Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher

General thoughts on weight about defense/prosecution arguments

While a trial is ongoing (or about to start), there is usually some more weight given to the defense case, even equaling the prosecutors arguments. But ons a verdict is reached, the defense case that wasn't accepted by the court and most importantly in the verdict becomes in part undue. Now that the appeal is about to start, new and reintroduced evidence by the defense should again be given proper weight close to the prosecutions (new and also the old evidence that determined the first trial). this is not meant as a blank-check but should be kept in mind going forward.TMCk (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I mostly agree, but I'm not very sure how the appeals will proceed to it is hard to know how the article should respond. I think a big concern (which I grimly predict) is that anything that happens in the courtroom will be felt to have enormous significance. I think the right thing to do will be to be conservative in terms of what gets added and to be wary of recentism - what seems important on the day it happens may not be important in the wider context. The article is already far too detailed for an encyclopaedia. --FormerIP (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Any significance of what will happen in the court room has to be decided by RS's and consensus. Like I said, this was not meant to be a "free roaming chicken" get out of jail free free card to add news as is happens and we still have have a no deadline policy just to mention a few.TMCk (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it should be more of an oven-ready chicken, ie we should err on the side of caution when recording what happens with the appeals, ideally I suppose we can include the fact of the start of an appeal and the result thereof - and not much else.  pablo 22:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I do like "oven-ready chicken" but I also like to see how it is prepared; And I wouldn't call the cook (and even less the a factory) a RS. :) TMCk (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with TMCk's statements. With an active appeal starting both sides of the case need to be presented as balanced as possible. RS and consensus required. Hope we can agree on a little latitude for expert testimony in the form of opinion clearly noted as such to aid in explaining the significance of evidence that might not be immediately obvious to a casual reader. Not looking for a blank check here, but Expert Opinions exists in court to explain complex issues and might be valuable here for the same reason IMO, especially when DNA evidence comes up. Tjholme (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Appeals..
We have to be careful with these and need to filter them to avoid the kind of "the prosecution said 'X'" but the defence said 'not X' which have plagued te article in the past. The most important things here (both for the encyclopedia and the defendants) are the results.  pablo 08:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

With the appeals coming up, I think we need to be very careful that the article is not making any statements about the defendants, that would imply that Wikipedia has prejudged their guilt or innocence. It's our job to report factual events, such as the fact that all three were found guilty by the courts, but we have to avoid crossing the line of saying they are guilty, or of referring to "murderers" or "criminals" etc. Also, I think we need to make sure there is balance in the way we describe the prosecution and defence cases: I suppose my view here would be that we should make sure there is enough detail to show that both sides put forward robust cases (which they did), but not enough detail that we seem to be inviting the reader to decide which side had the stronger case. I share the concerns about how we are going to handle edits during the appeals. The problem is that our "reliable sources" are largely the newspapers and TV, who are fairly reliable in reporting the facts but are adept at dressing the facts up to try and make them as newsworthy as possible. When the appeals start, I predict a fair number of "shocking revelations", "devastating evidence", "courtroom dramas" and all the usual journalistic cliches. We could be inundated by helpful people who have read the latest (and apparently most notable) piece of evidence and believe that it should be the centrepiece of the article! Bluewave (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I welcome this discussion and feel it could be productive. This will take some skill to do right but I believe it is doable. What will make this intellectually challenging is that this is essentially a de novo proceeding, linked to but not identical to the original case. The appeals of AK & RS are not identical and neither deals with all aspects of the case. New developments do need to be incorporated but judicially. I recommend that we begin with a some sort of outline of what the grounds of the appeal are I would welcome a similarly frank and open discussion about the uniquely difficult problem of reliable sources in this case. Id done correctly, such a discussion could benefit this article and also others engulfed in controversy.PietroLegno (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

We'll start with an appeal section ones the appeal has started and some due weight development (in RS's news) is available which adds usefull facts to the article.TMCk (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Massei report - why no discussion of CCTV footage?

I have a question. Did the Massei Report list the arrival as 12:35pm, conceding to the "fast clock" claim of the prosecution? I can also look in the previous discussions, as well, to find more information on the specifics of that. 209.63.205.129 (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10

Interesting discussion. I gather the consensus to be that Matteini's report of November 2007 remains definitive with regard to when the Postal Police arrived.

That is your choice to make, but I wouldn't dismiss this point as insignificant. If Sollecito only called the emergency number 15 minutes after the police were on the scene, and spoke to an operator at some length, twice, without mentioning that police were present, that is a deeply incriminating fact. One must wonder why Judge Massei neglected to mention it.

This is, after all, the same judge who found deception and guile in Knox's attempts to call Meredith's cell phones:

"[T]he first phone call that Amanda made on November 2, 2007 (see the specific chapter dedicated to an examination of the cellular telephone traffic of Amanda Knox) at 12:07 pm was to Meredith’s English subscriber line. And even this circumstance does not appear to be without significance. In fact, Amanda and Raffaele (the calls to Meredith and Romanelli occurred while Amanda was at the home of Raffaele Sollecito), before calling Romanelli and recounting the situation, wanted to make sure that Meredith’s mobile phones had not been found by someone who had reported the discovery leading to the start of an investigation and search.

Once they had that reassurance (the phones not being answered by anyone), they could raise the alarm..."

Massei's analysis, brilliant though it is, wobbles slightly on the fact that Meredith had two cell phones, and Amanda only called one of them before calling Filomena. But that is another subject. Don't you find it interesting that Massei completely overlooked the incriminating fact that Raffaele did not call the police until the police had been on the scene for 15 minutes? Charlie wilkes (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That Massei didn't mention RS calling 112 after the Postal Police arrived is interesting, but not really useful for Wikipedia. We can't reference the absence of some fact in a source to support a claim. Regardless of this, the existing text is a NPOV on the issue. The first part of the text only states the Postal Police arrived before the Carabinieri. The second part explains the trial dispute regarding the order of the Postal Police arrival and the 112 call. I would however like to see one minor change to this part of the article. -Footwarrior (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Except we have no evidence for the existence of a trial dispute over this matter, Footwarrior. That's the point of my proposal above - we can't have information in the article that is unsourced. --FormerIP (talk) 01:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Charlie. Hope you don't mind me creating a new section for your comments. We are not really supposed to speculate (as opposed to discussing the content of reliable sources) on WP talkpages. However, I think your comments may lead to illuminating discussion and I am happy to continue the discussion as long as there are no objections.

Here is what I would speculate in return.

I do not think it is the case that issues to do with the timestamp on the CCTV were ever discussed at the K&S trial. No evidence has been presented that they were, and the Massei report is extremely detailed, so I think it would be surprising if he failed to address a significant issue which had been brought to his attention by the defence during the trial.

Since the argument that the CCTV clock was slow had failed in the Guede trial, Sollecito's lawyers decided it was not worth pursuing in the K&S trial. The evidence the other way, from the Guede trial, is pretty sound. When the CCTV footage was obtained, the hardware was also examined and it was noted that the clock was 10 minutes fast. This kind of evidence is hard to argue against, so it would not be surprising that Sollecico's team decided not to, particularly because their success on this point would not have increased their client's chances of acquittal in any event.

Given this, Massei has two pieces of evidence before him. Firstly: that the police arrived just after 12.30, according to their own account. No-one has disputed this, so Massei states it as fact in his report (p93 of the translation). Secondly: that Sollectio had called the police before they arrived at the scene, according to Sollecito. Since the time of the phonecalls to the police is certain, either Sollecito is wrong or the police are wrong. But which?

