Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher

Cartwheel?

The article (5 Dec 2011) contains the following paragraph:

"On 5 November, Sollecito was called to the police station, arriving there around 10:15 pm, accompanied by Knox.[58] The police had been listening to Knox and Sollecito's telephone conversations, and knew her mother was due to arrive from Seattle on 6 November; Burleigh writes that 5 November might have been the last night police could question Knox without a lawyer, parent, or the American Embassy being involved.[59] While Sollecito was being interviewed, also without a lawyer, Knox remained in a waiting room, doing yoga stretches as was her habit. Shortly after 10:30 pm, according to Knox, a male police officer asked how she had become so flexible and for her to demonstrate some moves. She performed a cartwheel, just as Rita Ficarra, one of the officers who had been interviewing Knox for days, was entering the police station. Ficarra was shocked, seeing the behaviour as suspicious."[60]

Whether Knox actually performed a cartwheel is in dispute and it is stated as an absolute fact in the article. This is a description of events from a more Knox friendly author (http://www.vashonloop.com/article/amanda-knox-cartwheels-and-confessions):

"After sitting for some time, she stood up to stretch and did what was described as the Big Toe Pose; bent over at the waist, fingers touching toes, let your breath out slowly. Yoga, a great tool for stretching and breathing, was how Amanda calmed herself; I imagine she was doing a lot of yoga in the aftermath of Meredith’s slaying. Of course in Seattle Yoga is not unusual, but in Perugia it seemed eccentric."

"A male officer observing Amanda commented that she was very flexible and she chatted that she had been a gymnast as a child, glad for the conversation. He asked if she could do the splits and she complied. NO CARTWHEEL! In fact, Edda says, “the room she was in was far too small to accomplish a cartwheel.” The interaction lasted a moment or two and Amanda settled down to continue her homework. Her actions were at worst adolescent, but never malicious."

Knox denies performing a cartwheel and confirms that she did the splits. Her story seems credible and to state it as fact that she is lying seems a stretch from NPOV to me.

--Davefoc (talk) 06:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Follain says several unnamed detectives saw her doing yoga stretches, Napoleoni is named as seeing the cartwheel. It was leaked that AK did a cartwheel and later Profazio, the former head of the Perugia Flying Squad, testified at the trial that unnamed police had told him that Knox did cartwheels, but no one actually testified to seeing her do it. The wording could be altered to make clear that was an allegation.Overagainst (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Correction- Det Inspector Rita Ficarra testified she came out a lift into the 'waiting room' (sounds more like a like a foyer) and saw /reprimanded AK (for) doing 'bridges, backbends and cartwheels'. Follain says Napoleoni saw Knox doing a cartwheel when she came to use a vending machine. But, Inspector Lorena Zugarini, also testified she looked in on Knox and saw Knox doing cartwheels and the splits but in a 'side room' and told her off. So at least two separate incidents, possibly in different locations. A foyer /waiting room might have room to do what could be properly described as a cartwheel but a 'side room'? What Knox was seen doing were not cartwheels IMO but much more likely what the police called cartwheels. I think that she was doing advanced yoga poses (as suggested by the reference to 'bridges, backbends' and some of them looked enough like cartwheels for those three to call them that. So it's what the article calls it - an allegation. Overagainst (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"The wording could be altered to make clear that was an allegation." I think it should be. A lot of claims against Knox turned out to be false, many of them promulgated by the police department. Claims about Knox for which the police department is the only source are particularly suspect. --Davefoc (talk) 06:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Further clarification Knox did not demurr when Mignini asked at trial about "the wheel", (not wheel's') so Dempsey's account is probaby more or less correct. She did a cartwheel on the night of the 5th Nov in response to a request from a policeman (who may be the one who struck up a conversation with Amanda without identifing himself as a cop)) to show some moves while waiting beside the lifts outside the Flying Squad offices on the third floor. Monica Napoleoni testified to seeing Amanda do a (not more than one) cartwheel at around 11pm on November 5th that's possible and supports the idea that the man who asked her to 'demonstrate some moves' was the cop who pretended he was just a bystander who wanted to talk. It wasn't really a side room but a small foyer-like area I think. Lorena Zugarini reportedly testified she saw Knox do a cartwheel, that's possible if the offices have glass in the doors or Knox was under covert observation.Ficarra testifed to seeing cartwheels I think that is untrue as more than one cartwheel would take up too much room.Overagainst (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Witnesses

The Witnesses section should probably be eliminated if it's just going to list Formica. That's undue weight. Also I'm not sure I like where this going with key witnesses like Capezzalli and Curatolo relegated to a brief mention in the trial section. This is rewriting history from the standpoint of "Knox and Sollecito are declared innocent, therefore the witnesses are not witnesses." Brmull (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Capezzalli herself says she often heard screams and disturbance at night. It is a bad area Kercher saw an intruder in the grounds of the cottage in mid October. Capezzalli heard but didn't need (or bother) looking out the window to see where the noise came from. She claimed to have found out about the murder before it had been discovered. Curatolo was a Jun-key (professional)witness. Tacit permission to deal drugs in exchange for testimony IMO. Hellman dismisses him. Was Kokomani a 'witness' ? Overagainst (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Weasel words tag

