Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher

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)

Why do you want to keep unsourced information in the article? --FormerIP (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

{{ Here's a RS for you. The Oggi magazine photos show what is thought to be Rudy Guede arriving at the girl's apartment driveway at ~7:42 pm and leaving at ~8:21 pm actual time. The police investigators said ' They discovered that in reality, the parking garage CCTV cam timer was ten minutes behind'. Later that evening shortly before 9pm Guede's image is captured again by the parking garage CCTV security cam returning to the apartment, however the time stamps on the videos released to the media, of apparently Guede's second arrival at the apartment driveway, and a separate video of what is thought to be Meredith entering her driveway shortly before 9pm were missing. It is known the time stamps were on the original videos.

<http://i26.tinypic.com/29eqclc.jpg /> The lower right on the magazine picture says: In sequence, this is the movie which was made available today. It was made of the Ser 1 November 2007 from the camera of the car park via della Pergola. !.

1) A young cmpare frame. 2) Walk towards the exit: wearing a dark, husky shoe with an unmistakable streak Binche. 3) Cross the barrier. 4) Go to Via della Pergola. 5. Almost half an hour later, reappears in 'shot (in circle). Note the Orai Tape: The clock marks the first 19:41 and then 20:10. The Investigators discovered that in reality, it was ten minutes behind. Yoyohooyo (talk) 11:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC) }}

Why did you translate compare as cmpare? Why have you turned third person singular verbs into imperatives? Why do you treat husky (a kind of jacket, according to my dictionary) as an adjective? What would husky shoes be anyway? Is it to do with the sound they make? Why did you translate bianca as Binche? What do you understand by an ‘Orai Tape’? and how did you derive that expression from l’orario del nastro? In what sense, and to what purpose, can you regard that seemingly insane translation as a reliable source? Ian Spackman (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Spackman. What you are looking at is a Google translation. Please translate the article properly and post it here. Yoyohooyo (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You are relying on Google to tell you what was written in this magazine? Good luck. Where are photographs 1-4, referred to in the text, so we can see for ourselves the unmistakable streak Binche and the young cmpare frame?  pablo 22:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

So you're trying to claim the Massei report is unreliable, despite the fact that you don't understand what it actually says? That's almost the definition of disruptive. If you don't know what you're talking about, don't say it. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Black Kite. What are you talking about? Are you addressing me? Please make yourself clear. Also I requested that Spackman translated the article properly. Let see what a proper translation of the article indicated. I think the cam timer being 10 minutes slow will not lost in his translation which is what my comment is about. Yoyohooyo (talk) 03:23, 24 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) Pablo, what do you mean? Also, a general note: this topic was not meant as part of the split article topic. I intended it as a separate topic on the Talk Page. The article lacks technical information such as the names of the lawyers for each, etc. The lead section of the Wikipedia article on O.J. Simpson is an example of that kind of reference detail. Perk10 (talk) 20:56, 17 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)

A BBC-specific Google search for "'Steve Moore' Knox" is (for me, at least) turning up only 2 unrelated results. Yes, I have also noticed this Daily Mail article — I'm not a regular reader of the Mail, but it does (as far as I can see) appear to be the only mainstream British newspaper to have written on at least one occasion about Steve Moore. I have repeatedly attempted image and video searches of Moore in the past, but it is only in the last few hours that I have found something of consequence. Since the December 2009 convictions, news of the continuing legal disputes revolving around Knox has been sporadic at best in the UK — perhaps once a month, or so, there is some development which receives a mention, but it is far from daily news. Considering that the present situation is mainly about the imprisonment of an American student in Italy, however, perhaps the relative lack of interest on the part of the British media is not surprising. Obviously the breaking stories continue to emerge in the US, and to a lesser extent also in Italy, but not regularly in the UK and probably not at all in other English-speaking countries (I doubt that Knox has been featured much in the Canadian or Australian media, for example). Even with appeals being prepared, the issue of Knox (and Sollecito as well, we must not forget) seems to be a closed one from where I am sitting over here. SuperMarioMan 04:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps overlooked in the discussion of Steve Moore’s credentials is another aspect of the Newsweek article. By saying that Knox’s supporters have hurt her by expressing their opinions, Nadeau has effectively stated that the decisions of the Italian court will be (or have been) influenced by anger and anti-American sentiment rather than the evidence alone. I don’t know if Nadeau’s experience in Italy qualifies her to make such an assessment, but taking her as a RS to make that statement would be as great an insult to Italian jurisprudence as anything Knox’s supporters have said. I wholly concur with pablo’s opinion that the piece has no place in the article. Kermugin (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add to the discussion this artilce from May 3, 2005 that mentions Steve Moore's experience and gives a quote by him. This article is dated before his involvement in the Amanda Knox case. "Steve Moore, an agent in Los Angeles, spent nearly three years supervising investigations into Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Brad Doucette was once his supervisor. A year ago, Moore, a 21-year bureau veteran, asked for a new assignment. He is now an FBI pilot. "People come to counter-terrorism wanting to make a difference," he said, "and three years later, you come out gasping for breath." [1]Jaberryhill (talk) 04:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

