Jump to content

Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Age discrimination

The article says that a lighter sentence was given because defendants "were young and had no criminal record". I've heard such things before, even in the U.S., but they don't make any sense to me. Shouldn't someone be given more credit for being old with no criminal record? A long history should tell you more about whether someone would commit a crime again. So my question is: is there an article that you could reference (or start) that would explain whether this discrimination is actually encoded in law or just a spontaneous bias of the judge? Wnt (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

According to an article in the Sunday Times: "An anonymous juror was quoted today as saying that despite the appalling nature of the crime, it had been felt unjust to condemn two people in their twenties to a life in prison." Bluewave (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Convicted murder of Meredith Kercher

The article should begin with "convicted murder" and not simply "murder." She was convicted of a crime that she largely contested and due to the lack of hard/real evidence there is reasonable doubt of her guilt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmf25 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Meredith Kercher was not convicted of anything. I presume you are referring to Amanda Knox. Whether any particular person is or is not guilty may be doubted by some. There is no doubt that Meredith was murdered. Not natural causes, not an accident, not suicide. The opening section says that Guede was convicted and that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were found guilty. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
No Wikipedia article is titled Convicted murder of ...; Murder of... is standard, regardless of convictions, or the lack of them. The fact is, with this article as well as the others, the person in the title was murdered. Therefore the title is correct. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I will...

Report anyone who removes my comments. I was the first to post the verdict of the case yet it was removed. I'll have to get in touch with the higher ups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.206.145 (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Reducing top tagboxes

I am reducing the top tag-boxes to avoid the mass of alarming, non-specific verbiage at the top of the article. Since the Italian judicial system allows up to a 90-day delay before appeals, I think the tagbox for "current event" is no longer applicable. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. It might become a "current event" again ones the judge filed his explanation for the verdict and the defendants appeal is laid out.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a unanimous jury

It should be noted in the article that the guilty verdict was not reached by a unanimous jury. In Italy the courts require a majority, not a unanimous decision. Thismightbezach (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

ABC News reported it as unanimous. http://video.yahoo.com/watch/6552557/17010021 --FormerIP (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Italian courts don't have juries in the US/UK style. They have a panel of judges, some professional, some lay. Please read Italian Criminal Procedure where all this is explained.

Wrong name

Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini [ article text: ]

"Guiliano Mignini is the Pubblico Ministero (public prosecutor) of Perugia.[37] It was he who conducted the infamous interrogation of Meredith Knox in which Patrick Lumumba was implicated due to Mignini's questions about text messages between Patrick Lumumba and Knox on the evening of the murders and his belief that they indicated a rendezvous."

Her name is Amanda Knox (not Meredith Knox) - can someone fix this. —210.87.40.22 03:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The adjective "infamous" is a value judgement that should not appear. Some may regard it so, others may not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.28.131 (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

 DoneI have deleted the word "infamous" from that paragraph. rturus (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Guede's presence at the house

Why was Guede in the house where he raped and murdered Kercher? It seems that Kercher, Knox and Sollecito hardly knew him. The article used to say that he was a hanger-on of the four young Italian men who lived downstairs, and that he often arrived at acquaintances' houses unannounced. This assertion was removed earlier this month due to it being uncited. Who invited him into the house and why? Was his presence there due to him being a drug dealer and one or more of them buying from him? I would have thought the police and lawyers would have asked about these points. Is the house split into two separate, self-contained flats, or is it one big, undivided house where he could have been let in by someone who lived downstairs and then walked upstairs uninvited? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Subarticle: Trial of Knox and Sollecito

08-Dec-2009: I have created the new subarticle "Trial of Knox and Sollecito" to allow space for numerous details. The main article "Murder of Meredith Kercher" has reached 48kb, becoming too large to expand the details of the trial, as requested by several readers. Because Wikipedia, as yet, still lacks advanced procedures for creating sub-articles, the edit-protection is not carried to the new page, so beware anonymous hacking of the Trial article. However, people can no longer claim "limited space" (on that page) as a reason to delete details about the various trial events, evidence presented, and arguments made during the trial. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracy in the investigation subsection

I apologise if I am doing this incorrectly I have never attempted to edit any wiki page before or taken part in a discussion.

In the Investigation subsection it states that Rudy Guede was not known to either Knox or Scolletico, "He was not an acquaintance of either Knox or Sollecito" the page reads. My understanding is that they were known to know each other and had been seen in each others company several times prior to Meredith Kertcher's murder. I do not dispute that Knox denied knowing Guede initially, but witnesses have made statements saying that they had been seen in each others company before. How do I go about getting that subsection changed to reflect the fact that they did know each other and that Guede was suspected by local police to be a drug dealer and it is assumed by the local police that Knox and Scolletico were acquainted with him because of Guede's drug dealing. Knox and Scolletico admit to smoking hashish, which is thought to have been purchased off Guede. What do I need to produce in the way of a citation and how would I go about editing to reflect that statement. Justin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.121.195 (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This kind of info is missing from the article and should be added, if there are reliable sources stating what the facts or statements by those involved were. If someone can find a reliable source that give these details, they should be added. We also want to find out what Guede said about how long and how well he knew Kercher, Knox and Sollecito. Another point unanswered is how well Kercher and Sollecito knew each other. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

June 2009 transcript

I have just removed a 335kb text that was pasted in here by an unsigned user, you can see it if you look at the history page. This is not the place to include such a huge cut and paste job. In fairness, it included a link to where the transcript was copied from. This was all that the poster should have included. The link is:http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165&start=0 but that is from 137.205.56.18, not from me. I have no idea as to the reliability of the source. rturus (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just to say I'm the person who attempted to paste it in (realize it was too long). I found it online after having seen some of the videos on youtube. I thought it was interesting to hear (if it is authentic) the sworn descriptions of the police interviews matching the witness statement and subsequent memorial, and including some further details. I thought it was interesting that the police really can throw a monkey wrench into someone's cognition by stating they have proof of something false. Then, repeating what essentially she had been forced to accept as true, had been interpreted as lying to save herself hence incriminating? It made no sense and I'm pleased that the main article does not even mention this thread of thought, this distortion upon which she had been convicted. Writing from Birmingham, England 78.145.170.24 (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Clear and short Italian version