Could you be be specific about problems please?; simply copy and paste the text of the article and (include the ref nos) and what you think are the 'weasel words', or cite specific text you object to on any other grounds and explain why. Overagainst (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Just scan for "however" as a start and then click the links provided in the editsummary to find out more about what words can be seen as "weasel words" and why (if it's not to much effort for a long term SPA account to learn some rules, especially those that were clearly pointed out.TMCk (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
And one step (issue) at the time if I may be "allowed" to suggest so.TMCk (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Trivia and weasel words

I'd be appreciated if Overagainst would let the "bored off" editors know when he's done with adding random trivia which is not directly related for understanding the subject of the article. I also expect him to clean up many accounts of weasel words he added so the "weasel word tag" can be removed to make space for others. We're still writing an encyclopedia the last time I checked. Thanks.TMCk (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, be specific please. Give the text in the article which is objected to and cite relevant Wikipedia guidlines in support of the objections. Unless this is done how can there be a discussion? Overagainst (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think tagging the article as a whole is particularly helpful, but I need a scotch and some aspirin before I can read this article again and try to figure out what the latest issues are. Will try to get to it this weekend :) Brmull (talk) 07:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Photo of Guede

The article needs a photo of Guede in my opinion. Is the the mugshot released when he was at large now in the public domain ? If so could someone upload it please. Overagainst (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I uploaded it here. The copyright status of mugshots in Italy is unclear but it was released by the police and distributed on all the wire services, so I think it'll pass muster with the copyright admins. Brmull (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Overagainst (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully it will stand this time. I had uploaded it...and it was deleted at commons. This discussion held some of the rationales but there are other places in the archive where it was discussed also. Then I believe I uploaded it for Fair-use here and that didn't stand but I can't locate that deletion discussion but I found this one.

A good number of the images that I uploaded for this article were deleted. :(
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Appeal of slander charge

I am enjoying my hiatus from editing this article, but thought that someone may want to update with the following information:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-02-07/amanda-knox-slander-conviction/53000788/1

LedRush (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox of MK

Why has the photo of MK got a title like 'Murder of Meredith Kercher'?; that is not what the photo shows. Some info under photo of the victim and about the victim seems to have been changed and expanded into a eyecatching POV mini summary that discusses legal outcomes of other people in a misleading way. It's trying to supplant the article IMO. That not the place for the subject, it shouldn't be there and anyway its text is POV and wrong. For example 'Convicted of sexual assault, murder' is incorrect, the verdict at an Italian trial of the first grade does not have the status that a conviction at trial has in Britain or the US, 50% of verdicts at trials of the first grade are reversed. Back to this version of the MK photo box please.Overagainst (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

In a infobox wording is necessarily abbreviated. Issues that required an explaination, such as the status of verdicts at AK/RS's trial of the first degree, should not be given a deceptive presentation on the pretext of brevity as is being done in the highly prominent infobox, right alongside the lede. The wording was not neutral 'Convicted of sexual assault, murder'. Info in an infobox for MK's photo should be about her and consist of those relevant details that can be accurately given in the limited space available.Overagainst (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. "Deceptive presentation under the pretext of brevity"...you jump straight to that conclusion? That statement = bad faith. Funny that you are the only one who is claiming a POV in the infobox. Try holding on to the wrong version if you think that is the case while the issue is being discussed. So far, you have been reverted by two other editors. I'm restoring the previously accepted version while discussion is ongoing so folks can see what is under discussion. If a consensus forms here to change it then we will...there is no rush.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 12:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources are currently stating that they were convicted...we use what the sources state. See CNN's "Italian prosecutors appeal decision to overturn Amanda Knox conviction".
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 12:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice of you to defend the person responsible for the edit to the photo/ infobox text. I don't know who was responsible for that drastic alteration to the text under the MK photo so I didnt call anyone names. It is permissable call an edit out of order if the edit hasn't been discussed in talk, or mentioned in any edit summary.Overagainst (talk)