EDIT WAR

{{The article read as follows: From the Meredith Kercher wikipedia article; "Events surrounding the murder On 1 November 2007, Kercher's two Italian flatmates were away for the night.[16] At 8:40 pm, a witness knocked on the door of Sollecito's flat and Knox answered.[25] Kercher spent the early evening with three friends.[26] At about 8:45 pm, she left with one of her friends. They parted company near the friend's flat at 8:55 pm.[27]: 24 Kercher then walked the remaining 500 yards (460 m) to her flat.[26]"

"They parted company near the friend's flat at 8:55 pm.[27]:" This statement did not accurately reflect the information in the RS. ~~

The Massei report states "She said good-bye to Meredith about ten minutes later, at 20:55 pm. She remembered the time because she wanted to be home at 21:00 pm to see a television programme she was interested in." (page 37 of the PMF translation).

To say 'at or about 8:55 pm' does not accurately reflects the statement in the RS and is unreasonable. When I discussed (talk page) editing the statement to quote verbatim from the RS I was met with unreasonable resistance, a pretense not to understand what I was requesting and questioning why the time a person is last seen alive is important. I see not point in attempting to edit this article in any way what so ever. It is plain to see which camp is winning the edit war. Yoyohooyo (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)}}

To which "camps" do you refer? Where are the membership lists and joining instructions?
The article actually reads "They parted company near the friend's flat at about 8:55 pm.[25]: 24 Kercher then walked the remaining 500 yards (460 m) to her flat.[24]", how exactly does that contradict the sources cited?  pablo 20:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"It is plain to see which camp is winning the edit war.". Would you like to explain that, or shall we assume the obvious? I would point something out, though; the protection of the page has clearly worked - it seems clear that extending it over the period of the appeal trials would be a good idea. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the motivation for Yoyohooyo's posting and, particularly, the heading. I haven't seen an edit war on this topic. There was some previous discussion about the precise wording on the subject and I don't think there was any objection to accommodating Yoyohooyo's aim of making the wording more imprecise, to reflect the fact that the exact timing is not known (though the word "about" aims to do this already). There was some objection (from me and others) to making a big feature of exactly when MK arrived home: I don't think Yoyohooyo has made a case for this particular detail of the case being especially important and, whatever we put in the article, it still comes down to the fact that we don't know the exact time. If Yoyohooyo wants to change the wording, the process for doing this is to propose new wording and get consensus (as Mlauba has already pointed out on Yoyohooyo's talk page). But please can Yoyohooyo not waste our time with accusations about edit wars and "camps". And, yes, Black Kite, can we please extend the protection. Bluewave (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

{{My understanding is this page was/is protected due to an edit war and many pro Knox editors were banned from editing this article. The history of this article clearly demonstrates this Yoyohooyo (talk) 10:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC) }}

I think your understanding that "many pro Knox editors were banned from editing this article" is mistaken. A very few people have been banned from editing the article (or, in some cases, any article) because of their disregard for Wikipedia policies: whether they are "pro-Knox", "anti-Knox" or "don't give a toss about Knox" is not really the point. Apart from those very few, the rest of us can edit the article...just not directly. All you need is to get consensus, and that's what you should be seeking for any edit, anyway. Then you just ask for the change to be implemented and an admin will do it. In this case, though, I think you had consensus at one point, if you look back over the discussion at Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher/Archive_26#Events_surrounding_the_murder. I advised you as such here. However you chose not to do anything about it and the page was later locked. Mlauba explained how you could still get your change made here. That was on 2 September. And you still didn't do anything about it. So, given that you've had two opportunities to make the change you wanted, but haven't bothered to do it, I'm a bit puzzled why you're suddenly making excuses that that there is no "point in attempting to edit this article" and that some imagined "camp" is winning the imagined "edit war". Instead, why don't you re-test the consensus for the change that you want and then get it changed? Bluewave (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