Why the english version is so long and complicated? The same article in italian is short and very clear.151.60.118.123 (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

We Americans just like to hear ourselves talk =) Awayforawhile (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that your talking is useless because she's jailed at 35 km from my home in Italy (EU).It's an american joke.In Italy and EU all the people is laughing of Us behaviour.151.60.117.196 (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Issue of alleged bleach and cleaning of crime scene

The article contains information about bleach supposedly being purchased the morning after the murder and being used by Knox to clean the crime scene. However, that information was apparently untrue or unreliable because it was not presented at the trial. Since the information was apparently not accurate or reliable enough to be presented in the trial, it should be removed. If the information had some validity it would have been included in the trial, because it would have been so incriminating. When I heard the reports of an alleged clean up of the murder scene by Knox, I found that overwhelmingly damming. But it turned out not to be true, like so much else that the media reported. Since the info was not reliable, it should not be in the article. PilgrimRose (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that information can be considered unreliable purely because it was not used at trial. However, it's my view that the article should contain a lot less information about things that were actively rejected at trial. Surely there's a much stronger case for saying all that stuff is unreliable? --FormerIP (talk) 10:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
It is properly referenced and is part of the section on police investigation so therefore it should stand imo. Bjorn I. Clever (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Which floor?

The article speaks of Kerscher's flat being on the "second floor" in the house. UK newspapers talk of it's being the "first floor". Is this a problem of different English and U.S. terminology for numbering floors. And, if so, can anyone suggest an easy way to make this clear for all readers (preferably without needing a great wodge of explanation, every time it is mentioned)? Bluewave (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Since there are only two levels, the simplest way would be to use 'upstairs' and 'downstairs' instead of the confusing 'floor'. Rothorpe (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, good idea. The point is that if an English reader sees "second floor flat" they will think the building has 3 floors: ground floor, 1st and 2nd. American readers will think there are 2: 1st (at ground level) and 2nd. Some other countries use the same convention as England (eg France: rez de chausee; premier etage etc). I can't remember the Italian usage. If we talk about floor numbers, the article should probably follow English usage as it is written in British English, but perhaps it would be clearer to talk of the "upstairs flat" as you suggest. Bluewave (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Glad you agree. I'll make the change in an hour or two if there are no more comments. Rothorpe (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Judicial analysis of the Rudy Guede conviction

Please forgive my inexperience with wikidom,which I so greatly respect.

I wish to provide a reference to a document written by Judge Paolo Micheli, who presided over the fast track trial of Rudy Guede. It is my understanding that it is a requirement of Italian law for a judge to provide within ninety days of delivering a verdict a written explanation of his reasoning in arriving at his decision. This type of document may be called a "motivazione" or "motivi della decisione" and is found at http://www.penale.it/page.asp?mode=1&IDPag=750. As the hard evidence of the murder of Meredith is disputed and source material for the evidence for the most part difficult to establish, it would seem valuable to include this resource. Dottore Micheli's detailed analysis is, of course, in Italian. I counted 71 "Page Dn" clicks to reach the end. I have read the google translation in "botEnglish" in its entirety and found it to be very helpful in detailing and analysing the facts of the case. In the trial of Amanda Knox and Rafaele Sollicito I see a large cultural bias expressed generally by the American media; I have been following this case from its inception in various Italian newspapers (not without their own bias).

I ask that you consider including this document reference as essential to the subject: the murder of Meredith Kercher... (and may she rest in peace) —George langur (talk • contribs) 16:39, 2 December 2009

Is there any way to get a link to this in English? This document is very important and should be incuded in this article for English readers as well. Thank you. PilgrimRose (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Using Google Translate, the botEnglish recap of Guede's trial is: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://www.penale.it/page.asp%3Fmode%3D1%26IDPag%3D750&ei=WQ4eS_DSOYO4NZjA9asK&sa=X&oi=translate .
    That trial-recap is very detailed, but difficult to read because of bot-botched translation and 1-letter name abbreviations: sometimes Meredith is "M." but others as "K." (for "Kercher"); Amanda Knox is often "K." (K.A.M.); Guede is "G." (G.R.H.) but, of course, being a full evidence report, many other neighbor's initials are also mentioned. The detail of the house is extensive, as a 2-story, with several bathrooms (at least 2 on 2nd floor). Some of the details to consider for article: the entire 2nd floor was searched; friends said Meredith never left her UK mobile phone (needed to discuss illness of her mother); broken window was in another room but laptop/jewelry not taken (only phones/cash from Meredith); downstairs neighbors said Guede rarely "pulled the chain" on toilet (rather than claim he forgot to flush when he heard M. screaming); horror of blood "dripping everywhere" in bedroom/bath, with much evidence of cleanup/shifting attributed to others (not G.); clothing removed post-mortem due to blood-spatter patterns on skin/fabrics; partial blood prints in outside hallway; many discussions with neighbors; etc. I think that webpage could be a major source of details for the article, or perhaps better used in "Trial of Knox and Sollecito". -Wikid77 (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Surely this should be a major source for the section on the trial of Guede, rather than Knox and Sollecito! It would be very helpful if someone with a better grasp of Italian than me (or Google) could summarise some of the main points. The conclusion of the judge seems to be that Guede could not have acted alone, but I can't really understand the details that led to that conclusion. Also, there is quite a bit of discussion about the alleged murder weapon and whether it could have inflicted the wounds on Kercher (I know this issue was revisited in the second trial). Bluewave (talk) 11:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
On second thoughts, there seems to be good English summary at http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/understanding_micheli_2_why_judge_micheli_rejected_the_lone_wolf_theory/...unless anyone thinks there are problems with this version. Bluewave (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Trial

