Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Reminder: Need consensus to reword

There have been some recent changes, in rewording text, so this is a reminder to seek consensus before attempting to re-write the article text. There are numerous issues to heed:

• The verdict was given by a "panel of 8 judges" because the term "jury" might be misleading to readers.
• Other people are named with last initial to protect privacy, even though fully-named elsewhere, per WP:BLP (as: Filomena R. or Laura M.).
• Be careful not to change the verb tense of events (such as "have appealed" to become "will appeal"), when most editors have carefully chosen the wording of events to reflect the legal sources.
• Mignini has tried to sue organizations, so we want to keep text about him to a minimum phrase+source, while in the middle of other topics.
• Avoid trying to POV-push anyone's guilt or innocence, just word the text using common phrases, without trying to over-emphasize a legal ruling.
• Remember to use British English, such as: centre, centred, flat (apartment), US (for "U.S."), behaviour, etc.

There might be other issues for the list above, to emphasize why we discuss plans to reword sections, and heed all the related factors. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikid77, with reference to changes of mine which you've just reverted:

• Do any sources say that the trial was heard by a panel of eight judges? The ones that I have seen say that the trial was heard by a jury of six citizens and two judges, which conforms with what I've read about the Italian jury system. Don't you think that calling people with no legal training whose normal job isn't hearing cases in law courts judges misleading in the extreme? How were the jury in this case different from the normal meaning of a jury? Could you point me to the place in the archive where a consensus for the terminology being used was established, please?

In Italy, there are no juries. I understand that you, being used to having a jury and considering that a constitutional right, when you see a verdict being delivered by a bunch of citizens, think that they are a jury, but that is not so.

Article 101 of the Italian Constitution states that:

(1) The justice is administered in the name of the people.

(2) Judges are only subject to the law.

And the following article:

(1) Judicial functions are exclusively exercised by ordinary courts regulated by norms about the organization of the judiciary.

(2) There may not exist extraordinary or special judges. Only specialized sections for specific matters may be established within the ordinary courts; qualified citizens who are not members of the judiciary may take part.

(3) The law regulates the cases and forms of direct participation of the people in the administration of justice.

As you can see, only Judges can administer justice. Sometimes, though, they get the assistance of citizens: it's what's called a Court of Assizes (Corte di Assise).

Under art. 4 of the 287/1951 Law (that you can find, in Italian, here):

La Corte di assise di appello è composta:

a) di un magistrato con funzioni di presidente di sezione della Corte di appello o, in mancanza o per indisponibilità, di un magistrato avente qualifica non inferiore a magistrato di appello dichiarato idoneo ad essere ulteriormente valutato ai fini della nomina a magistrato di Cassazione, che la presiede;

b) di un magistrato della Corte di appello;

c) di sei giudici popolari.

The Court of Assizes consists of: two professional Judges and six lay Judges (called popular judges).

And under the following article:

Magistrati e giudici popolari costituiscono un collegio unico a tutti gli effetti.

Professional Judges and lay Judges consistute a sole panel.

Hope I was of help. ^________^ Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• The full names of the other flatmates have been given in major newspapers, so there is no privacy issue involved as far as I can see. Is there a discussion somewhere about not giving the full names? I've looked through the talk page archives and can't find anything.

This was agreement on this. The reason was that the names of the less "public" figures aren't important or even useful in any way. Thus there's no reason to invade their privacy even more (see also WP:BLP). Just because newspapers did it, it doesn't mean we should. For more or less the same reasons I also argue that the street address and the Google map link should be removed. Averell (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Very well. But can you point me to the location where the discussion took place?     ←   ZScarpia   14:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It's somewhere in the Archives. Wasn't much of a discussion either. I did it, posted it on the talk and there was only support, no complaints. Is there any particular reason why you want the full names? Averell (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Don't you think that the original version of the section listing the Knox-Sollecito trial personnel was a bit messy structurally? It also contained at least one mistake in the form of a misspelling of the name of the prosecutor. Most of my changes were just a re-arrangement of the original text. Was it really necessary to do a wholesale revert?
• Who put the comment in the Court Events section of the article telling editors to seek consensus before making changes and was it put there as a result of consensus? Don't you think that it should have been signed and dated?

I'll wait until your current 24 hour block has ended in order to give you a chance to reply before I make any other changes.     ←   ZScarpia   14:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Salvio, as I understand it, cases in a Corte d'Assise are heard by 2 judges and 6 laymen chosen at random among Italian citizens 30 to 65 years old. I assume from the fact that the 6 laymen are chosen at random that they have no special legal training and do not perform as hearers of legal cases regularly?

Here is a definition of what a judge is: a public official vested with the authority to hear, determine, and preside over legal matters brought in court; also one (as a justice of the peace) who performs one or more functions of such an official.

Here is a definiton of what a jury is: a body of individuals sworn to give a decision on some matter submitted to them; especially : a body of individuals selected and sworn to inquire into a question of fact and to give their verdict according to the evidence.

If the 6 laymen have are no special public position and have no special legal training, I would say, despite your assertion that there are no juries in Italy, that: the six are not judges as meant in the normal sense of the word as used in a legal context in the English language; the six do fit the definition of a jury.

Here is what a Google search on the terms "Italian jury" -Wikipedia returns. You can see that, in English, the word "jury" is frequently used in connection with Italian legal cases. Here are the results when pages containing the words Knox and Kercher are excluded.

Perhaps the best compromise would be to omit both the word judge and the word jury and to refer to the six laymen as "a panel of laymen"?

    ←   ZScarpia   18:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe linking lay judges would be helpfull if Salvio(?) could add Italy to that article?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

@Zscaroia: the point is that these laymen continue in office for three months and in those three months hear all cases that are within the cognizance of the Court of Assizes (and then they continue in office until every one of those trials is over). They are paid just like the Judges, on the days when hearings are held and are public officials, just as the Judges (if someone offended them during a hearing, would be held in contempt of a judge, in Italian, oltraggio a magistrato in udienza).