@Bluewave, only one person agreed to make the edit. It was pointless to edit the article considering someone would change it back like it originally was found.24.158.99.200 Yoyohooyo (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC) (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

A number of editors have been banned from editing the article because they were unable to conform to Wikipedia policy. What their opinions were or were not was irrelevant; it was because they were being disruptive. If an "anti-Knox" editor (if such a thing exists) had behaved in a similar manner they would've been banned as well. Conspiracy theories aren't going to work here, I'm afraid. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The Massei report should not be allowed as a RS. The report is bias and misleading.

Large chunk of report copy-pasted for no apparent reason

{{The Massei report should not be allowed as a RS. The report is bias and misleading. CELL PHONE EVIDENCE, MASSEI REPORT: SUMMARY: This excerpt from Massei's report is a perfect example of cherry picking and attempting to conceal the truth by intentionally confusing the issues by scattering the pertinent information helter skelter throughout the report. If you will read this closely, and read my notes you will see that Elisabetta Lana's daughter, Elisabetta Biscarini, found Meredith's UK phone at 12:07 pm and not between 11:45 am and 12:00 noon, as Massei's word smithing would lead one to believe. Also you will see that Mrs Lana did not deliver the UK phone (2nd phone found) until 12:46 pm (which is in agreement with the postal police post logbook entry, the logbook Judge Micheli did not see, and did not want to see ) and not around 12:15-12:20 pm as Massei"s word smithing attempts to lead the less attentive to believe . FROM MASSIE'S REPORT STARTING ON PAGE 26: The presence of the Postal Police in the persons of Inspector Battistelli and officer Marzi had been occasioned by the discovery a few hours earlier of a mobile phone, and then of a second mobile phone, in the garden of the house of Elisabetta Lana, located in Via Sperandio, Perugia This garden and the house, both hidden by trees, are in the area of Parco S. Angelo, a short distance from 7 Via della Pergola: a distance which would have required a very few minutes to cover by car (two or three minutes), about 15 to 20 minutes on foot (see statements by Fiammetta Biscarini, hearing of February 6, 2009) or less, (cf. statements by Dr Chiacchiera, who indicated that the time needed to reach Via Sperandio from Via della Pergola was 5 – 7 minutes, specifying that it was possible to go via Corso Garibaldi – which is 200 metres from Via Sperandio – or also via the park, declarations made by Dr Chiacchiera at the hearing of February 27, 2009, page 145). (C) Thus it happened that the evening of November 1, 2007 at around 10:00 pm, someone called and warned Elisabetta Lana not to use the toilet of her dwelling because it contained a bomb which could explode. Mrs. Lana immediately notified the police of this phone call; and they came to the house but did not find anything. Mrs. Lana and her husband were nonetheless asked to go to the Postal Police the next day to report said telephone call. PAGE 26 The next day (November 2), as they were preparing to go and file the report, their son Alessandro Biscarini found a mobile phone ‚in the garden, in the clearing in front of the house" at around 9:00 am (declarations of Alessandro Biscarini, hearing of February 6, 2009, page 166). NOTE: The phone found around 9 am was Meredith's Vodafone / Italian phone and it was likely off or the battery was dead. Thinking that it has been lost by one of the officers who had come the evening before, Mrs. Elisabetta Lana phoned Police Headquarters and was told to bring [13] this phone to the Postal Police, where she was going anyway and where she arrived, with her husband, at about 10:15 am. Dr Bartolozzi, the officer to whom the mobile phone was given, traced its owner: Filomena Romanelli, residing at 7 Via della Pergola in Perugia. Shortly thereafter, and after Mrs. Elisabetta Lana and her husband had left the Postal Police office, their daughter Elisabetta Biscarini informed them that she had found a second mobile phone in the same garden of the house on Via Sperandio, between 11:45 am and 12:00 noon [Grace's NOTE: see notes below, Elisabetta found the phone ringing at 12:07 pm], a short distance from where the first phone had been found. This mobile phone, taken into the house and placed on the table, had rung and, the name of the person calling had appeared in the display field: ‚The name of the person calling was Amanda‛ (declarations of Alessandro Biscarini, hearing February 6, 2009, page 167). The circumstance of finding the second mobile phone was immediately reported to Dr Bartolozzi, who asked that this second mobile phone also be brought to him. Around 12:15-12:20 pm, Mrs. Lana was thus once again at the Postal Police office, this time with the second mobile phone, which she handed over to Dr Bartolozzi. ................................................... NOTE ADDED BY GRACE: The phone was laying on the table at Ms Lana's home when it rang the second time at 12:11:54 pm. (The phone's display said Amanda), as Elisabetta was on the phone telling her mother about finding another phone in the garden. Per Perugia Shock Mrs Lana was shopping when her daughter, Elisabetta called to tell her about finding another phone. ................................................. Alessandro Biscarini specified