The article does not mention the long break in the trial of Knox and Sollecito; why did that happen? Is it normal in Italy to try one defendant separately to and before the other two? Whilst there was more evidence against Guede, it seems strange to put him on trial first when he was arrested after Knox and Sollecito. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Guede opted for a fast-track (uncontested) trial in the hope of a shorter sentence. It's in the article. --Red King (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the break was during the summer mainly where most people are off work.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjorn I. Clever (talk • contribs) 16:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The length of the break and the reason for it should be mentioned in the article; is it normal in Italian trials for there to be such a long break in court proceedings? Whilst it is mentioned that Guede opted for a fast-track trial, it does not state whether it is normal to try one person separately to the other two for the same offence when they are already all in custody well before the court proceedings began. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes of course it is common there to try defendants separately if they are being tried under different procedures. Guede opted to not contest the charges and so presumably hoped to have a)his trial not be protracted and subject to the scrutiny that the other one had and b) a more lenient sentence.rturus (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

But is it common to try defendants, all of whom are in custody at the same time for the same crime, under different procedures? Can you provide evidence that Guede opted to not contest the charges? Surely if he admitted the offences he would not have been tried at all. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not common (because almost every defendant in murder cases opts for a fast-track trial) but it may happen.
A fast-track trial is a trial where no actual trial is involved. I'll try to explain it. A criminal proceeding in Italy consists of many phases:
1. preliminary investigations;
2. preliminary hearing;
3. trial;
4. appeals.
After the preliminary hearing, the Judge only decides whether or not the evidence gathered so far is enough to sustain a case in Court. If so, he sends the defendant before the Judge of the Trial, where he will be convicted or acquitted; if not, the Judge sort of acquits the defendant.
A defendant can, though, choose to give up his right to a trial. He will be, then, tried by the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing, who will hand down a judgement, based upon the evidence gathered so far.
Since this is a reduction of the defendant's rights, it must be he who asks for a fast-track trial. In exchange for that, he is compensated with a lighter sentence. If there are two or more defendants, one may opt for a fast-track trial and the other choose to stick to the standard pattern. In this case, since it would be unfair (or so Italians think) to let the wishes of one of them take precedence over those of the other, the two defendants are tried separately, even though they committed the same crime. Salvio giuliano (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

American media bias should be included in the media section too

The accusations of the anti-American bias and lack of evidence have been dismissed by John Kercher who blames these baseless accusations on the American media - http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/12/08/anti-american-bias-accusations-branded-ludicrous-by-meredith-kercher-s-father-115875-21881142/ This should be included on the POV Media coverage section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.84.139 (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added a quote from John Kercher. You should post at the foot of the page - you're lucky anyone found your comment. --FormerIP (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • When I posted it originally it was at the bottom of the page but I put it as a reference, not just an address. I can't make head nor tail of these wikirules.
I mean your post, not the reference. Convention is that new topics go at the bottom of the page. --FormerIP (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Washing machine and bleach

Are there any other (official Italian?) sources for the allegations about the washing machine running and the bleaching of the apartment? According to the Friends for Amanda site, these were never used in court, and the Times article seems pretty wishy washy ("Reports said the police heard the washing machine spinning to the end of its cycle as they arrived at the cottage at 1235"). Should a note be added to the article to mention that these weren't used in court? --Dilaudid (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

A lot of what is in the article wasn't used in court. As I've pointed out above, a lot of the material also did not stand up in court. I think it would be tedious to constantly note this, but there is a case for removing some material altoghether IMO. This should be done methodically, though. --FormerIP (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
The washing machine was certainly mentioned in the testimony of Filomena Romanelli. She said that when she returned to the flat, the washing machine was warm and that the clothes in it were those of Kercher. This was some 10 hours after Kercher died, so the inference was that someone else had washed Kercher's clothes after the murder. See, for example: http://www.newsweek.com/id/185169/page/2 Bluewave (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
As a more general point, it is quite difficult (with two trials, one of which lasted almost a year) to be definitive as to what was and what was not used in court. However, the definitive source is probably not the Friends for Amanda site. We probably need to wait for the judicial analysis to be published for the second trial. Bluewave (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

In the June trial (A link to the transcript is in the 'transcript' section of this talk article) she states that she did not know what an Italian container of bleach looks like, had never used or bought it. I think then that the assertion that she used it can't be stated as unbiased fact. So if it is still in the article, it should be taken out. Admittedly I don't know the source of the June 2009 trial transcript or its reliability. It is translated by someone on a forum somewhere (see link).

78.145.170.24 (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

According to The Times of 19 Nov 2007,[1] till receipts found at Sollecito's flat showed that he bought 2 lots of bleach, one at 8.30am on 2 November, and the second 45 minutes later. It seems surprising that Knox, who was supposedly with him at that time, didn't notice him buying the bleach. Bluewave (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion to minimize bias

It seems that much of the disagreement regarding bias in this article has to do with debate over evidence, sources and public opinion. The article reflects that and appears to be a hodge-podge of talking points rather than a clear statement of facts. I don't wish to offend anyone who has an opinion on the verdicts rendered in this case, but it seems that opinion is complicating judgments about the relative strength of the supporting references. I was struck by how many of the sources are news articles and that depending on which country they originate from, the same information may be presented very differently and therefore lead to different conclusions.