I think Massei has taken the position that he does not need to worry too much about this discrepancy, since he does not need to reach a conclusion in order to determine the guilt of Knox and Sollecito. I think he has also taken into account the fact that it would have been difficult for Sollecito to phone the police whilst there were police officers in the flat without being overheard. It would not, of course, have been impossible, but no evidence was presented that Sollectio discretely went to the toilet or anything like that. So Massei is left with the police version, which he accepts, and Sollecito's version, which he implicitly does not accept, but which he does not feel is impossible and which has no strong bearing on Sollecito's guilt in any case.

The sequence of events here does not matter in terms of the verdict in any case. If Sollecito did ring the police before they arrived, this does not make him innocent, just smart enough to realise that if he wanted to fake a robbery, then it would be wise to report it. If he lied to the police when they arrived then this would not make him guilty, just suitably embarrassed about telling the police that he had not reported the burglary in order for him to tell an ill-advised lie about it.

For the article, though, the issue is whether any source tells us that the police arrived at 12:58, which no source appears to. --FormerIP (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked at the presentation I linked, and do you understand its main point, i.e., the camera clock shows the Carabinieri arriving seven minutes before making a five minute call to ask for directions because they could not find the address?Charlie wilkes (talk) 05:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at it and I understand that you say that this is part of the defence's presentation that they say demonstrates that the clock on the camera is wrong. It does not point to a definite arrival time. The clause "just as Sollecito said they did" is wrong for an encyclopaedia  pablo 10:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

How do you think this should be resolved?Charlie wilkes (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Current text:

At trial, the prosecution claimed that the Post and Communications Police arrived at 12:35 pm, before Sollecito called 112.[28] The defense countered by noting that the 12:46 pm time for the receipt of the second phone at the police station,[28] and evidence from a security camera showed that the police arrived at 12:58 pm, just as Sollecito said they did.[29]

does not make it clear that this is part of the defence case rather than a fact. There is no source for the arrival time being 12:58. [29] is speculative.

That being said, I think it's a minor point whether Sollecito called the Carabineri before or after the arrival of the Postales. pablo 22:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC

I think it is an important point. If Sollecito called the police 15 minutes after they were on site, and spoke to an operator twice without mentioning that the police were already present, that is deeply incriminating behavior. If, however, the police testified that they arrived before he made the call, and the defense showed that this is not the case, it raises questions about the reliability of police testimony. What is more, if the defense has successfully refuted this element of the case, but Massei neglected to acknowledge it in his report, it raises questions about the fairness and impartiality of the court.Charlie wilkes (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether it's incriminating is a matter of opinion. I don't think it necessarily is. Odd, certainly. The other problem is that we don't know whether "the defence has successfully refuted this element of the case", so any questions bout impartiality are moot.  pablo 01:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

On page 13 of the Massei report, it states: "Also present were an inspector and an officer from the Postal Police of Perugia: Michele Battistelli and Fabio Marzi, who arrived a little before 1:00 pm." On page 15 we find: "Twice, Battistelli had had to get out of the car and walk along before finding the house, where he arrived with Assistant Marzi at a little after 12:30 pm, or so it seemed to the two policemen." These two quotes indicate that Massei didn't accept the claimed arrival time of 12:35 pm. --Footwarrior (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

And on page 84 he says "Battistelli arrived with Marzi shortly after 12:30 pm". What he doesn't say or indicate anywhere is "12:58". What we could do is replace "and evidence from a security camera showed that the police arrived at 12:58 pm, just as Sollecito said they did.[29]" with something like "The report of Judge Massei did not give a definitive statement as to what the time was". --FormerIP (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Your proposed edit isn't an improvement on the text already in the article. I already suggested removing the text ", just as Sollecito said they did", which is the wrong tone for an encyclopedia article. Replacing "the prosecution claimed" with "a police inspector testified" would also be an improvement in keeping to a NPOV. --Footwarrior (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Describing murder events in intro / Split article suggestions

