Talk:Amanda Knox

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2016

Nina Burleigh's book The Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Trials of Amanda Knox is included in the books section. If this book is included, then Candace Dempsey's book Murder in Italy: The Shocking Slaying of a British Student, the Accused American Girl, and an International Scandal should also be on the list. Please add Murder in Italy: The Shocking Slaying of a British Student, the Accused American Girl, and an International Scandal by Candace Dempsey. Berkley; 1st edition (April 27, 2010) Bruce Fischer (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Bruce Fischer (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: Please see WP:OSE and WP:OTHERSTUFF. All in all, you have to come up with a better rationale, or at least provide reliable sources to show that the books are notable enough to be mentioned. ChamithN (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

What reliable sources were provided for Burleigh's book? I am not suggesting that it doesn't belong, I just wonder what the criteria is. Dempsey's book is published by Penguin. It has been mentioned in many articles and Dempsey appeared on major networks to discuss it. Here is a sample list of sources. I'm sure I can find many more. Sorry for any improper formatting. I am not here often. Thanks for looking into this.

http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/305397/murder-in-italy-by-candace-dempsey/9780425230831/

http://www.oregonlive.com/books/index.ssf/2010/05/candace_dempsey_tracks_a_famou.html

http://www.seattlemet.com/articles/2010/12/6/murder-in-italy-amanda-in-court-dempsey-in-bellevue-12-10

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/27-fact-flubs-hayden-panettieres-163554

http://www.businessinsider.com/amanda-knox-ruling-in-italian-supreme-court-2015-3

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-italy-knox-idUKL5E7L31FE20111005

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/09/amanda_knox_what_really_happened_writing_toward_the_actual_story/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/8156111/Amanda-Knox-appeal-the-films-and-books-about-the-case.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/30/amanda-knox-booklist/2112895/ Bruce Fischer (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  07:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Burleigh's book, and her steady output as a commentator in the English-speaking news media during the case, definitely crossed the line between unbiased reporting and overt partisanship of Miss Knox, which was also pointed out in some interviews with her, e.g. . She was very much playing up to popular stereotypes and emotions riding high in the story. In the linked interview, Burleigh discusses some of those stereotypes and shows that she was aware of them, and their power over various kinds of readers, but this looks very much like a side angle she could discuss in a meta-journalistic context. In her actual reporting, she played on those aspects of the story to the hilt and made lots of general allegations about Italy, Italian courts, the Italian media (all in hock to the Mafia, she would have you believe) and the persons involved in the story. Burleigh was both biased and heavily selective in her coverage of the case. Strausszek (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's an issue with using a source that is sympathetic to one party; so long as it is only used to support verifiable facts, and not simply as a rationale for editorializing. However, With something as politicized as this, the real issue is going to be leaving NPOV territory, which is going to be very hard, ESPECIALLY with this recent release of the Netflix documentary. Protecting the page from frivolous editing on those grounds, for awhile, seems prudent.

Verdict

There is a problem with this passage in the article: 'Rather than merely declaring that there were errors in earlier court cases or that there was not enough evidence to convict, the court ruled that Knox and Sollecito were innocent of the murder.' The problem is that it's not true. The unsatisfactory source cited, an anonymous and quite strange article in The Economist which, in another paragraph, supports Berlusconi's mafia-friendly grudge against the Italian judiciary, actually says, 'The Court of Cassation in Rome found Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito not guilty on the grounds that they had "not committed the act". Italian law recognises different levels of acquittal; this is the most definitive.'

And the problem with that is that it's a lie. Far from going out of their way to declare that Knox and Sollecito had nothing to do with the crime, which would have meant a definitive 'not guilty' acquittal under Article 530 Paragraph 1 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, the supreme court in fact rendered an acquittal under Article 530 Paragraph 2, 'Insufficient or contradictory evidence', which is closer to the Scottish verdict of 'Not proven'.

The form of words given in the supreme court's initial disposition, and repeated at the end of the motivation report, 'Acquitted under Art. 530.2 for not having committed the act,' is not a special dispensation. When a 'Not proven' 530.2 acquittal is registered, the court has to state which of four possible elements specified under Art. 530.2 is considered not proven: (i) that the act occurred, (ii) that the defendant committed the act, (iii) that the act was a crime, or (iv) that the defendant was of sufficient mental capacity to bear criminal responsibility. If it's (ii), the court has to use the form, 'Acquitted under Art.530.2 for not having committed the act.' This is legal boilerplate. It is not a special dispensation for special snowflakes.