I don't know who made the modifications to the text box but it has been there for months. You shouldn't jump to the conclusion that whoever did it was being deceptive. Also, the box info is accurate enough according to sources. The nuances of the Italian legal system are explained in the article. You suddenly deciding that calling them "convictions" is incorrect and trying to correct it as POV is what seems out of order. For all intents and purposes, they were convicted and spent several years in prison before successfully appealing.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The change was made last year on October 9 with a clear edit summary and tweaked by another editor on October 17. Since then there were no complains. Honestly, the mistake was to add a bio info-box early on to the article even so the subject is the crime and not the person.TMCk (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It is an eyecatching mini lede right alongside the proper lede and supplanting it. The wording is tendentious, 'Convicted of sexual assault, murder' is not proper wording for a label in an infobox. The article makes clear, in the Italian legal procedure section, that AK &RS were not convicted as is understood in the UK or US. AK & RS were referred to, and had the legal status of, defendants after the verdict in the trial of the first degree, so how can it be called a conviction. And 'convicted of' is hardly neutral wording , especially as the people being referred to were, in second stage of the trial process, acquitted. It really won't do to have that deceptive worded information in such a prominent place. The featured article Death of Ian Tomlinson has a picture infobox showing the circumstances of his death in a photobox called that. The 'Murder of Meredith Kercher' is on the photo infobox but the photo of Kercher is not related to the circumstances of her death. It's there to show who she was and give basic facts; the ones that can be got across in the restricted space available. I don't see a biobox format as inappropriate for the intended purpose as long as the labels are worded properly. The text is the thing.Overagainst (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Go convince CNN and all other sources that they are being tendentious when they say "convicted". I guess they are being deceptive...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If they never were convicted would mean that there was nothing to overturn and yet the court overturned a conviction. Maybe some undiscovered paradox is taking place?TMCk (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Any minute now we'll be back on the old "describing them as having been convicted is a BLP violation" train so beloved of PhanuelB. pablo 14:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

'Convicted of' should be 'convicted on charges of' or better still 'found guilty on charges of'. There is not room in an infobox label for that wording "Convicted of sexual assault, murder" is too long as it is. That was my point about slanted language getting through under a pretext of brevity. The infobox is the wrong place and in the wrong place - right alongside the lede and containing a very poorly worded version of the same info. The trial of the second degree is akin to a retrial (with more intelligent lay judges) and not very like what is understood by the word 'appeal' in the US or UK. The first trial's verdict was overturned but it was not the overturning of a 'conviction' as most English speaking readers will understand it.Overagainst (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm; let's see. Convicted in UK; go to jail, conviction overturned, get released, get on with your life, sell story to papers etc.
Convicted in US; go to jail, conviction overturned, get released, get on with your life, commence suing everyone in sight etc.
Convicted in Italy; go to jail, conviction overturned, get released, get on with your life ... all these examples of overturning of convictions seem pretty similar to me. But then I do not claim to be an expert on what most English speaking readers would understand. pablo 15:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Giulio Andreotti was 'convicted' of murder (in a Perugia court), as someone in Britain would understand it, was he? Or would it be deceptive to say that so baldly.Overagainst (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Not (as far as I know) in this case, he wasn't. pablo 22:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Giulio Andreotti was acquitted in his first trial, then convicted on appeal and acquitted again on appeal. But what's the point? That his infobox doesn't show this? If that's the point let me say this again: This article is about the crime and not the bio of MK. Andreotti's article is not about a crime but his bio. Clear and simple.. one might think.... one other might not.TMCk (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

How can you be convicted for the first time at an appeal? You can't, what you are referring to as an appeal is what in Britain or the US would be called a re-trial. The point is the Italian legal system has differences that do not allow a ready translation of terms like 'conviction' as the legal status of a person found guilty on a charge at a trial of the first degree in Italy is not equivalent to a conviction on a charge at trial in the UK and US. 'Conviction' should not be used about the verdict at the first trial without carefully explaining the differences. 'Convicted of' is not accurate or neutral for a verdict at an Italian trial of the first degree and should not be used in this context. 'Found guilty on a charge of' is better. Overagainst (talk) 09:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC) In the UK of US a conviction has far more weight, anyone in the UK or US who read that that Andreotti was convicted of ordering that murder, but the conviction was overturned, would believe he was probably guilty but got off for lack of evidence. That eyecatching infobox is parrallel with the lede. "Infobox" MoMK starts off with bio type info under the MK photo, (a bio type photo, not a photo of her being murdered). Then it turns into a a mini lede which states Amanda Knox was 'Convicted of sexual assault, murder'. Overagainst (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Found guilty on a charge of" means "convicted of" in English however.

convict (v) declare (someone) to be guilty of a criminal offence by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge in a court of law
OED

to find or prove to be guilty
Merriam-Webster

How is "convicted of" not the English meaning of what happened to the defendants? pablo 10:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

If word for word rendering of Italian into English was the only way you would be right. However we can use a few words to be more exact in our translation of the single word of Italian. The context includes the fact that in Britain or the US, 50% of verdicts at trials are not reversed. A conviction in the English speaking world means something different than it does in Italy. Not totally different, but different enough that the phrase 'convicted of' which glosses over the presumed innocent status of a defendant, until they are found guilty at a trial of the second degree, should not be used.Overagainst (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No we don't need to user more than one word to translate the Italian. We need to state what the sources say. More words can be used within the body of the article to explain this technical point.
They were found guilty at their first trial. They were presumed innocent for the purposes of the second. The article states this. Relative percentages of successful appeals in other countries is irrelevant. pablo 11:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Rather than using valuable space and wasting readers' valuable time by using the article to resolve misunderstandings created in the infobox/bootleg minilede, let's just leave the trial outcomes for the lede and article where they can be explained properly.Overagainst (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox labels