Art. 11.II of the 287/51 law states that:

I giudici popolari delle Corti di assise e delle Corti di assise di appello, durante il tempo della sessione in cui prestano servizio effettivo, sono parificati rispettivamente ai giudici di grado sesto (2) e ai consiglieri di Corte di appello nell'ordine delle precedenze nelle funzioni e cerimonie pubbliche.

The popular judges, during the session in which they exercise their functions, [...], are put on an equal footing in the order of precedences in public ceremonies.

Then again, I'll settle for everything, even juries, for the sake of clarity, since many newspapers appear to write Italian jury convicted or something similar.

@TMC-k: I'd be glad to. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 18:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

To me, a judge, even a lay judge, would be somebody who was doing the job of judge voluntarily over a long period of time, which doesn't sound as though it was the case here. However, if a short description of how the Italian system works is included in the article, I don't think that it would matter very much what term was used. Is the impression I have that the laypeople involved in judging cases in Italy are selected randomly, don't volunteer and aren't given legal training correct?     ←   ZScarpia  

Exactly, they are chosen at random, cannot refuse to serve as jurors/judges and have no legal training. I agree that this make them look like jurors, according to your education (I don't mean it as an offense, you've grown up in a common law system and interpret legal institutions accordingly, just as I do — only the other way around —), but when I studied crimpro, I was taught they're judges. No big deal, however. If there's consensus, I may try to explain it in the article. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Grown up under a common law system? Not me! What's the definition of jury that you use?     ←   ZScarpia   21:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I apologise for wrongly assuming you were grown up under a common law system. Anyway, my definition of jury is: a panel of citizens randomly selected to hear a given case and render a finding on fact. That's why I would not define popular judges as jurors: because they are appointed for an indeterminate number of cases, and because they not only render a finding on fact, but also decide on points of law (and because the two professional judges can vote too, both on the merits and on the interpretation of law), aside from the aforementioned technicalities. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not that I want to see the word jury used so much as that I think that the unqualified use of the word judge for the laymen is very misleading.

Note that Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law says that modern juries do decide on points of law as well as render findings of fact: "Modern juries may deal with questions of law in addition to questions of fact when rendering general verdicts, or in specific cases under state law." The dictionary definition makes no reference to length of service. Although, in none of the English-speaking countries I know of would a jury be required to serve for three months unless it was on a single case, in the country I'm most familiar with, the UK, it is quite possible that, if cases were very short, the same jury might be used to hear a number of different ones. Also, I've noticed that Barbie Nadeau (not everybody's favourite person I've realised) refers to the "judges and jury" in the RS + AK trial.

    ←   ZScarpia   00:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as someone from a common-law country, I would argue for "judges" rather than "jury". By talking about a panel of judges, it is clear (eg to someone from the UK) that the system is different from the one they are used to. A UK juror normally serves for a 2 week period (except the rare trials that go on longer than that). In that period a juror generally only hears one case (they can hear more, but judges usual exempt them from having to do so). Jurors are not paid (although there is a rather bureaucratic system for recovering lost earnings). The verdict is decided by the jurors alone. The sentence is decided by the judge alone. I believe that all these points differ from the position of lay judges in Italy. Bluewave (talk) 07:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

But then, isn't the position of the laymen more different from that of an English or Welsh judge than it is from an English or Welsh jury member? Judges in England and Wales are voluntary, are public officials, serve indefinitely, are given at least a rudimentary training and are not selected randomly. Just as you can argue that an English or Welsh jury cannot, unlike the lay members of an Italian court, determine the sentence, you can equally argue that, unlike them, a judge cannot decide the verdict (of course, in an English or Welsh court, the jury can make recommendations over the sentence). English and Welsh lay magistrates are not paid either. So, calling the Italian laymen judges should confuse readers unfamiliar with the Italian legal system too (I would suggest more so). As far as I can see, calling them a jury has the advantage (all-important as far as Wikipedia is concerned) that it is used by a lot of sources (perhaps I just haven't come across the ones where they're referred to as judges though). My recommendations are: to give a brief explanation of how an Italian court is constituted and how cases are heard; to avoid calling the laymen judges; to avoid using the word jury, too, if it is felt too confusing. (How many times has the argument over terminology taken place?)     ←   ZScarpia   10:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

How about this?

Main article: Corte d'Assise

The case against Knox and Sollecito was heard by a Court of Assizes, a hybrid Court of law composed of two professional Judges (one serving as chairman and the other as his deputy) and of six lay people. These eight people constitute a sole panel, whose duty is to make a finding on the facts of the case and on the points of law related thereto.

Do you think that this description is more appropriate? Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think this is one area where there hasn't previously been a lot of argument, so it is worth getting agreement now. I've certainly seen "panel of judges" used in The Times but some other reputable sources say "jury". Anyway Salvio's new wording looks good to me (though do we need "sole"?) Cheers. Bluewave (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's my attempt at a Courtroom Personnel section (compare and contrast away!):

The case was heard by a panel consisting of two professional judges and six laymen selected randomly from the local population who were collectively responsible for determining verdicts and setting sentences. The chief and deputy judges were Giancarlo Massei and Beatrice Cristiani.

The head and deputy prosecutors were Giuliano Mignini and Manuala Comodi.

Amanda Knox was represented in Italy by lawyers Luciano Ghirga and Carlo Dalla Vedova. Raffaele Sollecito was defended by Giulia Bongiorno.

    ←   ZScarpia   17:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Bluewave (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Idem. ^______^ Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Endorse.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed cancellation of mediation

All parties involved in this mediation might be interested in this. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

What?

• About 10 people have signed up for mediation. I don't think one person can unilaterally "cancel" the mediation.
• I, for one, have held off editing some of the recent controversial edits to the article, in the belief that they would be dealt with during the mediation.
• Zlykinskyja previously asked for us not to start the mediation yet because she doesn't have time to participate. I'm surprised she would try to end it before her own chosen start point.
• Zlykinskyja previously cited the forthcoming mediation as a solution to previous complaints about her conduct. So why try and stop it now?
• The only justification for ceasing the mediation would be if we had worked out a way of reaching consensus without help. So far, we have reached consensus on one pretty uncontentious edit and, even then, only after a massive amount of discussion. We need help.