Rejected

The intro section needs to be restored to describe the murder in more detail, rather than dwell 80% on the initial arrests & convictions. If the article becomes too large, we can re-split into a separate article for the Trial of Knox and Sollecito. Specifically, there are 4 policies which support expansion of the intro: WP:NOTPAPER notes that article size is not limited to printing on paper. WP:NOTCENSORED prohibits censoring text, even if objectionable on religious or moral grounds. WP:UNDUE advises to keep text in proportion to the total subject. WP:LEAD advises to list major controversies in the intro section. The article should begin as follows: The murder of Meredith Kercher occurred in Perugia, Italy, on 1 November 2007. The following day, police discovered the body of the 21-year-old British university exchange student in the upstairs flat that she shared with three other young women. She was found lying partially clothed under a duvet in her locked bedroom, with blood on the floor, bed and walls. Forensic pathologists concluded strangulation had been attempted, and her neck was stabbed, causing fatal bleeding. Her body had over 40 bruises and scratches, plus knife wounds on the neck and hands, and there was evidence of sexual assault. Two credit cards, 300 euros, and her house keys were missing, but her two mobile phones were found in gardens about 1 km away (0.6 mi). The article needs to focus on explaining the murder, and the intro needs to mention the basics. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Agree as to split off of "Trials of Knox and Sollecito". The Murder of Meredith Kercher - the deed, the investigation, the prosecution and the sentencing are all complete, It's all been well documented by WP:RS and should be represented by a complete article with little need for change. The ongoing controversy surrounding the trials as well as the slander trial and upcoming appeal are outgrowing the MoMK article and overshadowing the original subject (i.e. the murder case), and they're only going to get bigger going forward. Vote to transition Knox and Sollecito trial material onto new page and strip same from original MoMK page. Tjholme (talk) 04:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Agree to the split off but would like to see the full names in the title "Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.Jaberryhill (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC) This has become somewhat overlooked, there are two issues here - whether to rewrite the lead paragraph and whether to split the trial info. I am so far neutral on the rewrite and see no reason to split. (And let's not forget there wasn't just one trial and there are more to come - not all them could support their own article).  pablo 20:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC) Split trials to new subarticle I agree, it is about time NOW to make a split, and the plural title "Trials of Knox and Sollecito" allows for adding the slander trial (from October 2010) and the Kercher-trial appeal (November 2010), and the Knox-parents slander case, plus containing the civil cases, to allow the MoMK article, instead, to focus on the murder events: meetings between the suspects and Meredith, listing detailed forensic evidence, such as DNA sample sizes (RFU peaks), fingerprints, shoeprints, luminol spots, plus the crime-scene vandalism events (entry through the balcony kitchen window), etc. It is just too limiting to be "miserly with the truth" when there are so many reliable sources about MoMK details. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I don't agree at all. This will lead to further "he said, she said" arguments, overly detailed analysis of forensic evidence from primary sources and so on. It is not the job of an encyclopaedia to document every last little detail. Quantpole (talk) 07:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC) There was a previous proposal to split off the trial section and a further proposal to create a separate Amanda Knox article. Both resulted in a consensus to stick with one article. From a purely practical point of view, the current article has required the intervention of several admins and the imposition of an edit lock to keep things manageable. Splitting it into several articles will just multiply the problems. And, if there are POV disputes, it makes much more sense to force them to resolved in one place, rather than to allow the possibility of the dreaded wp:POV forks. Bluewave (talk) 09:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I don't think that there is any need to do this right now. I think it is better to be seen as "miserly with the truth" (i.e. careful to limit the article to relevant and verified facts) rather than fill many articles with the kind of content suggested in this post.  pablo 09:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC) The usual reason for creating sub-articles is that the main article is too long. The main body of "readable prose" in this article is about 31kbytes which, according to Wikipedia:LENGTH's rule of thumb does not justify splitting on length grounds. Bluewave (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Not to mention doubling the amount of administrative attention that the new article (which will inevitably be as contentious as this one). No, this idea isn't a good one, and more to the point it is an unnecessary one. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Removing "Not Done" symbol. Admins and editors, I checked this thread at midnight Pacific Time last night and there was no discussion posted. I check again at 0600 Pacific and find that our British contingent has discussed the matter amongst themselves and unilaterally turned it down. I think it would be good form to at least let the American contingent consider the issue and have their say before deciding that the consensus is to "Not Do". Tjholme (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Here is your "American contingent" you asked for: I agree with the "British contingent". Better now?TMCk (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC) "British contingent" eh? Never been called one (or part) of those before.  pablo 14:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Guess it's just another funny way to describe "guilters" or at least "non pro-Amanda" editors. Wonder if there is a nick for the middleground though.TMCk (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC) There's no such thing as a middleground, didntchaknow? At any rate, a split is premature. If a reasonable amount of new material comes from these appeals and lawsuits, it may become necessary in the future. But lets wait for that future to arrive first. Resolute 14:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I thought NPOV would be the middleground which is still missing a nick-name ;) .TMCk (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Presumably this would be the Florense contingent. And, yes, I did just look that up on Wikipedia. Perhaps we should ring up the mayor of Santa Cruz das Flores and ask him to dictate a perfectly balanced and neutral article for us. --FormerIP (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Never mind middle ground! What's the name for people who neither know nor care whether Amanda Knox is guilty or innocent, but do care passionately about producing an encyclopedia? Bluewave (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC) The correct answer is "neutral editors" (and we have a few her).TMCk (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Back to the issue: As pointed out here and in various other threads, there is no need for a split unless the article becomes "oversized". No major development occurred since the last verdict and therefore no major additions exist to be added. There is still plenty of space for everything else.TMCk (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC) I support the idea of a split. The trial evidence needs more explication. As the appeals start to happen this will be even more the case. I also note that there is a great deal of inconsistency to the arguments against a split. Very valid arguments have been advanced about the need to add material to the article. These have been attacked because doing so would make the article too long. Now a proposal to split is attacked because the current article is not yet over-sized. But I bet if I propose adding to the current article in significant ways that will get attacked too. I think the real problem is an aversion to having reliably sourced information discussed.PietroLegno (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC) We don't POV-fork an article just b/c it might get to big when some future event (the appeal) is scheduled. If you have more to add to the current section propose it in a new section. Also, again and again and again......., don't comment on the editors, comment on the article's subject. Thanks.TMCk (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Why do you consider a POV-fork? Perk10 (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10 B/c for almost a year, whenever a split was made or proposed it either started as one or quickly became one. Nevertheless I should of course AGF and call it just a content-fork, splitting of content that belongs in this article which, again has still plenty of space for more prose.TMCk (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC) PietroLegno, I personally don't favour expanding the article and neither do I favour splitting it. But I don't see any inconsistency in holding both these views simultaneously. In my view, some of the very best articles on Wikipedia are concise and self-contained. Bluewave (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC) The main article is currently protected because of the problems with it. The protection has solved many of the issues of edit-warring and disruption on the talkpage. If a number of recent SPA editors think they can circumvent this by splitting off the contentious content into another article (which of course would not be protected) then they really need to think again. The community is not stupid, frankly. Every neutral editor here has pointed out why the article should not be split. If any editor wishes to write a sub-article in userspace and present it to the community here, along with policy-compliant reasons why it should be split from this one, then feel free to do so. Thankyou. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)  Not done But I bet if I propose adding to the current article in significant ways that will get attacked too. To answer, PietroLegno, all too often the proposals to "add to the current article in significant ways" have been disruptive. Has the situation with Knox and Sollecito changed much since December, when the Trial of Knox and Sollecito page was merged following an AfD discussion? Would a sub-article be a true benefit to the topic, or just turn into a coatrack and POV and vandal magnet? We could certainly do without another long, drawn-out, embroiled dispute such as this one, which was the result of a similar sub-page being brought back too soon. SuperMarioMan 22:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Suggestion for formatting General suggestion as follows -- I. Section for Rudy Guede's trial, including the Micheli Report. And subsequent appeals. II. Section for the Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito trial w/sections for A. the prosecution, B. the defense, C. the motivation document (Massei Report). And upcoming appeal. Second potential appeal at the highest court. Rough sketch, and may need a section or I can bring it up in the General Suggestions section. Perk10 (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC) What is this going to add? What value to the reader?  pablo 02:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC) Perk10, just to help me understand the proposal, are you suggesting the whole article be reformatted along the lines you suggest, or just the parts about the trials? This question aside, one of the editorial problems that are inherent in the subject is that it is very easy to create repetitious text because the same themes come up over and over again. In some of the earlier versions of the article, we tried to base the structure, rather as I think you are suggesting, around the sequence of trials and we ran into exactly that problem. For instance, the (supposedly faked) break-in might be discussed as part of the original police investigation, Guede's trial, the AK/RS prosecution case, their defence case, and the Massei and Micheli reports. No doubt it will also get a mention at the appeal. So we could end up with it being discussed in 6 or 7 parts of the article. The alternative is to take a more thematic approach to the evidence, which is more the way the article is arranged right now. This has its own problems, because the sequence of events is less clear, and it is difficult to discuss the trials, for example, without discussing the evidence presented at them. However, it does cut out the repetition. I don't know what is the best answer, but I do think the overall structure is worth discussing, particularly with the appeals coming up. Bluewave (talk) 09:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC) The current structure of the article is based on narrative, but it would be more encyclopedic if it was written along the lines of the legal events. This is mostly due to the fact that the outcome of the trial is now known. There was a sentencing, a motivation document, and an appeal. Things like the number of days to pruduce the Massei Report, the time the defense had to form the appeal, the dates of each. The article should be structured around technical detail. When a reader looks at the article, useful data should be present, as is in the traditional encyclopedia entry. Events alleged by the prosecution should be attributed to their source. The Massei Report has different events. The contrast between the two could be noted. As the case has reached the post-trial phase, it is now clear what each put forth. I think there is a concise way to achieve it without repetition. Will consider Bluewave's points however and will also try to come up with some suggestions as to how to either tighten the current article through the addition of technical data or to look at the structure in light of the current status of the case. Perk10 (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC) "This is a Wikipedia article about a legal case." That is the premise. Legal stats should follow. This is encyclopedia style. Perk10 (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Technical data such as civil and criminal cases (ie what kind of case is this? In this case, there are both), the legal context of the trial - Italian law*, the district, *hyperlinked to the history of Italian law (papal v. Germanic). Who are the lawyers? (Names of the Kerchers' lawyer and all the defendants' lawyers). A clearly organized set of information is needed. Perk10 (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10 Why isn't this case article listed by its court name? Such as _________ v. __________. Perk10 (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10 It is the Murder of Meredith Kercher that makes this topic notable, since that is the original event. Prosecutions, trials, convictions and appeals are all derived from this event, meaning that renaming the article to Knox v. ??? would be like stating effect before cause. SuperMarioMan 21:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC) There are many cases which proceeded from this event. And this ain't Courtopedia.  pablo 21:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry... by "listed", I meant, included in the lead section (not necessarily the title of the article). Perk10 (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10 The murder is not what makes it notable, but that is another topic. Perk10 (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10 The notibility is discussed elsewhere on the Talk Page, also in the decision of whether to keep or delete the article. Perk10 (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10 Pablo - This is a Wikipeida article about a legal case, though. It is the legal case of the Kerchers against who murdered Meredith Kercher. It is the backbone of this article. Events precipitating from the murder isn't what the article is about. Perk10 (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10 "This is a Wikipeida article about a legal case, though. It is the legal case of the Kerchers against who murdered Meredith Kercher." Well no. And no, it's not just about court cases. And no, court cases are not what makes it notable. And yes, any legal action was precipitated by the murder. Owt else?  pablo 20:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Noting continual U.S. news of Knox