Now that I've explained why I'm even bothering, my suggestion is simple. Arrive at some consensus about which sources are solid and ensure that there is a reference from each of the three countries (Italy, UK, US) to corroborate what goes into this article. This won't eliminate all of the controversy, but it may help to minimize it. It would also help make the article more succinct and readable. Cheers. Christaltips (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There has been a huge amount of news coverage in national British and American newspapers for over two years, hence why most of the refs are press articles. If someone can add the transcripts of interviews and court proceedings to the article, that would be an improvement. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Please don't ask for transcripts to be added to the article. Reference them and link to them by all means but they are just too huge! I recently removed a 335KB paste of text from the transcripts. I left in the poster's reference and link - that will take you to a forum with all the transcripts (in English) as well as other material. rturus (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I should have been more clear. The 335KB transcript I removed was from this talk page, not the article. rturus (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying put all the transcripts in the article, just mention / quote the important points. The massive transcript of the questioning of Knox, which was rightly removed from this talk page, contains some important info. If someone could check the translation and authenticity of them, we could use some of the points in them. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the suggestion was to rely on more solid references and not to rely so heavily on news reports, unless the news reports can be corroborated by cross-referencing to articles from other countries. I did not mean to imply that transcripts needed to be added to this article. On the contrary, I was trying to suggest a means of vetting entries that would be fairly objective. My apologies if I've upset anyone.Christaltips (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Attempted deletion of section on the controversial prosecutor

It seems that someone keeps deleting more and more information in the section on the prosecutor so that there is hardly anything left. The information that was there several days ago struck me as very interesting and relevant to the topic. I would have liked to know more about that topic. Certainly, the prosecutor is an important figure in this case. Some have expressed the view that his own past abuses of power may have shed some light in how he handled the Kercher murder case. I think this section needs to be beefed up, not shorn down. PilgrimRose (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If that seems to you to be the case then perhaps it is worth thinking whether that person is notable enough for an article? Gather all the facts without any sense of "off topic" and undue weight? That's my suggestion, though without prejudice as to notability. Redheylin (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
It might be a bit WP:BEANS to say it, but perhaps he is notable enough.
I'm surprised you feel starved of information about this person, though, Pilgrim Rose. You seem to have taken quite an interest in most aspects of the case.
Don't forget that WP:BLP applies here. Proper sourcing is needed, and certain types of information which may count as libel should not be included. Mignini has apparently initiated legal procedings against a number of newspapers. Opinions about him made by persons who are not appropriately qualified should be avoided in particular. --FormerIP (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned the loss of the information because I don't know anything about him myself, but would like to learn more. The information that was once in the article was very interesting. PilgrimRose (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
As it appears to be his (quote) "past abuses of power" that you want to shed more light on, I'd have to assume that you do know at least something about him. In which case your last statement appears to me far too disingenuous - particularly within the context of the massive number of comments you've made on the page, and your obvious and strident viewpoint on the case. --Plasticmanic (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Plasticmaniac---So, the point of your post is merely to say that my simple comment was "disingenuous"? Talk about a rude uncalled for remark. But it is your remark that is disengenuous since it is obvious that a person can know a tiny bit about someone but not have enough information to actually write about the person. PilgrimRose (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I do know what has been said about him, but WP:BLP also applies to talkpages. One of the things I do know is that there are serious reasons to doubt the accuracy of some of the claims. For example, a widely-reported allegation concerns the famous Monster of Florence case, but it appears that Mignini did not actally work on that case. --FormerIP (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I'm digressing a little, that isn't the point. The point is just that WP:BLP applies. Appropriate, sourced content may be added if it is of value to the article. But character-assasination is not allowed. --FormerIP (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Of course, there is such a thing as BLP rules, particularly when making nasty remarks about lawyers and one has, at any stage, either read or not read a given passage. Nevertheless the man seems notable enough for a page and, as I say, would prevent undue weight here and help diffuse what, I can imagine, is a vexed issue. Redheylin (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I undertake, by the way, never to edit this present page just so I may afford myself the luxury of mentioning that I myself can find no sign of any convincing evidence whatsoever against Knox and boyfriend. Voila. Redheylin (talk) 00:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
There was some poorly sourced and irrelevant material about the prosecutor, so I removed it. This article is about the murder and case, not about him. Fences&Windows 23:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, we don't judge the case, we just report it

The main focus of Wikipedia is WP:Verifiability, not ultimate truth. This is an issue that seems to take years for some editors to fully comprehend. Wikipedia just reports what the reliable sources claim, whether they are right or wrong. For a legal case, we just report what is claimed in reliable sources: if they report remarks made by the defence, or prosecution, we just include the major viewpoints of each. We do not exclude defence remarks because the prosecution won the verdict and judged the defence as "wrong". Wikipedia does not attempt to conduct a sort of "re-trial by wiki" to somehow show that a jury was right or wrong. We just repeat what others said, without making any final judgments. Think of Wikipedia as a collection of old news, with the editors as journalists who organize the old-data of the world. We are not here to judge "guilty" or "not guilty". We just combine all viewpoints of a case, from what multiple people report. -Wikid77 12:51, 11 December 2009

Hopefully everyone would agree with you. However, we face a few problems:
  • The two trials have, between them, been running for well over a year and there is no single reliable source (or even a small numbr of them) where we can find the definitive record of what was said and what was contested. Instead, we are mostly relying on the snippets that were published in newspapers as the case unfolded.
  • In the case of the Knox/Sollicito trial, the judge has not yet published the details of his judgement, so we don't actually know what were the most significant points of evidence from the year-long trial.
  • The newspaper accounts were often highly partisan (look at a selection of the headlines!) and frequently changed their slant from one day to the next. It is easy for someone who wants to give undue weight to one point of view to find plenty of material to back it up. It is conversely difficult to achieve an objective encyclopaedic stance.
  • Some of the media reporting was just grossly ignorant. For example it has been suggested that the Italian justice system assumes a defendant's guilt. So, it then becomes an editorial decision whether to include this material, but to add in a load of other stuff to demonstrate that it is nonsense, or simply to exclude it.

