Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 20

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

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

→

DNA Evidence Deletions

Bluewave has raised the issue again of whether there is too much info on the DNA evidence/section and whether or not that info/section should be deleted or beefed up. I think yesterday's appeal filing shows that the DNA issue is now front and center of this case. The DNA section needs to be beefed up, not deleted, IMHO.

Most importantly I ask people to seriously consider this question: If Knox was involved in a violent attack on Kercher, how could her DNA, hair, fiber or fingerprints not be found at the murder scene, as Guede's DNA was found? Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Could I respectfully suggest that it is not our role to consider the implications of the lack of Knox's DNA etc at the murder scene. That is the job of the police, and the courts. Our job is to report the facts in a neutral way, rather than trying to draw our own conclusions from them. Bluewave (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, you should also consider that a murder weapon wasn't found in the room either, but that doesn't mean it wasn't never there at all. Wikipedia does not need to play CSI. Jonathan (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Very little of Guede's DNA was found at the murder scene. Very little. Just by being someplace does not mean you leave DNA behind. It's a lot harder to scatter your DNA around than you seem to imagine it to be.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 30 April 2010

Any source for your claim?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The Micheli Report clearly indicates Guede's DNA was matched in massive amounts. Quoting from Google Translate of Micheli:

"The witness makes it clear however that the search of the haploid Y is accomplished by analyzing spikes and RFU, who had been given in this case results fairly high (at a locus, 164, another 838, in the one with the smallest peak 132). On the purse [handbag] was found instead to be a genetic mixture of the accused [Guede] and the victim, together with very high peaks (beyond 1000, however, and values greater than 300), is the same haplotype Y: the biological material had been taken more or less at the center of the zipper, on one of the two sides.
"As for the bra (Italian: reggiseno), the track due to G. [Guede] was present on one side of the garment to the back: in this case, there was the connotation of the male chromosome, with RFU values from 113 to 687 (Italian: connotazione del cromosoma maschile, con valori di RFU da 113 a 687 ).

Hence, based on the U.S. or British standards for DNA RFU peaks below 50 as possible contamination, the level of Guede's DNA was not merely 2x or 5x times the ample amount, but 13x to over 20x times the peak amounts considered as ample evidence of a match. This certainly needs to be noted in the article. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Next proposed change

I'd like to ask someone to propose a concrete change that we can evaluate to determine how to make the article better. Please make sure your proposed change is small in scale and easy to digest - a total rewrite of a section, for instance, is a bit too much to tackle right now. Given that the last proposed change germinated from Bluewave, I'd ask that the next change be proposed by a different participant. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have said numerous times that I cannot participate at this time. How can consensus be reached if BOTH sides of the dispute cannot participate? Given what just happened on this article, I think this article should be locked until mediation starts. I note that someone has added back in the statement in the lede that Amanda Knox did in fact kill Kercher. It is simply ridiculous to have that in an encyclopedia. Locking till mediation starts is the appropriate thing to do at this time. Zlykinskyja (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears you've suggested our next change! What sentence is it that you have a problem with, and what would you like it changed to? Hipocrite (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Please restore the discussion about the false suicide report. It is not reasonable at all that that information should be deleted, while NO action has been taken to address the matter. I don't agree that "next time" something should be done. This was reported on Newsweek. That is outrageous. Zlykinskyja (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I am taking action to adress the matter. when protection falls off, new and unregistered accounts will be unable to edit the article. Where is this reportecd on Newsweek? What sentence is it that you have a problem with, and what would you like it changed to? Hipocrite (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have said over and over that I cannot participate until April 30. I explained about Newsweek in the section that you deleted. If none of the administrators will look into this matter of the false suicide report, then I will have to do it even though I do not have any time at all to do it. Zlykinskyja (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

RE Newsweek - they just mirror our content. Again, it will not happen again after protection comes off because the article will be locked to new and unregistered contributors. Hipocrite (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It is being looked into. You can either trust that I'm taking all possible steps to do so, or not. Hipocrite (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it is about this edit which was already removed ones by Bluewave and should go in my opinion, too.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to have Zlykinskyja define her own proposal. If she can't do so untill tommorow, there's no deadline. Hipocrite (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that protection has been downgraded to semi, under the assumption that none of the parties will re-engage in edit warring immediately. I wish you all a productive mediation. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if Zlykinskyja is not proposing this change of the sentence, then I will propose it. This is clearly not NPOV, it's not finally proven and is only intended to aggravate certain people, which are fired up enough already as it is. Please can we all agree that this part of the sentence should be taken out? -> [1] Thank you! Akuram (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, from a BLP point of view, I think Akuram has a point that we should remove it anyway. It is a defamatory statement and I think our duty to remove defamatory material exceeds even our duty to focus on the mediation. Bluewave (talk)

(undent) Ok, I interpret that as broad agreement to remove that text and have done so. I await Zlykinskyja's proposal. Hipocrite (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Something I would like to see deleted in this language: "one of her lawyers, Carlo Dalla Vedova, said that he believed the trial was fair. He added that he “disagreed” with news media coverage that depicted it otherwise."[218] This language is at the bottom of the Media section.

The reason why I think this language should be removed is that it gives the impression to the reader that Amanda's lawyer agreed with the outcome of the trial. Clearly, he did not agree, since he just filed an appeal that is hundreds of pages long and is described by his co-counsel as a "total repudiation" of the trial. The language I challenge is likely taken out of context or is an error or is at least confusing. Since the language does not add to the accuracy of the article, but rather gives a misleading or confusing impression, I think it should be removed. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

A more serious problem is the paragraph starts with "Just after the guilty verdict" The referenced article with the lawyers statement is dated 3 December, before the verdict was issued. Footwarrior (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Great catch! Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Albeit I agree on removing the "Just after the guilty verdict" part, I'm against removing the statement itself altogether: it is sourced and it was not retracted. To think that it was a misquotation or something else seems like WP:OR to me. So, the quote should stay, unrless a reliable source can be cited that supports the view that Dalla Vedova actually said something else. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Salvio, you and others delete my well sourced information all the time. The standard usually employed does not seem to be whether the information is "sourced". If that were the case, many of my sentences would not have been deleted. This disputed statement adds nothing of value to the accuracy of the article. It does not represent what Amanda's lawyers believe. It misleads and confuses the readers. It cannot be reasonably argued that Amanda's lawyers agree with the trial, so this information should not be in the article. This is similar to the other situation where someone included a statement from an Italian newspaper that Amanda agreed with the trial, to create the false impression that she was admitting her guilt. Since this disputed language does nothing but create a false impression, it should be removed. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest leaving the quote in the article, but replace "Just after the guilty verdict" with "Before the guilty verdict was announced" to make it clear that the lawyers comments do not apply to the verdict. Footwarrior (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What does the comment add to the accuracy of the article? Nothing. Amanda's lawyers do not agree with the trial. Thus, the language is misleading. What purpose does it serve to include misleading language in the article? It is the job of the editors to clarify the material, not just include any language that is connected with the story, whether accurate or not accurate. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If Amanda's lawyers have said they believe the trial is fair, that does not mean that they agree with the verdict. But, if they have said the trial is fair, we have to decide if that is notable...and I'd say it is (but I agree it should be set in the context that Footwarrior suggests). We also need decide whether the source is sufficiently reliable...and on balance, I'd say yes. So, I'd go along with Footwarrior's proposal. Bluewave (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

