.

Le sentenze di non luogo a procedere hanno forza esecutiva quando non sono più soggette a impugnazione. ([http://www.altalex.com/index.php?idnot=36871 art. 650 c.p.p. — here the Code states that only irrevocable verdicts are enforceable).

This is an interesting short essay (in Italian), written by a Judge of the Appellate Court of Assizes of Rome, dealing with new evidence during the trial de novo. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Salvio, any chance for an english translation (I mean point 2 and 3)? Akuram (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Only by me, if it is enough...

The verdicts delivered at the end of a trial that can no longer be appealed — except by way of the review of trial — are irrevocable.

If a verdict is appealable, it becomes irrevocable after the term to appeal it has expired or when the term to appeal the Court order declaring unreceivable the appeal has expired. If the order was appealed before the Court of Cassation, its verdict is irrevocable from the day when the order or the sentence (sentenza) was delivered, that rebuts the appeal or declares it unreceivable.

The penal decree of conviction becomes irrevocable when the term to challenge it or when term to appeal the order declaring unreceivable the challenge has expired. (art. 648 c.p.p.)

Unless otherwise provided for by law, sentences and penal decrees of conviction are enforceable only when they have become irrevocable.

Sentences of non luogo a procedere (no grounds to proceed) are enforceable when they are no longer appealable. (art. 650 c.p.p.)

Sorry if I made any mistakes or if I were not clear enough. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm.... that still presents the question, what is meant (intended) by "until final jugdement is passed". Does the final judgement include appeals? Or is this the written down principle "innocent until prooven guilty", which only holds up till the conviction. And convicted they were. I still believe that one needs to find a source or citation for the fact, that already the attempted appeal nullifies the guilt of the convicted person and not the other way round. But apparently this is a dead horse and Knox/Sollecito supporters don't need sources or citations. Akuram (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that we're starting to see books published by the professional journalists that were at the trial, it becomes obvious that your ( Zlykinskyja) efforts to defend Knox are the amateur hour. It's well past time that this article started including the facts that came out in the trial and are being reported in the books, and you can give up your amateur effort to free her. The time trial section should be the straight story of how Knox and Sollecito killed her that was presented at the trial, instead of your fantasy version. It's clear now that Knox and Sollecito brought Rudy back to the cottage to complete a drug deal and it's indefensible that it's not mentioned in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Salvio, that's very constructive.User:LeadSongDog come howl 14:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

IP 173.25.240.217, please stop with these personal attacks. My input into this article does not consitute "amateur hour" any more than anyone else's input does. Furthermore, my writing here does not constitute an "amateur effort to free her" anymore than your efforts constitute an amateur effort to convict her. Under Wikipedia rules both sides of the story need to be included in the article. You might not like that, but that is the policy. In the meantime, you need to stop posting your repeated personal attacks against me on this Talk page, including saying that I should give up participating in the article. That just isn't going to happen. I will be participating whether you like it or not. Furthermore, the information that I have included or tried to include does not constitute my "fantasy". I have included only well sourced material from mainstream US media. My contributions are valuable since without my input this article would be largely one sided in violation of NPOV policy. Please stop with this nonsense. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not the Friends of Amanda webpage. That's great that you personally believe Amanda Knox is innocent. But that's not what the courts in Perugia have decided. They've found her guilty of murder. The "Murder of Meredith Kercher" is about how Guede, Sollecito, and Knox killed her. Since you will be participating whether I like it or not, maybe it's time I started making a lot of edits to the article. Sound fun for you? Or maybe the article should be edited by people other than us that don't have a POV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

After all this debate, how about someone writing a short section on the current legal status of the three accused? I'd have a go at it myself, but I'm still not entirely clear what it is! I think it is the kind of thing that would be a useful addition to the article--certainly for readers like me who live in countries where there is no automatic right of appeal and where a defendant is considered guilty if a court finds them guilty. Bluewave (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be more than glad to do this, but, actually, I do not know what to write... The situation is: they are still presumed innocent, but they've been convicted by a Court of first instance. If this Court rejects or declares the appeal unreceivable, the conviction becomes res judicata; if the Court quashes or changes the verdict, it's this verdict that will become res judicata, if it's not appealed or if the Court of Cassation rejects or declares unreceivable the appeal. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Things should be clearer by early next week. That is the deadline for filing the points of appeal. If the defense attorneys miss the deadline or if the court rejects the filings (possibly due to form) and does not extend the deadline, then the guilty verdicts becomes res judicata and Amanda and Raffaele are deemed officially guilty. I doubt this will happen though. By next week the points of appeal will probably be properly before the court, with the presumption of innocence of Amanda and Raffaele safely intact until the moment the new jury at the Court of Appeals announces its verdict in late 2010. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I edited the text of the article very slightly to make it clear that both sides have a right of appeal and I added a few sentences to say that the prosecution filed their appeal yesterday. Bluewave (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Mignini's conviction

