Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher

Bloody Footprints in the hall, Filomena's room, and Amanda's room

The following quote from Judge Massei’s report (motivation document) page 256-257, indicates there were no bloody foot prints compatible with Amanda or Raffaele and there were no bloody footprints at all except for one print on the bath mat....

NOTE: To understand this paragraph one must consider that the so-called bloody footprints were found with Luminol in the hallway, Amanda's bedroom and Filomena's bedroom. Also if a sample in question did not contain a genetic profile then it's not possible blood was present the area sampled. Blood contains a genetic profile, so it is not possible the area sampled was blood. Does anyone dispute that?

From Massei report page 256-257: “With respect to the Luminol-positive traces found in Romanelli's room, in Knox's room and in the corridor, she stated that by analysing the SAL cards "we learn, in contradiction to what was presented in the technical report deposited by the Scientific Police, and also to what was said in Court, that not only was the Luminol test performed on these traces, but also the generic diagnosis for the presence of blood, using tetramethylbenzidine, and this test, gave a negative result on all the items of evidence from which it was possible to obtain a genetic profile" (page 64 hearing Sept. 26, 2009).”Turningpointe (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The facts are a) We don't know for sure whose footprints were in the hall--the police did not take reference samples and all we really know is that Amanda cannot be excluded as a donor; b) luminol is only a preliminary test for blood, and when the confirmatory test was done it was negative; c) there was no DNA in the prints. To summarize: no blood or DNA in the prints and we don't know for certain whose prints they were. Note too that 14 luminol hits were found in Raffaele's apartment. Those weren't blood either.PietroLegno (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Luminol is a presumptive test which is just slightly different in that it says the substance found could be one of MANY substances one of which is blood, another of which is bleach. But I agree with you on this.Michellesings (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This is getting far too deeply into original analysis of a primary source. Turningpointe, what you are selectively quoting is Massei himself quoting something put forward by the defence. You're missing out that the court expert said that the traces were blood and the defence witness said that the results were "not easy to interpret", partly because the test used is only 50% reliable. No, TMB will give a false positive but not a false negative. If Massei is attributing something, that he's quoting, who is he attributing this to and on what page is he attributing it on? The court experts DIDN'T say there was blood. There's no "court experts". There are Prosecution experts and then there are Defense expertsMichelle Moore 07:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC) It is agreed by both sides that the traces contained DNA. Remember DNA is not the same as blood.There's DNA in an eyelash.Michelle Moore 07:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)The defence witness appears to be questioning whether the traces are blood, but agreeing that they must be something that would contain DNA, such as spit or excrement. Since it is known that someone was stabbed in the flat, Massei, not surprisingly, concludes that the traces probably are blood. That absolutely doesn't make sense and is simply not the truth no matter how much you want to believe thisMichelle Moore 07:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC) --FormerIP (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)It doesn't matter (who this was said by) if this was said by the defense, it was still Massei. Massei is saying unequivoqually that the Polizia Scientifica said one thing in court but there reports said another thing entirely. This is Pergury. Patrizia Stefanoni essentially lied. She perjured herself. Right now it's looking more and more like the Massei Report is the roadmap to a railroad job.Michellesings (talk)

Rather than analyzing the data here, it might be preferable to expand or start new articles on the many blood tests in use ([1] seems like a beginning) so that readers who are interested can do their own OR. For example, some sources list the DMB test as only 1/5 as sensitive as the luminol ([2]) - however, bear in mind that the development of colorimetric signals is an art form and there are many protocols meant to get a little more oomph out of the procedure (which would make nice meat for an article about the test). I think someone would have to have the product number of the kit they used to even have a prayer of figuring out such details for himself. (And the experts cited by the media? 50-50 chance they'll get it right...) Wnt (talk) 07:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we might be getting wrong-footed in several places here. First, I want to make sure that no one suggests that it is reliable to interpret luminol findings on the basis of color. There was an old wives tale to that effect but it has never been accepted in modern practice. Here is a useful source:

"If the result of the presumptive testing is negative, the analysis is terminated. However, if the result is positive, then a more definitive confirmatory test is performed. The reason for this that there are a number of substances that can produce false-positive observations including bleach, plant peroxidases, chemical oxidants such as potassium permanganate, copper, brass, lead, zinc, bronze, iron, or cobalt."

"DNA: Forensic and Legal Applications" Lawrence Kobilinsky, Thomas Liotti, and Jamel Oeser-Sweat John Wiley and Sons, 2005, p. 36

The point is that luminol is always to be considered only a preliminary test and a luminol "hit" is NEVER to be accepted as an indication of the presence of blood absent a positive finding from a confirmatory test.

As for the DNA/luminol issue, it is important to distinguish, analyze, and not lump everything in together. The footprints in the hallway (which have not been shown to belong to Amanda) did not test positive for blood and contained no DNA--hence the defense suggestion that the idea that these were Amanda's "bloody footprints" is wildly illogical and unsupported by evidence. Just a few of the luminol stains found elsewhere yielded DNA profiles but these were strictly non-probative. PietroLegno (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a source that the jury in this particular case was wrong to believe that the traces were made in blood, or is this just OR? --FormerIP (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The negative results of the blood tests need to be included in the article. Then the reader can make up his or her own mind about whether the jury was right or wrong to believe that. Does that sound reasonable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 08:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

A secondary source needs to be found for the information first, at the very least. --FormerIP (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Candace Dempsey covers this. I will get the citation. In the mean time, I have taken the liberty of summarizing the points made in the Knox appeal. This is surely enough to demonstrate that the point is vigorously disputed:

~---There is no evidence that any of these tracks were made in blood and there is nothing to link them to the murder.

---Evidence shows that there were no footprints or shoe prints found inside the murder room that could be attributed to Amanda.

---Only 3 of 9 luminol tracks had the positive profile of Meredith. Meredith’s DNA profile was NOT found in any of the claimed bare footprints (nor was anyone's).

--Initially, Stefanoni claimed that no additional testing was done. The information she was compelled to release in July 2009 revealed otherwise. The luminol findings were all tested using using TMB and the tests were negative for all tracks.

---Massei’s speculation that the negative test results occurred because the sample was just too small is silly and wrong as a matter of science. Any error in this type of testing usually provides a false positive, not a false negative. This same type of testing was able to confirm blood in tests of the bathroom samples of far smaller in quantity than the bare foot print findings.

--Massei appears to accept the claim the luminol stain was blood based upon a subjective assessment of the color of the reaction. This is completely unscientific and flies in the face of established protocols everywhere. The bottom line is there was no proof that the footprints were made with Meredith’s blood. PietroLegno (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The luminol evidence was central to Knox/Sollecito’s conviction. I think letting the reader know why and how this conclusion was reached is important to understanding Knox’s conviction.

Knox’s DNA recovered from the lumiol traces could only come from pressure or sweat, because she had no cuts on her feet. But whereever she walked with bare feet she would leave DNA via that same process, and she walked around her own home barefoot plenty. Recovering Knox’s DNA from any given patch of floor would simply be incidental. That would also have to be true of Meredith’s DNA found on the floor. Well, perhaps that is OR.

Still, I think one of the problems with explaining the luminol traces is being overly brief. It’s easy to create the false impression that the traces are easily identified as foot prints, and that the placement of the traces leads to a logical connection with the crime. Reading the Massei report shows that neither of these statements are true. We should be willing to devote enough text to explain the luminol traces in some depth - exactly what was found with luminol, how the court came to decide the traces were connected to the crime, the strengths and weaknesses of the luminol traces as evidence. Moodstream (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The only thing the luminol footprints prove is that there was no cleanup of the crime scene. That's it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 07:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP, I"m confused. I can't find the information you mentioned in your post about: 1) the test only being 50% reliable, 2) the test results "not easy to interpret" 3) something that would contain DNA, such as spit or excrement 4) Massei concluding that the traces probably are blood. If you don't mind would you please copy and paste the paragraphs here from where you found this information, along with the page number where I can find the information. The following is your comment from April 2.

"This is getting far too deeply into original analysis of a primary source. Turningpointe, what you are selectively quoting is Massei himself quoting something put forward by the defence. You're missing out that the court expert said that the traces were blood and the defence witness said that the results were "not easy to interpret", partly because the test used is only 50% reliable. It is agreed by both sides that the traces contained DNA. The defence witness appears to be questioning whether the traces are blood, but agreeing that they must be something that would contain DNA, such as spit or excrement. Since it is known that someone was stabbed in the flat, Massei, not surprisingly, concludes that the traces probably are blood. --FormerIP (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)--Truth Mom (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if some sense of proportion is being lost here. Should an encyclopedia article really be delving into such specifics? Is the article going to re-try the evidence and come up with its own judgment on what it all meant and how it should be interpreted? I think that if the article were to be truly neutral it would necessarily be frustrating to advocates on all sides. The goal here should be to produce something encyclopedic that frustrates everyone at least a little. I'm pretty new/ infrequent on Wikipedia but it seems clear to me that NPOV means the article can say that "this is what they were convicted for, this is what the court said, this is what they're saying in their appeals" but not "the traces found with luminol clearly were not made in blood." The latter is OR. And impossible for anyone who's not a forensic expert to know, by the way. And even forensic experts disagree. It's tempting to play amateur CSI here but that's not what an encyclopedia article is for. What is knowable--and appropriate for an encyclopedia to report--is that a conviction was made, an appeal is being made, the court said X, the defense said Y, etc. Grebe39 (talk) 03:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Grebe39, I see that you are new to wikipedia, welcome. If you don't mind would you please delete your comment or revise it because nobody suggested an edit to the article that reads "the traces found with Luminol clearly were not made in blood." Also I suggest that you start a new topic to discuss what wikipedia should be, which BTW is an excellent topic to discuss. I prefer to keep this topic focused on the bloody footprints in the hall, Filomena's bedroom, and Amanda's bedroom. My comment will be deleted after this issue is resolved. We have to do things a special way here and the Admins do that stuff. Thank you kindly.--Truth Mom (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm just overlooking it, but is there a specific suggestion under consideration in this thread for an edit or change to the article? I see a discussion of the so called 'bloody footprints' but I dont see what specific changes are being proposed. I do think the subject is important as the presence of 'bloody footprints belonging to Amanda' has long been one of those inaccurate red-herrings that appear damning but have no real basis. The bare footprints in the hall that fluoresced with luminol were later determined (Stefanoni's notes) to have been tested with TMB and did not react. i.e not blood, The presence of DNA, if it existed, meant nothing more than that bare feet made the prints. So what change is being proposed. We need something concrete to work toward consensus on.Tjholme (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP would you please answer my question.--Truth Mom (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Tjholme, we have a statement in the article that says “Luminol revealed footprints in the flat, which the prosecution argued were compatible with the feet of Knox and Sollecito.” This would lead one to believe that the footprints were of blood. As we can see from Massei’s report this is not true. I think we should include the entire paragraph from Massei’s report (posted above) verbatim to clear up this misleading statement.--Truth Mom (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP you said " defence witness said that the results were "not easy to interpret", partly because the test used is only 50% reliable."