Bluewave (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If that editor refuses mediation it is not a major issue; the process continues without them. Clearly, however, any edits they make to the article may be reverted if they do not have consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

My request for mediation is cancelled for good reason. It is clearly an unworkable situation, as I set forth in my statement. Also, there cannot be mediation if those in opposition do not participate. People on the same side cannot have a mediation in good faith. That would be a mediation in name only and would not be in good faith. If there is to be a mediation, it has to be under reasonable conditions for everyone, including those on the opposite side. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope. You don't set the rules and you don't decide who is on which side if any.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The sides are obvious. No mediation without BOTH SIDES. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, nope. One single editor's resignment doesn't put a halt on Mediation.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I made the request for mediation. That was my filing. However, the statements made by the proposed mediator, as set forth in my statement, make it impossible for me to continue with him as the mediator. I think it likely that the others on my side will not continue either. Have fun 'mediating' with yourself. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what your problem with a mediation that hasn't even started yet is. You apparently think that my statement that I take lawyers statements with a huge grains of salt to be some sort of ruling that statements by defense attorneys should not be included - it is not. It was, in fact, a statement that to use one remark by one defense attorney at one point in the case to state that the trial was "fair," is a gross miscarriage of NPOV. However, if you're not interested in discussing your changes to the article with other parties, then I see no reason for the remainder of the participants in the mediation, who appear to mostly agree that you are entirely off-base to talk amongst themselves, and suggest that if editing this article remains problematic you file a request for arbitration. Hipocrite (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

As I set forth in my statement in detail on the mediation page, the issue was mediator bias. Your statments about lawyers opinions not being truthful squarely presented the issue of mediator bias. One of my stated goals in the mediation was to faciliate the inclusion of the defense side of the case, which some are trying to squeeze out of the article, in my opinion. However, since you took the position that the statements of the lawyers are untruthful, that presented a major obstacle to including the views of the defense side of the case, which is mostly evidenced by the statements of the defense attornies. Your views on the lack of truthfulness of attornies simply presented too great of a barrier to neutral mediation, in my opinion. But I thank you for your efforts and your time. Zlykinskyja (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll step aside as mediator, then, and you can have a different one. Would that be acceptable to you? Hipocrite (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is nonsense to suggest that Hipocrite should stand down as mediator on the grounds that he said that we should take statements by lawyers with a pinch of salt. Hipocrite was not taking sides in the case. He was not taking sides amongst editors. He was not telling us what should or should not go in the article. He was giving advice about things we should think about. I cannot see a possible cause for complaint in his conduct. No-one is going to be prepared to take on this mediation if they feel unable to give advice about the kind of things we should be thinking about. Hipocrite, please don't step aside! Bluewave (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but formal (or kindaformal) mediation requres that all participants accept the mediator. I can't continue with the kindaformal mediation if I've lost the trust of one of the parties - even if the argument I was making was that the statemtent made without context to influence a jury pool about the trial being "fair," might be inapropriatly weighted in the article - the exact same argument that I believe the person who lost trust in me was making! I'm happy to continue to try to help you all reach consensus on this talk page, as I continue to not care about this article, but from a medcab perspective, I'll need to step aside. Hipocrite (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That ist just brilliant, that is! I have not been on this page for several days, mostly because one unnamed person asked for a "break", due to real life issues. Well, that is fine and the article certainly can wait a few days, before discussion about mediation can continue. But what do I have to see today? (3 days before suggested and requested start of mediation?) The person, which asks for the break calls of the mediation, because the mediator has a different oppinion on a minor issue than she has. This is now way beyond ridiculous. I can see from the explanations she has given, that it seems that this person is unable to read and comprehend other peoples words. None of the allegations she uses to justify her cancellation of the mediation process are in fact true, if one reads carefully the statements and doesn't "scan" like some people here obviously do. It is this lack of faith and effort of this person to at least try to understand the other editors, that makes me come very close to file an official complaint. I thank Hipocrite for his effort and time to solve this issue peacefully and for suggesting promising ideas. Unfortunately it seems, that not everybody involved in this article seems to be interested in compromises and agreeable results and this is utter shameful! Akuram (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You (and everyone else) might want to read the section on my talk page User_talk:Hipocrite#Your_role_in_MoMK. We all need to lower the anger level. It's an online encyclopedia, not a murder trial (joke! laugh!) If Z isn't going to be comfortable with me as a formal mediator, then I'm not the formal mediator - and I should be clear here, that my vision of a mediator would allow biased people to mediate if other parties don't think that bias is impacting the mediation - but, to lay my bias on the table? I think that Z has some really good points that are getting drowned out by the anger (that's not to say the other "side" dosen't have good points - they do). I was hopeful that I could lower the anger, and I'm hopeful that in a few days of me informally mediating, which I intend to do, Z will realize that I'm actually able to put aside whatever biases I may have to help parties reach agreement. I contend that the argument I made that angred her so much was actually the argument she was making (the one off-the-cuff statement by one defence attourney at one very specific point of the case might have taken out of context and might have been used with far too much weight). However, I've been asked to recuse, and the mediation hadn't begun, so I've recused. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I see your point and understand your decission. Hence the reason I didn't ask you to rethink. I have stated above several times before that I don't count myself to either "side" as Z is suggesting. In fact after having read Knoxs court questioning, I have my serrious doubts about her guilt myself. Nevertheless I feel that an encyclopedia rticle like this doesn't need any side and therefore should be cleaned off it. BOTH SIDES. (The little anger that I have by the way, orginates from the fact that I am forced to talk to a person, which refuses to listen, read and comprehend other peoples opinions and statements and puts words in other peoples mouths. (Behaviour of a teenager or a premature groupie!) Akuram (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Akuram: Your name calling, threat and personal attacks are way out of line. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the point where, Akuram, if you feel that "fight or flight" thing kicking in, it's fleeing time. The correct response in this case is either if you can see the personal attack and threats is to strike them out using <s></s>, and then to apologize. If you can't see the personal attacks, the correct response is to apologize, swear you didn't mean to engage in a personal attack, and ask what you can do to remove the percieved attack. Hipocrite (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI - as an uninvolved party - I can see the personal attack. Regardless of the accuracy of the attack (I consider it inacurate), it's tactically unwise. Hipocrite (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I know, everything in my head is shouting "flee", but I just cannot go like this. Therefore: If anyone is feeling adressed by "behaviour of a teenager or a premature groupie." then that should make you think. However, I apologise for lowering myself to this level of trashtalk, which is unworthy of Wikipedia and ask everyone feeling adressed by it for forgiveness. I didn't mean to insult just to make one think. I also swear to try not to engage again in a personal attack. If I have written anything else in my two statements above, that could be interpreted as insulting to anyone, please point them out to me, and I will apolgise accordingly. Thank you for your understanding. Akuram (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

