Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher

Change to lead

I have to agree with Grebe39 above. We need to be specific in the lead about what the controversy is to accurately summarize the article. It's absurd that up until now the article hasn't mentioned that there is a group of people who consider Knox and Sollecito to be innocent. Vague mentions of controversy and saying the conviction was appealed doesn't get to the point that is the whole reason for most of the news coverage. I think it's clear that some editors on this article are so caught up in their own personal views that they do not get that Wikipedia needs to reflect the real world coverage and expert views while summarizing the facts. I think the lead could probably stand to include something directly stating that the forensic evidence is disputed by multiple sources, as that is what the thrust of coverage has been about.

As far as the actual sources I cited in the lead, feel free to add more and better examples. Certainly there's no end of cites to choose from discussing the news coverage and the two views of the verdicts. DreamGuy (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Think your version is okay, except "The coverage has been criticised as being largely tabloid in nature". This doesn't appear to be supported by the source which just mentions "the delight of the European tabloid press" . --FormerIP (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

We have many, many specific citations to controversy, and many citations to what aspects are controversial. This reflects how the article is currently constituted.LedRush (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

In the middle of October when Amanda and Raffaele are back home with their families, I wonder if some will still come here and argue that there was no controversy. BruceFisher (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably depends on October of which year they get home. Ravensfire (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Obviously since I've been arguing this very point since the first time I read the article, I think the language of DreamGuy and FormerIP is a thousand times better. The fact that some people are so wedded to the previous wording to me is prima faciae evidence that it was not NPOV. Brmull (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

In general I prefer Brmull's version, but I think it needs to spell out a bit more about the nature beyond "miscarriage of justice". At a minimum, it needs to mention the problems that have been raised about the investigation and the forensic work. I do like the mention of Guede as it highlights the extreme focus on two of the three defendants from early on. Ravensfire (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Honestly there are countless versions that would satisfy me. What I cannot accept is editors who refuse to negotiate at all. If that continues to be the case I will be requesting the arbitration committee take a look at those editors. Brmull (talk) 03:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop making veiled threats and accusations. If you'd like to bring up my conduct to any body, please do. Until you excercise more care in your edits and ideas and begin to work with an understanding that others have different ideas than you, you'll have a hard time on Wikipedia, especially on a contentious article like this one.LedRush (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, maybe I am not following the discussion (and it looks like people are referring to old fights or something, whatever), but it looks like nobody here as any problem with my edit in general (except in specific, and even there the one part that was raised as problematic has been supported by more than one editor - there are lots of cites about the tabloid coverage complaints, they were in the article the whole time and the lead is supposed to summarize the article). So I do not understand the revert back to a version nobody seems to like. Instead of just generically saying it's been called controversial (weasel words at best, clearly it's controversial, or else nobody would even be talking about it) we need to say WHY so people reading the lead get that lots of people think 2 of the 3 defendants are innocent. Hell, the prosecutors this week even said they think Knox and Sollecito will be let free, and Wikipedia still seems to be reluctant to mention with any concrete language the entire reason this has been in the news for last several years. DreamGuy (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just reverted again. Your proposal, to my knowledge, has not been listed here. You've had a couple of people find specific issues with it and a couple people generally in favor of the language. The old language was the result of much compromise and is clearly sourced. Of course, consensus can change. I'd just like to keep the old consensus intact before making the change. Would you mind putting your proposed text here to discuss it in detail?

On your reasoning, to me, the new language soft-sells the controversy and doesn't represent the views of the article as well as the current. I am surprised because, by your comments above, it seems like you think the opposite is true...is that right?LedRush (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The way I see it DreamGuy's edit including FormerIP's ce is not only an acceptable but also article improving edit. I think the original was ok but the recent change (before revertions) is a better choice to introduce the controversial to the lead.TMCk (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I too prefer the newer version, as more direct and succinct. Rothorpe (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The trials have been the subject of news reports around the world, particularly in Italy, Britain and the United States. The coverage has been criticised as being largely tabloid in nature. Reactions to the case are polarized between the view that Knox and Sollecito are innocent victims of a miscarriage of justice and the view that Knox and Sollecito were directly involved in Kercher's murder and convicted fairly. The conviction of Rudy Guede has not generated similar controversy.

