Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:51, 22 April 2010

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Trying to curtail deletions in MK article

03-March-2010: I have been monitoring the numerous deletions of sentences from the MK article, and I think, in the days since you have objected to the deletions, there now is sufficient evidence to begin notifying individual users of a pattern of behavior. As a courtesy, I have finally posted a reminder:

• See "Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher#Violations of WP:NOTCENSORED"

Although there is no requirement in Misplaced Pages to warn people of violations, such as against WP:NOTCENSORED, I think posting reminders gives people every chance to alter their actions, before escalating the issue. This men-behaving-badly notion that they can delete whatever they dislike has become commonplace in Misplaced Pages, within many articles, and perhaps it is convenient when removing rambling text from seasoned articles. However, in the Kercher article, which is still awaiting an official Italian statement of the latest convictions, the use of large deletions seems to border on harrassment against other editors explaining the murder. This is only my personal opinion, so please feel free to handle the deletions in any manner that you prefer. -Wikid77 06:46, 3 March 2010

Expanding to other articles

After reviewing many new articles, I believe that the admins are now swamped with trying to monitor all the thousands of new articles and cannot afford to spend more time to control the Kercher article. I would recommend to put the Kercher case details as examples in many other articles, and not get hounded within that 1 article. For example, Misplaced Pages matches the legal word "prejudicing" over 7000 times (!), but there is no article (!), and someone needs to write a new article "Prejudicing the jury" with examples of famous legal cases, certainly including the Kercher case as a recent example. Google matches numerous webpages for Prejudicing, so the topic is notable, and many Kercher pages clearly use the phrase "Prejudicing..jury" so no one could claim WP:NOR (the world knows the Kercher case concerns Prejudicing). See Google searches:

• 176 webpages: Google "prejudicing the jury" Kercher
• 249,000 webpages: Google "prejudicing the jury"

I often work on numerous articles, and that reassures me, that there are thousands of other people who are interested in the truth, but only 800 readers, per day, see the Kercher article, while thousands read all the other legal articles and would like to know more actual, legal details. When you mentioned "prejudicing" and other issues, then I realized that the Kercher article would need to be 10x times larger to cover all the important information. The details must be spread into multiple articles: too many people will fight against an intelligent presentation of all the facts in one article. (Don't put all your eggs in one basket.) Perhaps 10,000 people a day could get the facts if multiple articles were updated to mention the Kercher case details, as related to each article: DNA profiling, concealing a deadly weapon, judicial misconduct, crime scene contamination, etc. Again, this is my personal opinion, so feel free to do as you prefer, with the time you have available. For the record, I am not asking you to be a puppet on my behalf, and with that having been stated, no one can accuse you of misconduct (because perhaps some would try). -Wikid77 (talk) 06:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Expanding details

03-March-10: I'm sorry I haven't responded to more of your entries on the MK talk-page: I have been busy on other issues plus waiting to see how bad the censorship would get if I stayed away a few days. I suspect that much of my text gets deleted within 5 days if I stay away from the talk-page, as if they are free to ax as they please when I'm not vocal. Hence, I have been mostly watching, from afar, to analyze the bullying, and again, I apologize that I did not defend the issues more. I did not want to warn you that I was secretly watching the activities in silence; otherwise, people might try to get you banned for "collusion or puppetry" involving my plans. That wait-and-see period is over, and now there is enough evidence to report how soon after a user leaves, do they start deleting and censoring that text. Long-term these are my public plans:

• broader evidence of police pressure: it is time to emphasize, from the audio testimony, that they asked "Did you hear...scream? No." which led to fingers-in-ear warped confession; Lumumba's actions must be expanded to note he was arrested same day & claimed extensive pressuring by same police, plus he has suggested Amanda killed Kercher over her being hired at Le Chic, and issued insults such as Amanda's "Queen Bee syndrome" led to the murder or other libelous remarks he made without being sued.
• no sex game evidence: the early testimony of 3 Italian forensic experts concluded no pre-murder sex, then Mignini fires them, and hires others who say "multiple sex attackers", while Mignini is under investigation for judicial misconduct of wiretapping, falsifying evidence, so now perhaps firing people to get the court testimony he wants. Sexual preparation: witnesses say Guede shows up, 3 hours later, at Domus nightclub smelling so bad that people "kept their distance" as if he had not washed. Men, even 20 years old, know to bathe before a date, certainly before an n-way party, so what sex game involves who can smell the worst? Plus, Guede testified he spent the time at home, 15min away, washing off blood but what was he really busy doing that he did not have time to bathe in 3 hours, to pretend a calm night on the town, not busy returning to re-arrange a murder scene and then dart into a nightclub.
• dropped phones evidence: the phones were dropped 1 kilometre away (0.6 miles) along the path to Guede's house. We need to see if those phones were more towards Sollecito's place or more towards Guede if possible. Not original research, just state distances between locations and let readers decide.
• toxicology concluded Kercher had no alcohol: However, Kercher was a frequent(?) nightclub drinker, so what kind of sex game forbids beverages to improve the sexual atmosphere? Where in Italy is there no wine? All these issues line up like 15 holes shot in the sex-game theory. No one reading the article would believe any of those bizarre motives, if the article text covers all the main issues. The libelous sex-game would be completely refuted with no chance of normal people thinking ill of the defendants.