that the place in the garden where he had found the first mobile phone, a Motorola, was about 15 – 20 metres from the road above and that the second phone had been found a short distance from the first. He specified that the second mobile phone had been found by his sister Fiammetta who, in testimony provided at the same hearing, reported that on the morning of November 2, 2007, she was in the garden of her own house around midday when she heard a mobile phone ringing. She took this mobile phone into the house, where it rang again, and in the display field appeared the name of Amanda. .............................................................. NOTE ADDED BY GRACE: The phone was ringing when Elisabetta Biscarini found the phone in the garden because it was Amanda trying to call Meredith at 12:07:12 pm. After Elisabetta took the phone in the house and laid it on the table it had rang again because Amanda tried to call Meredith's UK phone the second time at 12:11:54 pm. Meredith's UK phone received a call at 12:43 pm, and connected with the same cell tower (25622) it connected with three times when the phone was at Mrs Lana's home. This clearly shows the UK phone was not at the postal post at around 12:15-12:20 pm as Massei's word smithing would lead one to believe. NOTE: The following sections of this report provide you with the information you need to understand the truth which is essentially concealed with intentionally induced confusion. Massei's report page 323: "− 12:07:12 (duration of 16 seconds) Amanda calls the English phone number 00447841131571 belonging to Meredith Kercher. The mobile phone connects to the cell at [346] Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 9 (the signal from this cell is picked up at Sollecito’s house)" Massei's report page 90: Things, however, went differently because the 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" Massei's report page 315: "Up until 22:13:19 at least, the phone was in the student’s [=Meredith’s] house; from 00:31:21 onwards, one can establish the presence of the phone in the garden [parco] of the other abode." Massei's report page 315: "From 12:07 onwards on the 2 November 2007, Meredith’s English phone would then receive numerous incoming calls (which are seen better in the following section): the first [few] involve the Wind 25622 radio base station; subsequently, for the 12:43 call (still under cell 25622), the phone will have coverage [338] from cell 25603, since the mobile phone had been taken to the offices of the Postal Police located in Via M Angeloni in Perugia." Massei's report page 315: "As regards 2 November 2007, Meredith Kercher’s Vodafone number received a call from Amanda Knox’s number (348-4673590) at 12:11:02 (the Strada Vicinale S Maria della Collina cell, sector 1)." Massei's report page 323: "− 12:11:54 (4 seconds): another call is made towards Meredith’s English mobile phone number (the cell used is the one in Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3, thus compatible with Sollecito’s house)" .......................................................... Filippo Bartolozzi, at the time Manager of the Department of the Communications Police for Umbria, confirmed that on the morning of November 2, 2007 Mrs. Elisabetta Lana had brought the mobile phone with her to the Police office. PAGE 27 It was a Motorola that she said she had found in the garden of her own home. Using this mobile phone, Dr Bartolozzi had made a call to a number in the Office and had thus been able to identify Filomena Romanelli, resident at 7 Via della Pergola, as the owner of the number of [14] this mobile phone. This check was carried out at 11:38 am (page 54 of the statements of Bartolozzi, hearing of February 6, 2009). He then sent Inspector Battistelli and Assistant Marzi to 7 Via della Pergola: it would have been at noon (page 42 of statements by Bartolozzi). ........................................................ NOTE ADDED BY GRACE: The call Dr Bartolozzi made at 11:38 am is not in the phone records. ........................................................ Shortly after, he found out that another mobile phone, this one an Ericsson, had been found in the garden of Via Sperandio. This mobile telephone was brought to the office and kept with the other one. He had tried to find the number and the owner of the service of this second phone as well, but without success. He had then thought that ‚the mobile phone could have a SIM card belonging to a foreign telephone company‛ (declarations of Bartolozzi, hearing of February 6, 2009). (D) These then are the preceding facts and the reason for the presence at the house at 7 Via della Pergola shortly before 1:00 pm on November 2, 2009 of the Postal Police team consisting of Inspector Michele Battistelli and Assistant Fabio Marzi. As stated by Battistelli (page 80, hearing of February 6, 2009) they had some difficulty finding the house, as they had gone along Viale S. Antonio, which is alongside and in part hides the house. 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. At said dwelling they did not find Filomena Romanelli, the person they were looking for, for the reason stated above, but rather the present accused, who were outside the house sitting near the fence located almost at the end of the lane that leads to the house itself, once past a gate. They were, then, outside the house, near the side of the wall where the window of the room occupied at the time by Filomena Romanelli is located. Yoyohooyo (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC) }}