The above is DreamGuy's edit. I took out the cites since statements in the lede should be supported by cites in the body. Brmull (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a good summary to me, I like it. Ravensfire (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding cites in the lead, while ideally the lead should not have or require cites because they should all be in the body, frequently on controversial articles people will challenge sentences they do not like unless they are sourced and ignore that they are very well sourced later in the article. We have had this happen here, with people claiming there was no citation proving controversy or no citation saying people criticized the news coverage as tabloid, or what have you. Simply to silence those people and prevent edit warring it makes sense to leave the cites in the lead. DreamGuy (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Soft-sells the controversy

I'm breaking this down into a subsection since this seems to be the only major point of contention, and I admit I am puzzled by it. "On your reasoning, to me, the new language soft-sells the controversy and doesn't represent the views of the article as well as the current." I am certainly not in favor of downplaying the controversy. I think the controversy needs to be made explicit to accurately cover this material for the article in a fair and complete way. I don't think, however, that simply saying it's controversial without saying why helps at all. It's empty verbiage. We should not simply throw a label of controversial on it (especially as some seem to want to dispute it), we need to say what the controversial parts are, so readers know and can see and judge for themselves. It looks like people from both sides of the controversy support this new wording. I think that's because it simply states the facts. If both sides agree to it, then it's a better point to progress from to improve upon through discussion and editing.

What, exactly, do you think needs to be changed so as to not, in your view, soft-sell the controversy? I think the new wording succinctly covers the major points. The only potential difference that I can see if that the new version doesn't mention controversy over the police conduct directly. I think that is kind of wrapped up in the miscarriage of justice idea. Perhaps some wording can be added to bring it back. Maybe a mention of the highly disputed forensics is necessary, but that wasn't in the old version either. DreamGuy (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

One of the nice things about the new version is it doesn't try to pick which controversies are notable. Let's try not to go back down that rabbit hole. Brmull (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't much of a rabbit hole. All the lead does is summarize things already in the article. We devote much time in the article to each of the categories of controversy so it should be relatively uncontroversial to keep the current categories. Also, I don't know that anyone is disputing that the case has been controversial, especially not after we pulled out over a dozen RSs which call it so and the other sources which point to specific aspects of the case being controversial.

I think the existing language already does what you (DreamGuy) say you want to do. It mentions the controversy and brings up specific areas of question. The new language seems to focus on the reactions of pro-guilt and pro-innocence people, rather than the coverage of the controversy as depicted in RSs. Perhaps we can insert the why people think there has been a miscarriage of justice (the aspects of the case we currently discuss), but that changes the meaning of the lead slightly, doesn't it?LedRush (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The reference "When a friend arrived at Sollecito's flat around 8:40 pm, Knox answered the door.[26]" does not support the statement. It (the statement) is therefore false and please be deleted (unless supported by other references). chami 15:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ck.mitra (talk • contribs)

The lead - removing/changing sources

Just undid undid an edit that removed sources from the viewed as innocent and viewed as guilty summary in the lead.

First off, all sources were removed from the innocent view part of the sentence, which is pretty strange. Seems like one of the controversy deniers would just comes along later and try to remove mention of that at all by claiming no sources were provided.

There was also a complaint saying that using books as sources that some people say innocent or guilty is somehow synthesis and against WP:OR rules, which makes no sense. If that view were valid, then no source could be used anywhere, as anyone could come along say it is only synthesis that it means what it says. Besides which, both Dempsey and Nadeau's books are pretty unambiguously on the innocent or guilty side of things respectively, as described by the books themselves, the marketing material for them, and the press coverage of each. Trying to hide an author's clearly stated view from readers is highly questionable conduct. Even if there were any rhyme or reason to that line of argument, that's clearly not an excuse to remove the Idaho Innocence Project cite. You can't get a more clear cut source for the view that they are innocent than that. DreamGuy (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this points out issues with the new wording that didn't exist with the old. We've sacrificed a very clear, well sourced statement of why the case was controversial for a mushy concept that some people support the conviction while others don't. The former focuses on the case/controversy, the latter on people's view of it. I really wish we would have discussed this more before changing the lead in such a manner to soft sell the controversy and less accurately reflect what the article itself says.