Those are a few of the issues that I intend to add to the article, so I just wanted to see how quickly people delete the minor issues, before adding "acquittal dynamite" to the article. Once the simple evidence contradicts all prosecution claims, it might result in "total doubt" of all guilt, while explaining that Kercher was stabbed wearing clothes and she did not do anything lurid or deviant. For those reasons, I wanted to see how frantically people would censor the truth, because I can just avoid the edit-war time and put such statements in other Misplaced Pages articles that aren't vastly censored every week. Many other articles can emphasize Kercher was wearing clothes instead of some perverted prosecution claims. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikid, you have done an amazing amount of research and know the details of this case far, far better than any other editor. But after all the research time put in, they just delete what does not support their side of the case---which is anti-Knox. The situation is dysfunctional. I am wondering if some sort of dispute resolution/mediation/arbitration would help. I put that question on the Talk page, but I just hope they don't delete that too! Please let me know how you feel about a formal dispute resolution process, when you get a chance. Thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think posting notices might stop most censorship; see below: #Steps to take. However, regardless of the edit-war conflicts, I will no longer stop composing text, offline, to insert. For example, I plan to find more sources about Amanda's desklamp found plugged under Kercher's door (in Micheli Judgment), then an opinion that using a lamp indicates a nighttime cleanup, not a move-and-shower the next day. From those issues, how would Amanda, in a dark house, leave her desklamp inside Kercher's room during a cleanup, and lock the door knowing she had no light remaining in her own darkened room nextdoor, where she, most certainly, would have placed her handbag, cellphone, and towels in preparation for leaving. If her room also had an overhead light, it could be argued that she forgot, but very unlikely when one room is lit and her room is total darkness. Seems as if someone else used her desklamp, locked behind Kercher's door and unplugged the hallway cord, with no intention to return to Amanda's room, and despite DNA showing Guede was present, no Guede fingerprints were found anywhere in the house (only the palm-print on the pillow), no Guede prints on Kercher's nightstand, door, nor on any lamps. I don't think this case requires Sherlock Holmes to spot a telltale pattern in rare cigar ashes, or such: once the forensic evidence is considered, it is pretty clear there was no pre-bathed nude sex game, nor an Amanda cleanup, and Guede did not spend 3 hours washing to appear innocently clean and relaxed at the nightclubs. If Amanda had not returned to the house to spot the blood in the no-window bathroom, there would be no one home to meet the postal police with the located phone, and Filomena might have delayed returning from her festivals, delaying discovery & autopsy many hours thereby confusing time-of-death. She and the others only came 30 minutes after the post-police because Amanda called her to come. Otherwise, the house might have been in November darkness for Filomena, while Knox stayed a 7th consecutive night with Sollecito. It was in the killer's best interest to stay on holiday with friends, and let others find the body too late for accurate time-of-death so that alibis could not be focused into a 2-hour murder timeframe. I realize this is rambling, but it just serves to show how the article could be expanded, and there are sources for many of those issues. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Steps to take

03-March-10: After the general notice about WP:NOTCENSORED, then the next step could be to quote the excerpt from WP:BLP about correcting text by modifying any insults rather than deleting all the text. Then for those who still don't quit deleting, I would post a notice to each user's talk-page, with links to various edits where they deleted a sentence or more. By formally listing the deleted sections, that level of notice posted to each user talk-page would let an investigating admin see the exact details of each problem. At that point, an admin might just remind a user that the deletions were not condoned by policies, and a warning from an admin might be last warning they need. If not, then a formal dispute-resolution would be much easier after having listed the deleted sections to each user's talk-page. By trying a multi-step approach, the problem might end sooner than a full arbitration request. As you might know, many arbitration requests end with both parties being asked not to edit Misplaced Pages articles for weeks or months. It's as if the easiest way to end a WP conflict is to throw all involved users into jail at the same time, and thereby no single person could hold a grudge because everyone was punished almost "equally" for not reaching consensus. However, there's a further danger: if one person has already known the admin for months, then they might get banned for only a few days while the other users get banned for weeks or months. Again, some admins think the "devil they know" should get less punishment than "the devil they don't know". Such all-user punishments have been issued for years, so arbitration might result in all users being banned a while, and then even editing of other legal-topic articles might be ruled as off-limits. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess I was thinking more of mediation than arbitration. Are you saying that mediation could result in everyone being blocked, or is it just arbitration? I have heard arbitration could be strict, but had not heard that about mediation. But of course, I have heard very little about either one. BTW, your level of knowledge of the case is absolutely amazing! Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I guess I'm saying that these admins are not professional judges, not even law-school dropouts. Many of them might be teenagers with their first taste of power, and perhaps friends of other editors. We don't yet know who they'll favor, and it's very risky. Meanwhile, let's explain the murder, not fight the troublemakers. See below. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The lone wolf theory