Let's emulate the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, a featured article. It has infobox label 'Perpetrator" and one name - Sirhan Sirhan. Thane Cesar is not mentioned. Assassination of John F. Kennedy infobox has label 'Perpetrator(s)'. Lee Harvey Oswald is mentioned, but Clay Shaw, who was actually prosecuted, is not mentioned in the infobox. I don't see a precedent for the prosecutor Mignini being mentioned in the MoMK infobox. The O. J. Simpson murder case info box does not name a prosecutor. Is Jim Garrison mentioned in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy infobox? Overagainst (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

'Convicted of sexual assault, murder' as a infobox label

I can not find any other article which has an infobox label like the one in MoMK. It seems to me the phrase 'Convicted of sexual assault, murder' is overlong for an infox label and yet not able to convey what the article does on the status of the trial of the first degree verdicts. The infobox does not mention Knox being found guilty at the trial of the second degree on a charge of slander, even though the slander charge is the only one she was truly convicted of under Italian law. Also, there is no space to explain that Guede's convictions for murder and sexual assault are definitive, as he was found guilty at trials of the first and second degree and the supreme court appeal. Guede's conviction on charges of sexual assault and murder was never of the same status as that of Knox and Sollecito on the same charge. Infobox labels should not contain information which can not be given in a clear way in the space available . I don't see any precedent for the prosecutor Mignini being mentioned in the MoMK infobox. Jim Garrison is not mentioned in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy infobox. The O. J. Simpson murder case infobox does not name a prosecutor. Overagainst (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC) If you disagree now is your chance to say so. A consensus is not silent. Overagainst (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It is when it is clear. You do not have consensus and have not made a convincing argument. Your last edit concerning the infobox is clearly edit-warring against the consensus here.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The infobox is the short version, Cliff's Notes as it were. It should only display the final result of all the court cases, that Guede killed Kercher. The Knox, Lumumba and Sollecito arrests should be the last we hear of them in the infobox. I have no problem with Mignini in the infobox. Binksternet (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Appeal

• Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito murder acquittals challenged Connolly15 (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• Italy prosecutors appeal decision to overturn Knox conviction Connolly15 (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Mignini was told by the Italian government well before Knox was released that, extradition treaty or not, the USA would never send her back. Overagainst (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

They don't need to extradite her to appeal. Obviously an appeal to Italy's Supreme Court should be mentioned in the article. Sollecito will also be affected.Connolly15 (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

At the first trial Mignini didn't even question Sollecito about his evidence. This is going to drag on for a decade with no result but impoverishing the Sollecitos. - The Florentine issue no. 80/2008 / May 29, 2008) "Pharmacist acquitted in monster of Florence' case. Accused of being involved in the mostro di Firenze murders, Francesco Calamandrei was recently exonerated by a Florence court for lack of evidence. Upon hearing the court's ruling, the 68-year-old former pharmacist from San Casciano said he was 'happy, of course, for the acquittal but the verdict is no compensation for what I have had to undergo in the last 20 years.' Calamandrei was arrested for his alleged involvement in the last four murders committed by the ‘monster of Florence'. Prosecutors (Mignini basically) accused Calamandrei ... Calamandrei told reporters, ‘I didn't do anything. The entire argument posed against me was based on hearsay and not concrete facts'. " Is an account of every future twist and turn in this futile rigmarole going to be added to the article? Overagainst (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added a statement in the lead but have not expanded this within the article as it is still unfolding and I think it is worthwhile to let things develop in whatever direction it may take first.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 12:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The lede is where the reader can cut to the chase. AK/RS's release and the judges verdict on the verdict at the trial of the first degree is given. That is the state of play. Ongoing stuff belongs in the main body of the article .Overagainst (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the highest (and final) level of appeal and in any normal article about a crime there wouldn't even be debate about adding a new sub-section to the trial's history regarding an appeal to the Supreme Court. Connolly15 (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Based on where this is now and the nature of the Italian justice system, I would think that this should be mentioned in the article (perhaps in a subsection when it is more widely reported and when there is more to say about it) but not in the lede. There is nothing about this appeal or the reports about it which indicate that it is so essential to the article that it would be summarized in the lede. Remember, the lede is a summary of the most important parts of the article, and things should only be in there when covered and well sourced in the article itself. Putting this in the lede and not in the article is not an option.