Two comments: 1. STOP YELLING. All-caps headers don't make your argument stronger. 2. tl;dr I am certainly not going to bother reading that text wall and I don't expect anyone else will either. Please summarize into something digestible. Resolute 21:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No-one is going to read that wall of text, and equally no-one is going to take anything seriously that yells "BIAS" in capital letters. Please refactor it succinctly, and give it a suitable title. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

{{ SUMMARY: The Massei report should not be allowed as a RS. The report is bias and misleading. This excerpt from Massei's report is a perfect example of cherry picking and attempting to conceal the truth by intentionally confusing the issues by scattering the pertinent information helter skelter throughout the report. If you will read this closely, and read my notes you will see that Elisabetta Lana's daughter, Elisabetta Biscarini, found Meredith's UK phone at 12:07 pm and not between 11:45 am and 12:00 noon, as Massei's word smithing would lead one to believe. Also you will see that Mrs Lana did not deliver the UK phone (2nd phone found) until 12:46 pm (which is in agreement with the postal police post logbook entry, the logbook Judge Micheli did not see, and did not want to see ) and not around 12:15-12:20 pm as Massei"s word smithing attempts to lead the less attentive to believe. Yoyohooyo (talk) 10:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC) }}

The Massei report is a primary source and so we need to use it with caution. The relevant policy is WP:PRIMARY which says:

Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.

I think we should regard the Massei report as being a reliable (but primary) source for telling us the conclusions reached by the judges and their reasoning in reaching those conclusions. That does not mean that the conclusions they reached are factually correct, though. However, Yoyohooyo is suggesting that the report is deliberately concealing the truth. That is an editor's interpretation of a primary source and therefore unacceptable under the above policy. It is also an exceptional claim (that a panel of judges are deliberately concealing the truth) and would require exceptional sources for us to accept it. Bluewave (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

{{ @ Bluewave: I clearly demonstrated the report deliberately conceals the truth in the portion of my comments that was hidden, however you must read the example I gave to understand this. If you will click this link you can read my example in a format that is easier to understand <https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1Cm6gYXd4LrozsuzIX0KoqTi8nV3AP0BC9AohMuHdaZw&hl=en&authkey=CK-R15QM/> You said "That is an editor's interpretation of a primary source and therefore unacceptable under the above policy. It is also an exceptional claim (that a panel of judges are deliberately concealing the truth) and would require exceptional sources for us to accept it." If you are willing study my example you can clearly see a panel of judges are deliberately concealing the truth by scattering pertinent facts in various locations throughout the Massei report. The truth is in the Massei report but requires a great deal of effort for the reader to arrive at the truth. A document that is misleading should not qualify as an RS under any circumstance. Therefore I request that the Massei report be disqualified as an RS in it's entirety. BTW, Why does the lock icon appear on the link I included with this comment? Yoyohooyo (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC) }}