So include language whether it really reflects the views of her lawyers or not? It is splitting hairs to say the lawyers think the trial was "fair", yet disagree with the verdict. How is such a thing even possible? This is not something I have ever heard of before. How do you reconcile this language with the complete repudiation of the trial filed by her lawyers last week? They rejected the whole thing in the hundreds of pages they filed last week. I don't see how a lawyer can in good conscience file hundreds of pages repudiating a trial that he thinks is "fair". In the US, he could face sanctions for that. How is it consistent with NPOV to include language that clearly does not accurately reflect the views of her lawyers, yet at the same time trying to delete most of the section on the appeal, which DOES accurately reflect the views of her lawyers. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You can launch an appeal against a verdict without claiming it was an unfair trial. An unfair trial means that it has been conducted wrongly or that the media has impacted on the jury etc. It does not mean that the evidence submitted was all correct (which is what the appeal is about). The appeal and the statement do not contradict each other. Quantpole (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. An unfair trial is not so narrowly defined. It is a general term meaning that an unjust result was reached for any number of reasons, including the reasons set forth in the appeal, such as violation of the right to counsel, unfair interrogation tactics, coerced confession, flawed evidence collection, denial of the introduction of additional evidence on the DNA, and in general a trial so flawed that it was unfair. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. You are conflicting different things - how the trial is conducted and how the evidence was obtained. Just because the defense lawyer said he thought the trial was fair does not mean he accepts that the evidence was correct. Quantpole (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not continuing this discussion because you are way off the mark. See my comment above which references issues that are quintessential "right to a fair trial" issues.16:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, let me bracket this problem so you can all stop talking at eachother and instead talk to eachother. It appears there is broad consensus that the current article is innacurate. I've fixed that. The second issue is if this should be included at all, and if it is included, how to do that. Could someone who favors inclusion please detail a specific edit that they suggest would improve the article? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

OK speaking as an "inclusionist", I would say that this paragraph is part of the section on press coverage, so we should more clearly show it as an example of the range of views portrayed in that coverage. My proposal would be to replace;

Just before the guilty verdict, the New York Times reported, "Ms. Knox is often portrayed as an innocent girl unwittingly caught up in the Kafkesque Italian justice system. But even one of her lawyers, Carlo Dalla Vedova, said that he believed the trial was fair. He added that he “disagreed” with news media coverage that depicted it otherwise."

with:

The fairness of the trial was a subject of press speculation. For example, before the guilty verdict was announced, the New York Times reported, "Ms. Knox is often portrayed as an innocent girl unwittingly caught up in the Kafkesque Italian justice system. But even one of her lawyers, Carlo Dalla Vedova, said that he believed the trial was fair. He added that he disagreed with news media coverage that depicted it otherwise."

Would that do for a specific edit? Bluewave (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It would. Without personally taking a position (I'm just asking leading questions, I swear), do you feel that's balanced? Is there a notable opinion that the trial was not fair (aside from the opinion of the lawyers representing the accused, which we can discuss later?) Hipocrite (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave: No, because Carlo Dalla Vedova does not believe that the trial was fair. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

(To Hipocrite's point) I think that an even better improvement would be a longer paragraph, drawing in material from a couple of other places in the article, and giving a balanced section about the different press views on the fairness of the trial. I'm not going to have time to do that now, so I leave it to anyone else to come up with a better proposal or, if no-one does, I'll try again when I'm next logged in. Cheers. Bluewave (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that would be more productive than fiddling around with this on the margin. I look forward to working with everyone to help create a real paragraph about varing opiinons of the fairness of the trial. Hipocrite (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not about the press views. It is about including a false report that Amanda's lawyer thinks the trial was fair. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears that the NYT has him quoted as saying the trial was fair. In other court papers, of course, he finds fault with aspects of the trial. We should use his other quotes to clarify his first quote. Hipocrite (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, yes there is a notable opinion that the trial was unfair. The opinion of her lawyers is that the trial was unfair. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a clear source for this. Hipocrite (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I should make a general statement - I think it would be wise to take pronouncements by lawyers in cases with a huge grain of salt - their statements are statements of advocates, designed not to be truthful per se, but rather to advance the interests of their clients and not be false. I can see how a lawyer would want to say a trial was fair before a jury decides ("How dare you accuse us, the jury, of being unable to deal with this case! I rule against your client!") and then unfair after the ruling, as that's also in the interest of the client. I am very hesitant to use quotes by lawyers for this reason, and I would ask that editors here strongly consider dramatically shrinking the various quotemines. Hipocrite (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

So, are you saying that the disputed quote by Amanda's lawyer should not be included? Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I say what I mean and I mean what I say. "I am very hesitant to use quotes by lawyers for this reason, and I would ask that editors here strongly consider dramatically shrinking the various quotemines." Hipocrite (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite: In answer to your question, which you have now changed: Yes, I speak English. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Then why are you asking me if I'm saying things I didn't say? Hipocrite (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out what you are saying. Can you clarify that when you say lawyers are not truthful and their quotes should not be used, that your view applies as well to the disputed quote that I am seeking to have removed? If not, why not? Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

When lawyers say things like "I love america, god, and apple pie," they're not saying it because they love america, god and apple pie, they are saying it because they want the audience to hear them say it. It is problematic to use quotes from lawyers to divine what they actually think about something, as they have conflicting motives. This includes every quote from a lawyer. Hipocrite (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you have made it clear that you fundamentally distrust lawyers. Does that distrust also apply to the statements of the prosecutors who are also lawyers? Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

How many times do I have to rephrase the same thing? When lawyers say something, they are saying it with a goal. It is not necessarily their opinion, or true. Hipocrite (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

But does this distrust apply to prosecutors, and prosecutors acting as investigators, who are also lawyers? And if so, shouldn't the views of the prosecutors and prosecutors acting as investigators also be removed? Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

How many times do I have to rephrase the same thing? When lawyers say something, they are saying it with a goal. It is not necessarily their opinion, or true. Please don't assume that I am saying you should remove something, just that statements by lawyers should be looked at with a very skeptical eye. Hipocrite (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, I keep asking because you won't answer my question. So I will ask again. Does this distrust you have of lawyers apply also to prosecutors and to prosecutors acting as investigators, such as in this case? Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what "prosecutors acting as investigators" means, so I'm just going to say that lawyers advocate for their clients, and statements they make are designed to win, not to advance truth. Hipocrite (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so it is lawyers who advocate for their "clients", meaning defense attorneys, that you think are untruthful. I get where you are coming from now. Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Prosecutors are advocates for guilty verdicts. I don't excempt them at all. Please try to avoid shoving words into my mouth. Hipocrite (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, you refused to answer the question directly. So if you think that all lawyers are untrustworthy and their statements and views are not reliable, I don't see how this article can be written. This article going forward through the appeals process just now starting will be largely about the views of the prosecutors vs. the views of the defense attorneys. If what they say is inherently not believable then whose views should be included in the story? Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully the appeal court will focus on the evidence presented by both sides, rather than their opinions. I hope we will do the same. Bluewave (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, until the judicial process is finalized, which could take a few years, all aspects of this case are just opinions. The prosecutor claims Amanda and Raffaele killed Meredith. The defense laywers say they were not there that night. Both are opinions. Hipocrite says the lawyers opinions are not trustworthy and should not be included. I have a problem with this because the essence of this article is opinion, until the process is completed in a couple of years. By discounting what the lawyers have to say, to the point of advocating that they not be quoted because they are so dishonest, the end result will not be an NPOV article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I also reject this notion that lawyers are untrustworthy. Most lawyers are honest and ethical. When the lawyers for Amanda and Raffaele express their views, those views should be treated in the article the same as an expert opinion, in the sense that those opinions should be given great weight in the article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been entirely idle about my offer to have a go at a rewording a paragraph about media portrayals of the fairness of the trial, but it is a harder job than I'd anticipated. For example:

"Exclusive: trial was completely fair" is not the kind of headline that sells newspapers. The people who believe it was fair generally don't make a big song and dance about it. Hence, what reporting exists is more likely to be about supposed unfairness.
Getting a balance works well when there are diametrically-opposed views. Here I'm trying to find a balance between the extreme "trial was a total travesty" views and opposing views which are something like "it was as fair as any other trial". ie trying to balance extreme views with moderate ones.
The reported views of the parents of the victim and the parents of the accused are pretty unsurprising.
The views expressed by the paid lawyers are inevitably whatever they think is expedient for their client at any particular time (as has been pointed out by Hipocrite). That's why we pay lawyers.
The Knox family has a well-funded PR campaign whose purpose is to influence the media to report that the trial reached the wrong verdict.
One function of the PR campaign has been to ensure that the media have only had access to details of Amanda and her family in exchange for guarantees of coverage that is sympathetic to her alleged innocence.
Media portrayals range from good investigative journalism, through to talk shows that allow the protagonists (mostly the Knox family) to express their own views pretty much unchallenged.

All these things make it difficult, but I will try...unless anyone beats me too it! Bluewave (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for removing all (or most of) the quotes. Most of don't appear to exist to support the article, but as a vehicle to include "unfiltered" POV into the article. Even if this could be somehow "balanced" by having quotes and counter-quotes, it makes the article a mess. So out with them. As for the "everything is a opinion", that's a bit wishy-washy. Of course there are no undisputed facts here, but still it's not just about presenting opinions. The opinions can be summed up in two sentences: Prosecution says they're guilty. They say they're innocent. The interesting point is what did they do to promote their opinions, and what facts were presented/disputed? Averell (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, no one agreed to you re-writing the WHOLE section. It was just the last paragraph ONLY. The last paragraph where a disputed quote was attributed to Amanda's lawyer. That was it. To take that as permission to re-write the whole section is unwarranted. Also, you have made many unsettling remarks in your analysis, above. You claim, without any sources or other support, that:

The views expressed by the paid lawyers are inevitably whatever they think is expedient for their client at any particular time (as has been pointed out by Hipocrite). So essentially, you are discounting or dismissing the views of the defense lawyers. That can never constitute NPOV editing under the circumstances of this case. Any attempt to delete, diminsh, or minimize the views of the defense lawyers is not consistent with NPOV policies. The lawyers for the defendants most certainly hold legitimate views that are essential to the article.

You also claim:The Knox family has a well-funded PR campaign whose purpose is to influence the media to report that the trial reached the wrong verdict....One function of the PR campaign has been to ensure that the media have only had access to details of Amanda and her family in exchange for guarantees of coverage that is sympathetic to her alleged innocence. This attempt to discredit or undermine the views expressed that Amanda may not be guilty is equally without merit. Upon what do you base your claim that there is a "well funded PR campaign" ? That is a rumor which should not form the basis for decision-making in a Wikipedia article.

So, my read on your view is that the statements and opinions of the Knox lawyers are not legitimate, the statements and opinions of the Knox family are not legitimate, the media has been unduly influenced by this alleged "PR machine", the opinion that the trial was unfair is extreme, while the opinion that the trial was fair is moderate. These views are not NPOV at all, but clearly biased. So please confine your re-write to the last paragraph only of that section. Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Blimey, I seem to have touched a nerve. I don't have much time, but just to cover a few points:

I'm not entirely discounting the opinion of lawyers but, yes, I'm saying I don't think their stated opinions are very sincere or very notable. Defence or prosecution. The article should be focusing on the evidence presented by the lawyers and the case that they build from it, not their opinions. I suppose that if a defence lawyer said that in their opinion, their client was guilty, that would be notable!
The point about the Knox PR campaign being well-funded. They employ David Marriott of the Seattle PR firm Gogerty Marriott. This account[2] suggests that Marriott's fees are in excess of $100,000 pa ("centomila dollari all’anno"). I'd call that well funded.
The point about the Knox PR campaign is pretty much what it says in Barbie Nadeau's book Angel Face. In the extract on the Daily Beast site, Nadeau writes: "Of the handful of American journalists in Perugia in late 2007 and early 2008, none got access to the Knox family without certain guarantees about positive coverage. Within months, the family decided to speak on the record primarily to the American TV networks, often in exchange for airfare and hotel bills. Most of the print press was shut out. And the TV producers learned to be very cautious about being seen with people like me, lest the Knox family should cut them off."[3]
I said the "trial was a total travesty" was extreme and "it was as fair as any other trial" is moderate. Not what you said.

Bluewave (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I totally disagree with your positions, including this new position (thanks to Hipocrite) that the views of the defense attorneys should not be included. That is simply ridiculous.

I find it hard to believe that David Marriot has discussed his fees with anyone. Rather, it is more likely the amount is confidential and the figure simply made up. He would have no reason to reveal that information, and would certainly realize that such a high figure, if known, would be used against his clients. Thus, this report of a figure for his services is not believable.

As for Barbie Nadeau's book, that is little more than [...opinions redacted -Wikid77 (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)...]. Furthermore, given her [...] reporting of the trial, and her highly defamatory book, I can certainly understand why the Knox and Sollecito families would not talk to her. She makes claims in her book for example, that Sollecito "masturbated constantly." Yet she identifies no reliable source for such highly private information, such as a doctor's report, a psychologist's report, a statement by a girlfriend, or an admission by Sollecito. So how could Barbie Nadeau possibly know such information is true, and not simply a rumor by acquaintances? Yet she publishes what might be little more than a rumor about something so private as to be essentially unknowable-- and is clearly defamatory if untrue-- and holds that out as legitimate information. Nadeau also claims in her book that Sollecito is "morbidly fixated on sex", again with no reliable source to back up that assessment. She is not qualified to make such an assessment, since she is not a psychologist but a Travel writer. No, the book is mostly just nonsense that Nadeau made up, and should not be relied on as a source for Wikipedia, including for this "PR machine" allegation. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think my citations were adequate for I talk page, but I'm certainly impressed that Zlykinskyja has read Nadeau's book already: it's not available in the UK yet, so I could only quote from the online extract. Anyway, I've had a go at drafting a paragraph about the media coverage of the fairness of the trial:

Media portayals of the fairness of Knox and Sollecito's trial included a range of views. Alex Wade, writing in The Times was critical, saying "If by some cruel miracle a British judge had found himself presiding over 12 good men and true, whose task it was to determine whether Knox was innocent of Kercher’s murder, it is inconceivable that he would not have made strong, telling directions to acquit".[4] On the other hand, Libby Purves, writing in the same newspaper, said "both evidence and reconstruction look pretty convincing" and described the American campaign for Amanda Knox as "almost libellously critical of the Italian court". The U.S. media have increasingly focused on the Knox family's campaign to free their daughter, including criticism of the Italian court.[5] By contrast, the Kercher family have made clear their views that the trial was fair,[6] but have otherwise avoided much media attention.[7] Reported views of Knox's lawyers include a piece in the New York Times, during Knox and Sollecito's trial which reported, "Ms. Knox is often portrayed as an innocent girl unwittingly caught up in the Kafkesque Italian justice system. But even one of her lawyers, Carlo Dalla Vedova, said that he believed the trial was fair. He added that he “disagreed” with news media coverage that depicted it otherwise."[8] On the other hand, at the filing of appeals, Knox's lawyers have been quoted as saying that the original case was "botched" by the prosecution.[9]

I have tried to find balance, but I'm not really happy with it and, if anyone else can do better, I'll happily stand aside! Bluewave (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Barbie Nadeau reported for Newsweek in Italy for 14 years before the Knox trial. And not as a travel writer thank you very much. You can dismiss what she writes if you like, but unlike you she was actually at the trial.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk • contribs)

Unless the New York Times is going to retract their statement that Knox's lawyer said it was a fair trial, I'm a lot more inclined to believe their reporting than Zlykinskyja's unsourced and wild assertion that the NY Times has got it wrong. 173.25.240.217 (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Micheli Report: Ownership of the first of the found phones

My understanding is that the 106-page Micheli report says:

"Some time later Signora Biscarini found a mobile phone in her garden. She “had heard” that bombs could be concealed in mobile phones and so she took it to the police station arriving at 10:58am as recorded by ISP. Bartolozzi The postal police examined the phone and following removal of the SIM card, discovered at 11:38am that it belonged to a Filomena R[.] who lived at the cottage at 7 Via della Pergola."

"At around noon Signora Biscarini’s daughter rings her mother at the police station to say she has found a second phone. The second phone (Meredith’s) is collected from Via Sperandio and taken to the police station."

When Filomena R. arrived at the cottage:

"She also told the postal police that the phone found with a SIM card in her name was in fact Meredith’s 2nd phone, that she had given Meredith the SIM as a present."

So, although the SIM card in the first phone was registered to Filomena R., it and the phone it was in actually belonged to Meredith Kercher.

← ZScarpia 11:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you clarify if this relates to some other discussion? Is this a follow up to something else I can read about this topic? Thanks for clarifying. Zlykinskyja (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello. No, this doesn't relate to anything previously discussed on the talk page. It's just an explanation of the rationale behind some changes I made yesterday. ← ZScarpia 00:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is the text on page 17 of the Massei Report and a Google translation of the same passage:

Era rimasta pertanto assai sorpresa quando l'ispettore Battistelli le chiese se conosceva i numeri di telefono che le mostrava, scritti in un foglietto, uno italiano e l'altro inglese. R[.] Filomena sapeva ed in questi termini diede risposta, che erano i numeri dei telefoni utilizzati da Meredith: uno per l'Italia ed era quello intestato a lei, R[.] Filomena e che lei stessa aveva dato a Meredith per le chiamate in Italia e l'altro telefono serviva per chiamare in Inghilterra dove Meredith aveva tutti i suoi familiari.

She stayed therefore very surprised when the inspector Battistelli asked if he knew the phone numbers that showed, in a written paper, one Italian and one English. R[.] Filomena knew and gave answer in these terms, which were the telephone numbers used by Meredith: one for Italy and was headed to her, R[.] Filomena and that she had given to Meredith for making calls and Italy ' served for another phone call to England where Meredith had all [her] family.

I read this as saying Filomena gave Meredith the phone, not just the SIM card. It's not a big issue, but our goal on Wikipedia should be accuracy. Footwarrior (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The way that I read it is that it is fairly definite that Filomena R gave Meredith K the SIM card; we don't know whether she also gave her the phone or that was her own. When the police were given the phone, they took out the SIM card and determined that it was registered to Filomena R. Later, at the flat, they asked her about it. In your translation, Filomena R's reply is given in terms of "telephone numbers". As you probably know, cell phone numbers are registered to SIM cards (a telephone number is unique to a particular card - each card has unique MIMSI, IMSI and IMEI numbers if I remember correctly) not phones. So, we can be fairly sure from the last sentence of your translation that Filomena had given the card to Meredith. As for the phone, without more detail it's impossible to know. The translation I have, which was supposedly done by native Italian speakers, says explicitly that the card was given, but it doesn't say anything about the phone either. ← ZScarpia 16:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Compare that with housemate Laura M. giving one to Amanda Knox, in similar fashion, and search for sources to compare the 2 actions. I felt that the gift to Meredith (by Filomena) seems an unfinished concept, unless noting the gift to Amanda (by Laura). -Wikid77 (talk) 06:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Changed last name to "R[.]" (above) for WP:BLP. Wikid77 04:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Reference for Micheli Judgment is secondary source GTrial

28-Apr-2010: This is a reminder that the huge Italian text, used as a reference for the Micheli Judgment, is a secondary source as merely a summary (though huge), at website www.Penale.it, of the Judge Paolo Micheli's court document. Several editors have mistakenly thought it was a primary source, because it is so large and contains many details from the original text. The reference has been listed, in the article, as:

"Judgement 28.10.2008", Dr. Paolo Micheli, dep. 2009-01-26, Court of Perugia Italy, trial of Rudy Hermann Guede, (Google Translation, Italian to English) Translate.google.com, Italian webpage: Penale.it. Retrieved 2009-12-11.