First off, thanks to Hipocrite for the mediation attempt. I think you made the right choice by returning this to the pool. Zlykinskyja, it appears that you're truly convinced of being right. My feeling was also that, because of that, your idea of the mediation was that a neutral outsider would "take your side" and "educate" the other editors about the NPOV (which you truly believe to work as you think). I still hoped that when a neutral third party came in and disagreed with you on a few points (and also with the other editors, on other points), you would re-think your antagonistic stance.

But when Hipocrite came in, you threw them in the "POV pushers out to get me group" as soon as he started arguing some point you didn't agree with. In reality, I didn't see anyone here out to get you, "censoring" you or anything like that. You think that they are all out to badmouth Knox, but for the most part the editors here simply don't care. They (or at least I) don't care if something makes them look bad, or if it makes them look good. Which is as it should be. Most likely we will never know the truth, and in this place we don't even care about what the truth is. What we do care about is to present the information (including the opinions of other people), and to present it well. That's why we clash, essentially. And you know what? Any mediator will care even less about your truth, or whether or not Knox and Sollecito look good in this article.

This is getting rather longish, but I'm trying to make another attempt to get through to you (and people like Wikid77). Because I think that even when a new mediator turns up, this person will appreciate all your arguments or be more open to your position than Hipocrite. If you waste the chance at mediation, people will loose the will to work with you. This will lead to your opinion being largely ignored, even when you have a point. I assume that at this point you'll probably either request official arbitration, or start an edit war, which will lead to a request for official arbitration. A lot of people's time will be wasted, and my personal bet is that also that process won't get you the result you want, and you'll be bitterly disappoint about the unfairness of it all. Averell (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Please stop with these personal attacks and trying to make everything personal. This is all so ridiculous. The bullying and abuse on this article is way, way over the top. The concerns I expressed about certain statements that were made were legitimate ones bearing on the impartiality of the mediation. There is no need for this big huge gang-up situation that is going on. And to accuse me of planning an "edit war' over it is simply ludicrous. Just where do you get off lecturing another editor like that. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't want to attack, bully or accuse you in any way. I'm sorry if you read it that way. I try very hard to assume good faith and I was really hoping that you at least try to do the same. But for some reason, I find myself unable to communicate with you in a useful way. And that you don't have an open line of communication to any other editor that hasn't the exact same opinion as you, including the mediator who was brought in to resolve this very situation. Averell (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Next topic I'd like to discuss - too long

One of the problems in articles that are in constant battle-states is that they grow out of proportion - someone writes a positive thing, someone else writes a negative thing to balance it, and then a positive thing is included to balance that and so on and so forth. It seems to me that one of the sections that has undergone an especial amount of this is the Various controversies section. I wonder if someone could pick one of the subsections thereof and shrink it to an encyclopedic summary of one of the controversies, as opposed to the hesaidshesaid format it's in right now.

I'd further like to explore the Detailed forensics, Timeline and police investigation and Forensic investigation sections - could someone justify the inclusion of this section and the level of primary sourced detail in them? It seems that if all of the detail in these sections were notable, they would have been adressed by reliable secondary sources, not just the sentencing documnents of a defendant. It appears on first glance that there is a violation of WP:SYNTH here. I suggest removing the entire "detailed forensics" section and then radically shrinking the use of refrence 17 - the italian judgement - a primary source. Hipocrite (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• See below: #Reference for Micheli Judgment is secondary source GTrial, and note that WP:SYNTH only rejects an "original" conclusion: neither conclusion of "guilty" or "not guilty" could be honestly considered as an original conclusion in this case; hence, WP:SYN does not reject the listing of forensic details from multiple sources. -Wikid77 00:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add to the above request by Hipocrite, and state the following again: Wikipedia Is Not. WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. Please everybody take this in consideration, if you would like to add new "up-to-date" information to this article. It is not necessary and goes against Wikipedia rules and standards, if an article is kept in a way of an blogg, newspaper or message board. If current behaviour of editing is not getting restricted to known and established facts and is not desisting to include "News-Bits" about recent developments, I will need to start to revert these as I come across them. Not each new development of the appeals cases for instance are needed to be included. It is enough to state that the convictions have been appealed by the defence and the prosecution. A new trial is most likely etc. pp. End of story. Akuram (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

A good article on this case would lay out the basic facts, then explain the major controversies. This should be possible without the level of detail now present in the article. I agree that the detailed forensics section isn't needed, and actually proposed removing the detailed timeline a while back. There didn't seem to be much support for deleting the section.

The Micheli report (ref. 17) is written in Italian and the publicly available source doesn't have page numbers. This makes it almost impossible to verify references pointing to this document. The Massei report is also in Italian, but at least it has page numbers. If we can't agree on a reliable secondary source, we should use the Massei report as a reference.Footwarrior (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, primary sources are allowed, with restrictions, in Wikipedia articles; see: WP:Primary sources. -Wikid77 00:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There are two points here. One is the misguided attempts at "balancing" that you noticed. I also remember that some editors had pull those details from online forums devoted to the case. The people coming from that direction claimed that this level of detail is needed for the article. I propose a simple for inclusion: A detail should be included if its importance can be explained from secondary sources. However the main problem that removing any of those details can potentially develop into a lenthy discussion about "censorship" and suppression of POVs, making the task quite daunting. Averell (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Screaming "Censorship" (sometimes combined with NPOV) while disregarding any other policy is rarely a good argument unless it is about pictures (or language) of sexual nature and "disturbing" for some, (just to name the most common one); I usually ignore and disregard such calls in discussions.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite often on Wikipedia, "that's censorship!" is a euphemism for "you've deleted my edit and I don't like it!" Bluewave (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

...for which we have a link to.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• The section title for this topic seems too long; I suggest replace "Next topic I'd like to discuss - too long" with the shorter title "Text perhaps too long". -Wikid77 00:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Eight days is not about two weeks.