04-March-10: The Massei Judgment document has been released and, of course, has no explanation of the murder, according to short reviews by the media. Yes, there are 427 pages which could contain crucial evidence, but no one in Perugia could explain a 3-attacker scenario. The evidence just does not fit, so they had to conclude "guilty anyway" despite the evidence. I think we can solve this murder, in parts, to write the results in some articles (perhaps not in the MK article). Primarily, think of the setting as "knife-wielding burglar" (no names please) as in the bartender-house buglary. The knife is intended, to the burglar, as a means of escape when caught. Possibly the door has been left unlocked (or a window left unlocked), so the burglar enters, holding the knife just in case. Wandering through the house, he confronts Kercher, she sees the knife and thinks fight-or-die. From her martial arts training, she instantly fights back, and gets cuts on her hands (no fibers under her fingernails because she is kept back at knifepoint). Then she screams loudly, while fighting, and the knife is used to silence her neck. But perhaps she is still screaming some, so he drops the knife on the bedsheet and tries to strangle her into silence, which succeeds, so he lets go while she grabs her throat. He takes all 300 euros, and perhaps the phones to keep her from calling the police immediately. However, he must flee because of the screams, so he grabs the knife (to ensure his escape against any others), and perhaps washes some blood off hands & shoes, then runs. Hours later, he can't resist, he must return to the scene of the crime: he watches across the hillside, for the police, and to see: did she really die. When the path is clear he returns, but always in danger and with his knife (to ensure escape). He's already washed his shoes, so he enters barefoot to check for death, yes, then decides to fake the event. He takes the desklamp from the next bedroom & plugs into the hall to have light in the dark bedroom. He moves the body away from the window, then using his "escape knife" he removes the bra, places the clothes near the door, and cleans his shoeprints (unaware some of his shoeprints are under the duvet). Instinctively, he wipes all the other blood from the doorway, not just his shoeprints, and cleans the hall into the bathroom where he has left a bare, blood footprint on the bathmat (but it was too dark to notice). He rinses his barefeet, now into his shoes, then quickly closes Kercher's door with the desklamp plugged in the hall socket. In panic, he unplugs the desklamp but the plug won't fit under the door, so he drops the cord. It is still night, and in haste, he leaves some partial shoeprints in the hall or other rooms. He doesn't have time to mop totally (it's not like he lives there), he just wanted it to look like a rape, with none of his shoeprints (as he saw), and then leaves with the front door open, and always with his escape knife. Time is short, so he must try to look like he's been at the nightclubs, and no time to shower now. Unless the event is totally explained as a lone wolf theory, then people will always ponder the 3-attacker viewpoint. Explaining the murder is the focus, not how innocent some people seem, and that's what needs to be written, in part, based on sources for each aspect. I realize that it will be difficult to write that text. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikid, are you perhaps a genius? Just curious. Brilliant analysis. In all the material I have read about this case, no one has raised the theory that Guede HAD to go back to see if Meredith was still alive. She was still alive when he left. Her wounds caused a long, slow death. So he HAD to go back, otherwise there was a witness if she had not died. You just hit the nail on the head! Now its starting to make some sense. It will be very interesting to see if this gets raised in the appeal. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I was just using the extra time I gained, from avoiding the article, while you were very busy trying to keep facts from getting deleted there. Again, I apologize for not helping you defend the balance in the article, but previously, I was unable to learn any details about the murder when being sidetracked and blocked over the simplest insertions to the article. Now, there is a major controversy over my 20-word insertion which listed Senate powers (!) as if I'm warping the article by noting the 220-year-old newsflash that the U.S. Senate decides foreign treaties & confirms ambassadors. Citing WP:SYN, they are claiming the insertion is unfair by "advancing a position" such as, what, a U.S. Senator might be a very important person in international affairs? It's all just a colossal waste of time, and I suspect some invent the conflicts, so I have been much happier spending the time to solve the murder, based on all the various reliable sources. For example, I think the "satanic-ritual" blood image of the Celtic horse, refuted in closed hearings, was finally decided as a smeared blood handprint on the wall, in major sources. So again, you are right about the Halloween-ritual claims, but the time is better spent to get several reliable sources about an issue, then re-add a paragraph with all those footnotes inside, at the same time. Plus, for whatever paragraph you add, I recommend to keep a separate copy of your inserted text, so that you can re-add it 5 more times over the next 6 months. You can't stop the deletions, but they can't stop the re-insertions, either. Also, you are free to join other websites which could post this "💕" text, edited as you prefer, onto other websites which might not be so heavily censored. Misplaced Pages truly is a great resource, and all the information is intended to be shared and copied elsewhere, not deleted. Please don't quit totally, but just avoid the troublemakers from day to day, and regain your valuable time. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention of quitting. I smell victory in this case, which is going to make this article all the more interesting to write. I think this is going to turn into a HUGE story. HUGE. I predict that this story is will go down in history as one of the clearest examples of the conviction of innocent people based on prejudicial pre-trial publicity. The "trial by tabloid" of the "she-devil" the "Luciferna" the "promiscuous American" with the "eyes of a killer"--who turned out to be totally innocent. I predict that in the long run this is what this case will stand for. It will be a story that you can tell your grandchildren about someday in the future. Hang in there! Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, and we need to plan text about "crime scene contamination" which derails the DNA claims. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Article of prosecution