In that gigantic summary document, many sections have been abridged by indicating ellipsis by 2-dot marks "(..)" in many portions of the text. Some of the omitted details are forensic measurements that pinpoint items in a room. The copyright (at bottom) is:

© 2006 Copyright Penale.it - SLM - Nyberg Srl 1999-2006
Tutti i diritti riservati (English: All rights reserved)

Perhaps some text describing the actual Micheli Judgment "Motivazioni sentenza per Rudy Guede" (the primary source) should be added into the article, as one of the many key details not yet included in the text (Note: in Italian titles, typically only the first word and proper nouns are capitalized). Again, reftag "GTrial" is a secondary source (not a primary source) summarizing, on an Italian website, the much larger Micheli Judgment document. -Wikid77 23:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

In response to your suggestion above, I would like to point you here to read this: WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY - Akuram (talk) 07:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my view is that a summary of a primary source which condenses by omitting information, and contains no commentary ~~and is an official-ish document~~^{( ← ZScarpia 11:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC))} is itself a primary source. ← ZScarpia 12:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

When someone writes, "I got a copy of the court document and here is what half of it stated...", then that's a secondary source. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Obvious primary source. Hipocrite (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Once www.Penale.it had decided which portions of the Micheli Judgment text, or forensic evidence, to omit by numerous ellipsis "(..)" marks, then it became their interpretation, as a secondary source quoting some, but not all, of the primary source (see image at right ). I would like to access the primary source, some day, to consider all the forensic evidence that is listed there, as opposed to the condensed summary that is found in the secondary source. Perhaps some of the key evidence listed in the primary source might be related to explaining events in the article, such as the position of the handbag in the room. However, people have said that the primary source contains horrific, or gruesome, details of the crime which should not be included, in the article, without some warnings to readers. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

For writing the article it is a good thing to have the primary source at hand. Just that Wikipedia should not repeat (or quote, or paraphrase) a primary source in every detail. (Neither should we draw any conclusions from the primary (or secondary) sources.) What we should do is to state the main points, and refer to the primary source. That's one of the purpose of the references: If you are interested in the exact details, you can go to the primary source and read up there. And yes, this means that some details will be left out of the picture. And yes, this will eventually include some judgment calls. Since on this article there is often disagreement about those calls, I suggested to orient (not slavishly follow) ourselves at the weight given to a thing in the secondary sources. My idea was that we don't make up what is "important", but consider "important" what a lot of people (other than us) consider important. Averell (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

To phrase the above in terms of the picture that you presented: You're right that we shouldn't leave out grey boxes from the image. What we do is that we attempt to show the whole image, but in a "low-resolution" or "thumbnail" version. So that when you go to Wikipedia you'll see the outline of it all, but when you want to know how a particular detail is painted, you will have to look at a high-res version (secondary source) or go to the museum and study the image yourself (primary source). Averell (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Not to be rude or anything, but you're just wrong about the difference between primary and secondary sources. A secondary source analyizes primary sources, it dosen't just elide them. If you can't accept this at this point, the only real option is for you to seek outside advice - try WP:RSN. Hipocrite (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

That is called a "secondary source with no quotations" rather than being the primary source from an event. Just because a secondary source doesn't contain a conclusion that someone wanted to include in an article, that source doesn't suddenly become a primary source. A secondary source confirms, analyzes, or evaluates a primary source, in this case, deciding how many forensic details should be omitted when quoting from the primary source. An article published in La Stampa is not a primary source from court proceedings. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

La Stampa is not www.penale.it. Hipocrite (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. -Wikid77 03:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

On another note (also seeing that I wandered a bit off topic above) in this section - why is it even important if it is a secondary or primary source? Both are completely permissible in Wikipedia. Futhermore, there seems to be no doubt that this document contains a verbatim copy of the original, but has pieces left out. As long as you don't refer to any of the pieces left out, both sources are equally valid, no matter if you call them "primary" or "secondary". Furthermore, if anyone has hold of the original document then by all means use it. (However, I prefer to refer to an online source wherever possible, as it makes it easier for the reader to verify the article). If no one here has a copy of the original, the discussion is kind of moot anyway.

(From a scientific point of view I'd say that version we quote at the moment is a secondary source. But I totally fail to see what difference it makes what we call it). Averell (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The significance is that the summary report on the penale.it website cannot, as claimed, act as a secondary source with regard to the contents of the full Micheli report. With regard to whether it is, in general, a primary or secondary source, it depends on the way it is being used. In as far as it summarises and comments on previous documents, it is a secondary source. In as far as it represents the pre-trial views of Micheli, it is a primary source. Obviously, editors should be trying to use secondary sources where possible. The problem of using primary sources comes from the temptation of synthesising content from them. ← ZScarpia 22:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

People have requested we find the original source, with the "106" page numbers, because the Penale.it (summarized) source has no page numbers, and hence, checking footnotes against the mass of text has been difficult. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It would also be useful to pinpoint some original photos, to help explain issues in the text. -Wikid77 04:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Expanding claims of mistreatment with other witnesses

29-Apr-2010: It is time to greatly expand the section about Claims of Mistreatment, to include numerous other sources. Originally, that section was quickly created to begin the topic. At first, the issue was treated as a "he said she said" dispute (when there are no other witnesses than just the 2 sides making claims). However, now, there are probably 10 or 15 witnesses to add into that section, including:

In June 2009, Knox testified they repeatedly asked, "Did you hear a scream?" and she replied no, no, and no. When they insisted how was that possible, she claims that she said, "I don't know, maybe my ears were covered." That became: "Knox put her fingers in her ears when she heard Kercher screaming" as an invented false confession (trial transcript, before asked about Guede, 13 June 2009: [10], or perugiamurderfile.org [11]).
Knox's father attended those trial hearings and he confirmed her statements as consistent with his conversations with Amanda, for years.
Knox's father stated that a female officer linked to hitting Knox was charged with beating another suspect (The Guardian, 12 June 2009: [12]).
One of the police officers (from that night) testified that Knox was so pressured during the intense interrogation that she starting screaming (not hearsay).
Patrik L. (Knox's boss at the pub Le Chic) stated that he was also pressured and threatened by police officers on the same day.
Author Douglas Preston, in several reports, has stated that he was also pressured and threatened by the same prosecutor, and commented about that in relation to Knox's testimony (West Seattle Herald [13]).

All such statements are allowed, per Wikipedia policies, because they are not WP:SYN synthesis, but rather reported in single sources describing the claims of mistreatment. The current text of the section must be expanded per WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NOTPAPER. Expect the article to exceed 200kb, when similar basic details have been added. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Any sources for the above claims?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There are sources for all, but it will take a while to find them again. I have put some into the list (above) already. -Wikid77 10:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

We've already started a section discussing improvements to this topic. Could we please include this discussion in that section above. Otherwise, there is no chance of reaching consensus in either place. Thanks. Bluewave (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I strongly object to the expansion of this 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)

Back in the day when the trial was still in progress is was reasonable to balance the arguments for Knox's guilt and innocence.
Now that she's been found guilty, it seems ridiculous to keep bringing up the arguments for her innocence that were soundly rejected by the trial court.
How many times does it need to be said that Knox's Mommy and Daddy don't think she's guilty?
How the murder occured is clearly laid out in the judges narrative, and that is what should be lifted into this article to explain this crime.
Every piece of evidence does not need a notation attached to it that Knox disagrees. Everyone gets that Knox claims she's innocent.
(needless personalization redacted)
Knox has been in prison for what will soon be 3 years for this crime. Every judge at every level on every issue has rules against Knox on this case. There is no miracle that awaits Knox. She's in prison for the crime, and there she will stay.
(needless personalization redacted).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk • contribs) reformatted for legibility pablo_hablo. 10:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Some text unrelated to the improvement of the article redacted. MLauba ^(Talk) 11:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "Every piece of evidence does not need a notation attached to it that Knox disagrees". It seems that this article has been used in an attempt to argue the case rather than cover it as an encyclopaedia-worthy topic. pablo_hablo. 10:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Per policy WP:NPOV, the text of the article needs to reflect a neutral point-of-view about the subject, rather than echo the prosecution's claims, or suppress the actual evidence which does not advocate for one viewpoint or the other. The article cannot be a mouthpiece for the Italian prosecutor. If the police claim that Knox freely and calmly stated she "heard Kercher screaming" but Knox, during conversations and trial testimony, repeated denied it (when asked, "Did you hear Kercher scream?") and replied No, No and No, then that particular viewpoint needs to be included in the article's text. The article must cover all major viewpoints. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