"Knox met her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito at a classical music concert eight days before the murder." then "Raffaele Sollecito...at the time of the murder...had been the boyfriend of Knox for about two weeks." which of these is correct? Kwenchin (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

During her trial, Knox agreed that she met Sollecito on Oct. 25, so eight days would be correct. I don't know of a good reference for that other than transcripts of her trial testimony. Footwarrior (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I presume the "two weeks" refer to the date of their arrest (6th of November), which would make it at that time 13 days or roughly two weeks (25th of October - 6th of November). Akuram (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Forensic investigation

(question moved here from section disussing lead).Footwarrior (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey - I'm new to this, I just wanted to point out a factual error. The article says "Chemical analysis revealed slight footprints in the house, which prosecutors said matched the feet of Knox[45] and Sollecito.[46] Both admitted to having been in the house the day after the murder, and claimed that this was when they stepped in the blood.[43]" but [43] says nothing like this - that and all sources I have read have the defense disputing (1) whose prints were found and (2) if the prints were actually made from blood.98.206.160.115 (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. Digging a bit further, it seems that reference [45] isn't talking about chemically enhanced prints, and [46] does't say anything about a print matched to Sollecito. I will fix this by deleting the unsupported claims. Footwarrior (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Change to lead + questions

However, Knox and Sollecito have filed appeals of their convictions and continue to enjoy the presumption of innocence. The appeal will be based on claims that the DNA evidence in the case was seriously flawed and that there is a new witness who can establish that they were not at the scene of the crime. Their second trial will be held in the Autumn of 2010.

I think this needs rewriting. If you look at what it actually means, we have

Knox and Sollecito have appealed.

Advance notice about the content of their appeal

Appeal trial date

The wording "enjoy the presumption of innocence" is flowery and awkward and I think it should go altogether

The contents of their appeal - this is a bit crystal-ballish, does it belong in the lead?

Trial date is presumably a matter of record.

  pablo_hablo. 22:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Pablo, I thought the use of the phrase "enjoy the presumption of innocence' is an odd way to describe two people that have been through an investigation, long trial, currently incarcerated and in jail ... irrespective of whether they are guilty or innocent, Knox and Sollecito are not likely to enjoy their present situation!!! Jonathan (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The term is a legal term, familiar to any lawyer in the US. It is a common legal term to say "continue to enjoy the presumption of innocence" or "has the benefit of the presumption of innocence." Italy's presumption of innocence is very similar to the US presumption. Also, the points raised in the appeal are already known and publicized--so not "crystal ball" to include them. I merely included a few points to present 'the other side of the story' but as usual, this meets with great resistance. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

As for the trial date, that is something most readers will want to know. Saying its "a matter of record" is not a valid justification to exclude it. This is likely a crucial piece of information for most readers. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that the trial date be excluded. It could be included iff it is a matter of record. I don't see the relevance of what a lawyer in the US may be familiar with.   pablo_hablo. 09:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The significance is that many of the readers of this English language article are in the US, so using familiar legal terms is appropriate. It is further appropriate given that how the presumption of innocence is handled in the US and in Italy are very similar. Zlykinskyja (talk) 11:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

How about "In April 2010, Knox and Sollecito both filed appeals against their convictions, and the prosecution also filed an appeal, seeking life terms for both defendants. Under Italian law, all three defendants are considered innocent until the appeals process has been concluded." I don't think we should discuss the challenges to the DNA evidence and the witnesses for the appeal when we haven't mentioned evidence or witnesses at the trial. If we say that Knox and Sollecito are appealing we should also say the prosecution are appealing. If we say Knox and Sollecito are considered innocent, we should say the same about Guede (the appeal process has not finished for him either). I don't believe a date has yet been set for the appeal, so we shouldn't speculate when it will be (at least not in the lead). Bluewave (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a huge improvement.   pablo_hablo. 09:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that that is phrased much better. "Considered innocent" is a lot clearer than "enjoy the presumption of innocence", and I do not see how one or the other paints someone as more innocent or not. I agree that the lead should not go into the challenge to the conviction when the reasons for the conviction are not discussed there either. Quantpole (talk) 11:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

My language should not be deleted. I have set it forth below again, for ease of reference:

However, Knox and Sollecito have filed appeals of their convictions and continue to enjoy the presumption of innocence. The appeal will be based on claims that the DNA evidence in the case was seriously flawed and that there is a new witness who can establish that they were not at the scene of the crime. Their second trial will be held in the Autumn of 2010.

Comment: It just goes on and on and on, these attempts to diminsh the defense side of the case and diminish NPOV. The goal is supposed to be neutral editing, but that keeps getting shoved aside in these tireless efforts to paint Amanda and Raffaele as guilty. MOST of the language in the lead, as it currently stands, paints Knox and Sollecito as guilty. My language softened that a bit.

Deleting my language that is already in there is in furtherance of making them look guilty. The proposed substitution is worded to diminish the significance of their appeal in the Autumn, and the fact that until that second trial is completed they continue to be presumed innocent. Guede is not in the same situation, since he has already had his second trial and was found guilty, and his next appeal is not a trial de novo. Painting Guede as being in the same procedural posture as Amanda and Raffaele is misleading.