Because it's a secure webpage. Bluewave is correct about the Massei report being a primary source and being used with caution; however, I think you will need to be more precise as to why it is actively misleading. Your example is unclear, please summarise it for the rest of us so that it is clear why you believe the document to be misleading. Thanks. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It is near impossible for me to accept the claim that the judge's report itself is not a RS. It very much is, and I see no reason presented to remove it. However, if you have specific citations from that report that you feel are incorrect, and can support that claim with citations to other reliable sources, then I believe we can consider replacing some Massei Report citations with secondary sources, or change some citations in the article to read "According to Massei's report..." But we'll need those other reliable sources first. Resolute 19:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Black Kite, SUMMARY: The Massei report should not be allowed as a RS. The report is bias and misleading. This excerpt from Massei's report is a perfect example of cherry picking and attempting to conceal the truth by intentionally confusing the issues by scattering the pertinent information helter skelter throughout the report. If you will read this closely, and read my notes you will see that Elisabetta Lana's daughter, Elisabetta Biscarini, found Meredith's UK phone at 12:07 pm and not between 11:45 am and 12:00 noon, as Massei's word smithing would lead one to believe. Also you will see that Mrs Lana did not deliver the UK phone (2nd phone found) until 12:46 pm (which is in agreement with the postal police post logbook entry, the logbook Judge Micheli did not see, and did not want to see ) and not around 12:15-12:20 pm as Massei"s word smithing attempts to lead the less attentive to believe. Yoyohooyo (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't waste everyone's time by simply repeating the same things over and over. Especially if you are going to bring absolutely nothing forward to substantiate your claims. Resolute 03:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You ask for a summary, I thought perhaps you didn't see the summary I posted above. Why do you pretend not to understand the information on the link I posted here? It's not that difficult to understand. Clearly the Massei report is misleading. I thought wikipedia was be better than to allow deception into their articles but apparently I was wrong. At some time good judgment must come into play. Yoyohooyo (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The link you posted is hidden behind a registration wall I have no interest in climbing. Moreover, I am not counting on something uploaded to google docs to be reliable. Good judgment follows good arguments. And around here, good arguments are based around reliable sources. I've already asked that you bring reliable sources forward that can replace the Massei report cites, and all you've responded with is a repetition of the same unsubstantiated claims. Resolute 03:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Everything on the document is from Massei's report. What more can you ask for? It seems you would rather disregard everything I have to say rather than make any effort to understand it? Yoyohooyo (talk) 04:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I want you to provide me with reliable sources which you believe can replace the Massei report cites. You are attempting to claim the report is "biased" and therefore not a RS, but you are not giving me anything better. Nobody else is buying the report is not an RS, so it is not going to be removed without something to replace. Please provide alternate RSes and we can discuss whether there is a need to replace the citations from there. Resolute 16:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I see this as an important issue that requires extreme caution. [I’m speaking generally as I haven’t had the time to try to analyze Yoyohooyo’s specific assertions.] Of course the Massei report is biased. It’s trying to justify the court’s (prosecution) point of view. Whether or not it is deliberately MIS-leading is something we cannot prove or disprove. But by definition, it IS “leading”, i.e. it leads the reader to follow the judge’s reasoning. If the judge’s reasoning is incorrect (deliberately or not) or based on false assumptions, then the report is misleading. That would seem to be the reason for the policy on primary sources and in this case we have to follow not only the general guidance on primary sources, but the stricter rule: WP:BLP/Misuse of primary sources: Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. That seems pretty cut-and-dried. Maybe the report can be used to confirm what the court concluded, but anything more than that (including details that the court believes to be "facts" in reaching its conclusion) would seem to be prohibited as they are "assertions about a living person". Demanding other RS’s, which may not exist, as an alternative to the Massei report is not a valid argument for using a prohibited source. At the risk of climbing on a soapbox, I will add that’s the problem with this article. We want to provide accurate, reliably-sourced facts; but too few facts are indisputably known and I fear that many of the sources we might like to rely on have been less careful in their scrutiny of officially-provided "facts" (what the prosecution and court have allowed to be released) than we are trying to be here. If we remove all contentious material, the article would be shorter and contain few details. And maybe that would be a good thing. Kermugin (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably the best plan would be to point out which statements about a living person are only sourced to the Massei report, and why those statements may be dubious. Then the community can discuss whether to remove them. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This Google document does not require sign in to view although you may need a Google account. Here I clearly demonstrated the Massei report is misleading. My notes are color coded in red so they are not confused with the quotes from the Massei report. After reading the document please respond.