I think these are some of the things we are struggling with! Bluewave (talk) 13:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed difficult to get the proper balance to form an accurate depiction of the topic. But I agree with the general principles Wikid77 has set forth above. PilgrimRose (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • A general strategy is to consider the topic as separate phases, then try to answer the "Six Ws" (who, what, when, where, why & how). For that reason, I created the subsection "The 2nd-story flat" because people did not realize there were 2 shared bathrooms on the 2nd floor: shower in one, and use the non-steamed mirror in the other? Also, Amanda knew Meredith for perhaps only 3 weeks before Sollecito and Amanda dated? However, Guede had visited the 4 guys on the 1st floor many times, probably long before Meredith arrived in August. All of that information is easy to find when concentrating on When and Where. Hence, that gives a focus for expanding the article in a more complete manner. Several people have complained that the article presented the situation as a confusing mass, with too few basic details. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
well, in terms of details, I think the sort of thing you want to discuss above is the sort of detail that is probably excessive in an encyclopedia, The purpose of an article here is not to enable people to judge guilt, but to inform general readers about the overall matter. Excessive weight on details like this is either polemic on side or another, (in some other instances, it amounts to sensationalism). We are not a tabloid, we are not a court report. DGG ( talk ) 21:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Expect little evidence from Knox/Sollecito trial

12-Dec-2009: Okay, more bad news. I think we can forget waiting for the Judge's trial-summary of the Knox/Sollecito trial as a great source of evidence for this article. Many people, who claimed to have read the recent transcripts, said there's not much evidence. One even summarized the whole trial, as if the prosecution had claimed:

"Yeah, our evidence is shit. We know she had no motive. But you don't need motive and evidence to kill someone. Doesn't she look guilty!?" (a reader's opinion of Knox/Sollecito trial transcripts)

Hence, we will need to "protect" what little evidence is left, in the article, to avoid a one-sided view that Knox/Sollecito were convicted on no evidence at all. Several people reported that the interrogators had asked Amanda Knox to consider several (perhaps 5?) different possible murder scenarios, and then respond to each. Another source claimed that Knox was asked (when age 20, an underage minor in U.S.), by interrogators, to speak as if she were pretending to have role in the murder, imagining how events would unfold, and her words about those various scenarios were recorded as if being statements of actual events.

Other bad news:

  • Several people are reporting the cut bra clasp (or fastener) was collected as evidence "46 days" after the murder, and had been "kicked" or slid several times, plus was placed in a (non-sterile) shoebox (not a locked evidence-box), and was re-handled by multiple people, reusing gloves that touched other objects.
  • Why would someone carry a large (8 inch, 20 cm), knife murder-weapon (after screams were heard) out in public to his house to be cleaned and kept, rather than dispose of the knife somewhere, anywhere else?

No wonder so many people wanted to keep all this information from being added into the article. -Wikid77 04:52, 12 December 2009

Just a quick comment here on a small point of fact, in the U.S. you cease being a "minor" once you turn 18, and by age 20 you are only "underage" inasmuch as you cannot drink alcohol legally (or, I think most everywhere, rent a car).
I'm not planning to get involved in the content discussions about this article, but I would suggest to Wikid77 and everyone else that it's best to post links to news articles and other sources when making comments like the one above that seem to include specific arguments based on something you've read. I have no opinion about the specifics of this case, but talk page comments arguing specific points are generally more effective when they are backed up by evidence. Also as I suggested in my comment below, continuing to assume good faith while working here is quite important, so suggestions that some want "to keep all this information from being added into the article" are usually not very constructive. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Misspellings, can't edit

There is a little misspelling under the "Amanda Knox" section. It says "inclduing the bathroom sink." This is how --> 'including' is spelled. -none 12:51, 11 December 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.67.53 (talk)

Done. Rothorpe (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

General thoughts on article interaction (via WP:ANI)

I'm coming here via this thread (now archived) on one of the noticeboards and a request to take a look at the situation here from one of the editors involved in discussion above. I haven't edited this or any related articles and indeed have no real interest in them, though I'm vaguely familiar with the facts of this case.

Things became rather heated in certain sections of the talk page above, but that seems to be calming down somewhat which is good. I did not see anything too egregious (certainly not anything which rises to the level of anyone being blocked or otherwise sanctioned), rather several editors made ill-advised remarks, and then other editors reacted to them rather strongly—perhaps too strongly. Overall the dispute has become far too personalized, with editors commenting rather fiercely on others with whom they disagree. Most of the time the comments are on behavior rather than on the editor themselves (for example "you are acting rude" rather than "you are a jerk"), but still the comments are far too harsh and they've definitely poisoned the environment somewhat. Multiple parties have been guilty of this kind of thing, but to my mind the best course for right now is to let bygones be bygones and forget about what has been said previously.

Beyond that the core issue (and I've not read all the talk page, though I have read much of it) still seems to be that there is a disagreement about how to write a neutral article on this topic—i.e. what does and doesn't need to be discussed and how much emphasis is needed. In that regard I agree with User:AniMate's suggestion here that what might be needed is a content RFC (see here for instructions on how to file for anyone who is unfamiliar). I think some of the problems here could be solved by getting some outside views as to the content issues, particularly with regard to questions about NPOV. Even before filing an RfC, involved editors might want to start by listing out the specific issues of dispute. Oddly, in reading through the most intense talk page threads, that is not always entirely clear.

Finally, I would recommend the following just in terms of specific editing behavior in order to help keep things cooled down so that people can actually collaborate:

  1. Use edit summaries, particularly when editing the article itself. For contentious topics like these, it's extremely important to let other editors know what you are doing as you edit.
  2. Avoid any sort of statements of a "nationalist" nature ("anti-U.S.", "anti-Italian", etc.), particularly with respect to other editors. Such language will always inflame disputes.
  3. Try not to radically alter talk page comments after the fact (or show that you are doing so by striking out your previous comment), particularly when other editors have replied to your comment since it disrupts the flow of the conversation.
  4. Assume good faith in talk page discussions, even if you have doubts about another editor's good faith in your own mind. Personally from what I can gather most everyone here seems to be interested in turning this into a quality Wikipedia article, there are just disagreements about how to do this.
  5. If another editor does not do one of the above or otherwise acts in a non-collegial manner, do your best to let it go rather than responding in kind and escalating the situation.