Also, by deleting my information about the basis of the appeal, it reduces the significance of the appeal. The information about the new witness is certainly important for the reader to know. Further, mixing the prosecution appeal for a life sentence in the same sentence with the defense appeal for a second trial is confusing and is only being done to MINIMIZE the significance of the second trial. It is so very obvious what is being attempted here, and it is simply WRONG. This article is supposed to be neutral, not an attempt to convince the reader of the guilt of Amanda and Raffaele, when no one knows for a fact that they ever harmed Meredith. A truly neutral lead needs to include the language that I put in there. But neutrality is clearly not the goal. Zlykinskyja (talk) 11:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Continuing to accuse others of not being neutral will likely result in you being topic banned or blocked. I suggest you change your language. Quantpole (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'm not interested in "painting" any "side of the story". The facts should be stated in unambiguous, neutral language. Sometimes more words are needed to make things clearer.   pablo_hablo. 12:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I should add that deleting my language is unnecessary for the additional fact that there is excessive wordiness in the description of the crime scene/wounds. The description of the crime scene/wounds could be cut back a little bit to reduce the wordiness. Also, the information about the arrests is no longer of great significance, since it is now obvious that they were arrested for the case to have gotten to this point. So if the information about the arrests is removed, that will also significantly shorten the lead. Thus, there is no need to remove my crucial language about the status of Amanda and Raffaele, given that the removal of unnecessary language will greatly shorten the lead. Zlykinskyja 2:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the lead should be some kind of a recap: in a nutshell, this is what's happened so far-section. So the info about A., K. and R.'s arrests belongs there. Then, a brief description of the murder itself is in order. Just because it is a recap, we should also mention that the three defendants appealed. R. — who's still presumed innocent, just like A. and. R. — is now appealing before the Court of Cassation, I believe. A. and R. are now appealing before the Appellate Court and so is the Prosecutor. We cannot put into the lead the fact that A. and R. are appealing because they keep claiming they are innocent and overlook the fact that the Prosecutor too is appealing. That would not be NPOV, in my opinion. We don't have to explain each point raised by A. and R.'s attorneys. There's a section for that and it is the "defence points of appeal". There's no point, according to me, in cluttering up the lead with unnecessary information, that could be put somewhere else. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the lead. The fact that the information can be stated further down in the article does not counteract the fact that the first impression given to the reader is what is stated in the lead. A reader looking at that lead without my language will have the impression that Amanda and Raffaele committed an horrendous crime. However, no one knows for a fact yet that this is true, given the presumption of innocence that applies at this point in time. Thus, fairness and accuracy requires that it be made clear to the reader that Amanda and Raffaele might not have committed the crime, and that there is another side to the story. What we are talking about is merely three short sentences to counteract the information in the lead which paints them as guilty. Given the gravity of the charges, and the unfair damage to their reputations if the information/charges prove to be untrue, including the other side of the story in the lead is crucial and facilitates the purposes of the BLP policy. Zlykinskyja (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, both I and Bluewave made suggestions for a re-phrasing, honestly trying to address the concerns you voiced. You could take it from there, but your response was My language should not be deleted and to regurgitate your accusations of POV-pushing. Now, you may hold whatever opinions you like, but understand that it's hard to work with you when your only response is "my way or the highway". The net result will be (and already is) that people will stop trying to work with you.

As for your arguments above: We don't know if they committed the crime. What we do know is that they stand accused of it, and that a court found them guilty of it. These are undisputed facts that we have to include. And yes, because of these facts they might look guilty to some of the readers. However, NPOV is not about "softening" those facts with suggestive language (which you see to try) and it won't balance the article. What NPOV is about: We must include all facts, also those that promote their innocence and might lead some reader to think that they didn't do it. In other words: NPOV is not about giving equal "power" to each argument or matching each fact with a counter-fact. NPOV about presenting everything, and letting the readers decide on what they find most convincing. Averell (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't have phrased it any better! Averell, you are right on the money. Akuram (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The proof is in the pudding. The continuous reverting, deleting, removing and obstructing that has been going on here, along with the bullying, speaks for itself. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to remove the last sentence of the lead-in: "The case is highly controversial in the U.S., with claims in the media and among various supporters of Knox and Sollecito that they were unjustly convicted."

I do not think or believe it is necessary to mention that the case is highly controversial in the US, as it is not just controversial in the US alone. That this case is discussed controversially can be found out by any interested reader if he bothers to read on in the article. So, in my opinion there is no need to include this in the lead-in. Also I find the mentioning, that the media and other supporters "claim" that Knox and Sollecito are innocent not worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article, because their claim is totally irrelevant as they don't have the insight in the case as the judges and the people involved in the first verdict had. And furthermore, the media cries for what sells best, not necessarily the truth. (The claim of supporters of their guilt is not included in the lead-in either.) In case there aren't any sound objections, I will remove this sentence. Akuram (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that information should remain. It indicates to the readers that there are two sides to the story, that the story is not yet finalized and is under dispute. Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the detail about why Meredith had two phones. It's a bit of trivia that doesn't belong in the article lead. Footwarrior (talk)

Strawman for one of the controversies as requested by Hipocrite

Hipocrite asked for people to suggest edited versions of the controversies section. I've had a go at the "Claims of police mistreatment" topic (confession: I had already been working on it).

According to Knox, during the night of 5 and 6 November 2007, she was questioned first by a large group of police officers and then by prosecutor Mignini and was subjected to a great deal of pressure and intimidation which led her to make the statements placing herself at the murder scene and implicating Patrick Lumumba as the murderer. According to Knox, the police told her that they had solid evidence that she was at the scene of the murder and that her inability to remember being there might be due to a traumatic mental block interfering with her memory. Knox claimed that she was also threatened with the likelihood of 30 years in prison, was called a "stupid liar" and was hit on the head twice. When describing the event to her family, Knox told them: "I've never been so scared in my life."

Knox had no lawyer present and claimed that she had been dissuaded from seeking an attorney. Since by 5:45 am Knox was a suspect, Italian law prohibited her questioning without her attorney present, so that part of her questioning was inadmissable as evidence.

Some hours later, Knox retracted some of her statements. She explained in a written note: "In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received."

A female police officer testifying at the trial denied that Knox was pressured, and said, she had questioned Knox "firmly but politely". She also said that Knox had been given chamomile tea and cakes from a vending machine, and later had breakfast in the police station, over the course of the questioning. In January 2010, Knox was informed that due to her testimony at the trial she would be charged with defamation of the police and face a further criminal trial.