Regardless of that, I don't think we need the cites in the lead (if they are already in the text) but that they should remain there as DreamGuy is right: people always come after the fact asking to prove things that are self evident. Also, unless the source explicitly says that the author (or a group of people) say that someone holds a view, we shouldn't say they do. But surely these books explain that some people hold each of the views we say they do in the lead, don't they? I can't imagine writing a book (either pro-guilt or pro-innocence or neutral) without addressing that issue.LedRush (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I like this Vogt article because it explicitly states:

public opinion is dividing into two distinct camps: the "innocentisti e colpevolisti" or "Innocents and the Guilties". On the one hand there are the vocal, media-savvy friends and supporters of Ms Knox, completely convinced of her innocence, who say the case is plagued by shoddy police work and a controversial prosecutor. Others say the evidence is damning and criticise blind support of the pretty, all-American girl when the true victim is Ms Kercher.

There was no intent to remove sourcing from one side or the other. As for the books, for those of us who haven't read either one, could we provide a page number where it is said Knox and Sollecito are innocent or properly convicted? The way it stands it's a bit like saying, "Opinion is divided between those who think God favors Christians(Ref: The Bible) and those who think He favors Muslims(Ref: The Quran)." Brmull (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Time of Death based on Stomach Contents to be Part of Appeal

I recommended a few weeks ago adding the fact to the appeals section that the defense will be arguing an earlier time of death based on the stomach contents. Briefly, since there was no transit of stomach contents from the stomach, and since the outer limit of time to emptying in normal circumstances is 3 hours, and since the last meal was at 6 or 6:30, that the defense was arguing a time of death of before 10 pm. At the time the only source was the primary appeal document from the attorneys of Sollecito. There is now a news source reporting this here. Dougbremner (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

So now we wait and let them present this in court and let other sources report it. Since we are not the news, this report has no bearing on the article.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

What is the meaning of your "we are not the news" statement? Your link went to something about "soft redirects". Please tell me why the following should not be added to the appeal section: "The Knox and Sollecito defense team have added to their appeal that they will argue for a time of death of the victim of before 10 pm based on the forensic evidence. Secondary news source link is here. Dougbremner (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, someone has recently re-routed the WP:NOTNEWS link. The link to follow is now WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. While on the same page, it may also be worthy to take note of WP:CRYSTAL which also applies here. Instead of announcing things that are (likely) going to happen, we wait for them to occur and then depending on its impact and significance, we may give proper treatment within the article. Wikipedia isn't trying to be a newspaper and we steer away from blow-by-blow accounts. We need to let things proceed and see what comes of it.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sollecito lawyer Maori presented it in court today and it was reported in the Umbria papers here. Dougbremner (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Say what?

Just saw http://news.yahoo.com/shocking-evidence-amanda-knox-murder-case-may-lead-200805169.html - make of it what you will. Wnt (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson's blog repeats the claims of an Italian tabloid. What I make of that is...not much. Tarc (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The Forensic Police couldn't be bothered to collect the blue adidas jacket pulled off of Meredith Kercher by her killer as evidence is what I make of it. The jacket was near Meredith's body by the wardrobe when first photographed. Instead of bagging it as evidence they tossed it in her laundry hamper, which it was pulled out of on Dec 18, 2007.Issymo (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Some food for thought about the media coverage

This interesting article talks of the media coverage of the trial, especially of the shift in the British Tabloids to a more "pro-innocence" stance. This could be useful in several aspects of the article.

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2011/09/22/news/amanda-knox-long-strange-trip-may-begin-end-tonig

Actually, as the final arguments begin, the quality of the reporting, and good overall summaries of the trials, are popping up.LedRush (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

As it stands the "Media Coverage" section is five paragraphs of how horribly Knox was treated by the media, so any acknowledgement that there was a shift to a more pro-defence POV would be an improvement. However the suggestion that this change occurred recently, rather than years ago is the opinion of Steve Shay, not a statement of fact. Brmull (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

And in addition to the dozens of articles calling the case controversial, we see that the case is called controversial even when the media isn't talking about the case. http://travel.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/travel/36-hours-in-perugia-italy.html I think it's almost time to officially change the name of the trial to the "Controversial Trial of...".LedRush (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