Is this what you was referring to? I found this on page 258 of Massei's report: "She added that, in her own experience, analyses performed with TMB on traces revealed by Luminol give about even results: 50% negative, 50% positive,”

Also I found this on page 256 of Massei's report: "...During the hearing, Dr. Sarah Gino also explained that from reading the SAL schedules, information emerged which indicated the personnel who performed the analyses, the file number, the bio code, and the identification numbers of the items being analysed. She added, however, that "there is missing information or rather, information which is not easy to interpret".

Is this the information you found in Massei’s report that you mentioned in your comment? If not where did you find the information? --Truth Mom (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Would someone please help me make this edit because I don't know how? --Truth Mom (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is currently locked, so I think only an Admin could make an edit. What precisely do you want to add? I would write it clearly here (meaning, the actual proposed text, with citations) and then ask others to add it.LedRush (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

well, I don’t know what is possible to include in the article. The article currently contains the following statement, “Luminol revealed footprints in the flat, which the prosecution argued were compatible with the feet of Knox and Sollecito.” The statement indicates Amanda and Raffaele’s bloody footprints were found at the crime scene. This is very incriminating. From Massei's report we know that test were performed on the so called bloody footprints and were negative for blood and when the authorities were ask in court if the test for blood had been performed they gave false testimony". If we paraphrase what the Massei report says, then we are doing original research, so I guess we must include the entire paragraph from Massei's report following the statement that is currently in the article. How is it possible to approach reality under these conditions? Apparently The media didn’t think the authorities lying in court is significant because they did not report it. Also the blood test on the footprints didn’t get much attention if any, but Amanda’s panties got plenty of coverage. I just doesn't make sense. --Truth Mom (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Truth Mom, I agree! Something needs to be done about this!Turningpointe (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest the following edit " Luminol revealed footprints in the flat, which the prosecution argued were compatible with the feet of Knox and Sollecito.[50]:373[56] . The authorities testified in court that test for blood had not been performed and presented police crime lab reports that did not mention the test. Later the defense testified that the authorities crime lab records revealed the test in question had been performed by the crime lab, and the results were negative for the presents of blood for all traces, however the judge assumed the blue blurs revealed with Luminol was from Amanda's bloody feet regardless of the scientific test results [50] --Truth Mom (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you be able to provide the relevant quotes from the source that support this version of events? --FormerIP (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

yes--Truth Mom (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Please would you be so kind as to provide the relevant quotes from the source that support this version of events. --FormerIP (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

FormeIP the information you ask for is already posted in this topic / thread, and you said the court accepted the substance is blood (above)although the test indicated it wasn't so you know where this info is located in massei's report, am I correct? --Truth Mom (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Currently the article reads, " Luminol revealed footprints in the flat, which the prosecution argued were compatible with the feet of Knox and Sollecito.[50]:373[56] " I think the test for blood for the footprints should be included in the article although Massei's report is considered a primary source. I would like Mr. Wales opinion about this because it is a significant issue " Turningpointe (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The authorities giving false testimony in court is significant and should be in the article along with the test for blood that gave negative results for all footprints that could have contained blood. It is not proper for this information not to be included in the article. Turningpointe (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It says the authorities said the prints were compatible with Knox's feet. We should follow that letting the reader know that her prints were the only ones they compared them to. They didn't take prints of the other roommates feet. Issymo (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed ReWrite - Support for Knox and Sollecito

Support sites for Knox and Sollecito with hundreds of members developed over the course of their arrest and trials and have called for their release due to wrongful conviction. Some sites being: Friends of Amanda Knox[3][4], Injustice in Perugia [5] [6][7], Raffaele Sollecito [8], Science Spheres [9], The Ridiculous Case Against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito [10], View from Wilmington[11] and Ingiustizia a Perugia [12]

Notable supporters of Knox and Sollecito's innocence include: 25yr veteran FBI agent Steve Moore[13], Author Douglas Preston [14][15], P.I. Paul Ciolino[16], Peter Van Sant[17], FBI Profiler John E. Douglas[18], Donald Trump [19], John Q Kelley [20], Timothy Egan [21], Judy Bachrach[22], Forensic Engineer Ron Hendry [23], Mark Waterbury Ph.D.[24][25], Author Candace Dempsey[26], Lawyer Anne Bremner[27][28] and Judge Michael Heavy[29][30].

9 US Specialists in DNA Forensics Open Letter: On 19 November 2009 Elizabeth A. Johnson Ph.D. and Greg Hampikian, Ph.D. as well as 7 other US DNA experts signed an open letter outlining their concerns with the Bra Clasp and Kitchen Knife evidence central in the case. The letter raised the possibility that the DNA evidence involved was introduced through contamination and concluded that the DNA test results "could have been obtained even if no crime had occurred". [31][32]

Senator Maria Cantwell's statement: 4 December 2009, the day the guilty verdict on Knox and Sollecito was announced, WA state Senator Maria Cantwell released a statement expressing her sadness at the verdict, saying that she had "serious questions about the Italian justice system and whether anti-Americanism tainted [the] trial". She added that "the prosecution did not present enough evidence for an impartial jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Knox was guilty."[33] Issymo (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This is very good you have put a lot of great information in it. --Truth Mom (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

This is very well written. BruceFisher (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

This looks very fair to me. Any interested reader would find the links useful when making an assessment on the case. I believe that the DNA Forensics Open Letter was picked up by New Scientist Magazine and written about there. Surely a reliable source? NigelPScott (talk) 12:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Issymo. The first two paragraphs of your proposal contain no reliable sources. The second two look okay, but I am not sure they add much to what is already in the article. The link between the open letter and Friends of Amanda [34] should, of course, be mentioned. --FormerIP (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What is the link between the open letter and friends of amanda? Propose text please.LedRush (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that asserting that various websites are "The most notable," requires a source, as does listing "Notable supporters," especially when those "Notable supporters" lack Wikipedia biographies. In addition, I am strongly concerned about link-farming. Hipocrite (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Let us go back to the start of this. Is there consensus that there should be a section entitled "Support for Knox and Sollecito"? If there is, then the websites and individuals listed are the most notable in terms of knowledge, information and their analysis of the case and its shortcomings. There are other blogs that have much to say on the subject of innocence, like the oddly named, Church Discipline http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/ where the writer travels on a journey from believing in guilt, to believing in innocence tainted by unhelpful behaviour, to believing in outright innocence with belief that a manipulated and biased media was part of a railroad process. Be that as it may, the items suggested would probably be supported as being helpful by most knowledgeable supporters of Knox and Sollecito. Have a look at them and see. These sites illuminate the 'innocence' side of the controversy and we are agreed that there is a controversy aren't we? I would suggest that any editor is free to suggest other innocence sites (e.g. Church Discipline) if he or she believes that there are significant omissions. Of course, if there is a consensus that there should be no section entitled, "Support for Knox and Sollecito", we can discuss something else instead. NigelPScott (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I dispute that these websites and individuals are the most notable. Could you cite reliable secondary sources for your assertion? Hipocrite (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hipocrite, I would love to hear your alternative list of the most notable pro-innocence websites and individuals. Pray, do tell, then we can all consider the options and reach a consensus. NigelPScott (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point Nigel. We need reliable sources that discuss or illustrate the notability of these websites and individuals, otherwise these is no material on which to base a discussion and reach a consensus. --FormerIP (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm unable to cite reliable sources for my alternative list of the most notable pro-innocence websites, so I don't think it's relevant for me to disclose my list. Could you cite your reliable sources? Alternatively, we could exclude a list of people/websites. Hipocrite (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hipocrite is clearly being more confrontational and obstructionist than necessary, but he's also making a good point. Just because we all know that these guys are the ones that are most notable doesn't mean that it's sufficiently verifiable for our readers. I think there is a simple fix. Just cite news articles which quote these people and organizations (preferable, major media sites) and change "most notable" to "some notable supporters include".LedRush (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to a story done by ABC News that discusses Friends of Amanda and Injustice in Perugia. [35] BruceFisher (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with FOA being mentioned in the article, and I think we have already agreed to do that. Injustice in Perugia, though, isn't really discussed in this article, it is just mentioned as hosting a video. We really need sources that show these websites to be noteworthy, not just confirming their existence. --FormerIP (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The article mentions nothing about Injustice in Perugia hosting a video. The article discusses the active support provided by Friends of Amanda and Injustice in Perugia for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. The article is discussing Injustice in Perugia as a group, not simply discussing the group's website. BruceFisher (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