As ever, if someone else can do better, please do so. Bluewave (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

My comment, over and over, is "so what?" Here is just one "so what?" examples - "She also said that Knox had been given chamomile tea and cakes from a vending machine, and later had breakfast in the police station, over the course of the questioning." SO WHAT? Could we please summarize this even more? Hipocrite (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

A controversy has two sides. I think one side of the controversy is that Knox was put under a lot of pressure and the other side is that she was only put under the usual amount of pressure for someone being questioned about a murder. The policewoman with her camomile tea is making the case that Knox was treated humanely. But you're right: the detail isn't needed, as long as it is clear that there are two sides to the controversy. Anyway, I'll let someone else have a go at either editing it or coming up with something better. Bluewave (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion for this section:

Knox was interviewed without a lawyer present during the night of 5 and 6 November 2007, signing statements at 1:45 AM and 5:45 AM. In a note written on November 6, Knox claimed that these statements "were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion" and that she was hit during the interviews. Knox repeated these clams during her trial. A female police officer testified that Knox had been questioned "firmly but politely". In January 2010, Knox was informed that due to her testimony at the trial she would be charged with defamation of the police and face a further criminal trial.

A reader looking for more details such as chamomile tea and cakes can simply follow the references.Footwarrior (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I like the brevity! A couple of things you don't mention are the claim that the police said they had evidence that proved Knox was at the murder scene and the claim that they threatened her with 30 years in prison. I'm not sure how notable these are, though. For instance, I doubt if it would be a surprise to Knox that a murder sentence could be 30 years in prison. This sounds less like a threat than a statement of fact. Bluewave (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I like the short version too, also because it removes a direct quote. However, the 30 years in prison are clearly a threat and would have been intended as one. So I'd say "that she was hit and threatened during the interview". Averell (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

What about the (alleged) claim by police that they had evidence that Knox was present at the crime scene? My knowledge of the law (particularly in Italy!) is not good enough to know if this would be an acceptable interview tactic or not. Bluewave (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

In response to Averell: Just saying that she was "threatened during the interview" leaves it open to wild interpretation but we could change it to:

• In a note written on November 6, Knox claimed that these statements "were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion", that she was hit during the interviews and told that she "would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years".

which presents the facts of her statement more clearly.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

@Bluewave: "if this would be an acceptable interview tactic or not" would need in any case a source that combines the "tactics" and this case/interview.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave: My section should remain as it is. Please stop constantly trying to delete my work over and over and over. This section represents a crucial issue in the case. It is a main appeal point. What purpose does it serve to water this down to a section so brief that it essentially contains very little information.

Deleting, removing, reverting, that has become the general theme on here of numerous editors, and the content that is being removed or watered down is always the content that presents the defense issues. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You still didn't read WP:OWN, did you? This is the encyclopedia that "everyone" can edit and therefore Wiki articles are changing constantly. There is no edit that cannot be reversed or changed as long as no policies are violated.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I made a proposal for (what I thought was) an improved version. Footwarrior came up with a counter proposal (which I agreed formed a better basis for improving the article than my own). TMC-k suggested a further improvement that built on Footwarrior's version. Zlykinskyja believes that none of these versions are better than the current section in the article. So we need get consensus! I'm not sure how we do that, but maybe one useful step would be to write down the conditions that everyone thinks must be met by an improved section. My summary of these is as follows (and apologies if I have misrepresented anyone):

• Needs to be concise (Hipocrite).
• Not conflicting snippets juxtaposed, as in "he said, she said". (Hipocrite)
• Encyclopedic (Hipocrite)
• Meets the "so what" test - eg details such as camomile tea (Hipocrite)
• Clearly shows that there are two sides with valid points of view (Bluewave)
• Includes all the (notable) claims made by Knox on the subject (Bluewave)
• Clearly includes the facts of Knox's statement (TMC-k)
• Makes clear that this is a crucial issue in the case (Zlykinskyja)
• Is cognizant of the fact that this may be a main appeal point (Zlykinskyja)
• Does not water this down or omit essential information. (Zlykinskyja)
• Needs to be expanded to include 10 or 15 additional witnesses (Wikid77)
  [ see below #Expanding claims of mistreatment with other witnesses ].
• Needs to focus an the main points and remain concise. (Averell)

Is this a fair summary of the views of editors that we need to reconcile to reach consensus? Bluewave (talk) 10:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess that's a good start! As far as "notable claims" by Knox, she claimed pressure to name someone. If the items are not interwoven, you might be forced to list bullets to avoid a shaggy dog story delaying the later points. I don't know where everyone finds time to condense text, when so much more needs to be added (in other sections, crime scene diagrams, photos, DNA charts, stated relationships, etc.). -Wikid77 11:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to add myself. The section isn't too bad as of today. In general I stand by my opinion that this article needs less detail, not more. In this case I'm in favor of leaving Knox' statement as a direct quote, but avoid repeating the same things in the text. As for this being a crucial issue and important for the appeal - to me it appeared that the crucial issue of the appeal was in attacking the DNA evidence. But if there are sources who confirm it is crucial... Maybe what would help here would be if we included *what* Knox was pressured to admit - this would put things into perspective. Averell (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm also sceptical about whether this really is a crucial issue for the appeal. The statement that Knox made at the time of the alleged mistreatment was deemed inadmissable at the murder trial and was not taken into account by the judges in reaching their verdict, so I'm struggling to see how it will be relevant to the appeal against the murder charge. However, we don't actually know what is in the appeal filing (I don't believe it has been disclosed to journalists) and one of the lawyers seems to have said it's important, so I'm keeping an open mind at the moment. Also, of course, I wasn't trying to censor anyone's views...just list them. Bluewave (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Knox's statements were ruled inadmissible by Italy's Supreme Court. But despite this ruling, they were used as evidence supporting the charge against Knox of libeling P. Lumumba. Footwarrior (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Because, in that case, they were not evidence of a crime, but they were a crime in themselves. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If I have got the above list right (and I haven't yet given enough time to be sure) there are at least 2 issues that will require resolution:

1. Some people think the section should be condensed; others think it should be expanded.
2. Some of the concerns are about the prominence given to this issue within the article, and this is a matter of individual judgment. One person's removal of pointless detail may be be seen by another person as watering down.