Note to admins: Initially, the article was considered ready-to-delete as "non-notable" and perhaps some imagined "case-closed" in December 2009. However, in the U.S., news segments about Amanda Knox (and sometimes Raffaele Sollecito) have been broadcast on America's main TV networks, every few weeks, all during 2010 (often during the morning national talk-shows). The events, as affecting Amanda Knox, are the big news about the case in the U.S. When her court appeal, as a re-trial, is over, then any news about Guede is unlikely to be noted in the U.S. Many people in Europe finally understand that "Amanda Knox" is the name in the news, every few weeks, in U.S. news reports or TV broadcasts. Similarly in Italy, Amanda Knox was viewed even higher than Carla Bruni. Perhaps if that were stated in the intro to the article, then extensive text about Amanda Knox would no longer be seen as unbalanced-POV about the events. For fairness, discussions about lack of evidence should also include Sollecito, although his DNA was matched to a small sample on the metal bra-clasp, while Guede's DNA matched abundant samples on the severed clasp strap and the rest of the bra (where no DNA matched Sollecito). Only by understanding the extensive U.S. news coverage, about Amanda Knox, can NPOV-neutral text be found. So, "Amanda Knox" has much higher Google hits than "Lee Harvey Oswald" (JFK assassination), "John Wilkes Booth" (shot Lincoln), or serial killers Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The last AfD discussion was 3 months ago. I do not see that much has changed in the intervening period. Quantpole (talk) 07:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"News" implies that she has either done something or that there have been some development in her case(s). Which isn't true. If by "news" you mean "comment and speculation" then there is plenty of that alright.  pablo 08:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

All the guys that Wikid77 mentions have been dead for a long time now, so there's not likely to be much "news" about them at this point, nor much internet gossip. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, on an unrelated page recently an editor tried to make a similar claim, and had it pointed out to him that Wayne Rooney has more Google hits than Winston Churchill, for example. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

In any case, most of the hits on Google for Amanda Knox are our own editors posting on Internet discussion forums. --FormerIP (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I really believe that there is a cultural problem here. To suggest that Amanda Knox is not big news in the U.S. is simply silly. I reject as absurd the idea that only events in which Knox is personally involved are news. When a retired FBI agent writes a series of strong articles and these become the basis for interviews on every network, this is news. I must say with all due respect to Ms. Kercher, Mr. Guede, and even Mr. Sollecito, that they are as close to anonymous in the U.S. as it is possible to be. There are perhaps 200 people in all of the United States who would recognize all three names. If you went around trying to tell people in the U.S. that "The Murder of Meredith Kercher" is a notable event, they would look at you in complete and utter mystification. Mention Amanda Knox, however, and you get a very different reaction and among those who do know something about the case, there is a perception that something is very wrong with the conviction. Black Kite, I don't find your comment very convincing. People are notable because of their place in history (Churchill) or because they are in the news (Rooney). Wikid77's observation is valid.PietroLegno (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there may indeed be a cultural problem. This is not a popularity contest between Knox and Kercher. Knox is notable because of this murder.  pablo 15:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

@Pietro. Your general statement: "People are notable because of their place in history (Churchill) or because they are in the news (Rooney)." is valid while Wikid's comparison is not and far fetched.TMCk (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

pablo, youre absolutely right, this is not and has never been a popularity contest between Knox and Kercher. Kercher was by all accounts a fine young woman and her murder a horrible thing. I think we can all agree on that. I would add, however, that acknowledging that there is legitimate controversy surrounding the investigation of her murder and the subsequent trails and verdicts is NOT an attack on her or her memory. Tjholme (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't my point; I was merely pointing out that both women are notable because of this murder. There is controversy (legitimate or not) and this is mentioned in this very article. There is absolutely no information about Amanda Knox that deserves a standalone article. She was a honors student, she played football, she liked to pick wild flowers and read Harry Potter. These are some of the vital gems that have been removed from earlier versions of this article, and rightly so, I think.
See also ...  pablo 15:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)::And IMO the controversy is covered with due weight in the article; But doesn't prevent any editor to make a reasonable proposal for some change.TMCk (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, the OP Wikid77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has since been suspended for a month for topic-ban violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why Wikid77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is suspended. His observation is valid. This case is notable due to the controversy present by reliable sources. The controversy does not receive the proper weight in this article. Pietro makes a good point...most of the traffic received by this article is due to a redirected search for Amanda Knox. --Lilome (talk) 02:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• In the most recent month of statistics, Amanda Knox received 3,561 hits, whilst this article received 17,154. In the last full month when both articles existed, this article received 43,400 hits to Knox's 5,252. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• I personally happened on the site from a search for Amanda Knox. Either way, the controversy is not given enough weight. It is notable controversy, and the reader should be given enough information to form an opinion. I agree the information should be presented as neutral, but it should be presented. I have suggestions and hope to have more time for this soon. I will be back with my suggestions. As I have seen, simply editing (with or without reliable sources) is in vain here.--Lilome (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Suggestions would be much better than vague moaning about the process of editing a protected page.  pablo 08:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Was I vague? I didn't mean to be. I've read through the talkpages and see how things are here. I'm working on my suggestions. I want to be completely neutral despite my POV, because the facts speak for themselves when all are presented.--Lilome (talk) 01:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Cartwheel and splits

The article currently has no mention of Knox performing cartwheels and doing the splits before the Police questioned her, should that be covered, and if so in what detail and section? ϢereSpielChequers 19:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That was discussed before and is simply undue weightTMCk (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, is it disputed that she did that? If so who by - the BBC is usually reckoned a pretty reliable source. ϢereSpielChequers 22:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