'Not proven' is just 'Not proven.' The judges' motivation report finds that Amanda Knox was 'certainly' in the apartment at the time of the murder, that she washed the victim's blood from her hands in the small bathroom, that Sollecito was probably there as well, though at an undetermined time, that both of them gave a 'failed alibi' and lied to investigators, and that Knox falsely blamed an innocent black man, Patrick Lumumba, in order to cover for her associate Rudy Guede in case anyone had seen him leaving the house. Some Knox supporters have tried to claim that the report is merely summarising the prosecution case, but in fact the author of the report, Judge Bruno, states specifically that this is the court's own view, and he uses lines of reasoning which are original and do not appear in the prosecution case.

Leaning on that anonymous and mendacious article in The Economist isn't good enough. You could find a published source (David Icke) to claim that HM Queen Elizabeth II is an extra-terrestrial shape-shifting reptile who controls the world's heroin trade, but it would be wrong to state that as fact in HM's Wiki bio. This is like that. The article has apparently been edited by individuals in the grip of hybristophilia, the medically recognised condition of perverse sexual attraction to psychopathic murderers. The article is also clearly tainted by the PR campaign conducted on behalf of Knox's family (of which Bruce Fischer is a representative hired by Knox's stepfather Chris Mellas). You won't find quite this kind of drivel on Italian Wikipedia, because Italians know what actually went on in the courts. Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Khamba Tendal should be immediately banned from editing pages related to Amanda Knox. The post above suggests that this person is delusional. Khamba Tendal wrote: "The article is also clearly tainted by the PR campaign conducted on behalf of Knox's family (of which Bruce Fischer is a representative hired by Knox's stepfather Chris Mellas)." This nonsense is only spewed out by obsessed anti-Amanda Knox lunatics. I have never been hired by Chris Melas and I have never worked for him in any capacity. Maybe you could ask Khamba Tendal to back up his statements with proof. That would be interesting.

Bruce Fischer (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Comparing The Economist to David Icke... This is wrong on so many levels. clpo13_(talk) 20:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

"Miscarriage of justice"

Isn't that a bit of a loaded term in the info box up top?Aresef (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hardly.142.105.159.60 (talk) 03:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The real miscarriage is that she was acquitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:882:101:17E6:21A8:584D:FA57:438E (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Can't we say she's known for being on trial for murder without taking a position of whether or not she was guilty? Should be a bit more unbiased. 108.183.22.133 (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

She was acquitted. The only way to present it without bias is to say that. Trying to push the POV that she was guilty violates Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Ravensfire (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's probably hard to steadily alter by now, and after all she was acquitted. The lede section looks quite balanced and free of emotional language - the use of "miscarriage of justice" in the infobox is really the only element that appears (possibly) a bit biased, and well, it *is* the way her story was presented in many places, especially the US. Given the high level of emotional involvement both from some journalists and from readers in this case, it feels like a viable compromise. Many of us remember what this article and the MOMK article used to look like, they were fat with heavily loaded language and all kinds of allegations. Strausszek (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The Italian courts haven't ruled on compensation, so 'miscarriage of justice' is POV. And even if compensation were awarded, the supreme court has ruled that Knox was 'certainly' present when the murder was committed, that 'strong suspicion' still attaches to her, that she lied to investigators and gave a 'failed alibi', and that she falsely blamed an innocent man to protect an associate who could incriminate her if questioned. Which means it was never unreasonable to charge or try her. And the court's published disposition cited Art.530.2, 'Insufficient evidence,' and not Art.530.1, 'Not guilty.' Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Since we do have an ethical obligation to be NPOV, calling it a "miscarriage of justice" is tipping the bias card more than a little bit, I would say. But then again, the facts speak well for themselves in this case, and pushing the reader to a given conclusion is probably unnecessary. At least to US notions of justice; where after being acquitted, she was retried (in absentia) and convicted again? That is an eyebrow-raising thing, something that isn't done in Knox's home country. That said, It's probably best just to present the facts without editorializing. Ironlion45 (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Link to Murder of Meredith Kurcher

Has the issue of not having a more clear link to the "The murder of Meredith Kercher" article been discussed? A short separate statement at either the top or bottom of the intro? Or a separate statement somewhere in the main text? Rybkovich (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like no one has noticed this until now.--TMCk (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of that content doesn't belong here anyways. Details are for the main article and only a short summary should be given here.--TMCk (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe that there should not be detailed information regarding the trial in this entry. And instead there should be a link to the "The Murder of Meredith Kercher" article. To major contributing editors: Has this been discussed before? Rybkovich (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)