So, where do we go from here? Any suggestions please (looking to Hipocrite, especially, here.) Bluewave (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I strongly object to the expansion of the rumors and conroversies section (in both directions [defence and prosecution]), as this would make the article less "encyclopaedic" and transfer it more into something of a "sensationalised story". I also object to the growing focus on this part of the article, which in my opinion should be mentioned as a part of the article, but this is not what the article is essentually here for. In my opinion we are loosing perspective what this article is actually about: The "murder of Meredith Kercher"! Akuram (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Still, could we stick to this section please? It is as good as any other to get started. I very much think that we should get away from those meta-discussions and focus on concrete proposals for the text. Averell (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Response to the question above: For my part I'm not opposed to detail, if it can be justified. We just need some threshold for inclusion. As a rule of thumb, I'd look at if (and how much) a fact was discussed in secondary sources. Along the lines: If everyone else ignores it, we shouldn't include it either. To be concrete, here's my feeling about the things Wikid proposed: If it can be sourced that a police officer testified Knox being in distress, this should be included in some way. If an officer had already been charged with beating subjects and that in itself can be sourced (not only that her father claimed it), it should also be included. For the rest of the witnesses I think it would suffice to say that "several other witnesses also reported being pressured by the police.". I would leave out that her father believes her, and I wouldn't go into any confession details in this paragraph. Averell (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree very strongly with Averell " that we should get away from those meta-discussions and focus on concrete proposals for the text". Those (meta discussions) are a major hold-up in regards to the improvement of the article. So let's agree on some wording and apply it to the article. It's not set in print so we still can discuss and refine it later.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. A concrete proposal of text would obviously help the discussion. I just wanted to express my personal concerns about some notions to actually expand this section, rather than getting down to give solid information. I see if I get the time to present an acceptable suggestion of the wording myself. Akuram (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

...so would someone like to propose another iteration of the text? Bluewave (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I had a go myself:

Knox was interviewed without a lawyer present during the night of 5 and 6 November 2007, signing statements at 1:45 AM and 5:45 AM, in which she said she was present at the murder scene and and that Patrick Lumumba was the murderer. In a note written on 6 November, Knox claimed that these statements "were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion", that she was hit during the interviews and told that she "would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years". Knox repeated these clams during her trial. A female police officer testified that Knox had been questioned "firmly but politely" but another of the police officers present testified that Knox was so pressured during the intense interrogation that she starting screaming [but we need a source for this]. Patrick Lumumba has stated that he was also pressured and threatened by police officers on the same day.

In January 2010, Knox was informed that due to her testimony at the trial she would be charged with defamation of the police and face a further criminal trial.

I'm away from Wikipedia for a few days, so I'll leave it to others to come up with something better! Bluewave (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm back from my few days' break but see there have been no further comments on this. Can I take this as assent? Bluewave (talk) 08:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No. The discussion has not yet been resolved. As I have said, removing information that will be central to a defense appeal issue does not serve the purpose of informing the readers of BOTH sides of the story. There is also discussion below on this topic, not yet resolved. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Any resolution of this text also has to be coordinated with the lengthy text about the interrogation included in the Investigation Section. That section is an even bigger problem in that it is disjointed, confusing, too long and not well written. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, I don't think that anyone has mentioned that Reporter Franseca Bene has said that she was intimidated by the same policewoman involved in Amanda's interrogation. This occurred when Mignini charged Franseca with "interfering with justice" or "causing alarm" some such nonsense criminal charge when she published a story about a boy being covered with blood and washing the blood off in a fountain in the early morning of the day Meredith's body was found. Bene's episode is reported in the book Monster of Florence, which is a reliable source. So I think that her comments should be included as well as the abuse claims of Patrick, which have been reported in numerous reliable sources. The father's claim is that there are six similar claims of abuse during interrogations. Also, Raphaele claimed that he was intimidated in that he was strip searched and forced to spend a long time standing on a cold floor with no shoes on when he voluntarily went to the police station. So these things support Amanda's claim that she felt intimidated when she made her statements. Her lawyers are published in various reliable sources as saying that the interrogation WILL be part of the appeal. Also, this is clearly an interrogation, NOT a mere "questioning". Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

So, Zlykinskyja, would you like to suggest an improvement to the above text? Bluewave (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to suggest adding the information from the Monster of Florence book about the Knox interrogation, the Preston interrogation, and the incident with Francesca Bene and I would like to propose that book as a reliable source. The authors are Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi. It is a well regarded book in the U.S., and was on the New York Times Best Seller List. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you please suggest some actual words, with a citation? As a matter of interest, does Preston make it clear how Bene knows that she is talking about the same policewoman as the one who allegedly assaulted Knox? Thanks. Bluewave (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but Douglas Preston is best know for his fictional writings and the filming rights to this book have also already been purchased by United Artists. The fact that is has been on the New York Times Bestseller List does not make it less fictional or more accurate. This book is clearly written for entertainment purposes around some true facts. The title alone negates the claim of beeing informal rather than fictional. It is just another version of writing a book about a true or not so true serial killer, just like the books about Jack the Ripper (Patricia Cornwell springs to mind). I challenge the claim, that this book is a reliable source and object to its use in that way. I also would like to point out, that this article is about "The murder of Meredtith Kercher" and not about the life and fate of Amanda Knox. Akuram (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The book is not fiction. It is classified as non-fiction. In fact the Library of Congress has officially cataloged this book as "Serial murders-Italy-Florence-Case studies." Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Akuram: what specific aspect of the book do you find unreliable? Have you actually read this book? I have and I find it very well done, thoroughly researched, totally believable. It is a very impressive piece of work, and it has received positive reviews from many well regarded sources, including USA Today, Associated Press, Denver Post, Chicago Tribune, Time Magazine, Washington Post, Kansas City Star, New Orleans Times, Dallas Morning News, ect. Also, this article is about both the murder and the trial.Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, how about coming up with your suggestion for improving the above version of the text, by adding what you think is needed? Then we can judge the Preston source in terms of the specific points that you are citing from it and editors can discuss, if necessary. Bluewave (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)