And a lot of these sources recently added don't instill a lot of confidence in me. I feel like a mention in Time or ABC news is prima facie evidence that they can be listed in the article. However, while the West Seattle Herald may be a RS, I don't think it carries the same weight. I think I would need more from such a reference (like an explicit statement that those people/groups are notable, or repeated mentions).LedRush (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I am pressed for time but here are a few others discussing Injustice in Perugia. National Review [36], France 24 International News [37]. The independent made the mistake of stating that Injustice in Perugia was created by Steve Moore but they mentioned it non the less. [38]. The Injustice in Perugia website was also seen in the recent Lifetime documentary highlighting Steve Moore's analysis. It seems like the question is whether or not Injustice in Perugia is a notable support group for Amanda Knox. I think a few links would be sufficient to show notable support. With the Injustice in Perugia websites along with the cause page set up in support of Amanda and Raffaele, there are currently thousands of active supporters. We are here today taking another look at this article because members of Injustice in Perugia brought attention to current issues. I think that alone would show that Injustice in Perugia is significant. BruceFisher (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

These sources are being misrepresented. The National Review article simply name-drops your own book of the same name. France24 devotes once sentence to the group, followed by commentary on something one person says there. The Independent name-drops the site (incorrectly as you say) as it discusses Moore's opinion, there is no commentary or analysis of the site itself. Tarc (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I am going to step back let others voice their opinions. I am certainly not here to promote my website. Keep in mind that the discussion is about the group and not the website. I am only suggesting that Injustice in Perugia is clearly a significant support group for Amanda Knox. It honestly seems a little silly to me that anyone would suggest otherwise. BruceFisher (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, I've added sources for the 'Notable Supporters'. I've also changed the wording in regards to the support sites to simply say - Some site being: - I've added RS for FOA and IIP. Since the wording has changed to say sites being, instead of notable sites, do the others sites even need secondary sources since it is self evident that they exist by clicking on their link? Wouldn't they be examples of common knowledge plain sight observations? Or could we use FOA as a source since all those support sites are listed there? Issymo (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Just listing sites without any notability is a violation of WP:LINKFARM - what are the conditions for inclusion on your list? FoA is not a reliable source for the notability of sites. Many of your links to "notable" supporters in no way confirms the notability of said supporters. Hipocrite (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If the support sites being listed without secondary sources are not acceptable they can be removed. I don't know the rules on this and would appreciate others input on this please. FOA and IIP have sources and should be kept. I disagree that the sources given for the notable supporters are unacceptable. I see nothing wrong with them at all and believe they are perfectly acceptable. Issymo (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's try it this way - what makes each and every one of your "notable supporters" notable? If it's just that they are supporters, is that notable? You've included such "notables" as a retired engineer and a local judge. Hipocrite (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

They are notable enough to mention here because they are notable enough to be mentioned in the RSs listed (for the ones listed in RSs, of course...the others should be deleted, per my comments above).

Are you suggesting that I expand the section to include individual quotes and descripions of how they are involved in the case? I can certainly do that. I had thought before that it would make the section too long. I don't understand why you question a Forensic Engineer and Judge's notability when the Telegraph and King 5 news found them worthy of space.Issymo (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If someone wants to dispute the citations, let's discuss them here, rather than tagging the text, making discussion nearly impossible. Especially when the tags don't seem to relate to the things they are tagging. It seems like Hipocrite thinks the citations are doing something than what I see them as doing. I see the citations regarding the groups merely supporting the statement about the goal of such groups. Each clearly does this. However, the sources, if they come from RSs, also provide prima facie evidence that the group is notable...the sources don't say the group is notable. They indicate that the group is notable by covering their actions and statements. Of course, as I have said above, if the West SEattle Herald covers the group or individual, it does not carry the weight as Time, ABC, CBS or the Telegraph.LedRush (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Also, can the self-published site be enough to state what the opinion of that group is? I think so. So most of those tags should be removed as well.LedRush (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If sources merely mention the existance of a person in passing, or are from small-circulation local papers and are the only instance where someone was mentioned, they do not evidence strong notability - it appears to be using wikipedia as promotion for non-notable people and non-notable blogs. The "west seattle herald" has a circulation of about 10k - this is not a newspaper where one article about some engineer makes them notable enough to include in this article. Hipocrite (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Given that my attempts to fix the text are reverted on site, I oppose any inclusion of this unencylopedic linkfarm. Hipocrite (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That is not my proposal - my proposal is no change at all. That was my compromise. Please do not speak for me. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Settle down and try and be constructive, please. I was merely trying to make your edits more easily accessible so your proposed revisions, (the "compromise" if you want to be unnecessarily combative) could be discussed without ruining the other people's work (and making the conversations impossible to follow).LedRush (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I have removed text attributed to me that I did not write. As above - if my changes to the proposal are reverted sight-unseen, I oppose any change to the article at all. Hipocrite (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the question is how to properly describe the support. Linking to a site, IS citing it. That isn't to say that including the sites is the best way to describe support.Perk10 (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Perk10

Obvious and transparent problems with the proposal

In addition to the tags that were somehow allowed to stick, there are more obvious and transparent problems with the proposal. This is not a full recounting of the many flaws, but all of these must be corrected.

1. The first sentence is ungrammatical. "Their" refers to the sites? K&S? Someone else?
2. The first sentence is POV - it places "due to wrongful conviction" in Wikipedia's mouth. It needs to be clear that "due to wrongful conviction" is the opinion of the sites, not a fact.
3. The following "notable" supporters are not notable - Steve Moore, Paul Ciolino, Judy Bachrach, Ron Hendry, Mark Waterbury, Anne Bremner, Judge Michael Heavy. There are two points to being a "notable supporter" - being a supporter, which is verifiable from the citations, and being "notable." Just because their support is noted, they are not, themselves, notable. If the word "notable" were removed, this might be acceptable, but then it's just a linkfarm. Well, if you look up "Steve Moore" and "Meredith Kercher" on Google, you might change your mind on the noteworthiness point". In this case, even the smallest of things have ended up quite notable, indeed. For example, I think it is even quite notable that Peter Quennel, who's never even been in the media, is involved. Look at what he's done in his involvement. Same with Peggy Ganong. There should definitely be sections on them in this article as well. And Steve Moore's credibility has helped open up a huge can of worms as far as The Murder of Meredith Kercher. Mainly, what he brought to the table was that two of people convicted were part of a horrid injustice. Being that two innocent people who were wrongfully imprisoned are about to get out of jail, and that these people had part, are quite notable. I think he's had a huge impact in this, along with several others that you are calling un notable.Michelle Moore 07:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
4. The third parargraph is not written like an encyclopedia - it is written like a persusuasive argument - bullet pointed.
5. The third paragraph states that the Bra Clasp and Kitchen Knife evidence was "central in the case." This is an opinion - whose opinion is it?
6. The fourth paragraph is not written like an encyclopedia - it is written like a persuasive argument - bullet pointed.

These must be fixed. Hipocrite (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

1. "Their" release refers to AK and RS. Whose release is it - AK an RS's release. I am not opposed to making the sentence clearer in some way. 2. Yes they have POVs, they are afterall support sites. In the context of saying there are support sites this should be acceptable. 3. "notable", I disagree that they are not notable. They clearly are. They have also made notable contributions to 'supporting' AK and RS as this section suggests. 4. The DNA experts say the bra clasp and knife are important evidence used against AK and RS. This is also well known and other sources can be found for that line if required. 5. I don't see anything wrong with paragraph's 3 and 4. Other editors should say how to make them more encyclopedic if needed.Issymo (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

1. I'm glad you're not opposed to clarifying the sentence. Since I'm not allowed to do so, please fix it. Hipocrite (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
2. it is not clear that the POV that the opinion about the conviction is merely the opinion of the activists, as opposed to a fact expressed by wikipedia. Please fix that.
3. If they were notable, there would be articles about them regarding things other than this case.
4. If it is the opinion of the experts that the claspe and knife were important to the case, this should be made clear. As you wrote it, it is stated as fact that the claspe and knife were central.
5. I am not permitted to rewrite your paragraphs, so I'll have to just oppose their inclusion in full.

Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Clearly "their" refers Knox and Sollecito but that is an easy thing to fix if designations are better than a pronoun. The wording that includes "wrongful conviction" is reflexive to the sites' and supporters' opinion, though that intention and meaning of the phrase could be made more explicit. The word "notable" can be likened to the word "main", or "key". The bra clasp was the only physical evidence that put Sollecito at the scene of the crime, so it was central in that respect, indeed. The fourth paragraph needs to be reworked for grammatical purposes, but it seems to aim at merely quoting the senator.Perk10 (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Perk10

I'm not sure how the British use the word 'notable', but Websters says it means

'worthy of note or notice'. In the context of this case, The Kercher murder case the the subsequent trial of Knox/Sollecito, all those people indicated above qualify as 'notable' under a conservative definition of the word. Beyond the advocacy websites and self published books, each (or most) has been vetted by major news media and interviewed and/or quoted as an expert in their field as related to the case. These media companies include such respected names as CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, NY Times, Seattle PI, etc etc. They've also spoken live at the invitation of Seattle University, Media Dept. Their 'notability' is self-evident. What would make them 'notable' by your definition? Everyone cant be Lady Gaga.. Tjholme (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Notable can mean significant. So that the notable supporters can mean the main ones, notable amongst the supporters. Or it can mean persons who are in themselves notable, in general. Obviously, in terms of the latter meaning, Senator Cantwell is notable, experts could be called notable, even as Jimbo Wales suggested, a celebrity section noting Oprah Winfrey and Donald Trump, even if it is clear that celebrities are individuals who are well known who were willing to stand up publicly to show support.Perk10 (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Perk10