Based on the limited text allowed in the MK article, I think it is time to start another article on a highly WP:NOTABLE topic: the Prosecution of Amanda Knox. The topic spans more than just the MK events, because it involves the interrogation stages, plus civil charges with Lumumba, plus the planned new trial about slander against the Perugia police, all beyond the main focus of the MK article. Then there's the aspect of "most watched person on Italian TV" in 2009, and the FoA or other groups related to her prosecution. All of those aspects justify a separate article, with fair-use-rationale photos (because her name is in the title and no one could reject those as off-topic photos). Also, we know that the Misplaced Pages readership is 10x more interested in her name than the others. In such a separate article, perhaps the interrogation could be 10 or more paragraphs with no WP:UNDUE limits, since the article is all about AK prosecution. I recommend to develop the article, in user-space, as "User:Zlykinskyja/Knox_prosecution" until the coverage is balanced enough to copy into article space (with the longer title), or you could start with title User:Zlykinskyja/PAK to thwart vandalism attracted by the name. I can upload fair-use photos for you to link, once moved to article space, if you wish. As always, you are free to think about the idea or decline, and no one could claim you are colluding as a puppet, because it is your own free choice. Also, I recommend you to write most of the wording from scratch so no one can claim it's "the same text slightly modified" as, therefore, a duplicate to be deleted. Long term, there will still be deletions but not justified as WP:UNDUE because the topic would be different now. Things to ponder. -Wikid77 22:47, 6 March 2010

Wikid: I will think it over. But wouldn't something like that be best to do all off-line so the Knox-haters can't trash it? It would take a lot of time and effort to research and write. But they could just come on my page some night and trash it. Is there some reason why it must be written on-line before posting it as a new article? Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The cyber-stalking going on is indeed a problem. I just can't waste more time on the childishness of it all. I could have written about ten sub-articles on this case by now if I did not have to deal with all the nonsense. Recently and up till now Magnificent Clean-Keeper and Malke have been plotting on his Talk page to get me into trouble. They are planning on filing some sort of charges against me and laughing about it. It is extremely distressing to see other editors conspiring and plotting to undermine another editor because they don't agree with the content of the article. This is why I think to get some peace and concentration, it would be best to work off-line, then post on my Talk page for comments before creating a new article. With my background, I could write something of high quality about this fascinating case.Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• That sounds good. I often create articles offline then test the formatting by copy/paste while edit-preview of a new empty article named "test777" (just don't save it accidentally). You might want to stay away from the MK page a few days, while I add some text to that page. I've been blocked previously from editing due to being trapped by 2 users goading me into a WP:3RR, and that goes on your permanent record if they find admin friends to block you. That's the wiki-gang tactics I call Clique-ipedia, and they laugh about it while readers wonder why no one is adding valuable content to the article. It's the Law of the Old West: avoid making enemies else leave town for a while. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Meanwhile, I can be doing some outlining on what should go into a new article. I have a lot of research to do on the early part of the case, and where it went wrong. The crucial mistakes were right in the very first days. See you later!Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• I wish G. would just be honest about that night, but I don't think he could be believed unless backed by key forensic evidence. First, he claims for 4 months that Knox wasn't there, then in March 2008, he claims he saw her outside "through the window", but the cuts/scratches on the body indicate a long fight, not just arguing "with Knox about money" and then MK gets stabbed as an "Italian man" flees. She had 3 deep knife wounds on her neck/chin, the signs of strangulation for at least a few minutes, and cuts in both hands. So, G. wants us to believe he "told the truth at trial" and heard "Knox's voice" during an iPod song, behind a closed door, through 4 rooms across the L-shaped house. Perhaps, just quote news reports about him claiming an "unknown Italian man" when Sollecito's photo had been all over the Internet and news for months. Some reports note that G. "couldn't describe the knife the attacker held" (!), so I guess that's his idea of truth. Those issues need to be stated in an srticle. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Magnificent Clean-Keeper: Deleting text while an editor is writing

Magnificent Clean-Keeper: STOP HARASSING ME. STOP DELETING MY WORK. I was simply trying to write on-line. I should be able to compose on-line without this harassment. I was simply doing my writing and researching as I typed. I had good sources for each statement. But it is simply easier to go back and put in the cites when finished composing. I specifically noted that I was intending to add cites to the new text!!!!!!!! It was OBVIOUS that is what I was doing. STOP HARASSING ME. I have as much of a privilege to contribute to Misplaced Pages as you do. Now I don't even know where my text is and I am too upset to continue writing. LEAVE ME ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I If you continue harassing me I am going to report you.Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

TO DELETE TEXT WHILE SOMEONE IS COMPOSING TOTALLY WASTES THE EDITOR'S TIME AND IS INTENDED TO HARASS THE WRITER, NOT TO SERVE THE INTERESTS OF WRITING A GOOD ARTICLE, WHICH IS THE PURPOSE OF WIKIPEDIA. NOW MY TEXT IS GONE SOMEWHERE JUST BECAUSE YOU WOULD NOT ALLOW ME THE DECENCY OF COMPLETING WHAT I WAS WRITING SO THAT I COULD THEN ADD ALL OF THE SOURCES THAT TOOK ME A LONG TIME TO FIND AND HAD TO TRY TO TRANSLATE FROM ITALIAN. YOU ARE INTENTIONALLY HARASSING ME AND TRYING TO INTIMIDATE ME FROM PARTICIPATING IN WIKIPEDIA, AS REFLECTED BY YOUR PLOT AND JOKES ON YOUR TALK PAGE ABOUT INTENDING TO SEEK SANCTIONS AGAINST ME. YOU ARE INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO INSTIGATE SOMETHING SO THAT YOU CAN THEN FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST ME. LEAVE ME ALONE. I HAVE HAD ENOUGH. THIS IS A TYPE OF CENSORSHIP OF THE ARTICLE.Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Notes on Possible Additional Suspect in Kercher Murder