<https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1Cm6gYXd4LrozsuzIX0KoqTi8nV3AP0BC9AohMuHdaZw&hl=en&authkey=CK-R15QM/> :Unfortunately a document published by the defense does not exist therefore it is impossible for the wiki article to be fair and balanced when the Massei report is relied upon so heavily. Like I said below, neither evidence of innocence or guilt should be in this article although Meredith's movements should remain, IMO. I would start with the night of Oct 31 and end at 1:15 pm Nov 2 when her body was discovered, however anything implying guilt or innocence should not be addressed. Yoyohooyo (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Your conclusions are original research, and as such inadmissible. And while I am not certain of how the Italian legal system runs, the defence's argument would be the opposing viewpoint of the prosecution's argument, not the judge's conclusions. As such, I consider that argument invalid.

I am going to be blunt: You will never get your way so long as you refuse to provide alternate reliable sources. I'm not asking you to justify your opinion that the judge's report is biased, so I have no idea why you keep repeating yourself as if that will change things. I am asking you to give us other reliable sources. Nearly all Massei report cites are in the "events leading to the murder" and "forensic evidence" sections. It seems very likely to me that both of these aspects of the trial will have been covered in the major media of the US and Italy especially. Bring forward citations that can replace the Massei report, and we can move forward. Otherwise, you are just wasting time - both mine and yours. Resolute 22:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"Opinion" that the judge’s report is biased? That’s not an opinion; it’s an obvious fact. That’s the whole purpose of the report. The finding of the court was "guilty" and the report attempts to justify the court’s findings. (The prosecution’s argument and the judge’s conclusion are one and the same.) You can’t get any more biased than that. That’s the reason for the WP:BLP prohibition on use of court records to support assertions about a living person. And anything in the report that it claims is evidence or circumstance that leads to the guilty conclusion is an assertion about a living person. Please step back and look at it logically. Lack of an alternate RS is NOT justification to demand that you be allowed to use a prohibited biased source. That would be the same as someone else demanding to use injusticeinpeurgia.org as a RS unless YOU can provide an alternate for the same information.Kermugin (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This article could impact the upcoming appeals so it should be eliminated or revised to leave out all evidence and any information that implies guilt or innocence. This is not a court room.

{{ This article could impact the upcoming appeals so it should be eliminated or revised to leave out all evidence and any information that implies guilt or innocence. This is not a court room. Yoyohooyo (talk) 11:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC) }}

I'll get back to you on that, but in the meantime, what's with the curly brackets? { pablo 11:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a patently absurd argument, actually. Are you really suggesting that an Italian court will be looking at an English Wikipedia article to determine the outcome of an appeal? Utter rubbish. Resolute 14:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper that censors itself in accordance with the progress of current events, but an encyclopaedia that is intended to record information on notable subjects in a neutral and objective tone. SuperMarioMan 16:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, unless you're willing to suggest that every website on the Internet removes all information about the murder trial, this is fairly ludicrous. Especially as this is probably the closest you'll get to a balanced article - I mean, have you seen some of the websites out there? Black Kite {t} {c} 19:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears you people are not concerned that this article could impact the upcoming appeals. Am I reading you correctly? Yoyohooyo (talk) 04:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No, you are not reading people correectly. I think most of us have reasonable confidence that, by sticking resolutely to Wikipedia policies, we will avoid the risk of prejudicing the appeals. That is why we insist that everything that we publish is directly citable to reliable sources and doesn't involve any interpretation or synthesis of the sources. It is why we are so keen to keep the article fact-based, rather than allowing to express a lot of potentially-prejudicial opinions. It is also why we are especially keen on enforcing BLP policy to avoid judgmental or prejudicial statements about any of the people concerned. This is precisely why the admins here have been working so hard to prevent some of the changes that would have breached policy: things like describing any of the accused as "criminals" or including unsupported views that courts have behaved improperly, or indeed things like your own accusation that judges have tried to hide the truth. Bluewave (talk) 09:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps your efforts would be best served by attempting to ensure that other websites that clearly do have a POV on this issue are removed, as opposed to websites that reference verifiable and sourced facts which you would clearly prefer are hidden? Black Kite (t) (c) 17:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)