On a different but related note, I would imagine that the article above should be mentioned with this: meaning, we should say that the prosecutors have appealed the murder acquittal and Knox has appealed the slander conviction. These are related topics and should probably be covered together.LedRush (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article body should mention the appeal but not the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It should be in the main body but not in the lead until the court either accepts or dismisses the appeal.TMCk (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It is going to be a one day hearing later this year; the prosecution raising objections to the Hellmann judgement on purely technical grounds.Overagainst (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Look, I don't think the supreme court is going to overrule the appeal decision, but you can't try to play down the significance of the highest court's ruling as if it's no big deal. Doing so is only prejudging the result. The effect if this is overruled, even if Knox is not extradited, would be felt: (1) European Arrest Warrant means she could never travel in the European Union; (2) Outside of the United States she would be in danger of extradition Roman Polanski-style; (3) any book she and Sollecito publish likely wouldn't be sold in the EU (and perhaps elsewhere) on grounds they would be profiting from a crime (Coroners and Justice Act 2009); and (4) the civil law suits in the US will fly to recover any US profits for the victim's family. Anyway, I am glad that it is being worked in somehow at this point. Connolly15 (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not yet a case merely a scheduled hearing to see if the trial of the second degree (which is virtually a retrial in British terms) was improperly conducted. If the prosecution succeed the losses in name, reputation and wealth will not be to AK, but the inhabitants of a certain European country. Overagainst (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

edit warring over "Alleged"

I've attempted to clean up the wording per WP:CLAIM to make it more neutral. This goes for both the defence as well as the prosecution. I left one occurrence of the word alleged as it describes the weapon entered into evidence.

Can we agree to leave this type of wording out?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd tried that before but to no prevail and added the weasel tag instead. Yesterday I tried again, was of course reverted by the very same editor with ownership issues, then tried to at least balance it out by applying "alleged" to both "sides" and you can see what happened to that, not to mention other ce I did which was wholesome reverted too. I was getting tired of this before and I'm getting tired of this again. VERY tired! Would be nice if this disruptive editwarring by one single editor would end.TMCk (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've given a 3RR warning on that editor's page. Without consensus here, that editor will be blocked for edit-warring the next time they do this. My impression was that the alleged terminology was being used to undermine prosecution arguments much more so than the defence which is an NPOV problem. I've tried to elect language which undermines neither side.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The 'alleged' issue was discussed and the correct WP style guidance cited by me on 11 Dec. here, you two don't seem to have taken on board that the use of it in the article is proper for the word in the context. OK I'll try again. For use of alleged we should be consulting WP:ALLEGED. ::"Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. When alleged or accused is used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear."

The uses of alleged or accused that are being deleted were entirely in line with that, it's not "Overagainst's interpretation of weasel". The Magnificent Clean-keeper is in effect saying the WP:ALLEGED approved use is weasel and he was inserting "alleged' into Knox's defence arguments. That is absurd, a lawyer does not allege their client is innocent.

The edits are going beyond wording. Berean Hunter cited WP:CLAIM in his edit summary when removing a well sourced fact: that Kercher found a syringe in the ground of the house. The Magnificent Clean-keeper removed Knox's account of a group of male and female detectives refusing to believe her at her interrogation. Edit summary reads "subjective and judgmental + rm undue mention of mixed group ". Knox's contention that the interrogation was not by two women and a female translator, as police claimed, but a large number of detectives including men is relevant, the deleted text made it clear it was Knox's account. The police version of what happened is objective, but Knox's is subjective? Overagainst (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The usual over and over again(st): You are right and everybody else is wrong. Right?TMCk (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Having understood your rationale, I'm still suggesting that we keep things as neutral as possible. You have cited WP:ALLEGED so please take note of the last sentence there which suggests more neutral language as the way forward. Although alleged is not verboten, it isn't preferable either. As I said, I left one occurrence within the article. For NPOV's sake, we can find other ways to word things without resorting to edit wars. As to your point that a lawyer does not allege their client is innocent, that depends on which definition of allege that you use. Indeed, in many cases the pleas are alleged. See definition #4 for allegation.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutral wording requires an unproven assertion of serious wrongdoing by the prosecution to be accurately characterized it as what it is: an allegation or accusation. Article now says " During his appeal, Guede stated for the first time that Knox had been in the apartment at the time of the murder" - that is an accusation not a statement.

You altered a section heading from 'Alleged Motive' to 'Motive', why can't you see the implication in that wording is not neutral POV. The current changes go beyond wording as I pointed out above sourced factual information is being deleted. If you give the police version of the interrogation and delete important details from Knox's version ( as "subjective") is that WP:Balance.

WP:NPOVFAQ "In-text attribution is recommended where sources disagree, not where editors disagree."

I put in an in-text attribution from Follain about the animation ( which was shown on a giant screen in a darkened courtroon) leaving many in court shaken. I think that was perfectly legitimate. It got deleted. The current blizzard of deletions and alterations lacks edit summaries that actually say what has been done. Laconic rationales for unspecified changes make it difficult to see what's happened and edit on a case by case basis. Overagainst (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