"The controversial murder trial of the American Amanda Knox" is not the same as "The case is controversial". The case encompasses many additional things, including the conviction of Rudy Guede, which is so far not controversial (although that may change if Knox and Sollecito are acquitted). Brmull (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually it should be "the murder trial of the controversial american amanda..."- the adjective should be close to the noun it qualifies. OR, something like "the trial of the controversial american amanda ... for the murder of the meredith ..." should be clearer. I presume that all the controversy is with the american... and this is uncontroversial. Also the controversy exists only in the media (should be clearly mentioned) and the judicial process is free from controversy.

chami 15:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ck.mitra (talk • contribs)  

What you wrote makes absolutely no sense to me.LedRush (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The conviction of Guede is uncontroversial, but it adds extra controversy to the case as a whole that the person with clear DNA linking him to the crime (etc. etc.) got a lighter sentence than the people a lot of outside commentators say should have been released as soon as Guede was linked to it. DreamGuy (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is called "Murder of Meredith Kercher" and not "Meredith Kercher murder case" because there is more than one trial. If we were to use the phrase in question it would be appropriate to say "the cases are controversial". But, as several people have pointed out, the phrase is so vague as to be meaningless, and any attempt to narrow it would necessarily be inadequate. The current wording is much better, although "divergent" might be more encyclopedic than "polarized." Brmull (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If someone has made the argument that the term controversial as used in the context of describing wither the Knox trials or the other trials is vague, I've missed it. It's also pretty silly. It is quite precise in its meaning. Furthermore, the old language made it even more precise when we went into specific aspects of the case which were controversial. It seems disingenuous to delete statements which make a sentence more precise, and then call the result vague.LedRush (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This article [1] has a good summary of how the case is perceived in the US. "The American student has won sympathy from many in the United States, where she is widely seen as an innocent abroad who fell into the clutches of an unfair justice system."LedRush (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is also good regarding the media coverage [2] "Bongiorno noted that the prosecutors have tried to counter press reports that have highlighted problems with the DNA evidence against Knox and Sollecito and the growing sympathy in the Italian media for the defendants. Bongiorno called the media the prosecution's "boomerang," since press reports during the 2007 investigation and the 2009 trial were so negative towards Knox and Sollecito." Of course, references to the first sentence and the characterization of the "boomerang" would all be directly attributed to Bongiorno.LedRush (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You changed "medieval" to "unfair"! The original is funnier. Anyway the first clause is okay, but the second clause has that troublesome opinion-word "widely" again. Nadeau said today that when she asks Americans about Amanda Knox, the most common response is "Who?" The ABC News quote is okay as long as it's all attributed to Bongiorno. But can we have some balance? Mignini said he'd never in his career heard of a TV network flying in supporters in exchange for interviews. Ghirlanda owns Corriere and his relationship with Knox and her friend Madison is well documented. Nadeau and others have extensively reported David Marriott's attempts to control the media message. One media outlet even printed an email from IIP offering to arrange an interview with Dr Hampikian. Is none of this stuff notable? Brmull (talk) 08:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

My "clauses" are direct quotes from the articles: pure copy and paste jobs. Judging by your first comment, one article may have changed (a problem with non-print stories). Anyway, other information would be acceptable if notable. I think Mignini's comments in the closing may be warranted, with Bongiorno's response as above (seeing as they both talk about the media coverage). The piece below is truly staggering. I'm sure our British friends won't like it, but if you read until the end you can tell the author at least did some research and investigation. It supports that Guede was known to use knives (in crimes) and to engage in activities similar to those he engaged on the night of the murder (no, those activities don't include murder). I've heard it before, but to see it in Time like this really hits home.LedRush (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yet another article. This one is odd as the CBS correspondent calls the case against Knox a "farce" [3]LedRush (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Speaking informally, in most countries when there's a highly publicized story of one or more tourist/s getting accused in "a vacation country" - a part of the world seen as picturesque but not up to the home country of tourist and reporters in judicial or economic standards - accused of a really grave and violent crime such as rape or murder, the popular media will strongly tend to side with "our kids" against the "medieval justice system" or inept/corrupt police of said backpacker country. That kind of slant is a reflex with those who sell the story at home (and in the international arena, plus sometimes including upmarket, highly serious newspapers), not just with US tabloid media, and the reporting tends to make eyes at the police work or judicial competence of those southern hobbits. How dare they accuse one of ours of such a foul felony!