I think Perk10 is right here, at least how I have always seen it anyway. There are two sorts of people/groups here. The first are notable people who have come out in support. This would be people independently notable, not by being connected with the support groups or the family - i.e. celebrities, government officials etc. Usually we would include a few of the most significant supporters of this type supported by independent reliable sources. The other type of person/group are those that are identified as a significant and notable part of their support. This is a bit more difficult, because defining at what point and individual or group becomes significant is a tough editorial decision (and we must be careful to avoid OR). But the oft accepted practice is to find a independent reliable source that identifies the person/group as a supporter and specifically notes them as significant to the cause. This last part is the step that most usually gets forgotten. As a final note; by independent I mean a non-partisan, mainstream source. A source from one support group, for example, saying another is significant/notable etc. is not very solid :) --Errant ^(chat!) 08:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I know that there are also some groups that support the convictions. This section should probably include mention of those groups. Maybe rename the section Support, and include a subsection for the various sides. It would be a pretty glaring absence not to mention both sides here. Ravensfire (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. There is some discussion above to do exactly that, specifically with regards to Kercher's father's statement, which don't seem to belong in the media section.LedRush (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I don’t have a problem with equal time for the opposition groups but, with due respect, I’m not sure that they are notable for anything beyond spewing grief and misinformation, and I can’t think of even one that’s notable on an individual level.. Peggy Ganong, out of West Seattle, DID get a couple local media interviews I guess.. It would, however, be beyond charitable to call her notable.. and Peter Quennell is kind of an enigmatic finance man.. They don’t seem to do awareness raising events or public protests.. For the most part just ad hom attack from behind the mask of internet anonymity. There just isn’t the same sort of support from reputable public personalities stepping up and putting their own good names on the line to fight a perceived injustice.. But some sort of the mention of the 'Guilters' does seem fair.Tjholme (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we use the same criteria for both groups: if they are commented upon in large media outlets (CNN, ABC, Telegraph, Time, etc.), that is prima facie evidence that they are notable. If they are mentioned in less notable RSs (West Seattle Herald), we might need more explicit statements of notability, or evidence of continued references to the group. And we don't give equal weight to both groups...we merely reflect what the RSs have determined (through the process I describe above) are notable. If that's 20 that support Kercher and 2 for Knox and Sollecito, then so be it.LedRush (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Misleading/incorrect Intro

"Intro Section" It says 3 convicted and 2 have appealed. Giving the impression that Guede has not appealed which is incorrect and very misleading.

"People charged with the murder"

Why is there 3 times more about Guede than the others? Also mentions arrest DNA etc which is not mentined for the others. The word "murder" appears 4 times as often in his section.

If this info is to be kept then it should mention in the Knox section that her parents were divorced, and that she was athletic and enjoyed football and climbing and did have a criminal record and was a drug user. And then give the reason for her arrest etc. There has been a demand for a page about Knox alone so what is all the information about her that people think is so important to add?

Kwenchin (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome user:Kwenchin. Always nice to see new people here. There are numerous things in this article that need corrected. Please propose specific changes you'd like to make (i.e. replace this with that)so we can discuss them and perhaps even come to consensus. Do include WP:RS citations for your material.. We dont want to mislead people with much of the baseless crap that flows around the internet.. To respond to points, I would agree that it should be pointed out that Guede HAS been convicted in both his initial trial and two appeals. The fact that he is the only fully convicted murder among the three may account for why he's more often referred to as a murderer. As for Knox. Divorced parents, ok.. Athletic, ok.. Criminal record.. hmm .. Please provide a WP:RS citation.. I'm not sure about Britain but in the US and infraction ticket for a noisy party isnt a criminal record.. drug user.. I would lean more toward pot smoker.. 'drug user' sounds so overly dramatic like 'meth addict' or something.. With half the country on prescription Xanax and anti-depressants I think we need to be a bit more specific as to drug use. All in all I wouldnt recommend an 'Amanda Knox' article but rather a "Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffeale Sollecito" article to present the prosecution and defense cases more accurately. Regards Tjholme (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The noise ticket Amanda Knox paid in Seattle was a municipal infraction. In the same category as parking tickets and not considered a criminal offense. --Footwarrior (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Also Amanda was a drug user only in the sense that Meredith Kercher was too. They both smoked a little pot from time to time. Meredith tended her boyfriend's marijuana plants while he was away. Both Meredith and Amanda were excellent students and Amanda always worked. Neither was more than a light recreational user of pot. PietroLegno (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Trial Evidence Submitted

File:Italianpolice crime scene compositeMeredithKercherMurder.jpg

Crime scene composite of the Murder of Meredith Kercher produced by the Forensic Science Division of the Italian national police, Polizia di Stato Scientifica which was submitted as evidence in the subsequent trials.

I noticed the new picture for trial evidence submitted. It seems too small to be read, other than for the floor plan, which seems to corroborate the earlier proposed floor plan. Seeing as this doesn't add anything to the article that can be easily read other than a worse version of a floor plan we already have, I think we should delete it.LedRush (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I just went ahead and reverted. The pic is in Italian, you can't read it unless you click on it and then zoom in on the section you want, and seems to be nothing more than an instance of "look how much evidence there is" with no way to check the evidence's significance or nature. It's not only unhelpful, it actively detracts from the article.LedRush (talk) 13:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Berean, could you please post the picture here? Also, I would appreciate it if you were to undo your reversion of my revert. Proper process is to be bold, revert, and then discuss[39]. You forgot the "discuss" part and added another revert.LedRush (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

While you're at it, please provide Italian translations for all of the captions, and a justification for how the picture is helpful. I see some huge BLP concerns here, adding this picture without any indication of what it says.LedRush (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

LedRush is right, BereanHunter you should consider reverting your edit per BRD (take your own advice in the edit summary :)). Still forming an opinion on the image, but it would be useful to see how people argue the image adds to the article. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(2 edit conflicts - sigh) You have no policy-based reasons in your original post above. Addressing your points, of course it is in Italian - Policy cited for placement, WP:PRIMARY. This is the actual proof submitted at trial....if you can't see the value of that, I'm sorry, but you will have to make a policy-based argument for exclusion. About the other floor plan, it can now be tweaked to fit the dimensions and useful in another part of the article or in possible split-out articles. It doesn't need to be read in detail in thumbnail size...they can click on it. You say a "worse version" of the floor plan? This is the floor plan submitted at trial. What can happen here constructively, is that an English version of the legends and labels that are consistent with the Italian labels may be developed. I don't have to supply all the English captions. Let's see what others have to say.

May we agree to at least a temporary compromise of leaving it in for one day as this is discussed? If the tide of discussion is clearly against it's admission, then I will remove it myself. Fair? If you don't agree to that, I will revert it now...but I'm hoping that we can break out of the previous patterns of how things have been going on this article by an excellent show of good faith. I'll respond again in about half hour.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

My policy reasons are stated above. Perhaps you don't agree with them, but there they are. Regarding the picure itself, it is too small to be of value to anyone in the article. After clicking on it and then zooming, if you read Italian, it is possible that this could be useful, it is possible that it is redundant, and it is possible that this is giving undue weight to the prosecution argument and violating BLP. It is possible that this is evidence that has already been contradicted by scientific evidence or witness testimony. But what we know is that this can't easily be read and provides nothing to our average, non-Italian reading readers. And the floor plan is inferior because I have to click out of the article and zoom on it before I can access it. It takes away from the article. If you could cut it out, make it bigger, and replace the existing one, I don't think I would have objections.

Regarding your desire to leave it in the article until we decide: I simply can't agree to that in this case. If I knew what the slide said, I could agree that this would be the time to break the cycle of "revert first and ask questions later". But seeing as we have so many policy based questions here, and that I can't even gauge the value of the content, I believe that this must be taken down now.LedRush (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, for the record, I did try and come here to discuss this first. 11 hours isn't a long time, but I didn't just blindly revert an inclusion. I opened up an avenue of discussion first, despite all my reservations about it.LedRush (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The only policy that I have seen you allude to is WP:BLP but you haven't actually made the argument for how it might be a BLP violation. Can you explain, please?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I can explain it more than I already have. While I haven't specifically said the terms UNDUE and POV, these are clearly in my opinions above as well. Until we have translations, we simply don't know what we're dealing with. I don't suppose you would give some explanations of how what the captions and evidence say will help the article as I've asked above?LedRush (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Policy is not the only consideration... my only real concern outstanding is that it is extremely small, so is essentially useless unless you click through. Is there any way we can mitigate this? The image was submitted as evidence, so seems pretty notable. We should also make mention of it in the text. Also; is the image definitely PD? Because if it is we should cut out the floor plan and use that further up. Also; FWIW the commons permission needs to be fixed; "source" doesn't refer to "where you got the image" but where it originally came from - so if there is a URL with the right licensing attributed to the image, then that works. Otherwise we need the right source. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if it's bigger, the picture is at best useless to the average English reader and at worst, a POV push to say "look at all this evidence...those guys MUST be guilty" (think of Colin Powell at the UN).LedRush (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, nah, that doesn't concern me at this stage. The material there is simply the evidence photo's from the crime scene, it is not pushing the guilt of anyone and is perfectly neutral. It is entered as the prosecution evidence at trial so is notable. No, I don't think there are any valid POV concerns. The Italian text only mildly worries me; it is mostly an image of the crime scene, which is decipherable w/o needing the text, and as this is a piece of evidence in itself it has a value of interest relating to the article. FWIW as an English reader I found it of interest when it was first posted the other day. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad that you've been able to ascertain that the picture and evidence is perfectly neutral. I'll withhold judgment until I read the Italian, though. And I still maintain that this is giving the prosecution case more face time, and giving the article a "look at all the evidence" without actually explaining the context, which I feel distorts the POV.LedRush (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Also, if you could include the part of WP:PRIMARY which says that this picture adds to the article or should otherwise be in the article, I would appreciate it.LedRush (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why your objections to the style of this picture carry the day, but my objections to the style of the other picture got shouted down. How interesting, that. As such, I've removed the other image. Hipocrite (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you've missed the ongoing discussion above regarding POV, UNDUE, BLP concerns, in addition to the picture being in Italian. Of course, the conversation is ongoing, and if I face the overwhelming arguments of other editors as you did above, I will graciously step aside and allow WP policy on consensus dictate that the image above should be included. Alas, you have decided to take a different approach.LedRush (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This image is clearly stated as being "produced by the Forensic Science Division of the Italian national police," relieving any POV concern. The opinion of the "Forensic Science Division of the Italian national police," is not being granted undue weight by being inclded (the opposite could be said about the opinions of random bloggers). There are no BLP concerns. Further, unlike the other picture, it doesn't look like a 10 year old with MS paint drew it, and it's to scale. Hipocrite (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