All accusations are statements. There is nothing wrong with saying that Guede stated something; it does not mean that validity is being given within the article to his statement. The same applies to motive and listing it as such does not imply guilt...it is implied that it is an assertion. If we used your rationale, we would be painting alleged or other such language throughout the article. TMCK's edits were intended to show balance of what you are doing. You can't paint the prosecution's arguments with that brush but not apply it both ways. It is best left out of the article altogether. Our readers are educated enough that they don't need this. Other deletions and copyedits are not the subject of this thread.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the specific edits, and I hate to say this as Overagainst has serious ownership issues, but generally, he is right on this. "Alleged" should only be used to describe purported crimes and not purported defenses per normal English usage and Wikipedia policy. Any use of alleged to describe the defense should be reverted, and unproven claims by the prosecution should be described as being alleged.LedRush (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I just did a quick scan of the article. The term was used 6 times, and only once was it incorrectly applied. I removed that one. I haven't seen the edit history to how we got to this point, so I don't know if there used to be more usage and TMCk/Berean got it down to this number, or TMCk/Berean cut it down and Over reinserted them.LedRush (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional input. Could you look through the edits from yesterday to today regarding this matter and offer your ideas. I'm in favor of leaving all forms of claim and allege out in lieu of neutral language. I believe the term was overly used and problematic.

Any use of alleged by the defense should be reverted? I would disagree with that in general terms. An Allegation may be made in criminal law by defendants in terms of Affirmative defenses. As an example, a generic defendant's claim of insanity is nothing more than an allegation unless it is proven by expert testimony.

An example of the defense parties making allegations in this particular case is Knox alleging Lamumba took part in this crime or that Knox alleged that she was struck during interrogation (something which is unproven). So yes, the defense does make allegations.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I just went through the article and it seems that most of TMCk's and Berean's changes were good. However, some notes: to "hold" something in a legal context has a specific meaning, and this should not be used here unless we are talking about an outcome of a legal action. Attest also has a specific meaning that we should be mindful of. Most of the "alleged" that TMCk took out were good, but some were actually detrimental (for example, unless Guede was convicted of B&E, he is merely alleged to have done it). Alleged is the proper legal term for much more here, but I've used other words where it wasn't really necessary in light of TMCk's and Berean's concerns.LedRush (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible alternative for "Alleged Knox motive" (it doesn't read well to me...) might be "Suggested motive"? --Errant ^(chat!) 22:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I could get on board with that.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

dittoLedRush (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

In this instance "alleged" or "suggested" is both fine with me.TMCk (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Follain's book

Any chance that someone besides Overagainst has Foillan's book at hand to check and add full quotes in footnotes at the article for more context? There were or still are occasions where Dempsey's book was used for content that either was not backed up by Dempsey's account [in part maybe just the wrong page number was given] or instances of misinterpretation of the source. I'm not that hooked on this article to by yet another book as the last two I bought put me to sleep :)TMCk (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have the book, but the request(s) will need to be more specific. --FormerIP (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't be more specific than what I've already said since I don't have the book. I'm asking for someone to go over the article, verify what's sourced to Foillan and add footnotes as needed or appropriate. I know it's not just some minor work and if you would do this you'd have to use your own judgment of course. Or you could send me your book for free and I'll do the rest :)) TMCk (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Follain will be too happy about you requesting someone to stick key passages of his recent and copyrighted work onto WP. It's a good book, he got incredible access. For anyone interested in the case what's in the book makes it well worth buying. There are lots of interesting details and insights that I have not referenced.Overagainst (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Re removal of my earlier brusque remark about buying the book- Please give people a little time to sign, tidy up and moderate their more obviously rushed talk contributions before taking it upon yourself to delete them with a pointed comment/edit summary. I think you'll find worse things said about me, than by me, on talk in recent months. Attribution of 'ownership issues' is hardly civil. Some may think the tone of a comment like "It's safe to say that she'll never be a low-profile individual.", made under a pseudonym and about an identified person, is rather ill-judged on a WP talk page. Ownership is the - "I don't own that book, so I can't confirm your source." I went to some trouble in giving a helpful response to TMCk about the book a while back. Footnotes with excerpts from the referenced text in Follain's book should not be put on the page, it would be a copyright violation. A couple of editors have the book and any misrepresentation will be picked up on.Overagainst (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Knox's book

It's safe to say that she'll never be a low-profile individual.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketcopy/2012/02/amanda-knox-gets-4-million-book-deal.html

This is best addressed in the Knox article (as someone has already done), but may merit mention here.LedRush (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The first thing that came into my mind when I saw the update on Knox's bio that it would be safe to say that she at least can pay off the debt her parents had to build up. Good for her (and her folks.)
And yes, I think it warrants a mention in this article too, just not sure about the section to include it but I'll take a look. Although someone might beat me to it...TMCk (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe under "reaction/media coverage"? Could be a bold section under "media coverage" like "book deal". Any thoughts?TMCk (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Could be like follows:
  Knox book deal or Knox memoir
  In February 2012 Knox signed a $4 million contract with Harper Collins for writing her memoir.