I'm not sure if any of the above will be helpful or not but hopefully so, and again I strongly recommend that involved editors list out specific content concerns here on the talk page (preferably in new threads) and then consider starting a content RfC on the most important issue or issues. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View policy requires inclusion of alternative views

I am posting a small excerpt of the Wikipedia NPOV policy. The policy clearly requires the inclusion of alternative or minority views. The murder case is presently in the appeal process. There is no one set of facts that has been finally established as of yet. Thus, there are alternative or minority views on what really happened. Under the NPOV policy, those alternative views should be allowed into the article. Editors should not be deleting them or accuse others of "shameful" conduct when they try to include information about the alternative views of some commentators, scientists, experts or major media sources in the United States. Under NPOV policy, such alternative perspectives should be included, at least until the appeals process is finalized.

Neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view. Articles should provide background on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular; detailed articles might also contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from taking sides.

Bias

Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be fixed.

I hope that the NPOV policy will be respected in this article. PilgrimRose (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  • This is extremely rude and arrogant not very nice of you PilgrimRose. By all means give a link to another page of Wikipedia if you wish but to cut and paste a section of policy AT THE HEAD OF THE PAGE and try to interpret it to support your views is just wrong. Please delete your post and try to lose some degree of your arrogance possibly inappropriate emphasis. rturus (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC) In the spirit of attempting to placate perceived personal insults I withdraw the words I have struck out and insert more moderate remarks which I have italicised.rturus (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Dear Rturus, It is you who is being rude. Please delete your personal insults. There is no need for that. Also, where does it say that Wikipedia policies may not be quoted in part, but may only be linked to? I don't believe there is such a rule or policy. You are placing a demand on me to delete my quote of the NPOV policy simply because you don't like the policy being presented in an up front manner. Thus, your demand is unreasonable and therefore it is you who is being arrogant. It is clear from your posts that you have a hard time tolerating alternative or minority views being included in the article, but that is indeed required by the NPOV policy. Have a nice day. PilgrimRose (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

For futher reference, here is a link to the Wikipedia policy on Neutral Point of View http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by PilgrimRose (talk • contribs) 21:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  • PilgrimRose, what is being pointed out to you is that you are placing undo WP:WEIGHT on arguments that were presented and rejected during the trial. You are taking the WP:NPOV out of context here, it does not allow you to present every alternative opinion or theory as fact, when they are clearly still opinions. You might get more support if you present your arguments in the context of "Reasons why Amanda Knox should request an appeal" Let's be WP:CIVIL Jonathancjudd (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Jonathan, I have reviewd the section on undue weight. The gist is that fringe minority viewpoints do not need to be given undue weight in the article. The section includes the example of those who believe the earth is flat. Such a fringe minority position does not need to be included in an article. But that example is a long way from this murder case situation. At this point, there has been no final determination of the facts or the evidence in the case because all that will be reviewed by an appellate court. The appellate court could turn around and adopt very different interpretations of the facts and the evidence. It could even adopt some of the views of the defense. The views of the defense are shared by large numbers of people, commentators, media and some experts. Until there is a final ruling in this case and the facts and evidence are finally determined, the alternative views of the defense are not so fringe or minor as to be excluded from the article under the NPOV policy, including the section on undue weight. Rather, those alternative views must be included under the NPOV policyPilgrimRose (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Pilgim Rose: Thank you for a polite reponse. I believe that we are saying the same thing, but perhaps in slightly different ways. I agree that it is certainly possible that an Italian appellate court might reverse or overturn the verdict, however, a decsion actually has been reached. It may or may not necessarily be the final decision, but it is a decision nonetheless.

Until that appellate court actually reverses that decision, though, everything else should be considered as opinions and an indirect interpretation of the evidence. Not all of the "evidence" will be allowed to stand. I am not an expert on Italian law, and perhaps a greater understanding of the due process would help.

You may want to consider perhaps creating a new section in the article, titled "Amanda Knox Appeal", this way it is clear that everything you are suggesting is in the context of the appeal process. Jonathancjudd (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan, under procedures in many states in the U.S., a decision that is under appeal is considered to have no binding or precedential effect. It is as if the ruling is in abeyance until the appeal is decided. I'm not certain that this is the situation in Italy, but I would think so given that in the U.S. our appeals are far more limited than Italian appeals. Italian appeals can result in a re-determination of the facts and evidence, almost like a trial de novo. Given how far reaching an appeal can be in Italy, I don't think it is required for Wikipedia to adopt at this point the views of the prosecution accepted by the jury-- to the exclusion of alternative views. There is nothing in the NPOV policy that I can see which requires such a result. The reality is that there is an extensive international debate about this case, and it would seem that the interests of neutrality require that both majority and minority views be included. I am noticing now that even in England there is starting to be a questioning of the problems in this case. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6947979.ece I think that inclusion of alternative views is more consistent with NPOV policy than exclusion is. 22:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PilgrimRose (talk • contribs)

  • I don't think I am going to bother paying any more attention to what you say PilgrimRose. You are obviously determined to follow your agenda. I don't think I was making a personal insult but rather an observation on your behaviour in these pages. I think most people will objectively see that you have indeed been acting in an arrogant fashion with possibly inappropriate emphasis. Please enjoy your continuing devaluation of Wikipedia and reinforcing it's increasingly USA-slanted appearance. rturus (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)In the spirit of attempting to placate perceived personal insults I withdraw the words I have struck out and insert more moderate remarks which I have italicised.rturus (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Below comment was moved by an editor and is "not" in response to the above comment made by Rturus. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Rturus, This is supposed to be a discussion about NPOV. Your anti-American sentiments have no place in the discussion. As you noted in your private message to me, you have this belief that the U.S. is arrogant and is a bully in its dealing with other countries. You apparently also feel that the arrogant Americans are trying to take over Wikipedia. I am confident that there are many who do not agree with your views. I sure don't agree. While you are certainly entitled to your opinions, those views should not be entering into a discussion of NPOV policy. I do not believe that your fears that Wikipedia is becoming too "U.S.A. slanted" justifies trying to block the views of Americans who wish to contribute to this article. Please read the policy on NPOV and try to respect the rights of others, including Americans, who feel their views should be included under NPOV policy. PilgrimRose (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)PilgrimRose