TMCk didn't say it was disputed, just that it would be undue to include it because it is not an important enough detail. It doesn't appear to have been a strong part of the court case against her, for example. You're free to make a case that it is significant enough to include, though. --FormerIP (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually TMCK just linked to wp:undue which starts "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight"." So I assumed TMCK was saying it was some sort of fringe theory. The BBC has published it so I reckon it passes the test of being a significant viewpoint. Also a quick Google on Knox Cartwheel brings up the Daily Mail whilst this story from The Telegraph, and this from the BBC both headline the cartwheel. If it made it to the headlines of two impeccable sources then IMHo it is worth a mention in the article, I'm not suggesting we put it in the lead paragraph. But I reckon it merits a sentence in the article. ϢereSpielChequers 23:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

wp:undue has much more to say. For example: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.".TMCk (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the editors felt that cartwheels and splits, like kissing her boyfriend or buying thong underwear, while having the appearance of impropriety (to some) , were not in fact evidence of anything and served no other purpose than to unfairly bias public opinion. IMHO cartwheels are oddities that have no probative value and have no place in the MoMK article. Tjholme (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this story has little value to the article; adding it does seem like undue weight to me too. It probably helped to sell a few newspapers though, which is why it's not hard to find on the web.  pablo 01:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No, Amanda Knox "turned cartwheels" in the police station after the killing, a police witness told a court in Perugia, Italy. Is a BBC report - not some newspaper sensationalism, and this isn't about Knox's choice of underwear which I would agree is irrelevant - this is after the murder when she was waiting to make a statement to the police about the murder of her flatmate. That she was told her behaviour while waiting to give a statement was inappropriate is in my view worthy of mention and more relevant than much of the detail currently in the article. Undue says we "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject". I could understand if only one of those sources had picked up on the cartwheel episode then there might be an argument that this was such an "isolated events, criticisms, or news report". But this was covered not just by the BBC but by the mail and the Telegraph, msnbc, abc, the Mirror, The Sun USA Today even the Guardian mentions it. ϢereSpielChequers 07:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

What specific change do you propose to the article then?  pablo 07:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There's currently one section about Amanda Knox and another about the Police interviews. I think the most logical place to add this would be in the latter section. I'll draft something on this page in the next day or so, it might be possible to do it in one sentence. ϢereSpielChequers 10:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

More specific, please. What exact line would you like to insert and what is the significance of it ? What is it adding to the article ? I'm having a problem wrapping my pea sized brain around this. Previously, the fact that a given event was reported, even in numerous WP:RS, has not in itself been enough to warrant it's inclusion in this article. Many lurid rumors have been reported by many papers as 'important fact'. As Pablo said, they sold quite a few papers. If we're going to start throwing in this kind of un-evidence then we'd better open a new thread cause we have a lot of previously passed over solid evidence from people like Moore and Tramontano that we need to be rediscussing IMO Tjholme (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Tjholme - he does say he'll draft it in a couple of days, chill. Moore has opinions rather than evidence, Tramontano's testimony already gets a mention.
@ WereSpielChequers - I wasn't doubting the validity of the sources, of which many are impeccable, just questioning the addition itself.  pablo 13:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hahahaha! Duly chilled. Tjholme (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No "hahaha" for me. I have to crank my A/C way up almost all year arround to be "chilled", though I compensate with chilled drinks which are less expensive and way more pleasant :)) TMCk (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Tjholme wrote:"What is it adding to the article?" which puts my comments about due or undue weight into perspective. But let's wait for WSCh to draft and propose what s/he has in mind and go from there.TMCk (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

@TMCk - Agreed on WSCh. As to the heat, happy to trade you some Seattle cold n wet.. we didnt even get a summer this year. Tjholme (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No way I'll trade my warm sunny weather for a cold snowing mess! I's rather put up with hurricanes. XD --TMCk (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It will take a lot of persuading for me to think that this suggestion is anything but tendentious. Even if we stipulate that Amanda was turning cartwheels like an acrobat at the circus (and she clearly was not), it means nothing. I have serious reservations about the way that the article is written, but one thing I appreciate is that there has been some effort to avoid gratuitous character assassination. Now someone wants to reintroduce it. Sigh. This bit about cartwheels should be pitched into the trash bin of history along with non-existent bleach receipts and Harry Potter books and tendentious arguments about when the police did or did not arrive. None of it matters. We should be focusing on the real evidence. Even if one views Amanda's conduct rather severely this is not in the least proof she did anything. It amounts to saying "she's weird and therefore she might be a killer"--an absurd leap if ever there was one. If the talk about cartwheels gets serious then I am going to want to balance things by adding material that casts Amanda's behavior in more sympathetic light. Let's not go there. The cartwheels discussion is one for the books, not an encyclopedia article.PietroLegno (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I think describing what appears to be a genuine query as "tendentious" is unfair, I'd agree that this is the sort of tangental detail that editors here have spent a lot of time trying to remove from the article to focus on the important facts. Only my 2 cents; if there's consensus it needs to be mentioned, so be it. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess I've already made my point clear regarding the "cartwheels and splits" but to make sure I'd like to point out again that those are way undue and are of no value to the article at all. Quite the opposite IMO.TMCk (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Pietro: I agree with most of what you wrote above, but would ask you to consider as well how this relates to WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not journalism, nor is it a news review. It would be WP:UNDUE (in my opinion) to give too much coverage to media hype surrounding this case. We should mention significant media portrayals of the case, but with a sense of proportion. But this applies equally whether the hype is associated with the vilification of the defendants or with the thesis that Italy is a backwards nation and our blue-eyed gal has been convicted on the basis of "no evidence". I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment that the article should concentrate on what is important about the case a prune the rest. However, to achieve this would require a balanced approach - it is not currently possible, I think, whilst editors insist that any argument in defence of Knox made by the defence or raised in any publication should be featured regardless of how significant it is. --FormerIP (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this one of those rare instances where we're all kind of agreeing on something? I think we might have a.. a.. what was that word? Oh yeah.. consensus. =) Tjholme (talk) 04:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it summarises people's respective starting points, however WereSpielChequers' proposed edit, when it arrives, deserves as much consideration as any other proposed edit; much will depend on where in the article it goes and how it is worded. We should not prejudge.  pablo 14:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Separate Amanda Knox page

Hey guys, I tried to ctrl+f and also skim through all the comments on the this page to see if this had been addressed, but I couldn't find it. Why don't Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher both have their own separate wikipedia page in conjunction with this page of the murder? This happens for almost all other cases like this and/or serial killer pages as well. Take for example Joran van der Sloot. BEFORE the case of the second Peruvian girl even existed, there was still a separate page for him, and a page of the murder/girl. Why isn't this the case for the Amanda Knox/Meredith Kercher case as well? Knox and Sollecito should have their own page, Rudy Guedge I can understand not having his own. Meredith Kercher should also have her own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.0.201 (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Knox and try skimming the archives.TMCk (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I hear you, unsigned. It's an issue that's come up more than once along with the suggestion to split off an article about The Trials of AK & RS.. The issue tends to split the editors into two camps. So far the NO camp has managed to block the creations but the YES camp is gaining momentum and numbers. The AfD archives are an interesting read, especially in that some NO editor(s) actually stated they could see the day when a "Trials Of" article might be useful.. Were working toward that day.. apparently not there yet, though.Tjholme (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think you'll find that those proposals were rejected by the wider community at Articles For Deletion, not just editors involved here. And yet again, you're splitting editors into two POV camps ("the NO camp has managed to block the creations") where in reality the issues are directly linked to Wikipedia policy, not what any editor's own opinions are. I'm not sure how many times I'm going to have to ask certain editors here not to do that, please; this is supposed to be a collaborative environment, not a battlefield. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Joran van der Sloot now has more justification as a separate article, with regard to WP:ONEEVENT, since he has been implicated in a second criminal case. In response to the OP's arguments, it would follow that a serial killer, having been convicted of more than one murder, surpasses the one-event guideline. At this time, the status of Amanda Knox (i.e. someone who is not a serial murderer) and her fellow convicts is more or less inextricable from the Murder of Meredith Kercher case, a view largely endorsed at June's AfD discussion. Furthermore, an individual Meredith Kercher article would be quite superfluous — it is her murder for which Kercher is notable, not other events in her life (i.e. her full biography), hence a page titled "Murder of Meredith Kercher" complies better with Wikipedia guidelines. Finally, to reply to Tjholme, it is important to remember that Wikipedia operates on the basis of consensus rather than a popular vote. That the so-called "Yes camp" is "gaining momentum and numbers" has little impact. SuperMarioMan 19:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a prejudice against SPA's accounts but I think it's reasonable to be suspicious depending on their edits (likewise I judge established users who suddenly come to an article - not talking about this one - and make one or more highly POV edits, one way or another). Of course I still assume good faith even if it doesn't show at times but that's my editing style for everyone to feel and they either can accept it or complain at the approbate venue if they feel like it.