I've boldly added it but everybody please feel free to revert and discuss further.TMCk (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

.TMCk, you say above "let me say this again: This article is about the crime and not the bio of MK". Now you're putting completely irrelevant materiel about Ms Knox's life since her release into the article and getting supported. EG LedRush, "may merit mention here" I'm astounded at that. I think there is no case whatever for Knox's life since her release qualifying as encyclopedic content, certainly not for the MoMK article. I've been criticized for ownership issues, OK I'll give it a rest and leave it to TMCk and like minded editors to update their Amanda Knox blog Overagainst (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Is that a promise?LedRush (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You can be as certain of it as you can be that Mick Jagger is the cousin of Roger Daltrey. Overagainst (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone! Just made a bold edit and put all the book deals as a separate section. When everybody's writing books, why mention just Knox's deal?--Tinpisa (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Changing wording and changing the meaning

Article in previous version said " At her trial Knox's account of what happened during her interrogation differed from that of the police. She testified that she spent hours maintaining her original story, that she had been with Sollecito at his flat all night and had no knowledge of the murder, but a group of police, both men and women, (ref Time World, Sept 29, 200(The Tough Women of the Amanda Knox Case) refused to believe her.

Magnificent Clean-keeper changed it, in in his edit summary he says "subjective and judgmental + rm undue mention of mixed group which adds nothing to the understanding of the subject". he changed it to this;- "At her trial Knox's account of what happened during her interrogation differed from that of the police. She testified that she spent hours maintaining her original story that she had been with Sollecito at his flat all night and had no knowledge of the murder, but a group of police[97] did not believe her.[98]"

Firstly, it is made clear that this is Knox's version of what happened which she gave at her trial. The criticism of it being subjective would only apply if this was being stated in Wikipedia's voice as what happened. If the police version is given then Knox's version as she gave it should be also. Tone down Knox's version and it ceases to be her version. . Magnificent Clean-keeper has taken upon himself to alter the meaning. a group of police[97] did not believe her.[98] " Speaking directly to jurors, Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox on Saturday sharply disputed testimony given by officials as to what happened at police headquarters the night before their arrest. In a show of defense solidarity, the two spoke one after the other in response to testimony from the head of the homicide unit and the policewoman who questioned the 21-year-old Seattle woman from midnight until 5:45 a.m. the morning of November 6, 2007. "I'm very sorry to hear what these witnesses have said," Knox stood to tell jurors. "It's not true. [...] I was only treated like a person after I made those last statements to the police -- then I was allowed to go to the bathroom, have something to drink." here And the Judges severely criticised the interogation and said it was of 'obsessive duration' so there is support for more than "a group of police[97] did not believe her " Overagainst (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This is Knox's account, not Wikipedia's, and therefore we should use her stronger, POV words and not the neutral words of the Wikipedia voice.LedRush (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't use non-neutral language when paraphrasing. If we ought to use Knox's words they need to be presented as quote (which the article is already full of... just saying).TMCk (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If we are stating what Knox's opinion is, it is POV to change it to mean something it is not. Neutrality here requires accurate portrayal of the subject/topic at hand. Your edit is POV as it deliberately distorts the subject to make it mean something different (in your mind, more neutral).LedRush (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, trying to insult me is not helpfull and doesn't serve you well.TMCk (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, did you actually read my comment? Do you understand the difference between paraphrasing and quoting? Please take another look and leave out the POV accusation BS. We had enough of that in the past so please don't start that unhelpful crap again. We sure can do w/o it. Thanks.TMCk (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please reread my post and try again. Thank you!LedRush (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Keeping up with BS-ing me doesn't change anything. Again, there is a difference between paraphrasing and quoting someone. You want her exact words in the article? Then suggest a way to quote her entirely and we might find some kind of consensus to add yet another quote.TMCk (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:PARAPHRASE,
"To properly paraphrase content, you review information from reliable sources, extract the salient points, and use your own words, style and sentence structure to draft text for an article."TMCk (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Add (after (edit conflict): "In some instances it is helpful to capture the words as written, in which case the guidelines for wp:Quotations apply."TMCk (talk) 01:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Because you are either unwilling to read my position or unable to understand it, I will try again: in describing Knox's account of the exchange, we should remain true to what her account actually is. By choosing words that alter her account, you are making POV changes to the article. In short, we need to accurately convey what the source says, and your change to the text doesn't do that. The source uses the word "refused", and it makes sense for us to as well. We need not quote everything in order to accurately convey an idea.LedRush (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No, the sources quote Knox as saying "refused". Read the essay and guideline I've linked above for further information how to deal with such.TMCk (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where in the paraphrasing article it says we need to dramatically alter the meaning of the sourced content. Could you please point it out?LedRush (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

"Dramatically"? You must be kidding :)) TMCk (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the word refused is being applied out of context from the source. It states: "Miss Knox said Italian police had interpreted the phrase "See you later" as a firm plan on her behalf to meet up with Mr Lumumba later that evening. She insisted that in English it was simply a casual sign-off but said police refused to believe her and pressured her to blame the murder on Mr Lumumba." ref