What Guede actually said in the Skype call in November 2007

The article says: "In November of 2007, Guede stated during a phone call to a friend, which was being monitored by the police, that Knox was not present at the scene of the murder." I was looking at the Times reporting of that conversation[14] which includes a transcript.[15] According to this transcript, Guede actually said; "Listen, you know I knew those girls, I knew them both, Meredith and Amanda, but nothing more, you know that. I've been to their house twice, the last time a few days before all this business, but I didn't do anything. I have nothing to do with this business. I wasn't there that evening. If they have found my fingerprints it means I must have left them there before." So, it seems he didn't say Amanda wasn't there—in fact, he said that he wasn't there. Before I edit the article, I wanted to check if anyone knew of any reason to doubt this transcript. The Times is usually regarded as one of the more reliable of the British press sources but this is presumably a translation from Italian, not what was actually said. Bluewave (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, I thought that the Skype quote itself was a bit out of place ... but I would agree that the Times translation is accurate. Jonathan (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher/Archive_12#Section_3.3_Prosecution:_Amanda_Knox_section.

I originally included several sources which said that Guede said several things not included in the transcript but backing up what I wrote. Those sources may have been deleted by now. But the information is accurate according to the several sources originally included. The Times transcript appears to be only a partial transcript since it does not include information reported by other sources. It does not state that it is a transcript of the entire call. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I just checked and there are still four sources included backing up that sentence. Perhaps more recent sources could be found which clarify this issue. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I am still looking for clarification from a recent reliable source. But apparently the tape of the call was played by Raffaels's defense lawyer during his summation, so the tape must have been exculpatory. http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C363/ Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Presumably there must have been some point in the defence lawyer playing the tape, though the source doesn't make it clear. Bluewave (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"...so the tape must have been exculpatory." That is an assumption which shouldn't be taken as a fact. We don't know the intentions of the defence by playing the tape. And we neither know the exact wording of it nor if the defence achieved what ever they were trying to achieve with it. As far as we know, it didn't lead to an acquittal of the defendant. Akuram (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I was not citing that blog as a reliable source. However, this source supports the view that the transcript is far from complete since this newspaper said that the Skype call was three hours long. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570099/Meredith-suspect-captured-after-sleeping-rough.html Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of that Telegraph article - it is all over the place, and is riddled with the words "allege", and also quotes Guede as saying "I was not there that night" ... A three hour Skype call is also pretty long one to make for someone who is skint, on the lam and sleeping rough, I'm wondering if there is an exact time or other details of that call that were released?Jonathan (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"Skint"? What is this? I have never heard such a word before. Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Broke. pablo_hablo. 15:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The Queen's English plays havoc sometimes! I guess my point was how exactly / where / when was he able to make a 3 hour Skype call on the lam? I can see panhandling a few euro cents here and there to able to afford maybe 15 or 30 minutes in Internet cafe, I'm genuinely curious as to how he was able to make that call, the logistics behind it.Jonathan (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, didn't realize you were British. Here is what happened. After previous contact, the subsequent contact was set up as a Skype call at the police station by Giacomo Benedetti, Rudy's "friend." Rudy agreed with his friend to go to a public Internet site in Germany called "Internet Point" and his friend agreed to cover the costs. The entire three hour call was taped. Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, I'm actually American, but since this article is in British English, I substitute UK words, spelling, grammar and phrases on occasion. Thanks for some of those details; and yes Skype is free call-to-call once you have it set up ... I do realize that, as I use Skype myself a lot. I guess I am wondering how Guede was able to afford the time in the Internet Point itself, maybe his friend Giacomo somehow paid for that time, or maybe this Internet Point is free. Jonathan (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Are there any actual citations that clearly state the Skype call lasted three hours, and that in an earlier Skype call, Rudy's "friend" agreed to pay for a subsequent call, etc? Because if there is one or more citations that are reliable sources for this information, I can't find them with a Google search. Anyone have them?Malke 2010 17:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes. Again and again I too must ask for a source about this 3 hour claim. Because of this, (no sources are provided when commenting), we're constantly running into unneeded/unhelpful and yet avoidable meta discussions. It's really time to stop this. If one can't or just doesn't provide a citation they just shouldn't post at all.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

User blocked and posting incorrect opinions

10-May-2010: This is a reminder that opinions of events, related to changing the article should be tied to sources, especially for controversial text. The New York IP-address user 173.25.240.217 has been blocked for 2 weeks, for disruptive editing. I have replied to the outrageous opinion that "little of Guede's DNA was found" (not true), noting from the Micheli Report, that G's DNA (such as on the handbag & bra) was matched at DNA RFU-peak levels 6x, 12x or over 20x the 50-RFU limit used in U.S. (and British?) courts. Please beware people claiming that little evidence exists against Guede, when in fact, extensive repeated batches of evidence have been found to match: his shoe-prints in over 7 locations, his palm-print matched at 16 points on the pillow, and his DNA on the body, clothes, handbag and bra of Kercher (see Micheli Report: for "haploid Y" or Italian aplotipo Y, with Guede claiming he wore Nike Outbreak 2 basketball shoes which matched the empty package at his residence). -Wikid77 (talk) 06:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The IP was blocked for his disruptive behavior. He was not blocked for his opinions, or rather, for having what you call, "incorrect opinions."Malke 2010 17:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's face it: We're stuck...

We are pretty much "stuck" again as there are too many threads w/o clear proposals besides Bluewave's above at the thread that was started by Hipocrite as mediator. I strongly think that we should try to restart at that point to get any further in improving the article.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree with Magnificent Clean Keeper. Bluewave's proposed change is a good place to restart the discussion. If an editor joins the mediation, can they still edit the article?Malke 2010 21:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The mediation was called of but even if mediation would be going on, there wouldn't be any rule or policy disallowing editing the article, yet it would be a reasonable courtesy not to make major changes w/o talking them out at the talkpage first. One could face charges of disrupting editing while doing so. As of for the rest of your post, I sure agree since I posted the basic idea.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the info. Let's start from Bluewave's proposed change.Malke 2010 00:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You're both right. We're "stuck" on large parts of the article. There are lots of cases where the current text lacks consensus, but discussions have either stopped at a brick wall or meandered into wordy diatribes that have lost people's interest. (By the way, I know I'm not without blame in the wordy diatribe department, so I need to tighten up on this as much as anyone else.) I also agree it's a good idea to focus on one area at a time and try to drive it to consensus. So maybe I'll try and summarise where we'd got to on the section about opinions on the trial, that TMC-k mentions. Bluewave (talk) 07:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Bluewave, sounds good. You go first. MCK and I are right behind you, LOL.Malke 2010 18:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Media opinions about the fairness of the trial

This is continuing the discussion from above about proposed changes to the media section.