5th suspect in case--first reported by Francesca Bene http://www.komonews.com/news/19361399.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4002791.ece

Deposition video of Alessi, stating Guede said Knox and Sollecito were not at murder scene. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR8iafbEYZo

Info Rocks case http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20000174-504083.html http://www.westseattleherald.com/2010/03/06/news/update-cellmates-deposition-427-page-motivation-document-may-clear-amanda-knox http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/10/world/main6284773.shtml?tag=mncol;lst;3 http://abcnews.go.com/International/AmandaKnox/mystery-man-blamed-amanda-knox-case/story?id=10028590

Guede may have told Nun and Priest that he felt guilty about implicating Knox and Guede. http://cdn.optmd.com/V2/62428/114222/index.html?g=AQADID4=&r=optimized-by.rubiconproject.com/a/7865/12601/22727-20.html?

Prosecution of reporter Francesca Bene, who works for a small Italian paper, Giornale dell 'Umbria, who was interrogated by one of the same police women that interrogated Amanda Knox and was indicted for causing public alarm by publishing false information http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010/02/monster-of-florence-and-tragedy-in.html

Mignini to Interrogate Guede, Opens new prosecution case/intimidation tactic http://www.asca.it/news-MEREDITH__PM_ASCOLTERANNO_GUEDE__DOPO_DICHIARAZIONI_MARIO_ALESSI-900665-ora-.html

Trump http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/03/02/Trump-Amanda-Knox-is-innocent/UPI-95601267562258/

Guede claims man in Norwegian Napapijri & white cap

12-March-10: I have re-read the Micheli Judgment and confirmed Guede also described the man as wearing a black Napapijri jacket (Norway flag logo) and a white cap with a "red stripe in the middle".

A jacket photo: http://www.julesb.co.uk/menswear-1/outerwear-128/casual-jackets-7/napapijri-skidoo-jacket-106249-13145_medium.jpg

The man had light brown (blond?) hair, so the question becomes: did Guede describe the Napapijri jacket before, or after, the news report about the bloodied man from 7am? Possibly, Guede had seen the news, in Germany or prison TV, and thought that guy would be arrested, but later changed to say "looked like Sollecito" to satisfy the prosecution, perhaps to get a reduced sentence.

Here is the excerpt from the Micheli Judgment (a third of the way from the top), where the Judge recaps Guede's description for the Napapijri jacket/cap, from the larger lavatory (original Italian & my translation):

"Il giovane ricordava anche la sequenza dei primi tre brani ascoltati, essendo quella abituale, e mentre era a metà del terzo - malgrado il volume molto alto - aveva sentito un urlo: asciugatosi di fretta, senza neppure chiudersi bene la cintura, si era diretto verso la camera di M., trovando sulla soglia (ma appena dentro la stanza) un uomo che gli dava le spalle."

• Translation: "The youth also recalled the sequence of the first three tracks listened to, being the usual place, and while he was midway through the third - although the volume turned way up - he had heard a scream: exited in a hurry, without even fastening the belt, he was directed toward M. 's room, finding at the doorway (but just inside the room) a man who had his back turned."

"A quel punto, il G. aveva posto la mano sulla spalla di quell'individuo, scorgendo nel medesimo istante il corpo della ragazza in terra: l'altro si era repentinamente girato, vibrando colpi al suo indirizzo con un coltello che teneva nella mano sinistra, di cui non sapeva indicare lunghezza od altre caratteristiche."

• Translation: "At that point, the G. had placed his hand on the shoulder of that person, seeing in the same moment the girl's body on the floor: the other had suddenly turned, quivering strokes in his direction with a knife which he carried in his left hand, which he could not specify length or other characteristics."

"Descriveva il soggetto in questione come di poco più basso di lui, di corporatura analoga, con jeans chiari, una giacca nera marca “Napapijri” di cui aveva notato il logo, una cuffia bianca recante una striscia rossa nel mezzo ei capelli - che si intravedevano al di sotto - di colore castano: non era in grado di fornirne una descrizione migliore proprio a causa dell'aggressione in atto, che lo aveva indotto a prestare attenzione a non essere ferito, anche se l'uomo lo aveva attinto di striscio alla mano destra."

• Translation: "He described the entity in question as a little shorter than him, of similar build, with light jeans, a black jacket brand "Napapijri" of which he had noticed the logo, a white cap bearing a red stripe in the middle, and his hair - which could be seen below - of pale brown : he was not able to provide a better description precisely because of the aggression under way, which prompted him to be careful not to be hurt, even if the man had grazed his right hand."

He claimed that the confrontation had moved into the kitchen, where the nighttime lighting was brighter than the solitary desklamp in Kercher's room.

Questions:

• Did Guede describe a Napapijri jacket & white cap before the news reports?
• Was the bloodied guy (taken to the asylum) left-handed?
• Does the unknown DNA on the severed bra clasp match that guy?
• Do any of the unidentified 13/14 fingerprints match him?

If that guy was really there, it doesn't mean Guede would have left any cash at the scene, but Kercher's mobile phones might have been gone.