God, you lot just can't help snapping at each other... :( Seriously; sort it out. Hipocrite, talk about WP:POINT. My view on this (if it matters) is that on principle both images have merit and use. The first image is crappy and needs to be better quality. The second image is too small as displayed in the article, and we should consider ways to improve the presentation. I see in the section below you're working out an "uneasy compromise" over image #1 - using the plan from this PD image is a no-brainer IMO. It is a quality image which can be considered reliably of the right proportions. I have the opinion that it is within our remit to a) translate any relevant labels and b) add obvious, clear, or easily sourced labels - so long as they push no POV or are a result of OR/dubious sourcing. sorry for the somewhat harsh analysis, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AErrantX&action=historysubmit&diff=424759303&oldid=424730698 --Errant ^(chat!) 22:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

That would work for me, ErrantX. I think the preference should always be use an image created by a reliable source over using something created by an editor. Ravensfire (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Concerning presentation, how about a collapsible box such as below? One would still have to enlarge to see details up close. We need Italian speakers to render labels...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

House Flat diagram

Seeing as Hipocrite has decided to revert the inclusion of the house diagram, can we unarchive the old discussion so we don't have to repeat everything again?LedRush (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

We could, or we could note that I found a far better image - cropping the PD image found by Berean Hunter to just the floorplan - see File:IPMK crop.jpg. Hipocrite (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's less bad. --John (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Incremental improvement. I don't support my compromise solution as a first choice, just as a best practical choice. Hipocrite (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The image could be better than the old one, but currently isn't even close. It obviously looks more professional, but without the information regarding whose room is whose, it is significantly less helpful to a reader.LedRush (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to edit that onto the image. Hipocrite (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how. If anyone else can transfer the information from the old pic to the new one, I would support the new one. Until then, the old one should remain, per previous consensus.LedRush (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Added. Thanks for your support! Hipocrite (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Some more nits: 1. I would translate the Italian into English; 2. I would write the names correctly (first name first, last name last); 3. If appropriate, should we exclude Filomena's last name?LedRush (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Committes to Protect Journalists Protests Actions of Perugian Authorities

Anyone with an interest in this case should be aware of the following:

http://www.cpj.org/2011/04/journalists-threatened-for-reporting-on-murder-cas.php

I would only add that Frank Sfrazo is a very slight man. The idea that he would attack five cops is crazy. PietroLegno (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an important letter and has been sent to the President of the Italian Republic. I believe that the activities of Mignini and the Perugian police and prosecuting authorities, as set out in the letter, justify the creation of a separate section in this entry, entitled 'Controversial Behaviour of Prosecuting Authorities', or similar. I make this suggestion in good faith because I believe that the Committee to Protect Journalists is a reputable organisation that would not take this action without just cause and unless it was convinced that there were serious complaints. In my view the CPJ should be considered a reliable source, but I am not holding my breath on this one. Who will be the first to say that the points are unsubstantiated speculation and they should be ignored? NigelPScott (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If it gets picked up and commented on in major mainstream media it could be a useful section. Care needs to be taken to focus only on comments specific to this case and no generalization. Sections like this are REALLY easy to start WP:COATRACKs by adding generalizations and references to actions other than this case. If it does get picked up, I think there's enough for a solid article on Mignini covering his career, then getting into the allegations raised in this case and the other case mentioned in that letter. Ravensfire (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I want to post the Italian version of the letter so that people here can appreciate understand fully that this has gone out under the name of some of the highest profile journalists in the U.S. Note also the number of high profile people who were sent copies, including Secretary of State Clinton and Ambassador Thorn. In short this is very, very high profile journalists speaking directly to powerful people in the U.S., Italy, and the EU. Here is the link: http://www.cpj.org/CPJ.%20Letter.04.19.11.Italian.pdf PietroLegno (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This is big. I suggest to wait 24 hours from the release of the letter to see if some major source will cover the story. Otherwise, if this is not going to be covered by mainstream media, I think we can add a citation directly from the CPJ letter. However an entire section is exaggerate, better to add a subsection into the Media Coverage section.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The CPJ is a highly respected organization and there is no question that they sent this letter as per their own site. There is no need for secondary sources confirming they sent it. 12:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs)

I think the argument is that the letter isn't notable unless/until picked up by secondary sources. I pretty much agree. If this was used to support an existing, notable argument, that would be one thing. But this is bringing up a new subject with only this letter as proof that it is notable. We need more.LedRush (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree. This only becomes pertinent if major media publish something about it...and even then it is a tangent that is a bit off-focus from this article.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

CBS News reported on it today: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20055715-504083.html. (GeniusApprentice (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC))

I cannot fathom the suggestion that this is not notable in and of itself. Please be sure to read who is on the CPJ board and advisory board. This letter came out with the blessing of some of the most powerful and prestigious journalists in the world. The letter was addressed to the President of Italy but copied to many other people including secretary Clinton and leaders of the EU. The letter makes another important point which we would do well to consider: The most powerful journalists in the world view small journalists like Frank Sfarzo at Perugia Shock as legitimate journalists. Perhaps Wiki should do the same. PietroLegno (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Support for Statement

The article currently states: "On the evening of Thursday, 1 November 2007 ... Knox spent the night at her boyfriend's." Is that proven and/or accepted as fact? Doesn't the prosecution argue otherwise?LedRush (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the only question is whether they left in order to commit the murder. I think it is agreed that they were at the apartment early in the evening and slept there. PietroLegno (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think an easy fix would be to add that Amanda testified to this point: "Knox testified that she spent the night at her boyfriend's." BruceFisher (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

But later, we have the statement, sourced, that Sollecito said he can't remember whether or not she spent the night at his place.LedRush (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)This is not what he said. He said that after he was asleep he can't say what ANYONE did. This is a huge difference. The reason I say this, is because the slight change of detail is the kind of thing that puts an innocent person in jail. If I am incorrect, please show the source. Thanks. :)Michellesings (talk) 02:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have corrected this statement to the undisputed "began the night." Does that solve the problem? Hipocrite (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think so, though we should probably add a fact tag as it is unsourced (I think).LedRush (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm certain we can find a source if the statement is disputed. Hipocrite (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

{ec}Nevermind, I suspect the whole thing is attributed to Dempsey's book. (on a side note, I hate it when I can't check sources).LedRush (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "began the night." solves the problem at all. I think it leads the reader to believe that Amanda left. This wording is far less acceptable than it was before. When talking about Amanda, you should state what Amanda said. Amanda testified that she spent the night at Raffaele's. BruceFisher (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we can do that here. This section is supposed to be the uncontroversial, accepted as fact events surrounding the murder. If you can offer up language that is accurate and doesn't give the impression that Knox left, please feel free to suggest it here.LedRush (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)There is no evidence to prove she left the house that night. I would think, being that this is sourced in written court testimoney that no one would be arguing this. It's simply the truth. Doesn't prove guilt or innocence. Thanks for considering this.Michellesings (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Amanda's testimony is all that is needed. She said she never left. You are making the section controversial by the text you have chosen. You are using a statement made by Raffaele that he later retracted in front of a judge. You sound as if you want to give the impression that Amanda left. That's not okay if you are trying to be "uncontroversial." I will post up some articles stating that Amanda said she spent the night at her boyfriend's. There are plenty of them. BruceFisher (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Bruce, I am not trying to make it sound like anything at all. I am sure you can find sources about what Knox said she did, but that's not the point. We are trying to present uncontested events in this section. Obviously, it is contested that Knox was at Sollecito's all night. We need to find a way to make this sentence work, or just delete the phrase if it can't. But we certainly can't present Knox's statements as absolute truth.LedRush (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Who is asking you to present Knox's statements as absolute truth? I understand why you wanted to edit the text but the edit has created a similar problem. I would suggest: "Knox testified that she spent the night at her boyfriend's" or "Knox stated that she spent the night at her boyfriend's" or "According to Knox, she spent the night at her boyfriend's" BruceFisher (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

"Knox testified she spent the night at her boyfriend's, a fact Raffaele was unable to confirm in the initial police interview because he "couldn't remember". He later retracted that statement in court and confirmed Amanda had been with him the whole night."Fancourt (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I feel like that type of sentence is better for the prosecution/defendant arguments section. Here we are just trying to present things that everyone agrees is factual.LedRush (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I offered 3 versions. I am honestly baffled that you don't see that the current wording is controversial. I could write many factual statements that taken out of context favor one side or the other. Saying that Amanda began her night at Raffaele's suggests that she left. Amanda has said repeatedly that she spent the night at thew cottage. We have sources for that. You can't pick and chose what sources you want to use. You chose to use the source about Raffaele's confusion to justify the edit while ignoring Amanda's testimony. BruceFisher (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You offered 3 versions of the same thing which I explicitly said shouldn't be used. If you think there is a neutral way to say the uncontested truth, I'd like to hear it. If not, let's just delete the phrase. As an aside, I don't much like your accusation regarding me picking and choosing what sources I want to use. That is an unfair misrepresentation of my position, which has been clear: only uncontested evidence please.LedRush (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You went against your own suggestion of using only uncontested evidence when you chose to use Raffaele's statement which is contested as well. How is testimony not acceptable? You are not stating it as absolute truth, you are stating it as testimony. I don't think it does the article any justice by stating where everyone "began" their evening, especially if the wording suggests activities that are highly contested. BruceFisher (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I will note that my tone here is probably not the best. I will tone it down as I certainly meant no disrespect to LedRush. I feel very strongly that the most recent edit needs to be changed. BruceFisher (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"On the evening of Thursday, 1 November 2007 ... Knox spent the night at her boyfriend's." Why not just add the word SAID. "Knox SAID she spent the night". It is factual that that is what she said. I think saying "Knox began the night" completely leading toward the idea that she later left her boyfriend's and find that unacceptable.Issymo (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