Cleaner: Please take your personal attacks elsewhere. PilgrimRose (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Umh, could you clarify this? Your comment does nothing than leave a "blank" in regards of what you're trying to say. If you'd like to clarify and talk this out you can do so at my talk page. It shouldn't take long. Also I think you're wrongly seeing this as a "personal war" between you and me which is not my point of view (and doesn't belong in mainspace anyways).See you(?), The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

@ PilgrimRose. Firstly, I am by no means anti-USA. You misquote my remarks to you which actually were "Many people feel that the USA has an arrogant and bullying approach to other countries". I also explained to you that the links that I gave you to our UK papers showed "how most of us here actually viewed the trial with misgivings and apprehension".

You also seem to have failed to grasp that I communicated to you with the main purpose of placating your misapprehension that I had been making a personal attack on you, viz..."I am sorry that you thought I was being very insulting, my use of the term arrogance was not meant as a personal attack but a reference to the way you were treating the page. <snip> You should know that my only interest was and is in trying to maintain a neutral Wikipedia, I have grave concerns about the appearance of a USA "slant" in much of Wikipedia and the Kercher page is a very good example. However, believe me when I say that I have nothing personal against you (or anyone else for that matter) and I apologise for any offence I might have caused you."

I am assuming that your misrepresentation of my communication was due to a failure on your part to understand it's content. I am sure that you had no intention of trying to discredit me by making erroneous statements and trying to disguise it by editing it into an entry which you had made at a previous date. Such a conclusion would be very ungallant and I refuse to believe such an underhand motive.

I apologise to others reading this page for bringing this matter up here, since I feel that it is against the "this is not a forum" guidelines. However I feel it is necessary to counter the unfounded statements that PilgrimRose has made about me in their "refactoring" of their earlier entry above. As I said in my message on their talk page "you have your opinions and you are entitled to them and I would defend that right on your behalf". I have copied the whole of that message to my talk page for reference.

Finally, may I just say that it is rude, manipulative, disingenuous and totally against the rules of Wikipedia to alter the contents of talk pages in the way that you have done PilgrimRose. Firstly by removing the responses of others (which I have corrected) and secondly by editing your own entries to either disguise the content or the date and time of the entry. Refactoring should be used for clarification and correction, not expansion and altering the original content. That and other activities is what is being referred to by The Magnificent Clean-keeper and myself.rturus (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Rturus: now you call me "rude, manipulative and disingenuous", while saying I don't comply with the Wikipedia rules. If you check the rules you will see that such personal attacks on the discussion pages are not allowed. Please stop with these insults. I have the impression that you are trying to bully me into not participating in this article. PilgrimRose (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
If you would've checked the rules that where pointed out to you and obeyed them you would be in a quite better possition than you are right now. So please give us a break, start editing by the rules that all editors should and have to go by and everything could go its intended course.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
And yet you totally ignore Rturus's repeated personal attacks which are against the rules. I'd say posting insults against another editor is a far more serious issue than any alleged rule violation of mine. Enough. PilgrimRose (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Please read WP:AGF. It's not the whole (Wiki) world against you even if you feel this way.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
And "Assume Good Faith" works both ways. It also means that before you start repeatedly calling someone "rude" "arrogant" and "rude, manipulative and disingenuous" you should try to assume good faith. Rturus starting attacking me for simply posting excerpts from the NPOV policy, calling me "rude" and "arrogant" when he should have assumed good faith. It should be obvious that posting a quote from a rule is consistent with good faith. But ignoring his bullying and failure to comply with the rules is not good faith. No one should be condoning the posting of insults on a discussion page, so please stop doing that. PilgrimRose (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Sure, and you reversed me when I moved this section of yours to the bottom of the talk page where it belongs w/o any editsummary, as usual. You don't seem to like to interact with editors by editsummaries nor on your own talk page nor when one is offering and asking you to talk something out (an issue what seemed personal and had no place to be discussed here on the article's talk page). You're right in one point: "AGF goes both ways", but please, also keep in mind the timely screwed up history of this thread as an example for... well, you chose.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
PS: You'll get a notice on your talk page shortly. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
And still not a word about the use of personal insults on a discussion page! So still you are condoning this. I have no respect for such behavior nor for anyone who condones it. I do not wish to speak with you any further. Instead, I will in the future respond to such personal insults with personal insults, since that seems to be allowed (at least for some people) around here, and hope to make my point more effectively in that manner. Perhaps those on the receiving end of such personal insults will then understand why such insults are counter-productive to Wikipedia. PilgrimRose (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps all three of you could take a deep breath. Have a snack or a drink of your preferred beverage and reconsider whether you own remarks could have been more moderately made. If you can't see how, you simply aren't trying. Escalating incivility will rapidly go nowhere. An action such as top posting on the talkpage may be bad form per WP:TALKPAGE, but it certainly isn't a crime against humanity. Neither is calling a post rude. When two relative wikipedia novice editors (as rturus and PilgrimRose both appear to be) take on a controversial topic it is only to be expected that such errors will arise. Many articles find it helpful to avoid discussing the editors and focus on the edits instead. Personalizing the inevitable disagreements isn't good for anyone.LeadSongDog come howl 22:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
And you or we could go on and on here which is not the right place to do so. Let's move it to ANI where you at least had the courtesy to respond and even so I disagree with your comment I'm appreciated that you finally engaged in a discussion. I see this as a first step to solve some issues.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
PS: You had your chance to interact with me on your and my talk page but you refused as you refuse to give edit summaries. I really don't know why. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again PilgrimRose sees everything as a personal insult. I am making no personal attack, the remarks are descriptive of the manner in which you have edited. I already apologised for any offence my remarks might have caused you - what more do you want - blood? I have not sought you to stop participating, merely to try to be more balanced and observe the editing guidelines. Any personal attacks have come from you in defaming me by misquoting and misrepresenting me. I have no desire to engage in personal attacks and you can see my response to your attacks on ANI. You have also failed to engage in discussion via your talk page or mine (as is also the case with other editors - see above), instead deciding to use this article's talk page as a forum to try to reinforce your opinion and attempt to discredit other editors. rturus (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Rturus: Enough with these childish, immature attacks. You say you have apologized, yet in your apologies you reaffirm your insults. Personal attacks are wrong. Period. I am here to write about an interesting topic, not to deal with your bullying. Now please stop and just leave me alone. ENOUGH. PilgrimRose (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Ms PilgrimRose. I am making no attacks, I am asking you to retract your deliberate misrepresentation of me in contravention of "2 (d) quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CIVIL - as I have stated in ANI and your own talk page. (The definition of personal attacks is also on the CIVIL page.) With very best wishes and most civil greetings, your most respectful servant rturus (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Article more biased pro-prosecution than news reports