That kind of dynamic is plainly visible in many stories of this kind and it could be discerned in the Maddie McCann story too, although that one never led to a really sustained court case. The media, semi-scripted by the McCann couple, insinuated that the Portuguese police were incompetent or ill-natured and the McCanns, at the same time, used the hubbub around the case to avoid cooperating with the police. Like the Knox family, they had good media connections and the Knoxes clearly have huge resources to throw behind the campaigning in the media. Having said that,. I agree "widely" in the quote is a weasel word and the perception of this murder story in the U.S. no doubt varies a great deal depending on what kind of people you'd ask.Strausszek (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I have requested comment on RS/N regarding "The Neverending Nightmare of Amanda Knox"

Discuss here. I have concerns that this semi-fictionalized account is a sole source for several dubious statements in the article. Brmull (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The Vision Thing

I don't know why ABC News has decided to refer to Knox's implication of Lumumba as a "vision". Previously this is something that only Knox supporters did. It is false: the actual signed statements are available online in Italian (here and here) and English (here and here). Neither the word "vision" nor its Italian equivalents are mentioned anywhere. In any case, this is all ABC News claims:

During the nearly 50 hours of her interrogation, Knox implicated Lumumba in Kercher's death, telling police she had a "vision" that Lumumba was present. Knox tried to retract her statement in the morning, saying the police had confused her with their extended grilling and tough tactics and their insistence that Lumumba was involved because they found a text message Knox had sent to Lumumba hours before Kercher was killed. Italy's Supreme Court threw out her "vision" statement.

The MoMK article was incorrect in saying that Knox signed a statement in Italian that she had a vision. This is why I reverted it to the previous version. Brmull (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so let's make the reference about what she said and not about what she signed.LedRush (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, we listen to reliable secondary sources more than primary sources for several reasons. Your original research to disprove the statements of a RS aren't overly convincing to me with regards to the core issue: Knox has maintained that she told the police about a vision she had when they asked her to imagine what happened. Presenting only one side of this story seems like a NPOV issue.LedRush (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, primary sources are perfectly acceptable for statements of fact. Otherwise large chunks of this article would go out the window because it's based on the Micheli and Massei reports--and I assume eventually the Hellman report. In any case, Knox's statements are reprinted in secondary RS if that remains a sticking point. None of this is "original research" it's just good research. If you think it's important to say that Knox has maintained that she had a vision, and you have a source for that, I have no problem--as long as Knox's police statement is also quoted to show exactly what she signed.Brmull (talk) 09:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

For statement's of fact, yes. But seeing as there are divergent views on what was said, this situation doesn't seem to fit, does it. Regardless, you seem to accept the use of the source now, as long as it is not used to the exclusion of the existing language.LedRush (talk) 11:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yet another source saying Knox merely told police she had a "vision" of Lumumba. [4]LedRush (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I see rye bread popping up more in the media.[5]LedRush (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

No need to bring self-described know-nothing Katie Crouch into this. The bread theory is worthy of a mention however, versus the prosecution's suggestion that it might be from powdered gloves. If the article is reorganized it might not be a bad idea to give the knife its own subsection, as it's probably the most controversial piece of evidence. Brmull (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Source on media portrayals in the US, UK, and Italy

I found:

• Burleigh, Nina. "Why There Will Always Be Three Amanda Knoxes." TIME. Friday 30 September 2011.