The fact that he was convicted ("ironically" or not, which, by the way, is not a neutral way of putting it) has nothing to do with the appeal process; it's neither a matter of citations as you appear to imply here, nor a matter of censorship as you imply here. As I've repeated over and over again, it has no bearing whatsoever on the appeal process, nor or on the outcome of said appeal. It can be placed in the controversies section, not here. It would be off topic and rather POV. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite has suggested that we apply the BRD process for any controversial issues (and TMC-k has suggested this previously). Zlykinskyja has Boldly edited; Salvio has Reverted; Salvio has opened a Discussion. Why don't we try to develop this discussion, rather than edit warring. To that end: I agree with Salvio that the charges against Mignini have nothing to do with the appeal. They should be covered in the article, but not here. I also think we should generally avoid repeating the views of journalists, such as what they regard as ironic. We use media sources to establish facts but we should surely try to avoid reporting journalists' opinions. Bluewave (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2010

(UTC)

The information is in a quote from a reputable news source, in response to a quote from Mignini. His quote is included as his opinion of the matter. It is not fact, but Mignini's opinion. Including the opinions of others about what such a highly controversial figure as Mignini is doing is completely appropriate. Mignini has been convicted in a first trial of abuse of his powers as a public official and has been barred from holding public office for the rest of his life. He continues to exercise his public powers against Knox and Sollecito pending his appeal. Surely this is a highly unusual situation, and something that would never, ever be allowed in the US. I have never heard of such a thing ever happening in the US. It is highly notable information from the US perspective that the very man who is trying to impose life sentences on K and S has such a background of criminal abuse allegations, since in the US a prosecutor facing such charges would be immediately suspended from his job pending the final outcome of the criminal proceedings against him. The fact that a prosecutor with such a background is the same one seeking life sentences against K and S is highly relevant to the claim by the Knox family that what Mignini is doing is "harassment." The abuse charges against Mignini also involve harassment in the form of intimidating and wiretapping journalists.

There is no rule against including the opinions of news journalists--this article has lots and lots of that already. There seems to be one standard for the editors on the pro-guilt side of the case, and other standards for the editors on the pro-innocence side of the case. To say that we cannot use a quote from a journalistic source imposes a whole new limitation that has never been used to limit the pro-guilt side of the case. As another example of double standards, Bluewave included a quote in this same paragraph from the Daily Mail. Yet he recently deleted my use of this very same source, the Daily Mail, on the basis that the Daily Mail is not reputable but more of a tabloid. So its a "tabloid that cannot be used" when it has information supporting my edits, but it is a "reliable source" when it has information that Bluewave wants to use. This "double standard" will then be enforced by "consensus", which means that I will be automatically outnumbered and voted down by the pro-guilt side of the article, resulting in a POV outcome. Thus, the dynamics of the numbers make it extremely difficult to achieve NPOV in this article, despite NPOV being the essential goal of Wikipedia. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:TLDR Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Trying to pick out some the main points from Z's post...

• Yes the stuff about Mignini's conviction is from a reliable source and is notable. However, I would say there are better places to put it in the article than in a section about the filing of appeals. It would be inappropriate if, every time we mentioned Mignini, we said something negative about him. Every time we mention a statement by Knox, we don't add "which is ironic, given that she has been convicted of giving false evidence". The same applies to Mignini.
• The quote by Mignini looks relevant because it helps to explain why the prosecution have filed their appeal. By contrast, the quote about his conviction is purely a personal attack and sheds no light on the appeal process.
• With regard to our including the opinion of journalists, I would say that they are only notable in sections such as that on press reactions. Otherwise, they are just the opinion of one person. You're right that we shouldn't have double standards on this, and I would suggest removing all journalistic opinion from the article unless there are exceptional cases.
• With regard to the reliability of the Mail as a source, I previously said that it has some claims to serious journalism although not being regarded as the "quality press".[2] Nick Pisa does at least go to Italy to research his articles and does at least speak the language. I would have quoted The Times but I think they have lost interest in the Kercher murder. I don't recall the occasion when I deleted part of the article on the basis that it was sourced from the Mail: could Zlykinskyja please remind me what that was.