This (constantly repeated) case with similar arguments made before don't give me much confidence as just being raised by a new IP-editor although I responded by pointing to an AFD and suggested skimming the archives for some more info instead of just ignoring their inquire and by know they're given some more information which they can work with.TMCk (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Black Kite - As the 'certain editor' in question let me respond that I was asked not to poison the water by referring to the nationalist pov split that exists between the editors -v- admins, and I didnt. However, in the AfD review editors/admin clearly respond in the manner "KEEP" or "DELETE", That tends to split the group into two defacto camps.. those that want to keep and those that want to delete. Tjholme (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the point I'm trying to make is that at AfD there are a majority of editors who are completely unfamiliar with the article, and so they aren't bringing any previous baggage, viewpoints or biases to the debate, but merely evaluating the question with regard to Wikipedia policy. Thus, it's a little unfair to piegonhole them into a "Yes camp" and a "No camp"; indeed if the question was ever to arise again, some may comment differently if they believed that the situation had changed, rather than "vote" in some sort of bloc. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Enough of that pro-guilt/innocent nonsense. The next editor that should dare to mention such, incl. guilters/non-guilters and similar should be blocked for disruption for no less than a week. That's my opinion on it!TMCk (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • To be fair, I think that Tjholme above just phrased his response to the IP a bit poorly. But in general, I think the best way to go with editors who attack others by accusing them of POV editing with no justification is one warning and then escalating blocks. Eventually we will end up at a point where the remaining editors, despite having conflicting opinions, can edit collegially with each other. I'm going to move MLauba's previous note to the bottom of this page and tweak it a bit. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• That would a dream come true (after almost one year).TMCk (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Keeping this page Civil

Adapted from a previous posting by admin User:MLauba.

Editors of this article are reminded of a few core rules governing Wikipedia: Our purpose is to present an encyclopedic article on the Murder of Meredith Kercher. As such we provide the reader with the known facts: A crime happened, an investigation was conducted, a trial was held, a media controversy exists, appeals have been filed. It is not our purpose to convince the reader that the verdict was right or wrong, that the trial was just or slanted, or that the forensics were sufficient or deficient. Similarly, our purpose is not to sow doubt in the reader or give him the means to play armchair CSI. Excessive details detract from an encyclopedic coverage; such excess has, in the past, led to an article that was an endless list of continuous refutations, a he said / she said debate that was devoid of value to the uninformed reader, as well as devoid of value to the partisan reader as they - regardless of their opinions - would invariably estimate that the opposing arguments were given too much prominence.

Bearing that in mind, please remember to:

• assume good faith: honest disagreement is not only possible but healthy, and doesn't indicate that someone disagreeing with you is part of a hostile faction out to paint guilt or innocence.
• Our policies on coverage of living persons are very strict for good reasons. Wikipedia is not the place to speculate who did it and propose theories of what could likely have happened. If reliable sources have proposed something, we can echo that point of view (provided we don't give it undue weight). Original research, speculation and synthesis are prohibited - Wikipedia cannot and will not tolerate postings, even on talk pages, that could be construed as libel.
• Sources usually considered as reliable aren't so in all circumstances. An opinion expressed on a talk show or an interview, even aired on CNN, is typically not subjected to fact-checking and editorial control and does not qualify as reliable in this context.
• Don't attack other editors. Argue the points, don't throw around accusations, and accept that it will have to be a give and take. When possible, don't hesitate to propose new wording, but for practical reasons, keep them manageable.
• And remember that Wikipedia's role is not to right great wrongs, nor even to find the Truth(tm) - we only report what can be verified.

This page has suffered from a toxic editing climate for nearly a year. Nonetheless, it is important that all parties take a deep breath before posting, and if they feel so passionate that they cannot concede an argument no matter the strength of consensus against them, it may be time to take a step back and perhaps work on other articles. Editors who give in to the temptation to attack others, whether individually or as a group, risk having their editing privileges suspended.

You are more likely to make progress on this page if you adhere to the following

• Don't assign viewpoints to other editors unless they have admitted them themselves. For example, if an editor has posted that they believe a defendant to be guilty/innocent, then it is fair to comment on it; otherwise, just don't. This has been the principal issue here so far, and it is the one that has led to a number of editors being blocked.
• If you have an opinion on something in the article, don't claim that anyone who doesn't agree with something you've posted is automatically part of a group with an opposite viewpoint.
• Respond to criticism, and do so civilly. If a number of editors disagree with you, explain why you believe they are wrong in a calm manner; don't ignore them and carry on repeating your claims, however wrong you believe they may be. Editors who do this are very difficult to edit collegially with.
• Don't suggest massive changes to the article in one go. It isn't ever going to happen on an article this contentious; suggest changes one small section at a time, and let each of those changes be discussed. The article is protected at the moment, and therefore changes must be made through {{editprotected}}; nevertheless this is good editing practice at all times.
• It is always useful to search the archives for issues that may have come up before; you may find your suggestion or idea has previously been discussed.
• A reliable source isn't a reliable source because you say it is; bring it here for discussion if it is likely to be contentious.
• If you want to add a minor detail to the article, consider whether WP:UNDUE applies before submitting it, or ask here first