And, seeing this is an encyclopedia, and not a blog, we need to write proper sentences. We must do better than "Knox began (whatever) the night at her boyfriend's". She was "at her boyfriend's flat." Moriori (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• How did the word BEGAN get added to the article by Hipocrite without concensus. There is no consensus for this change. It is a leading statement that is not acceptable. The word BEGAN means she DIDN'T stay there all night but only started her night there. Why not just say 'Knox said she spent the night at her boyfriend's flat". Issymo (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The current wording (without Began) is good and neutral and side-steps the issue of the fact that later on Knox's whereabouts are disputed/discussed --Errant ^(chat!) 08:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Another satisfied customer. Or the first satisfied customer. One or the other :)LedRush (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. Issymo (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit. BruceFisher (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Move PR firm from support section to media section

This topic was being discussed and was very close to consensus but was unfortunately neglected long enough to archive. I think this discussion needs to continue so the proper edits can be made. Here is the archive.[40]. Is there a way to revive the conversation or does it need to start over? BruceFisher (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I would just copy and paste it here to continue the discussion. However, I'm sure that there's a better way to do this, and there may be some WP rules on this as well.LedRush (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably there is something arcane and cryptic, but for here, I'd summarize the last proposal and go from there. I'd suggest putting that as a new sub-section of this section just for ease of editing. Ravensfire (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

PR is about Media, lets move it to the media section Issymo (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Confirmation needed

In this edit, an editor discusses 5 shoe prints under a bed pillow, and a failure to explain as much. I reviewed the translated document briefly, but saw no mention of a failure to explain anything. I NPOVed the addition already, but I'm concerned that it's not in the source. Could someone provide a direct quotation, either in italian or in translated English, along with a generalized location in the document where that quotation is located? Hipocrite (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's the complete forensics report that was presented in court by Raffaele's expert. [41] that shows the 5 shoe prints belonging to Rudy Guede. BruceFisher (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Primary sourced description of trial

I reverted this. It is nearly all primary-sourced, and it does not add substantial value to the article. If there are important points there that need summarizing, please explain which are important on talk, with references to reliable secondary sources. Hipocrite (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Can I restore my improvements to the opening sentence of that section? Cos you also just restored the "supposed date" stuff which is classic WP:WEASEL. Just checking this is kosher before I do it. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no concerns with your changes. Hipocrite (talk) 09:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Per policy WP:PRIMARY, descriptive text can be backed by a primary source; secondary sources are needed to support conclusions not stated in the primary sources (read WP:RS). Also, sources are not needed for non-controversial text, at all. Plus, the large-scale deletion of major sections of text, of deleting 3408 bytes, requires consensus of interested editors, not a unilateral deletion as was done by User:Hipocrite in this edit (09:30, 20 April 2011). Unless there are any new policies created to allow one person to delete massive amounts of sourced text, I will restored the deleted material to the article. -Wikid77 16:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The policies I relied on in removing the text were WP:BURDEN, WP:CON and WP:BRD. Please describe what from your primary sources is important, using reliable secondary sources. The section cannot be based almost entirely on primary sources. Hipocrite (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, it is my understanding that these edits are fine under WP:PRIMARY as they are merely descriptive text. If that isn't the case, the language should be changed to descriptive text, not tagged. Furthermore, why is this the only information being tagged? There are at least a dozen references to the Massei rerport in this article...is it Hipocrite's position that each one needs to be tagged? Clearly, WP policy is to allow primary sources in some circumstances. I just don't see the value in these tags.LedRush (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what tags you are referring to, since this section is not referring to a tag addition. If you are referring to this tag addition, it is because the information about the laptop may or may not be notable - if it were notable information, it would have been included in a reliable secondary source. The "Massei" report is massive - and a problem that needs to be avoided is the possibility of editors misusing the report, selectively reporting and documenting facts that they feel are important - in effect, analyzing the document by choosing what to include and what not to include. The typical way that large primary documents are used is not to find things that are in the document and report on them, but rather to summarize the contents of the document - to hit on it's main points. This is documented in WP:PRIMARY - "Do not ... evaluate material found in a primary source yourself." That is what could be happening when people pick specific passages out of a primary source that were never documented in a secondary source. Hipocrite (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It should further be noted that we hardly use the Massei report at all, and my attempts to clean up the section where the report is massively overused were, as I recall, reverted. Hipocrite (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure your attempts to 'clean up', as you describe them, were highly selective. You should really get consensus from the group before making the often radical changes to the article which you appear to think you are entitled to make at the drop of a hat. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:BOLD. Do you insist on pre-clearing consensus from the group for all radical changes to the article? For instance, should this edit have gotten consensus before being made? Why or why not? Hipocrite (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I've read the policy. You can't blindside me by Wikilawyering any more. I warn you not to patronise me again by telling me to review any more Wikipedia policies. You're simply using them as a weapon to patronise your adversary. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The founding principle of Wikipedia is, basically, that you don't have to navigate complex bureaucracy to make changes. You make them. If they are validly disputed then it gets discussed. --Errant ^(chat!) 18:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

That's great Errant, except that that principle has not applied to this article in the recent past. However I'm not complaining. It seems to be moving in the right direction. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The material initially gave me pause for thought. I think the relevant policy is WP:UNDUE; an awful lot of detail was added from the single primary source - the idea is to write an overview. :) I felt the text was not particularly well written (although can can be fixed in the copyedit process, which I did start before the RV). And I also had a worry over the liberal accompaniment of Italian words to the text. I couldn't figure out what purpose that served (except in a couple of cases where quoting his words made sense). --Errant ^(chat!) 18:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, I've also just noticed that Guede stated he had met Kercher the previous night, on Halloween, and had arranged a "romantic" date with her the next day might be a close paraphrase of the source. If someone gets chance to fix that it would be great :) --Errant ^(chat!) 18:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I've taken out the quoted "romantic" statement, which makes this less close to the original in two ways (tone and vocabulary (and not having romantic in quotes)). The left over statement is so simple and general, I don't believe there is a copyright issue.LedRush (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I realise this is nit-picky, but copyright like this is specialism... it is still very close (well, basically the same sentence :)). I'll have a go at rewording the intro to the paragraph later. Single sentences won't usually matter, but when we are attributing the source so directly it is best to err on the side of caution. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• I do not think describing Guede's version of events is a case of WP:UNDUE details. Kercher's house keys & 300 euros were confirmed missing, the front door was noted as left open, her bedroom door was locked, other rooms had been entered, a window was broken, and she was found on the floor, disrobed on a single bed pillow (with blood handprint and shoe prints), and pools of blood nearby. Text related to those details should be added, so it is appropriate to note Guede claimed Kercher unlocked the front door with a key from her handbag (Guede stated the door was not wide-open at that time), and she did not say, "Wow, I've lost my key...could you break a window to let us unto the cottage?" ...plus Guede claimed Kercher discovered significant money missing from an open drawer (Italian: cassetto aperto), and they together searched the house, room-to-room. Here's a general rule of thumb: expect the size of this article to grow until all major aspects of the crime are described: the missing 300 euros (~$420), 2 credit cards, 2 mobile phones, Kercher's house keys, the phone calls which Kercher made before dying, the fingerprints and shoe prints recorded, the luminol patches, the CCTV video evidence, and the knife evidence. -Wikid77 21:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Presumably because I commented at the recent WQA report that arose out out of this article, user Hipocrite asked me at my talk page to comment on this section (permalink). As I said there, I don't have an intrinsic interest in this article, and I don't intend to participate in its development; certainly not to edit it. But I have spent roughly 90 minutes reviewing the edit in question, and the policies that apply to it. There has been considerable debate at RSN over the circumstances under which it might be permissible to use court transcripts, of course, and to what extent, and we have more than one policy that applies to this particular instance of the question. The one that seems to me to be most relevant to this instance is WP:BLPPRIMARY. I won't quote from that here; please look at it yourself. Although some might read that as a black-and-white, bright-line exclusion of the disputed material in this case, I don't see it that way, given that other sources have discussed this material. So in my opinion, like most of the cases that have been raised over the use of trial transcripts at RSN, this, too, comes down to a judgment call.

And it's a difficult judgment call, in my opinion. I have no objection to using the trial transcript to clarify and briefly expand statements that have already been discussed in secondary sources, but that use should be very limited, I think. Is this edit "limited", or "limited enough"? I think it is, just barely. I do object to some parts of the added material, though. For example, "Guede could not describe the knife or indicate length" cited to the transcript seems rather cherry-picked to me, in the sense that (to me) the statement implies he should have done, and to the extent that's true, it offers an editorial comment, however implicit. Also, "The man struggled and cut Guede, who fell to the floor, but picked up a chair" should not, in my opinion be reported as fact; it needs to be prefaced with "Guede said", or some such, I think. Also, the word "claimed" is used to describe Guede's statment, which should not be used; see WP:CLAIM. Similarly with "supposed date"; the phrase indicates disbelief. Instead of "In their supposed date, Guede said...", I'd prefer to see something like, "As Guede recounted the events of what he described as their date, Guede told the court ..." More neutral, less prejudicial, imo.