10-Dec-2009: Please read many of the linked news reports, which are more balanced than the article has been. Although it seems logical that there would be some amount of bias in the various news reports, the bias that I've concluded for days, in the article, seems to be the skipping of text in the same news reports that refutes claims of the prosecution. For example,

  • A news report has been linked to claim "Sollecito's footprint" was found in blood, whereas the actual linked news report states that a footprint claimed to match Sollecito's Nike shoes was found in blood in Kercher's room; however, Giovanni Arcudi, a second expert arguing on behalf of Sollecito, stated, "That footprint does not possess clear and definite characteristics."
  • Also consider: police claim the entire flat was cleaned with bleach, except the open smaller bathroom, where blood smears were found & the toilet unflushed. Hello? The bathroom would be the first room to be cleaned, due to simple surfaces and the nearby sink, then flush the evidence.

I think a prior assessment of the article is correct: long before the trial ended, the article had been systematically edited (and re-edited) to primarily list evidence "proving guilt" of Knox and Sollecito, using "cherry-picked" text while excluding any nearby text where the defence refuted the evidence. It is important for readers to also take time to read the linked news reports, to understand the vast, enormous scope of evidence that has been refuted by the defence attorneys. Then, return to the article, to consider adding nearby text which refutes the prosecution claims, when no DNA, hair or fiber evidence from Knox or Sollecito was found on any furniture, bedding, flooring or walls in Meredith Kercher's room, while "holding her down" with "2 different knives"? To avoid a POV bias, try to provide dual text: for every claim of the prosecution in the article, try to follow it with obvious text claimed by the defence. That is a very simple way of avoiding such a one-sided view of the events: it is as easy as checking the article for black-&-white, black-&-white, black-&-white, etc. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The unsuccessful arguments of the defence should not be given equal WP:WEIGHT to the facts of the case as established at trial. --FormerIP (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The so-called "facts" are not really established at a trial; so, even when a jury votes "not guilty" that does not mean they thought that everything claimed by the prosecution was false. A jury is free to pick and choose which parts of each person's testimony to believe or reject: they can believe "Amanda said they were friends" then not believe she didn't kill her friend, even if that seems unfair. -Wikid77 12:51, 11 December 2009
I really dont understand your point. It seems to me you're trying to counterbalance a supposed POV tendence to respect the trial achievements adding a (far more) POV opposite content to condemn the prosecution and the Italian media (was Gente worse than British The Sun or American Fox??), as you did at Trial of Knox and Sollecito.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The counterbalancing of widely-reported, opposing views is typical in Wikipedia articles. --Wikid77 12:51, 11 December 2009
In response Wikid77, I would say that the opposite bias has been prevalent during the time that I've been reading the page, but then this is the inherent problem of the article as a whole, as bias is perceived by both sides of this discussion to favor the opposing point-of-view. In any case, to take your simple example of the bathroom being left uncleaned: not only did the defendants not know that the police would arrive as quickly as they did (returning a mobile phone that belonged to Meredith Kercher), but the evidence in the bathroom, and in particular the unflushed feces in the toilet, helped to incriminate another person (Guede), and it was therefore in the interests of Knox and Sollecito that the bathroom should not be cleaned. I would therefore say that, on the contrary, it's very notable that the rest of the apartment had apparently been thoroughly cleaned, and Amanda Knox had also (by her own testimony) taken a shower in the bathroom, but no-one had flushed away feces floating in the toilet. In my opinion, this just goes to show to what extent the 'facts' of the case are open to both discussion and (arguably) manipulation. —Plasticmanic (talk • contribs) 22:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps Amanda Knox took a shower in the other, larger shared bathroom on the 2nd floor, leaving a fresh scent of warm soap, shampoo, perfume, and deodorant that pervaded the entire flat to make it seem "recently cleaned", but that is yet another example of omitted detail. -Wikid77 12:51, 11 December 2009
@Wikid77 Amanda Knox herself stated in her own testimony that she had showered in the bathroom with the bloodstains (which also contained the faeces from Guede), as she also has said that she thought the bloodstains must have come from one of the female residents of the apartment having their period. As for the suggestion that the extensive forensic evidence of cleaning in the apartment is based on "the fresh scent of warm soap" etc - the police used Luminol to uncover bloodstains and bloody footprints in various parts of the apartment that had been cleaned away and were no longer visible to the naked eye. I'm sure it is not your intention to spread misinformation about the trial by using this discussion page for that purpose, now that the main page has been partially locked, but the net effect may be the same if you continue to enter statements in the discussion which are not based on the established facts of the case. Please bear in mind that the existence of the bloody footprints that had been cleaned away are not disputed by the defence, but the identity of the footprints was disputed. Therefore we may fairly presume that at least some parts of the apartment had been cleaned so that blood was no longer visible to the naked eye.--Plasticmanic (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher/Archive_5&oldid=1142335348"