Bluewave (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

3RR

Would you please stop attacking me [3]; it is evident that you misunderstood the meaning of the 3rr rule (and risked violating it, yesterday: 1st revert, 2nd revert and 3rd revert). You're trying to insert wrong or superfluous pieces of information:

1. it is superfluous to write that new evidence will be admitted and new witnesses heard, because that's implicit in the concept of trial de novo, because testimonies are a kind of evidence and because new evidence will be admitted only if the Court allows it;
2. it is wrong that there will be another Prosecutor: under article 570.III of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Mignini might be the prosecutor again. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Salvio: You made at least three revert edits yesterday, but I did not say anything about it on the Talk page. Now here you start a whole topic about it on the Talk page to attack me. Why don't YOU stop attacking ME! I have had it with these personal attacks that you have been making for weeks, including trying to get me banned or blocked for no legitimate reason. That is not something that I have ever tried to do to you and the other people who have tried for weeks to get me banned or blocked (essentially because my views on the case are opposite of yours and the others), and I think that speaks volumes about who has been making the personal attacks around here. In terms of my reverts, those were only in response to YOUR efforts to repeatedly revert my work, which you do over and over. I hardly ever revert other people's work, yet that has been done COUNTLESS times to me, and I wish people would cut that out. How would you like it if your work was constantly reverted like that.

As for your deletions of the information about Mignini's convictions I don't see that as legitimate at all. Since it now appears that he will be part of the appeal, because he filed his own appeal, and could be the main prosecutor as you now say, that makes his criminal conviction for abuse of power in another murder case all the more important. If he is someone who is willing to break the law in a criminal manner in his handling of murder cases, then that is information relevant to any assessement of his highly controversial handling of the Sollecito and Knox case. This information is disturbing to people in the US, and is constantly noted in the media. Thus, the information about his conviction for abuse of power and abetting should not have been deleted from the article yesterday.

In terms of your deletions of the information about new evidence and new witnesses, that issue is far from self-evident and needs to be clarified in the article. It is new information to US readers because that is usually not allowed in our appeals, unless a new trial is ordered as a RESULT of the appeal. But since we consider new trials and appeals two completely different procedures, there will be many questions on the part of US readers and the information should not have been deleted from the article. You should consider that I am writing for a US audience (as well as other English speakers) that does not understand Italian criminal procedures. What you see as self-evident is not self-evident to those who are not Italian lawyers. If I have said something incorrect, then the information should be corrected not deleted entirely.

You also deleted the information about the defense lawyers stating that Mignini "botched the case", claiming that is POV. No, it is not POV, it is a correct interpretation of the views of the defense counsel as reported in the newspaper. The fact that the defense attorneys express their personal opinions in the case does not make the inclusion of their views here POV for purposes of Wikipedia policy. The opinions on both sides of the case are properly included under the NPOV policy. Clearly, if only the prosecution opinions are included, this article can never become NPOV. While the opinion expressed of Mignini's work may be harsh, I think it pales in comparison to the opinions already included in the article such as Knox having "the eyes of a killer" and "a diabolical soul".

I would appreciate it if you could cool it with the deletions. Thank you.Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Issue of prejudicial pretrial publicity and trial impact

Aside from the fact, that this section badly needs to be rewritten is there a reason why it cannot be in the "various controversies" section [4]? Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Appeal section

I have made a bold edit to the appeal section which appeared to me to be written in a highly-POV manner. I have tried to remove all the opinion from both the prosecution and defence parts and leave just the facts. The previous version:

• confused opinion with fact eg "The appeal also highlights that the DNA evidence in the case was seriously flawed";
• included a lot of non-notable opinion (not notable that Knox's parents and her lawyers think she is innocent);
• made the defence part totally disproportionate to the coverage of the prosecution case;
• read like it had been written by the "Friends of Amanda" (though I know it wasn't).