If I understand correctly, though, much of the dispute over this edit has to do with whether the statement in the article, "The court found that Guede's version of events did not match the forensic evidence" can be or is properly supported by the primary-source quotation,

Guede "confirmed to have touched more or less everywhere in the room, even with his hands stained with blood, without explaining why his footprint is just under the corpse on the pillow when he remembered the regular pillow on the bed". –Micheli Judgment

I'd say it's justified in concept, but that the wording is too strong and too broad. Unless there's other supporting material that I'm unaware of (a possibility, of course, since I know almost nothing about the facts of this case) the summary statement, "did not match the forensic evidence" seems too much to say if it's referring to, and depends upon, only the pillow/footprint statement, above. I'd prefer to see something like, "In rendering its verdict, the court noted that Guede did not explain how his footprint came to be on a pillow under the corpse, observing that Guede had stated his recollection of the pillow as having been in place on the bed." Or something like that.

As I said on my talk page, I do not intend to be drawn into participating in the development of this article, so I probably won't be replying to any responses that are posted here to this commentary, or not at any length, anyway. I've provided this opinion primarily because Hipocrite requested it, and because I felt I sort of owed him the courtesy, since I'd been so critical of his behavior previously, at WQA. I doubt he'll be pleased with my opinion here, though, which I regret. I'll close by saying that this is just one editor's opinion, of course, and certainly isn't definitive. If participating editors want other opinions, those could certainly be reasonably requested at RSN. If you take it there, I'd just suggest that you all try hard not to continue to argue the case there, to give uninvolved reviewers the "room" to respond, and that you give greater weight to the opinions of reviewers who appear to have spent more some reasonable time examining the question, instead of just quoting a quick sentence or two from policy that touches this, and concluding that decides the matter. This is not a question that can be resolved that way, imo; it calls for careful analysis of all the policy issues that apply. In any case, please try to remember that everyone is trying to do the right thing here, as he sees it, and that opinions about so close a judgment call as this may certainly differ, legitimately, and in all good faith.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well put, I especially like your suggestion for the summation of the courts opinion on the footprints (any objections by editors to that being inserted?). I think that we can definitely add material from this report - however I think it needs to be done with care. For example He said he got fruit juice from the refrigerator (Italian: frigo), and then she walked back to her room to find a drawer open (Italian: cassetto aperto), and her money (denaro) was missing. He claimed they went, room to room, to search for other money or items taken, but saw no evidence of a break-in. strikes me as detail rising to the level of triviality. I am unconvinced that it is important to recite every single detail as described by Guede, only the particularly relevant things/broad overview (this is why secondary sources are useful FWIW, because they identify the relevant bits for us :)). He did not say she tried to phone anyone about arriving home, or about the theft. Instead, he claimed he calmed her, and they soon became intimate, to forget about the missing money, and he touched under her clothes and bra Didn't strike mas as neutral or off-hand. I'm struggling a bit (because the source does not translate properly ever time for me) to track down the specific part that supports this, but, I am concerned that this is intended to undermine his evidence due to the fact that a phone call is said to have been made elsewhere (the insinuation being he is lying). It would be nice to have the exact part of the source presented that this is taken from. The second sentence also concerned me, mostly because of the use of "Instead", which seems a bit of a WP:WEASEL word (following on from the previous sentence). All of this material can, and should, be dealt with. I just think this particular edit was not the best presentation of it. (Also: I reworded the problematic close-paraphrase & also re-added a small amount of detail about the times, which are important, from the primary source). --Errant ^(chat!) 10:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• The purpose of this article is not to try to defend the testimony of a man who was convicted 3 times of a murder, and there is no WP policy which states, "You cannot include testimony of a convicted man which might make him seem to have lied in court" (no WP policy supports that viewpoint). Please note that even policy WP:SYNTH requires a synthesis of text from 2 or more sources to imply a novel conclusion. It is not a novel conclusion that Guede was convicted 3 times of the murder, nor to conclude his testimony did not match the forensic evidence. The extent of details which I added from the court transcript was a microscopic summary of his testimony: he also stated that when he fled the scene, he left both Kercher's bedroom door open and the cottage door open as well; plus, he noted he spent Halloween with some Spanish friends and 2 women, at a residential party, and they went to the Domus nightclub later. Many of those people made statements for his trial. Also, when shown photos of Meredith Kercher partying, in costume, at various locations, Guede said he did not recognize any of those locations. There is an enormous amount of detail in the Micheli Judgment document, so the tiny portion I noted is only part of what could be included in the article, as related to the criminal charges which arose in his trial. Per WP:NOTCENSORED, even if an editor's religion demands avoiding the facts, WP does not "cherry-pick" which text to exclude from a conviction-summary so that a man convicted of a murder would seem less guilty or would seem to have always told the truth. It is not a novel conclusion that he might have committed the murder. -Wikid77 17:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I am not sure of the relevance of NOTCENSORED or editor's religions, you lost me there, sorry. The content that was reverted had significant issues (FWIW I would have improved it rather than RV, but there you go), not least a non-neutral tone that strongly implied he had lied in his evidence. This is not a conclusion we can make (if someone else reliable does so, that is another matter) or adopt. The section did not successfully detach fact from analysis. As you say; there is microscopic detail in the trial transcript. We don't really need to deal with all of that. As another point, where testimony contradicts other evidence (or itself) we must have a reliable source that explains this to support the text. That can't be "side stepped" by listing his testimony in a way which situates it against text further up the article. The key idea here is of hand tone :) --Errant ^(chat!) 19:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikid77, I don't know who or what you might be referring to with your comment about "an editor's religion", but please keep it civil. You know the drill: Comment on the content, not the contributor. There's been more than enough flaming and flame-bait around this article, already; no one needs any more, regardless of how frustrated they might feel.

More substantively, re "WP does not 'cherry-pick' which text to exclude..." you hit on exactly the problem with using trial transcripts at all: When someone picks, based on their own preference and judgment, which passages from a transcript to include and which to exclude, his editorial discretion will inevitably be open to charges of cherry picking. Some facts will be emphasized by the selection, and others suppressed. Thats why, to my understanding, primary sources should, at most, only be used to briefly expand on, or elucidate, statements already made in secondary sources. Whenever you go much beyond that, you start to act as a journalist rather than an encyclopedia writer, imo. Based on what you've presented in the foregoing (talk-page) comment, it does seem to be "the truth" that Guede's conviction was just. But you know very well that "the truth", for better or worse, isn't our stock in trade, here. That's certainly frustrating at times, but there are good reasons, too, that we're mostly limited by policy to summarizing what secondary sources have already reported. I'm sure you'll agree when you reflect for a moment on the alternative.

@Errant: I also had some reservations about, "He did not say she tried to phone anyone about arriving home, or about the theft. Instead, he claimed he calmed her, and they soon became intimate, to forget about the missing money, and he touched under her clothes and bra." If "he did not say" isn't an observation made by the principles (i.e. judge, lawyers, etc.) in the case that's taken directly from the transcript, but rather an observation made by an editor about it, I'd say it has to go. Also, I didn't see the point of the fruit juice thing, either. Whether to mention Guede's statement about money being missing at all, and his testimony that they searched for it is, imo, a tough judgment call. I'm inclined to recommend that it be left in, but I'd be happier about doing so if it were reported in secondary sources. Even if it's not, though, it seems to me to be a small-enough expansion on the narrative that does exist in secondary sources that I think it's permissible.

Finally, I'd like to reiterate my objection to "supposed date" and the ubiquitous use of "claim" or "claimed"; again, see WP:CLAIM for NPOV considerations that apply. Guede may be guilty as sin; based on the little I've read, it's my opinion that he probably is. But we still don't get to skew the language of our articles to say so. We still have to report the facts in an NPOV way, and can't use the "voice of Wikipedia" to cast doubt on (or lend credence to) anyone's statments.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the "supposed date" problem when I fixed the close paraphrasing problem earlier. There is still a claim in there, I was a bit lazy so sort of constructed the new sentences around the witnesses testimony statement, and "claimed" was the natural word to use :) Absolutely no issues from my end on rewording that part. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Errant, I missed that correction. Also, as a point of order, mostly directed to Wikid77: I'd suggest that you'd probably all get along a little better here if everyone would stick to normal WP:INDENTATION threading protocol, and try to refrain, in the future, from using flush-left posts or, especially, from calling out their posts with bullet-points/asterisks. This is a small point, but the usual protocol does tend to help the discussion proceed in a more cooperative way, imo.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. I fixed the claim problem (seeing as I caused this latest one :)) now too. Not really all that happy with the sentence but it is a case of "shored up" for the moment ;) --Errant ^(chat!) 20:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Re-adding Guede's version of events