All of these issues should be written in some WP article. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but there is NO WAY to get the material into the article. I just spent a lot of time last night adding text and many cites to their new section on the defense of Knox, and all that was deleted. They have the "consensus" and it does not include US. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Update: I have come across information that a video camera showed a white man in a jacket approaching the cottage that evening, then leaving, then returning. Also, that a blonde hair was found on Kercher's body. I assume that blonde hair was not Knox's hair, since the hair would have been tested, and if a match, would have been introduced into evidence against Knox at trial. I have not come across any information showing that the blonde hair was introduced into evidence againt Knox at trial. (Yet, the police did take a sample of Knox's hair.) Both of these clues could be consistent with the blonde haired man in the jacket who had blood on him that night. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Attempts by Anti-Knox editors to restrict participation by Pro-Defense Editors

I have added this much needed discussion to the Talk page of the article.Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess rather than mediation, Magnificent Clean-Keeper would rather fight. It is all such a waste of time. No one side of a murder case owns an article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, if you want to mediate, go to WP:MEDCAB and open the mediation. You don't have to wait for anybody. You can initiate it yourself.Malke2010 04:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I intend to do the research on how to do that and review sample cases to prepare something. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Linda Carty article

Note: Magnificent Clean-Keeper has apparently decided that trying to drive me off the Murder of Meredith Kercher article is not enough. Yesterday he followed me to a new article on Linda Carty in which he had never been involved and deleted most of my edits, without any prior notice, explanation or justification, engaging in a type of WikiHoundingThe non-bold text below is the discussion that followed after he set me up so that he could use my distress as evidence that I was being uncivil to him, never acknowledging that he had just deleted over a dozen of my edits. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

She was sentenced to death for kidnapping? No murder involved? Please explain this to me like I'm a 4 years old as I have a hard time following you.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Further responding to one of your several edits over there.

Notice that he does not say anything here about the fact that he has just deleted most of my edits on the new article. Then Magnificent Clean-Keeper cleverly posts his "helpful" suggestion below so that my response when I suddenly saw all my work deleted and came back here would look unreasonable. Then he oh so cleverly linked to a page where he is accusing me of being uncivil, using my response to his WikiHounding as an example.Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken your source for your this edit is taken from this quote from timesonline.co.uk:

"A “friend of the court” briefing by the British Government and delivered to the Supreme Court on Thursday, contends that Carty deserves a retrial because Texan authorities and her court-appointed lawyer failed to inform British officials of her arrest, as they were required to do by consular treaty. In another briefing submitted yesterday by a British documentary film-maker, Carty’s new lawyer — from a firm with close ties to both the former presidents Bush — is quoted as saying he will not be able to sleep at night “knowing that she could be killed without having had the chance of a fair trial”."

You certainly could add this to the article with keeping a clear context close to the source.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

STOP FOLLOWING ME AROUND. STOP REPEATEDLY DELETING MY WORK WHILE I AM TRYING TO WRITE. STOP HARASSING ME. BY REPEATEDLY DELETING OVER A DOZEN OF MY EDITS WHILE I AM TRYING TO WRITE YOU ARE ENGAGING IN AN EDIT WAR. PLEASE STOP.Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

As I indicated in my first editsummary, I was following this post as you apparently did too.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

But I must say that I'm getting tired of your yelling and kindly ask you to desist doing so further.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Magnificent Clean-Keeper. You need to start acting like a grown up. You repeatedly deleted my work on a new article in which you have never been involved, while I am writing, after it was made very clear to you that deleting my work while I am writing is unacceptable conduct. It is clearly a form of harassment. You followed me to a new article and deleted over a dozen edits, without discussing it with me first, and without justification. Then, after deleting most of my work twice, you bizzarely post here telling me what quote or information I can add to the new article. Clearly, you are trying to provoke something. You are trying to bait me into a disagreement on an entirely different article. That is very childish behavior. Please leave me alone and stop following me. I have asked you before to stop posting on my talk page, as I do not wish to have any contact with you. I have made that clear, so stop following me around and posting here. Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If you keep on making false accusations and making up your own rules in your favor while dismissing and ignoring established WP rules you won't get far. If editors wouldn't have as much patience as they showed and wouldn't still assuming good faith (and yes, that includes me) you probably would've be gone by force by now. Yet, editors, (and again, that includes me) are trying very hard to help you with any kind of advise, starting with general policies and even give you links and advise about what steps you can take in content disputes, yet you are attacking them in the worst possible way on a constant bases. You didn't change your behavior not a bit since editing as Pilgrimrose but did quite the opposite. What you call harassment is non and just an excuse for you to keep editing as you wish. This is NOT how WP works and if you think you can ignore it you'll find yourself with editors who've lost their editing privileges before. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You are clearly trying to provoke something, by repeatedly deleting my work while I am writing, following me to an entirely new article in which you have never been involved, deleting my work there while I am writing there as well, making threats and other abusive behavior. I am starting to form the impression that you are a disturbed person and I want you to keep away from me. Please stop posting here and leave me alone, as I have asked you over and over and over.Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

As I already pointed out above, "I was following this post as you apparently did too."

As for "You are clearly trying to provoke something,...", yes indeed. I'm trying to "provoke" you to adhere to policies. We all have to, as a matter of fact.

Your ongoing personal attacks like "You are clearly trying to provoke something...", "following me to an entirely new article in which you have never been involved" (which I just debunked again in this post) and repeated comments like:"...deleting my work there while I am writing there as well, making threats and other abusive behavior." and attacks like "Magnificent Clean-Keeper. You need to start acting like a grown up."... Do I really need to keep on going?