It talks about the differences in portrayals in the media in the US, Italy, and the UK WhisperToMe (talk) 04:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Separate article for Amanda Knox if set free

I think we should atleast seriously consider a separate Amanda Knox article if she is set free on Monday after the appeal verdict. Which is likely to have that particular outcome as it seems. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

As WP:BEINGSETFREE is not a valid criteria for an article, no, such a thing will not be happening just because her prisoner status may change. Recall that Casey Anthony is still, and will remain, a redirect. Tarc (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. WP:CRIME means we should actually be more cautious, not less, in the event that Knox gets her freedom. "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured". For now, though, this is very much a hypothetical question. --FormerIP (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes I see your points, even if/when Knox is acquitted their will be appeals from which ever side "wins" tomorrow.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the answer is yes--eventually. But given the legal considerations, what would this article contain that would be useful and NPOV? Brmull (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No use getting bogged down in this now, but if you read the policy on one event, it seems pretty clear to me that she should already have her own article, just like the dozens of others in similar situations. The question is whether certain editors here will put aside their personal opinions and follow the policy and precedents of Wikipedia.

Of course, I know that several editors on this article have said that an acquittal would change their opinion. While I don't think there's a policy argument to be made there, an acquittal just strengthens the two factors that already make wp:oneevent not applicable - it strengthens the borderline argument that she isn't notable for one event and it reinforces the undeniable fact that she isn't a low-profile individual.LedRush (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, with all the articles popping up about Mignini [6], it may be time for an article on him, too[7].LedRush (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Plus Giulia Bongiorno already has an article in Italian WP that could be easily ported over. Brmull (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Prosecutor asks jury to convict even if they think Knox is innocent

See here:

In a similar vein, I saw an article about the Knox appeal the other day in which Mignini made an argument that I think would get him thrown out of court in the US. Essentially, his argument was that if Knox wins her appeal, he will appeal to the next highest court. But she will obviously leave Italy and never come back if she wins her appeal now. So, he argued, find her guilty again, even if you think she's innocent, so this can go to the higher court. Perplexing, to say the least.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Count Iblis (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I corrected your link. As for Jimbo's words, it would be nice to see the source for his post.TMCk (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I read a similar article (or the same one). I'm not sure it's worth tracking down unless we know we'd want to put it in this article.LedRush (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

We won't know if it's useful for the article unless we have the actual source presented that backs up what was said and maybe more. W/o source this thread is nothing but a forum entry of personal opinions.TMCk (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That's completely not true, but whatever.LedRush (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Beg your pardon? What exactly is "completely not true"? Do you mean the forum thing? If so, please explain how this thread is helping in improving the article while no source is present.TMCk (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

We have Jimbo's statement on his talk page as a reliable tertiary source, we should be able to find a good secondary source... Count Iblis (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I mean that you can talk about something in general without knowing the specifics. If we found a source that said what he said, what would we do with it? Until we know that answer, it doesn't seem to make sense to start wading through the thousands of articles in the subject to find it. Of course the specifics can change what precisely we'd do with it (and possibly using it at all). But even if it was 100% verifiable and people were opposed to it for whatever reason, why waste the time?LedRush (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I see. So instead of posting the source we purge "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." from this talkpage then?TMCk (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you reread what I wrote, try not to be disruptive, and engage in a constructive conversations.LedRush (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ditto (only that it makes sense when I say it). Why don't you just try to find the article you've read and share it with us? It should be easier for you than for those who didn't have a peek at it before. Do we need to ask Jimbo who didn't post here?TMCk (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sexual Assualt?

I just want to confirm, Knox is being charged with sexual assault? Is there any evidence of this, I didnt see anything in the article. Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Lots of stuff/information missing

I came to this article to learn/read about what I just heard on TV, how Amanda Knox first told police that she was in another room and held her hands over her ears because he hated hearing Kercher's screams. But then apparently, Knox changed her story. That is what Sky TV said. I think I have heard this before. So I came here to learn more about the changes in her stories, but nothing about this in this article for some reason. I don't know enough about the subject to insert the info.Betathetapi545 (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hipocrite (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

knox cleared

...Amanda Knox found guilty of slander of police - three years in jail - already served four so immediate release to pay appeals 22,000 euros - immediate release , also of Rafael Sollecito , immediate release. Not guilty of murder charge. Off2riorob (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

What was the basis for the slander of police charge? Since it's not particularly relevant to this article, is it time to create Amanda Knox as something other than a redirect? Dualus (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. She should have her own article. Anders Behring Breivik has one and he is only known for a bomb and an attack on a youth camp. As for the slander charge; She was just as pressured to implicate him as she was forced to be victim in the prosecutors marketing plan Covergaard (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)