Black Kite (t) (c) 23:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Proposal for article probation applied by consensus It really would be nice and productive if users would follow this advise. Whoever doesn't should be blocked starting with a 24 hour minimum (depending of their previous block log and be raised by at least one week for their second violation, one month after the third and indeffed (with the option of appeal as usual) for any further violation. Also every editor already commenting here and new editors should get a message with such warning a friendly reminder about the self imposted article probation. We don't need any Arbcom or other venue for applying such restrictions as WP is "not" a bureaucracy. So if we can get a consensus here that should work for all parties involved, including any future party. So let's make a Wiki-"vote" and see if we can get consensus for such measure.TMCk (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC) (Minor corrections and wording adjusted.TMCk (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)) Do you support the above proposal (please state a reason) (Sample "vote": Support (reason) (sign) Support. I agree with this proposal because of the turmoil that has been on this page in the last six months from one editor. That particular individual was given so much leeway for far too long and I stopped editing here because the stress of reading her posts was not worth it. I'd also include that any personal attacks on other editors including the admins regarding their fairness, or their favoritism to Americans or their complete lack of favoritism to Americans, and all that nonsense, should earn a block straight out of the gate.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Support. Obvious as being the proposer. And I also support Malke's addition laid out above as the second one being a lack of wp:AGF and the first one about NPA is a given anyways.TMCk (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Do you reject the above proposal (please state a reason) (Sample "vote": Oppose (reason) (sign) Oppose. This is an article on the English Language Wikipedia, so any such proposals must comply with the policies and norms of this project. Would any admin block someone for breaching "Don't suggest massive changes to the article in one go"? As for warning newbies about possible blocks simply for commenting on the talkpage of a contentious article..... WP:Bite, WP:AGF and WP:Block should be borne in mind. ϢereSpielChequers 07:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC) You've missed the point. The above section is to point out to users what is more likely to get them results here, not to say "this is a new Wikipedia rule and I'll block you if you do anything different". I'll tweak it to make it a bit clearer, though. No-one is blocking anyone for not doing that, although obviously personal attacks are different. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Hi Black Kite. I don't think I've missed the point, but I'm commenting on "The above proposal" specifically "It realy would be nice and productive if users would follow this advise. Whoever doesn't should be blocked starting with a 24 hour minimum". and "new editors should get a message with such warning" I've made no comment on your earlier proposal. ϢereSpielChequers 09:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Ah sorry, I missed that. No, obviously we're not going to block people for violating what is effectively advice, although if they do it continuously and after being told not to merely to disrupt (something we've had a problem with on this page) then it may be necessary. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC) I sure had it strong worded (and just made some minor changes which are not finished yet) and of course editors should be get a fair warning and time to rephrase or redact any violation they've made. Only if they chose not to comply the above proposed restrictions should be applied. Basically it is meant to place this article on probation like for example the Obama and Sarah Palin was and it worked out quite well. Anyone familiar with these examples can confirm it.TMCk (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC) I think Black Kite's suggestions are good ones, and TMCk has a good idea, but rather than warnings like those from ArbCom, the admins here could issue warnings like this one: [1]. It would certainly give me pause if an admin put that on my talk page.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC) I guess you slightly misunderstood what I meant to say. The warnings can and should of course be given by any admin or in some cases even by editors as long as they're reasonable. I'm trying to keep Arbcom out of this because I don't think we're in need of such bureaucracy. Unless someone files an Arbcom case we don't need them to propose our own remedies. All we need is enough support to go ahead with my proposal (that can be modified by others).TMCk (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Neutral, not sure or other (please state your reason) (Sample "vote": (reason) (sign) Other - TMCk's proposal is unnecessary; normal rules apply. Suggest closing this !voting section altogether.  pablo 07:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC) We disagree in if it is needed or not so If there is not enough feedback within one or two days (my time - ET) feel free to collapse this section. Till then let's see what others have to say.TMCk (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC) ("Votes" are decided by argument, not by majority).TMCk (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

archiving suggestion

It might be a good idea to speed up the bot. This page quickly fills up, not all the threads are currently active, and often people start new sections in order to escape the volume so they can be heard, so discussions carry through anyway.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems like someone took already care of this [2]. TMCk (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Newsweek article

Saw this today. http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/15/how-amanda-knox-s-supporters-could-doom-her.html?gt1=43002 Malke 2010 (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Interesting comment about Moore, which many editors pointed out on this page. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

An interesting read and an appropriate title. Knox probably doesn't have internet access, but if she has looked at this talkpage she is unlikely to be grateful to her supporters, I think. --FormerIP (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• That article puts Moore's credibility (and the discussions about his credentials which where only given by his own words and no RS confirmed anything) to rest while other parts of the article should make the "pro-Knox" screaming crowed reconsider their approach.TMCk (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: Real good catch, Malke.TMCk (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The article does nothing to Moore’s credentials, which have been confirmed by multiple sources. It doesn’t even challenge the accuracy of what he said; it only claims that saying it doesn’t help Knox. I’m skeptical of the author of that article (Barbie Nadeau) who obviously has an agenda of promoting the viewpoint of her book. Questions of her credibility have been discussed here before. She is very loose with her "facts", e.g. the reference in the article to "the DNA evidence she [Knox] left at the crime scene.". Nadeau should know that Knox’s DNA was NOT found at the crime scene (Kercher’s room); but on a knife at Sollecitio’s apartment. That kind of inaccuracy can impart a slanted POV to those who don’t know better. Nadeau’s article mixes her opinion with certain facts and quotes from Italians who have been offended but care must be taken to separate fact from opinion. On the other hand, Steve Moore isn’t trying to sell a book and I don’t believe he is promoting himself. Some sources are reliable as to opinions, "but not for statements of fact without attribution". (per WP:RS) However, I’d give more weight to Moore’s opinion because he is a professional investigator. Nadeau is only a journalist looking to make money from the story. Kermugin (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop bitching complaining ( Hope I made some SPA happy by that.) about Nadeau and provide (still missing) links to RS's confirming Moore's credentials. I still didn't see any as of today. Any problem finding some? Till you do Moore's opinion means shit.TMCk (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

@ TMCk Dude, as pablo said, Chill. I think the heat and the hurricanes are getting to you. In the face of live interviews across all of the major US networks, on every major news and talk show, on a score of local tv and radio shows and quoted by Lord knows how many internet and print newspapers, do you really want to keep playing the tired old "He's not even real.. He's a construct of that advocacy site. I've never seen his work anyplace else." song ? The man has been vetted better than President Obama. I know it stings but dang, we've gone passed due diligence into the absurd on this issue. Isn't there some fancy Wiki abbreviation for people that wont concede in the face of overwhelming evidence? Something like WP:GIVEITARESTYOULOSTTHISROUND perhaps ? If there's not there should be. The tidal wave that FBI (Ret) Steve Moore is creating makes Barbie's bleating look like a sour grapes drop in a bucket... or in a word, desperation. Tjholme (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Another rant doesn't replace a RS.TMCk (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

@TMCk Is the profanity really necessary? I think personal attacks are prohibited by WP standards. You are damaging any credibility you might have. --Sunshinelover (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Happy now? Still no single RS provided confirming Moore's credentials. You don't happen to have some on hand that you could provide? That could put an end to this. So again, anyone willing to share with the community? I only see a lot of hot air and words put in my mouth by one (SPA)editor. That doesn't do it. So where did get Moore his "raw "material" from? NEWSWEEK tried to get an answer to this with no prevail. Again, and to anyone: provide sources to back up your claims as editors opinion are rarely even being worth to be noted.TMCk (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Saying someone is bitching about... is not a personal attack; Calling them a bitch would be. Nevertheless I agree that my wording was not necessary in that already toxic environment and I replaced it with "a more decent word", therefore asking you if you're happy now at the start of my post.TMCk (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think TMCk meant that word as a personal attack. He's not in the habit of doing that, not that I've ever seen. And surely, Newsweek's research department is well versed in finding reliable sources, so if they couldn't come up with something, then it does leave a question of credibility. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right Malke. There was no such intention from my side. I'm indeed harsh at times but when I really make a personal attack [and I think I did once last year and shortly after I apologized for it personal attack or not because I felt I went over the top] it is clear as fresh water.TMCk (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It was clear as fresh water here too. An ally taking up for you doesn't change that. --Sunshinelover (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, TMCk, Newsweek confirms Steve Moore is a retired FBI agent. Read again. It only says the "raw materials" were not provided by Perugian Officials. "When asked by NEWSWEEK, neither the Italian state forensic department, the coroner who conducted the autopsies on Kercher, nor the homicide squad in Perugia had been contacted by Moore for original reports and documents..." And yes, that was definitely a personal attack. Just as your SPA comments are condescending towards me. Isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to draw readers with interest and knowledge in a particular subject so the article can be accurate and fair? And I didn't put words in your mouth, you put your foot there!--Sunshinelover (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)I'll ignore anything related to personal attacks and get back on the issue where again and again and again no RS's are provided. All what the NEWSWEEK article confirms is just like you say that he is a "...retired FBI agent...", not talking at all about his credentials that he put out by himself at other online venues. He could be everything from a computer expert to "desk cleaner" and might have been in no action or deciding position at all. I know a CIA-agent who did what he was best at: Computers. So any credentials (besides that Moore apparently worked for the FBI which is not disputed) come out of his own mouth and again, not confirmed by any credible source. No RS for his credentials means he doesn't get credit for having any of those he claims on WP. Clear enough?TMCk (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's try to be a tad less adversarial here chaps. The Newsweek piece is interesting but I think currently has no place in the article.  pablo 19:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