You kept on attacking me w/o bothering to answer my question I had in regards to the article. See above the very first post I made including the section title. Can I expect a reasonable answer to this from you?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Notice to Magnificent Clean-Keeper

I have asked you at least twenty times to leave me alone and to stop posting on my User/Talk page. You completely ignore my requests. Then yesterday you went so far as to WikiHound me by following me to an new article and then deleted most of my edits. I am asking you one last time to leave me alone. I do not want you posting in my user space unless it is some formal notice that you are supposed to give, like a 3RR warning for example. Other than such notices, I do not want you posting here at all because you just try to upset me. Thank you.Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Note to self: The ANI complaint someone filed against Magnificent Clean-Keeper earlier today, to which I commented, was immediately marked as "Resolved", without analysis or discusion on the ANI this morning, only 33 minutes after I posted my comment, and now the complaint is nowhere to be found on that page. Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

More spinoff articles: Delayed grief

Because the Knox/Sollecito case has been identified as "the trial of the century" it will have far-reaching impacts. Numerous Misplaced Pages articles will be written, as overlooked subjects, to cover all the topics involved: Prejudicing the jury, Railroading, and now, Delayed grief. Everyone knows that people, suppressing extreme grief, will suddenly burst into shocking behavior unexpectedly, such as sobbing uncontrollably anywhere, perhaps days, months or years later. However, such behavior is seen as "guilt" to some people in Italy. How could they not know this:

"Unresolved grief eventually turns into delayed grief, the effects of which can surface years later as inappropriate reactions/behavior." Sources: "The Three Stages of Grief", CUNY, link: CUNY-3-Stages; "Unresolved..Delayed Grief", web: Nremedies-gr.

I am beginning to think the article "Keystone cops" needs a cultural-impact paragraph about Italian police; I don't want to use the word "incompetent" but their example needs to be added to a similar article. Plus, I'm trying to think of the article title about numbering a person's foot diagram as far too large, when actually, the true measurements fit a blood footprint almost exactly, perhaps: "Falsifying evidence". Hey, that sounds like a good article to write. -Wikid77 04:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

More on The Magnificent Clean-Keeper

Wikid, Thank you for your suggestions. I would be happy to consider working on the articles you suggest, when I have some time. However, when I went to spend a little time on the interesting Delayed grief article as you suggested, I see that The Magnificent Clean-Keeper has already beat me to it. MORE WIKIHOUNDING, just like he recently engaged in on the Linda Carty article as discussed above. He has engaged in further WikiHounding by going to the article you kindly directed me to, and now he has nominated the article for deletion so that I cannot work on it-- unless I try to put up with yet ANOTHER hassle from him. So this is the second article that TMCK has gone to knowing that I would be trying to work on it, and tried to make things difficult. Yes, indeed he is engaging in WikiHounding because he would never have even paid attention to that article if he had not seen your suggestion here on my Talk page directing me t o the article. How childish. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

As I have mentioned, when he went to the Linda Carty article (after I started to work on it) he repeatedly deleted all or most of my edits while I was trying to write. This was after a similar incident on the Kercher article, where he repeatedly deleted all my new text while I was trying to write, and I had to give up trying to write. Now tonight he again repeatedly deleted all my new text while I was trying to write--even though he knew full well from prior incidents that pulling that kind of stunt would lead to a distressed response on my part. After these recent other incidents where he used profanity at me, and threatened to "get rough" with me, and WikiHounding me and now starting up a new variety of WikiHounding by trying to delete the new article you asked me to work on---BEFORE I even had a chance, and now repeatedly deleting my new text on the Kercher article, it is indeed a very frustrating and stressful situation. No one is supposed to be engaging in anonymous harassment of someone on the Internet. This is just all wrong. Zlykinskyja (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Users who hound others

20-March-10: Unless the people who are following you, from article to article, learn to back off, I suspect they might get banned for 6 months or more. At this point, I think you have written enough about the problem, so now, any admins, who wish to do so, can investigate the abusive activities against you. Since everyone in the world is reading this talk-page, no admin would believe that those culprits were, somehow, totally innocent and unaware of the anguish that they have caused you. A culprit can't first quote from your talk-page, and then claim, "Gee, he didn't know he was being a psycho nutcase and terrorizing other users". Trust me, I have seen such users banned for over 6 months, and the admins can even block their IP-address access from their neighborhoods if needed, plus their real identities can be revealed to the police or authorities in their areas. I don't know how police in Italy or Britain deal with stalking, but all of this is probably good exercise for anti-terrorism, so the police would probably allocate some time to find them. -Wikid77 06:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiHounding is a very agressive form of harassment. No question about it. It should not be going on. Zlykinskyja (talk) 07:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Need policies on Hounding and Frivolous AfDs

Now that we are 100% certain that your talk-page is a fish bowl (viewed by "millions"), I think we can work towards creating, or expanding, 2 new policies:

• Hounding - I like that term better than "wiki-stalking" which sounds too criminal for use here.
• Frivolous AfDs - as similar to "frivolous lawsuits" where people are hoping to gain by censorship.