That means that they (according to Knox) refused to accept her explanation of the message text. As it stands now, that is a gross misapplication of the ref as it is being used to support another use of refused. If we are going to use Knox's words they must be used correctly.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Now that is indeed "dramatically" altering the meaning of the source. Not that I'm surprised. So what should the rewrite look like? There should be a consensus version drafted out here on talk although I'll reinstate the less contentious version till this is sorted out.TMCk (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed the usage is not perfect, but the intent is clear and accurate. However, I agree that a more complete rewrite could be an improvement. Per WP policy, I have restored the longstanding language to the article before TMCk's ill-advised, bold change. Now we're in the talky time, TMCk.LedRush (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think the problems with the sources go deeper. I have no doubt that the language as is can be sourced, but it is not by the two provided. The Time article mentions the browbeating of a false confession, while the telegraph states that the police refused to accept the obvious meaning of an English phrase and, this led them to suspect Knox. Neither mentions that Knox maintained her alibi for hours, etc. AS I said, I am sure this can be easily sourced, but it isn't now.LedRush (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes...a rewrite. Everyone needs to stop reverting as they are on the edge with 3RR. I don't see TMCK's change as ill-advised. The ref was being taken out of context and he sought to correct that. OverAgainst's concern in the original post has no merit. Led, you argued above that "...we should remain true to what her account actually is. By choosing words that alter her account, you are making POV changes to the article. In short, we need to accurately convey what the source says,...".
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 06:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I would again remind you that Knox's testimony was in Italian. The phrase 'Refused to believe her' was a loose but terse paraphase. It was replaced with 'Didn't believe her' which has a meaning quite different and is not a paraphase of Knox's testimony as given in reliable sources. Anyway, 'Didn't believe her' is non encyclopedic as it is attributing a mental state to the police, (rather than conveying that the detectives were telling her she was lying). If my faithful though economical paraphase is deemed unacceptable we will use a quote which is explicit that Knox maintained her alibi for hours while detectives refused to believe her. "I kept saying I had nothing to do with this and remembered being at Raffaele's apartment. They yelled at me, and I was in this state of confusion because for hours they called me a stupid liar." A confident Amanda Knox defends herself, says she wasn't there during slaying She says police bullied her into statements that weren't true. Overagainst (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that TMCk replaced an accurate phrase with an unencyclopedic one that changed the meaning, but as has been pointed out above, the original phrase doesn't deal directly with the subject either (meaning, yes, it's better than TMCk's POV distortion, but neither accurately says what the sources do). The source said that the refusal of the police to believe was with regards to the meaning of "See you later", which of course does relate to the alibi and Knox's story. But it is best to use a more explicit source regarding this subject. I don't think we need to use the quote you have there, but that that source can be used to make a general rewrite regarding Knox's account of that part of the interrogation.LedRush (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Question: Should that text remain in its current section? After all, we have a section titled Knox's withdrawal of her statement and the prosecution section follows later where this might be more appropriate. It was brought up a good while back (I don't remember who) that the article should have a chronological flow and not have points and rebuttals interspersed throughout the article. To me, having Knox's rebuttal in trial placed in the interrogation section is getting the cart before the horse.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

LedRush , yes Ref 98 is not directly relevant to "She testified that she spent hours maintaining her original story that she had been with Sollecito at his flat all night and had no knowledge of the murder, but a group of police[97] refused to believe her". Therefore A confident Amanda Knox defends herself, says she wasn't there during slaying-Seatle PI June 11, 2009, should be the ref for that statement or the re written version of it. Existing refs should be kept in para. By a re-write do you mean altered wording by tight paraphrasing of the quotes already in the para, or a substantially new version?

Berean Hunter, the artlcle has chronological order to the extent that is compatible with an encyclopedic article. The issue does not arise in this case. We are using the best sources to give an account of testimony about what happened in the interrogation. The para is Knox's account of what happened at the interrogation, the police account has been given in the preceding para. Cops' then Knox's. You think this is not chronological because Knox's account is from the trial, let me ask you this: when do you think the police account of the interrogation was given? At the trial obviously.Overagainst (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Overagainst again. The only way that Berean's suggestion makes sense is if we first have a neutral account in WP's voice. However, if we wanted to rewrite the section to be a completely dispassionate and neutral telling of the story, it would be nearly impossible (I would imagine that with the court rulings and recent press, the dispassionate version would most closely mirror Knox's, not the prosecutions'). As it currently sits, we are largely saying what the cops/prosecutors said, then what the defense said, in chronological order. The trial section then deals with how this conflicting information was dealt with at trial.

The only other way to do this would seem to be to delete everything contested from intro, and only write what is largely considered accepted knowledge in the initial sections. This could work, but it would also leave large holes in the narrative (for example, how could we treat the instant information? Omit it?)?LedRush (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, from my perspective this is a well reasoned, well argued discussion of how best to present the information that is available to aide the reader in sorting through a very complicated and contradictory tale. A tip of the hat to all. Okay, carry on. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

"Refused to believe her"

Free dictionary "Refuse usually implies determination and often brusqueness". It does not just mean 'did not believe her'. Oxford learner's says it means 'feel certain' as in "He refused to believe (that) his son was involved in drugs". Overagainst (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)