I think my new version looks more balanced and encyclopaedic but this edit was made in the spirit of WP:BRD! Bluewave (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave: I find your repeated attempts at censorship very disturbing. There is no rule of Wikipedia that opinions cannot be included in the article if they are identified as opinion, relevant, and well sourced. You do not have the authority to make up your own new rule that opinions on one side of the case cannot be included in an article. It is also troubling that you consider the opinions of the police and prosecutor and court as "fact", while the views of the defense lawyers and family and other lawyers are viewed as "opinion." In realty, both sides of the case are merely opinion since no one really knows what happened that night. It is merely the opinion of those on the prosecution/police/court side that Knox engaged in a murder and other specific acts, yet that is stated as fact all over the article and Knox is painted on here as a horrible killer. If you are going to continue to try to block 'the other side of the story' from being included in this story, (even during mediation!) then I will have no choice but to notify the Wikipedia Foundation of what is going on, since by blocking the other side of the story, Knox will end up being defamed. There is no way anyone should be painting Knox as a killer, and then blocking the inclusion of information that presents the other side of the story. ENOUGH! Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This story reads as if Knox is a horrible person who sexually assaulted and killed her roomate, and then lied about it. If in fact she is telling the truth that she did none of these things, then this article could be viewed as defamatory. The way to counter-act that is to allow the "other side of the story" into the article, so that the reader is allowed to see the claims and opinions of those who see her as innocent, such as her lawyers. I have said this over and over, yet it as if I am talking to a brick wall. Over and over and over Knox's side of the story keeps getting deleted. It is very discouraging and a HUGE waste of my time. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well the BRD process says "Wait until someone reverts your edit. You have now discovered a Most Interested Person"....so I think I've dome that!! I did think that I had made clear in the edit summary and my comment above that I was trying to apply that process, not applying censorship. Looking at your points, I don't believe that the opinions of the police and prosecutor are fact: I agree with you that both sides of the case are merely opinion and no one really knows what happened. However, I disagree with your assertion that it is stated as fact all over the article that Knox engaged in a murder. If it does say that anywhere in the article, please point out where, and I will be very keen to help change the wording. If you want to report me to the Wikipedia Foundation, you are very welcome, but I would rather continue trying to apply BRD. So I think you are premature in saying "ENOUGH"...we haven't even begun to discuss this and try to reach a consensus. To that end, it would be helpful if you could say why you disagree with my assertion that my edit improves the article because it is more consise, more encyclopedic and less POV? Also, are you saying that you think my version is defamatory? Thanks. Bluewave (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying that this article could be viewed as defamatory if it ends up painting Knox as a girl who sexually assaulted and sliced the throat of her roommate and then lied about it, and it turns out not to be true. There is a real possibilty that none of the horrible things said about her in the article are true at all. Since these claims against her are merely opinions, repeatedly removing the counter-opinions will leave the reader with only information that could ultimately turn out to be totally wrong. The objective needs to be that the article presents the claims against her, but also presents the information as to why the claims are wrong. You included a quote from Mignini about his filing. I tried to include quotes showing the other side, NOW you reverse yourself and say quotes cannot be included, apparently because I came up with more quotes. Now you want to block all statements of opinion from the Knox side. You just don't seem to grasp that these efforts to block the Knox side of the case will result in a defamatory article. That is inevitable, since the charges against her are essentially defamatory if untrue. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Er, my version was:

On 15 April 2010, the prosecution filed its appeal against what they regard as the leniency of Knox's and Sollecito's sentences. Their grounds for appeal were that the post-verdict judges' report had said that the murder was committed for purely casual reasons, and they claim that this would call for the maximum penalty of life. The prosecution had sought life sentences in the original trial.

On 17 April 2010, the lawyers for Knox filed an over 300 page appeal, seeking to overturn her conviction. In their appeal, a new witness has been found who they claim can prove that Knox and Sollecito were not involved in Kercher's killing. The appeal also challenges the DNA evidence in the case, and seeks to have an additional analysis of the DNA evidence, that was not allowed during the first trial, to be introduced during the second trial at the Court of Appeals. The defence intend to repudiate all points of the sentence, including re-examining Knox's questioning by police (where they claim she was denied her basic rights), the DNA evidence and the blood traces detected with luminol. The defence also claim that the prosecution has failed to deliver to them all the paperwork and documentation related to the forensic testing.

The lawyers for Raffaele Sollecito also filed a lengthy appeal of his conviction comprising over 270 pages.

The appeal will proceed as a trial de novo (new trial) which is expected to take place in the autumn of 2010 before the Appellate Court of Assizes, presided over by Judge Emanuele Medoro.