TMCk, thank you for clarifying your position that you did not intend your previous comment as a personal attack. Here is a link to an ABC News article. I hope you will recognize this as another reliable source that Steve Moore is a real person and a retired FBI agent. ”Moore, a 25-year FBI veteran who investigated murders around the world before retiring two years ago, has independently researched and analyzed her case for the past year…” http://abcnews.go.com/International/amanda-knox-innocent-retired-fbi-agent-steve-moore/story?id=11541334 As to how he obtained the evidence he analyzed, I don’t know. But from looking at the pictures and details posted on that injusticeinperugia website, he did apparently get it somewhere.Kermugin (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

When Mark Furhman investigated the Martha Moxley murder in Greenwich Connecticut, apparently he was allowed to examine the physical evidence. My understanding of evidence is that law enforcement keeps it stored away. I would imagine the Italians aren't any different than any other law enforcement agency. So I think it's reasonable to ask for a reliable source that shows what exactly is/are these 'raw materials.' Mark Furhman could examine photos, autopsy reports, the golf club, etc. I think that's all TMCk is asking. And on being an ally, we're friends certainly, but that has come after going at it on another article, that we actually since agree on more and more now. We don't edit in lock-step and we often still disagree on articles. We've just come to respect each other's opinions and work out the differences. TMCk is a good editor and more than willing to do that here, too, from what I see.Malke 2010 (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a video from KING 5 News that at least proves that Moore is not as faceless an individual as previous discussions at this talk page have concluded. This "look-in" (the quick editing of the video leaves me reluctant to use the term "interview") states that in his 25 years with the FBI, Moore has dealt with mass shootings and mass murders, tackled drug dealers, suicide bombers and terrorists and even helped to bring down an Al-Qaeda cell (and all of this no longer appears to be deniable, since his picture is featured in stock footage). He alleges that "I am not the sort of person to go on causes trying to get people released from jail", although his various contributions to injusticeinperugia.org (which is not reliable, since it is an advocacy website) indicate otherwise.

To my knowledge this clip has not previously been brought up at this talk page, so I thought I would mention it. I suspect Moore's judgement when he states that Knox is likely to be innocent based purely on the grounds of her upbringing: he asserts that, to be a murderer, "You're going to find rages, you're going to find fist-fights in school. You may find cruelty to animals. There is no way for somebody to be as violent as they say Amanda was that night without there being a clear pattern leading up to it." On the alteration that Knox made to her statement, he offers a repeated allegation of duress without evidence, describing her questioning as "the most coercive interrogation that I have ever seen admitted into a court in the last 20 years" (that figure seems to have been plucked out of nowhere). I doubt the reliability of the clip as a whole in light of the Newsweek comment on the "original reports and documents" — this report still maintains that he "obtained the Italian trial transcripts, police and autopsy records, and had them translated into English." SuperMarioMan 22:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I see emotions are running high. This is a conundrum alright. For all anyone really knows, Steve Moore may be a hologram produced by engineers in the service of David Marriott's PR juggernaut, with a wink and a nod from the major US media, all of whom might be party to the hoax, given their obvious pro-Knox bias.

I could tell you otherwise, because I have met Steve in person, but I'm not an RS and besides... I would say that, wouldn't I?

Keep up the good work, kids. The truth is out there!Charlie wilkes (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

SuperMarioMan, you state ."...Moore has dealt with mass shootings and mass murders, tackled drug dealers, suicide bombers and terrorists and even helped to bring down an Al-Qaeda cell (and all of this no longer appears to be deniable, since his picture is featured in stock footage)." I agree. I believe Steve Moore's opinion should be included in the Support for Knox section. If nothing else, his opinion of the crime scene evidence. I would agree to leave out his arguments of "patterns leading up to" the crime, and the "coercive interrogation". --Lilome (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

To look at the overall picture, though, whether Moore is an RS is somewhat irrelevant. Even if he is reliable (which looks shaky) his opinions are just that - opinions - and need to be stated as such. Certainly no contentious issues can be sourced only to him. This is why I scanned and fixed the article earlier, on the advice of the "other side", for statements that were sourced only to Nadeau. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I now feel inclined to back up the proposal endorsed by Lilome, provided that due weight is applied with regard to other commentators in the "Support for Knox" section. In previous discussions, I dismissed the notion of detailing Moore's opinion on the grounds that there appeared to be practically nothing to identify him or provide evidence of his accomplishments, but with clips from news channels such as this one, which categorically state that he is a former FBI agent of 25 years' experience, his opinion now seems sufficiently distinguished to me to merit inclusion. At least some images have emerged that present his likeness - a Google search a few weeks ago turned up nothing to show what he looks like, and therefore he seemed, to me, to be no more than a phantom or someone writing under a pseudonym. Conceding to Black Kite, however, I will also state that any new entry must be kept brief — perhaps as little as one sentence — since Moore firmly remains a primary source and his opinions (even if they do now appear to be professional opinions) must be treated with caution. His views must not come across as objective, NPOV descriptions of fact when they simply are not. It may not even be necessary to quote him exactly, just to provide a succinct overview of his thoughts. Trump, Egan and Bachrach are referenced in a list but not quoted in the "Media coverage" section. Perhaps a short sentence could be added immediately after. SuperMarioMan 01:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

@ SuperMarioMan- A question in all sincerity. Something just occurred to me. We here in The States have been seeing these Steve Moore interviews everyplace: CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX, Good Morning America, The Early Show, Today, major newspapers, local newspapers, magazines. Everyplace all the time over the last month or so. If we've acted as if the Moore bonafides are common knowledge it's because they are here.. Has there not been that level of coverage of Moore in Britain? It occurs to me I've only seen him mentioned in Daily Mail and not quoted in detail there. Maybe that's why this subject has been so difficult to agree on.. Maybe different markets are getting different types and amounts of coverage. Has BBC said anything about Moore's opinions? Tjholme (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

SIX YEARS for reporting police brutality?

I just ran across yet another U.S. news article about this case, and I didn't know what to think... until I read that Amanda Knox is facing six years in jail for saying that prosecutors hit her on the back of the head because they didn't like her answer.[3] Is this really true? With such penalties against those who report it, how could Italian police not be using brutality on a routine basis? Wnt (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your post, but do you have anything to suggest on how to improve this article specifically? This talk page is not intended to be a general forum for speculation. Regards, SuperMarioMan 01:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article receives Amanda Knox, and this seems relevant to Amanda Knox; at least to me it had a quite strong effect on my opinion of whether Knox might be innocent. Wnt (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)