The problem we are trying to solve is that some editors are concerned with the statement: "one of her lawyers, Carlo Dalla Vedova, said that he believed the trial was fair. He added that he “disagreed” with news media coverage that depicted it otherwise." The concern is that this could give the impression that Amanda's lawyer agreed with the outcome of the trial. The opposing view is that it is sourced and it was not retracted, so to think that it was a misquotation or something else seems like WP:OR.

My proposed solution was to try and set the statement in a context which showed that a range of views was expressed in the media, including this one. I suggested:

Media portrayals of the fairness of Knox and Sollecito's trial included a range of views. Alex Wade, writing in The Times was critical, saying "If by some cruel miracle a British judge had found himself presiding over 12 good men and true, whose task it was to determine whether Knox was innocent of Kercher’s murder, it is inconceivable that he would not have made strong, telling directions to acquit".[16] On the other hand, Libby Purves, writing in the same newspaper, said "both evidence and reconstruction look pretty convincing" and described the American campaign for Amanda Knox as "almost libellously critical of the Italian court". The U.S. media have increasingly focused on the Knox family's campaign to free their daughter, including criticism of the Italian court.[17] By contrast, the Kercher family have made clear their views that the trial was fair,[18] but have otherwise avoided much media attention.[19] Reported views of Knox's lawyers include a piece in the New York Times, during Knox and Sollecito's trial which reported, "Ms. Knox is often portrayed as an innocent girl unwittingly caught up in the Kafkaesque Italian justice system. But even one of her lawyers, Carlo Dalla Vedova, said that he believed the trial was fair. He added that he “disagreed” with news media coverage that depicted it otherwise."[20] On the other hand, at the filing of appeals, Knox's lawyers have been quoted as saying that the original case was "botched" by the prosecution.[21]

I would further propose that some other changes would be made to accommodate this paragraph, including removal of the sentence about the botched case from the "defence points of appeal" section (we don't need it twice) and cutting some other parts of the "media coverage in general" section. Bluewave (talk) 08:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I would remove the stuff about "trial was fair" as just bizarre (per common sense), in the vein of a similar absurdity: "Knox said she was glad to be convicted" (not true). Also, the article cannot contain unprovable generalities, such as "all decent people believe Knox and Sollecito are innocent" or "the American campaign for Amanda Knox" because those are impossible to prove. IMHO, I suggest we focus on more results-oriented aspects:

Describe other potential suspects, or criteria to profile them.
Return to an NPOV focus on the forensic evidence, which is a more neutral topic, rather than wildly assessing guilt or innocence.
Prepare the article to state Knox or Sollecito was found "not guilty" in the appellate trial(s).
Avoid embellishing rumors that someone said "trial was fair" or "Elvis seen on back row" or "alien sex-fiends winked at Mignini".
Perhaps quote experts saying this case is an "embarrassment" for Italy, lest people think that people in Italy do not see the absurdities of the case. It is unfair to imply that all Italians act that way.

Please consider the potential intelligent readers, who would gag on tabloid remarks such as "house thoroughly cleaned with bleach" (or similar, when no one choked on chlorine fumes and no fabrics had bleached spots). Some of the more sophisticated readers have been so outraged that they even logged complaints on this talk-page. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikid, the section of the article that we're talking about is the one about media coverage. This is one part of the article where I would be in favour of including opinion, because a lot of the media coverage includes opinion. I agree that we generally shouldn't include opinion in the rest of the article. Are you suggesting that we completely remove the section about media portrayals? Bluewave (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Opinions are POV themselves and to balance them to achieve a NPOV within this article's section we ought to include what a RS is saying, including what they say one lawyer said about the trial. And talking about "common sense", he was not talking about the result but the trial itself. We already addressed this here.

this thread might be of interest, too; Especially this part/comment of mine:"Knox's parents can speak in Amanda's support but not on her behalf. Only Knox herself and her lawyer(s) can "clarify" and/or "deny"/dispute things she said and haven't done so to my knowledge.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)".

I would like to suggest to apply Bluewave's proposal to the article and take it from there, refining it step by step, adding/changing little by little at the article while always placing the reason here at talk to be discussed. Let's try the wp:BRD approach while leaving the initial edit (and I mean Bluewave's proposal by that) at the article. Maybe we get somewhere this way, and if not, no harm is done.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely NOT! Bluewave's proposal to remove ALL of the text that I added and replace it with material that virtually eliminates the US view is not acceptable in the least. This new proposal eliminates the US media's perspective almost entirely and replaces it with one biased sentence. Then to add insult to injury it includes a clearly misleading alleged quote/misquote from Knox's lawyer. This is the complete opposite of NPOV. This is slanting the article to water down the notable response of the US media, which is highly critical of the case and the foreign media's handling of it. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

@Z.: Just to clarify, the text you've added is not yours as anyone's text/edits are not theirs from the moment they push the send button and can be changed or deleted at any time. What we're looking for is starting a compromise that at the end suits most editors by consensus, you included; But you can't just always say "nay" to any editing to "your text". That is not how WP works. Why don't you propose an alternative text to Bluewave's so we can work on it?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The text that is already there is much fairer, more accurate, more diverse:

The case has received extensive media coverage in Italy, Britain and the United States, with Knox receiving significantly more attention than Sollecito or Guede.[196] Knox has been portrayed in some articles as a femme fatale who took part in killing her friend in a sex game[196] and alternatively as an innocent young girl caught up in unjustified court proceedings in a foreign country.[15][197] Following the crime, Knox's MySpace website became the subject of media scrunity.[198][199]

Appearing on the U.S. television show Larry King Live, prominent New York lawyer John Q. Kelly said: "This case is probably the most egregious international railroading of two innocent young people that I have ever seen."[200]

Peter Popham wrote an opinion piece for The Independent in which he raised doubts about the evidence against Knox and Sollecito and claimed that the prosecution's leaking of details about the case to the media was intended to prejudice public opinion and "makes miscarriages of justice horribly likely".[201] Timothy Egan wrote in the New York Times that the Italian media frenzy and tabloid sensationalism against Knox had tainted public perceptions of her.[202]

Knox's family has claimed that she was convicted because of a wider culture clash.[203] Italy's judicial process was criticised by Knox's supporters.[204] The Knox family engaged the services of a Seattle-based public relations firm in order to counter what they perceived as a media bias against her.[205]

Anne Bremner, spokeswoman for the "Friends of Amanda" support group, criticised the Italian media for its presentation of the case against Knox.[206] Bremmer stated that the "character assassination" directed against Knox by the Italian media had impaired her chance of obtaining a fair trial because the jury had not been sequestered and was exposed to such sensationalized reporting of the case.[207]

Andrea Vogt, who has covered the story for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, said: “In the US media, Knox was largely portrayed as the innocent American abroad being railroaded in a corrupt foreign system. In Europe, she was the sex-crazed diabolical vixen trying to get away with murder. Those covering this story in Perugia for the last two years recognise that neither portrayal is accurate. The case is more complex, with the truth buried beneath all those stereotypes.”