There is no quote from Mignini in it. Instead of a quote, which would express a point of view, I have made it factual, stating the basis for the prosecution's appeal, and have done the same for the defence. Surely that is less POV than having a load of quotes to the effect that Amanda is innocent. I can't see anything defamatory in it at all—I'm trying to express the facts in a way that make no assertions about guilt or innocence. Bluewave (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What I said is that YOU started off by including a quote from Mignini about his appeal. Then when I added quotes showing the other side of the story, you reversed yourself and suddenly decided that quotes should not be used and deleted them all. I will not go along with such censorship. The Knox side of the case can only be expressed through the statements of opinions. That is all they have at this point. There is no rule or policy of Wikipedia that quotes stating opinions cannot be used. So, there is no legitimate basis for you to now suddenly claim that quotes cannot be used. As for making things "less POV" now that is really funny. You have included all this stuff on here leading the reader to believe that Knox is factually guilty, but information presenting the other side of the story is "POV". Then you deny that you are editing in a manner that is anything but neutral. Not so. This article reads like Knox commited a horrible murder. The main way to counter-act that is to show what her lawyers say and do for purposes of an appeal. Now you want to water that all down like it is a footnote! No, it is not a footnote it is the MAIN REBUTTAL OF THE DEFENSE. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As for making things "concise and encyclopecic" that is a double standard as well. You don't use that standard when including information damaging to Knox. In the text below you go into great detail reflecting your views on the interrogation, far longer than the one brief paragraph you will allow for the appeal. You could have just said "Knox made incriminating statements against Patrick Lumumba, which she later retracted and said she had been intimidated into making the claims."

"Knox and Sollecito were interviewed several times by the police on the day the murder was discovered and the following two days. On 5 November 2007, Knox voluntarily accompanied Sollecito to the police station where he gave a statement, in the course of which he said that he did not know for sure that Knox was with him on the night of the murder. The police then decided to question Knox and began the interview at 23.00 that evening. Knox was interviewed twice during the night of 5–6 November, firstly by the judicial police and then, later, in the presence of a prosecutor. During these interviews, Knox made statements implicating Patrick Lumumba, the owner of a bar-restaurant named Le Chic, at which she occasionally worked. She said that she had accompanied Lumumba to Kercher's house and had been in the kitchen and heard screams while Lumumba committed the murder. The contents of these statements was widely reported in the press at the time. Knox later claimed that both statements were made under duress and that she had been coerced into implicating Lumumba: she said that she had been struck twice on the back of the head during the questioning, called a "stupid liar" and when asked did she hear screams she had replied no. This is denied by the police who have now responded with a defamation charge. The conduct of these interviews remains an area of controversy in the case, with Knox's lawyer, when summing up at the end of her trial, stating that they lasted a total of 53 hours, a stressful and frightening experience for Knox. Knox was formally arrested later on the morning of 6 November. Some time afterwards she made a written note to the police, explaining that she was confused when she made the earlier statements, saying "I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion". However, she still seemed to incriminate Lumumba, saying: "I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik [Lumumba], but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house." She went on to say "I see Patrik [sic] as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night." She noted that she wrote that account, just hours later, to clarify that those supposed "mental block" memories, requested by the police, did not seem real to her .This written note was admissible at the trial of Knox and Sollecito. However, following a ruling by the Court of Cassation, the statements made to police during the night of 5–6 November were not: one because she was being interviewed as a witness and the other because no lawyer was present. Nevertheless, the judge (at the Knox trial) ruled that both statements were admissible in Lumumba's civil case against Knox, which was being tried in the same court at the same time as the criminal trial of Knox and Sollecito. Lumumba was arrested on 6 November 2007 as a result of Knox's statements. He was detained for two weeks until the arrest of Guede. Initially doubts about his alibi were reported in the press, but ultimately he was completely exonerated." (end of Bluewave's "concise" presentation of interrogation issue) Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we please focus on the specific edit in question—it's hard enough trying to get consensus on that without discussing previous versions of the article, or the whole article. There is no rule that we can't use quotes, but I maintain that the version without quotes is more neutral (and there is a rule that we should be aiming for that). Both sides of the case, to date, are described in other sections of the article and I certainly believe that those sections explain the defence case at least is well as the prosecution case. We are talking here about the specific issue of the appeals. Both sides have filed appeals and we should cover both sides as equally as we can. However, none of the appeals submissions have been made public, let alone presented in court. We will no doubt go into all the detail when that happens. The Knox side have used the filing of the appeal as an opportunity to tell everyone, not for the first time, that Amanda is innocent. I don't think there is anything notable in this. They say they have new evidence, and we should mention that (and I did). They mention other things they are going to contest, such as the DNA evidence (and I have mentioned those too). However, the quotes about Amanda being innocent and the prosecution having allegedly botched the case are not, in my view, the main rebuttal by the defence: they are a lot of rhetoric for the benefit of the media. So I strongly disagree with you on that point. Bluewave (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No. I have had enough. This is where I draw a line in the sand after COUNTLESS HOURS, possibly hundreds of hours spent trying to include the Knox side of the story in this defamatory article. I am now done putting up with this. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)