I am responding, here, to several issues noted, anywhere and everywhere, in the above topic:
• When I use a left-side bullet-point/asterisk, I am responding to several issues.
• When I indent, it is a response to the prior post.
• The word "claimed" is coming from the Italian language (perhaps Wikipedia can get the word removed from Italian dictionaries?). The court document said Guede (quote) "claimed" (unquote).
• I like the word "claimed" and object to Wikipedia's insinuation that "claimed" means "lied desperately to hide his guilt" so I just do not believe most readers in the world will read "claimed" and go "Aha! Liar, Liar, Liar" which (to me) means that WP:CLAIM is a violation of WP:NOR redefining the word "claimed" to have an exclusive new meaning (compared to the witness "fabricated" or "imagined").
• The reference to the fruit juice places Guede in the kitchen at that time.
• I can pinpoint the source where Guede states he calmed her to forget the money and became intimate.
• I noted he never mentioned Kercher using her phones.
• He was charged with murder, and notes her as alive c.21:00 but later stabbed by another.
• He was charged with assault, but stated they became intimate/touched.
• He was charged with theft, but stated her drawer was open and money gone, and saw her house key from her handbag (details related to his criminal charges).
• The house door enters the kitchen, and Kercher's room is at the end of that hall.
• Guede stated a direct course of events: they entered, he took fruit juice from the kitchen, and they went down the hall to her room where a drawer was open; hence, it's not like they came inside, and he cooked a meal, then she went outside to pick flowers, left him inside 25 minutes, then returned to find someone opened a money drawer in her room.
• By insisting on removing any minor "9-word phrase" about fruit juice (etc.), it is an attempt to censor the suspect's stated course of events, and I just do not understand what policy says to remove 9 words about entering a house.
• About the tone of the post, I have stated Guede's version of events, and I cannot help if he seems to be lying. They noted that he could not describe the knife or indicate length (indicare lunghezza), but stated he was cut on the hand by it (hey, Judge Micheli noted these issues in his reasoning about guilt, so go figure: a guy is fighting to avoid a man with a knife but does not know what the knife looked like or any length). Please understand, that the Micheli Judgment went further, by noting that Guede's alleged trip to the far-opposite bathroom, just when the "knifer" arrived, seemed to them to be "too convenient" (in timing of events) to be reality. I did not include that level of judgment, and the whole story might still seem fishy and negative to any readers, but Wikipedia is not about trying to un-fishy-fy a guy's testimony.
• I do not see a reason to justify removing the entire 4kb text of Guede's version of events.
• I could note 23 issues to change in the text, but that is no reason to prevent adding it.
• The problem to avoid is "paralysis of analysis" in waiting to pre-debate and decide every possible analyzed flaw, before adding text to the article.
As a result, I plan to restore the whole text, but avoid the word "claimed" for now, while also adding a secondary source specifically about Guede's version of events ("Meredith whispered killer's name, suspect says", Telegraph, 24 Nov. 2007). Then, we can modify parts of the text or discuss, later, how to "perfect each and every word" or other issues. -Wikid77 06:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Need new link for Massei Motivation

The prior link for the Massei Motivation document seems to be a deadlink, and a new link would be good. There is no policy requirement that a source be hyperlinked in an article, as long as the book, or news report, or webpage has been published in the world at large. However, a new link would be good. -Wikid77 16:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You mean this link?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Move of PR firm from Support Section to Media Section

Issymo made the following observation last week when the article was on lock down. It seemed close to getting approval, but I wanted to reproduce the proposal (copied from the most recent archive if anyone wants to read the prior discussions) to see if there were any objections or suggestions for this proposed move.LedRush (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Knox's family engaged the services of David Marriott of Gogerty Stark Marriott, a Seattle-based public relations firm, to handle the public relations aspects of their campaign.[126] The family has spoken with a number of journalists and have appeared on several TV talk shows, such as the Oprah Winfrey Show on 23 February 2010."

I think the whole idea of hiring a PR firm is to manage the way Knox is represented to the media. It seems like it would make much more sense to move this line to the media section. Can we get support to do this?Issymo (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Seems sensible - recommend going ahead and doing it. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Support for Kercher Statement

Currently, the media section has the following:

The Kercher family have made clear their views that the trial was fair,[116] but have generally avoided much media attention.[117] On 2 December 2010, Kercher's journalist father, John, writing in the Daily Mail, condemned Knox's elevation to "celebrity" status as "utterly despicable," and that the "Foxy Knoxy" nickname, "trivialises the awfulness of her offence." He maintained that to the Kercher family, Knox is, "unequivocally culpable. As far as we are concerned, she has been ­convicted of taking our precious Meredith’s life in the most hideous and bloody way."[118]

I would like to delete the reference that the family has avoided media attention. It seems out of date based on all the interviews that the family has conducted. They seem to have increased media presence after the convictions for Knox and Sollecito were announced, so I wouldn't mind the article saying that (assuming a RS can be found).

Furthermore, these seems to have more in common with the "support" section than a media coverage one. I propose that we create a support for Kercher section with this passage in it. We should also include any notable support groups or other notable statement by family and/or supporters.LedRush (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It is laughable to say that John Kercher has avoided media attention. On the contrary, he has used his Fleet Street contacts with extraordinary success--most naotable in the Sunday Times where he was allowed about 2,400 words. This in itself is extraordinary. It is true that Arline Kercher has avoided the limelight.PietroLegno (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

He also resurrected the ridiculed claim that Meredith was killed as part of some Satanic ritual. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"Support for Kercher" seems an odd choice of subtitle. No amount of 'support' is going to change Meredith Kercher's current state one little bit. "Kercher" is not trying these cases, expresses no opinion, and takes no position on them - the Italian authorities are. pablo 15:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Do you have any suggestions for how to name the section? "Kercher Family Views"?LedRush (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Hipocrite hit the nail on the head with "Reaction of the Kercher family".LedRush (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• I would avoid all direct quotes from family members, due to the potential of emotional phrases, such as Kercher's father saying that Knox "has been ­convicted...in the most hideous and bloody way" and I suppose any quotes which claim Knox was railroaded by corrupt Italian officials, who beat and starved her, insensitive to her grieving while she wept over her dear friend Meredith's death, should be avoided. However, I think a lot should be included that the Italian authorities lied to tell her she was HIV-positive (was not) when they knew she was HIV-negative because a lot of women think of HIV as a death sentence or ban on pregnancy, even though 1/3 of children born to HIV+ mothers turn HIV-negative. Perhaps we could cite several sources which note that HIV-positive women are directed to not get pregnant, to really emphasize the nature of falsely claiming Knox was HIV+ (while they knew she was not). So, if the police misled about HIV (source: "Two Faces of Amanda Knox", Guardian.co.uk, 2009-12-04), then what else did they lie about. It is important to defend the conclusion that the police lied, so that notion would not be considered as a "novel conclusion" (although many readers know police lies are not a novelty). For example, in the Micheli Judgment, it is noted that Guede acknowledged having made false statements after going to Germany (Judgement 28.10.2008 filed 2009-01-26, link, Italian: tanto da aver reso false generalità - "so that he had given false information"), so noting that text will support the conclusion that "Guede has lied about the details of the Kercher murder" (by Guede's own admission). Stick to noting the documented events, rather than quoting someone said Knox's conviction was "hideous". -Wikid77 18:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Not exactly. Dare false generalità only means to give a false name and or address (when asked by authorities). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Whilst I largely agree that family commentary should be kept to a minimum (and certainly avoid the most emotional and inflammatory quotes from them) I have to question whether you are being ironic about this bit: Perhaps we could cite several sources which note that HIV-positive women are directed to not get pregnant, to really emphasize the nature of falsely claiming Knox was HIV+. Are you being serious about that? Because it would be a pure WP:SYNTH and WP:POINT issue to try and so so :S In general it is highly recommended to avoid following through with your own speculation on topics. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
• This is not mere speculation, it is a typical reaction for women. The policy for WP:SYNTH only applies if a conclusion is not stated in any of the sources, and certainly a source about HIV+ women is likely to mention how women would be upset about not having children. Meanwhile, the Guardian source ("Two Faces of Amanda Knox", Guardian.co.uk, 2009-12-04), already states that Amanda was upset thinking she could not have children:

"She [Knox] had written about her 7 lovers in her prison diary only after... told she was HIV positive ­following a prison blood test. [continued] "I was crying, thinking I cannot have children," [Knox] said of the 2 weeks before she was told she was negative."

Knox's extensive suffering because of the police is well-documented. In general, almost any details can be stated in a crime article: a suspect's version of crime-related events is not WP:UNDUE details, but rather, essential for WP:NPOV (how could a suspect's viewpoint be omitted and still be considered "neutral" coverage of viewpoints?). Also, it is rare for WP:SYNTH to restrict crime-article text: neither guilt nor innocence would be a "novel conclusion" to a reader, and the concept of a witness lying on the stand is hardly a novelty. WP does not ban a suspect's testimony out of fear how readers might imagine a suspect is lying about the events. A suspect's viewpoint should be included. -Wikid77 03:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

WP policies allow details in crime articles

There seems to be extensive misunderstanding that this crime article cannot contain any details, because some people think everything published in reliable sources is considered a violation of WP policies. That is simply not true. In fact, it would be a severe violation of WP:NPOV neutrality to (continually) remove or ban a suspect's version of events as being WP:UNDUE details (Think: how could a suspect's viewpoint be omitted and still be considered "neutral" coverage of major viewpoints?). When a person has gone to trial for a crime, and their documented viewpoint is excluded from a article, then I would consider that a violation of WP:NPOV in excluding their viewpoint while only considering the police or prosecution version of events. If people are charged with theft, and they state the theft occurred before they arrived at the scene, then that must be included in the article. In reality, there are few cases where details should be removed from a crime article:

• If a suspect names someone else as committing the crime, then consider removing that as unfounded rumor.
• If a news report quotes local people as claiming someone committed a crime, then that should be removed as rumor.
• If a non-official person is named in the text, then that name can be shortened to last initial, or removed.
• If a person testifies, under oath, that they saw a person involved, then that should be allowed.

Consequently, to provide the wide, NPOV-neutral coverage, then all major viewpoints must be presented in the article, and that could generate a huge article, to present a balanced coverage of all major views. In fact, if a crime article seems brief, or merely moderate, in size, then it probably is a policy vio against WP:NPOV balance. Therefore, expect many people to complain that a crime article is biased, when it leaves out so many details that all major sides of an issue are not fairly presented. Plus, when it comes to an article becoming huge, then remember WP:NOTPAPER allows articles to be quite large. I hope this clarifies why crime articles should be expected to become huge. -Wikid77 03:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)