The Italian newspaper La Stampa described Knox's media appeal by saying that she had "the face of an angel – but the eyes of a killer".[75][208] The BBC spoke of "feverish media coverage", describing Knox as "that most-loved of villains – the middle-class monster whose appearance hides a diabolical soul."[75] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlykinskyja (talk • contribs)

I'm not really happy with everything in Bluewaves proposal but it would be a start to work this section out. You say that "The text that is already there is much fairer, more accurate, more diverse:...". I'd say, it's way to much wording, not more or less fair than the latest proposed one and too much diversity can be "shot in the foot" and unneeded in a WP entry as readers can get detailed information thru google and else and the links provided here if they choose so. We're simply not the place for a collection of all available random information and links.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to go ahead and imply Bluewave's proposal to the article yet I won't do this w/o some consensus. By now there is one clear "nay", Bluewave, as being the proposer can be count as a "yay" and I myself of course will go for it as the indicator. Can we get some clear "votes" for or against it to establish a possible consensus?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be a conditional "Yay" from me. On the condition, that we will keep working on it to improve it even further. Akuram (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The condition "that we will keep working on it to improve it even further" is a given and I would like to reinforce it in case I didn't make it clear enough in my above post.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

So what we have by now (and correct me if I'm wrong) is the following:

My proposal from above: "I would like to suggest to apply Bluewave's proposal to the article and take it from there, refining it step by step, adding/changing little by little at the article while always placing the reason here at talk to be discussed. Let's try the wp:BRD approach while leaving the initial edit (and I mean Bluewave's proposal by that) at the article. Maybe we get somewhere this way, and if not, no harm is done.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)"

To clarify: (Quote from Akuram) "...On the condition, that we will keep working on it to improve it even further..."

"votes" so far:

Bluewave's "yay" as the proposer is a given.
Zlykinskyja's vote is a clear "nay".
The Magnificent Clean-keeper (that would be me) and I wouldn't vote against what I proposed. That means a clear "yay".
Akuram placed a "yay" under the set conditions.
Jonathan votes with the alternate spelling of "yea". Jonathancjudd (talk • contribs) 00:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikid77 votes "nay" - Please no crap about "trial was fair", no Elvis said Mignini did it, no UFO seen teaching Mignini new sex-game rules. -Wikid77 05:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The above was posted by The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC) unless indicated differently.

NO WAY should there be this so called voting to delete someone else's work when the basic guidelines are still umresolved. Please focus on the big issue BELOW of the guidelines instead of distracting with the nity grity. The guidelines should guide the decisions not the nity grity decisions determining the guidelines. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't vote but can place a "vote". See the difference? This is a way to work towards consensus and your (quote)"NO WAY approach doesn't help at all.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I've made the move and applied Bluewave's proposal to the article to work on while leaving the NPOV template in place till we'll find a solution that works for all.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Enough of the hold-up. Let's do something and work on it.

Deleting all that legitimate, well sourced information without reaching NPOV and achieving consensus is totally bogus. The section now reads like a total lie. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a propaganda piece. Now ALL of the information about what leaders in the US media said on this issue is TOTALLY GONE. There is no way this section is now NPOV. This just shows how some people are treating this process as a sham since there was NO effort to achieve NPOV on this new section which now reads like a joke. How is this section now NPOV if there is an entire deletion of the outcry by the US media against the way the case was handled? Instead, there is now included an accusation that the US media has engaged in some kind of libel or slander for publishing its views. And the section now goes so far as to mislead the reader into thinking that Knox's lawyer does not contest the trial. For anyone to claim that this section is now NPOV is laughable. For this to be done while I am spending my time trying to get a discussion going on NPOV that we can all agree on is inconsiderate of my time and other people's time. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It is an undeniable fact that there has been extensive negative coverage of this trial (and criticism of how the foreign media handled it) by the US media. Why was all that information removed? How can that be justified? This is supposed to be a section on the media's handling of the matter, but there is now no hint that there has been a huge outcry against this case and the foreign media's handling of it by the US media. The one sentence in there now relating to the US media says only that it has covered how the Knox family feels, as if the media people themselves have never spoken out about the injustice they see for themselves with their own eyes. And information about what the lawyers think does not even belong in this section on the media at all. This is just more whitewashing of the information about the powerful reaction in the US media to diminish the criticism of the trial. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this discussion—I was out all yesterday evening and didn't revisit Wikipedia before bedtime! But, just to say, my yay in the above poll is a qualified one: I agree with TMC-k that more work is needed on it (and I think this was clear from the original discussion of the text in a previous thread). But I was trying to produce something more neutral than the previous version, and hope my text is neutral enough that the ongoing work can be done in the article (again as TMC-k suggests). Bluewave (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

To say that this new version is "neutral" is laughable. The US media views have been totally deleted. What little is in there now about the US media is false and misleading. The US media is not limiting itself to covering the views of the Knox family. The US media itself has been harshly critical of the case and the way the foreign media has covered it. But that information has all been removed from this section now, essentially censored. Censorship is the opposite of NPOV. As for now moving on to the rest of the article, it will just be more of the same censorship. The views of anyone criticizing the case or presenting the defense views will be deleted or substanially watered down. The prosecution type views will be deemed "fact", the defense type views will be deemed "opinion." The article will end up painting K and S as guilty, even while they are still presumed innocent, which will violate BLP. Essentially, all the work that has been done to try to include BOTH of the story will be trashed if this nonsense of ignoring NPOV continues. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Again I ask you to stop generalising. The viewpoint you describe is only taken by some of the US media, but not by the entire US media. That some US press coverage criticises other (foreign) media, does not make it true by default. By the way, the US media is not any better or more honest than the European media. This is Italy for heavens sake, not North Norea. Akuram (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"This is Italy for heavens sake, not North Norea." So true and made me smile :) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's face it: We're stuck...

We are pretty much "stuck" again as there are too many threads w/o clear proposals besides Bluewave's above at the thread that was started by Hipocrite as mediator. I strongly think that we should try to restart at that point to get any further in improving the article.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree with Magnificent Clean Keeper. Bluewave's proposed change is a good place to restart the discussion. If an editor joins the mediation, can they still edit the article?Malke 2010 21:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The mediation was called of but even if mediation would be going on, there wouldn't be any rule or policy disallowing editing the article, yet it would be a reasonable courtesy not to make major changes w/o talking them out at the talkpage first. One could face charges of disrupting editing while doing so. As of for the rest of your post, I sure agree since I posted the basic idea.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the info. Let's start from Bluewave's proposed change.Malke 2010 00:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You're both right. We're "stuck" on large parts of the article. There are lots of cases where the current text lacks consensus, but discussions have either stopped at a brick wall or meandered into wordy diatribes that have lost people's interest. (By the way, I know I'm not without blame in the wordy diatribe department, so I need to tighten up on this as much as anyone else.) I also agree it's a good idea to focus on one area at a time and try to drive it to consensus. So maybe I'll try and summarise where we'd got to on the section about opinions on the trial, that TMC-k mentions. Bluewave (talk) 07:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Bluewave, sounds good. You go first. MCK and I are right behind you, LOL.Malke 2010 18:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)