The problem I've seen from many admins is that they don't have a "policy-check-box" to investigate users for "hounding" and currently, few have used the term "frivolous AfDs". Apparently, the admins are so busy that they don't want to debate the issues, they just want some "check-boxes" such as: fought on article 1, followed/fought user in article 2, followed/fought user in article 3, hence yes, it's a case of hounding. I suggest copying a short guideline to create a proposed guideline that indentifies a person as hounding another user, or see if a similar policy already exists. It might seem unimaginable that Misplaced Pages does not have adequate policies, after all these past 9 years, but defining social guidelines is a rare activity, and you are one of the few to so quickly spot the problems. I think they would welcome your guidelines, it's just the lack of current policies that allows wiki-gangs to run wild. This is just a long-term suggestion, and please feel free to think about it a long while. -Wikid77 06:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It does seem like much further refinement of the policies on behavior should be undertaken.Zlykinskyja (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

How to act when sister works for Carabinieri police

In the MK case, I continually find that there is a "non-guilty" explanation for ALL of the suspicious behaviour. Is there a "good samaritan law" in Italy which concludes: if something is suspicious and you didn't call police, then you're an accomplice? So, a guy calls his sister in the military police, noting the local phone-cops are there, and she advises, Oh God don't let those amateurs contaminate the crime scene? Now should he tell the court, that his sister advised, because "all Carabinieri police know", that the phone-cops are incompetent and most prosecutors are corrupt, so pretend to be "on your own" so that they don't link you to any people who the court/judges are targeting with falsified evidence? Not a good thing to admit for gaining popularity in court. Hence: When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Things to ponder. I've seen so many "guilty" behaviors explained, such as "Knox didn't cry" but she sobbed uncontrollably when the top policeman said he would find out who killed her Halloween friend Meredith, by talking to the non-existent neighbors about what they didn't hear that night. Can you imagine her despair? So today, I better understood: when they finally announced the verdict, many in the jury cried (unanimous, ya right). I, quite honestly, haven't found a single "suspicious behaviour" that remained after checking the actual sources, and then I see the footprint analysis of Guede's footprint with, at least, 2 obvious errors to make the ball of his foot appear 24% too large, when actually, Guede's footprint is thinner than Sollecito's, and closer to the bathmat stains. Who would want to be linked to anyone targeted with falsified evidence in Italy? "We have ways of making you talk." I don't know them, I wasn't with them, I don't know when they left or returned, we're not together as a couple. There's nothing suspicious about saying that, in Perugia. -Wikid77 06:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The more and more I research this case, the more and more I see an absence of truly credible evidence that could convict beyond a reasonable doubt. The whole case is saturated with reasonable doubt. There is a new book coming out by Candace Dempsey, a Seattle reporter. The name of the book is "A Murder in Italy", published by Bantam Books. The publication release will be in late April, I think. It should be a worthwhile read, because her blog has been quite insightful. Zlykinskyja (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

New article: Falsified evidence in Italy

20-March-10: Because of all the controversial court cases, I think there would be ample sources to create a new article "Falsified evidence in Italy". At this point, however, I have to wonder: "falsified evidence", is there any other kind in Italy? Could we get a reliable source, and how can evidence be proven as not falsified? I haven't heard of any, and I was stunned that Mignini would even attempt to push any tainted evidence in this case, but that might be "standard operating procedure" in Italy. Perhaps, old habits are hard to break. Some people might want to villify Mignini, when "it takes two to tango": 19 judges saw this evidence of "luminol bloody footprints" with no test for blood (by Rome!), and that was considered as evidence of them walking through a blood-stained, crime-scene cleanup. We know the defense proved "no blood test" by retorting that luminol reacts to fruit juice or rusty water (and hydrogen peroxide, some soapy water, fish blood, or food sauces?). That sounds quite falsified to me. I wonder if the U.S. State Dept is negotiating: "Free them on appeal, and we won't need an international incident to investigate tainted evidence in every court in Italy". When the "trial of the century" contains falsified evidence, then there might be no limit to the size of a new article "Falsified evidence in Italy". -Wikid77 07:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

As time goes on, the worse it looks for Italy. It is an embarassment. Such an article would be a good one, but it would take a lot of research, and I don't have that kind of time right now. Maybe after the appeals court rules in the Fall. Zlykinskyja (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Copying a diff-link from browser address-line

In the Misplaced Pages rules of evidence, the typical "evidence" that is used in disputes is the diff-link to a revision-diff comparison page, in the form:

• revision-diff format: .

To prepare a diff-link, use the following steps:

• Display a page's history list: click .
• Scroll down the list to spot the particular revision line.
• Display the previous-diff page for a revision: click "(prev)".
• Copy that diff-page http URL from the browser's top address-line bar: Ctrl-C in address bar.
• Paste that http address URL into brackets: .
• Alternatively, copy a diff-link by right-click "(prev)" then select "Copy Shortcut" to copy that URL.

Example of a diff-link:

• User warns he might get rough: diff@revision 349898705.

That diff-link, above, contains the following literal text within single-brackets: . Notice how the diff-link contains the parameter "&diff" and that's what people are typically expecting inside a diff-link, whether from a talk-page threat, or an article-edit revert, or an edit-summary insult. Just display the history-list of a page, then click "(prev)" of the revision to be linked, and copy that browser http address-line into brackets. Any text appended before the end-bracket "xxx zzz]" becomes the clickable-text for that diff-link, displayed as blue-text "xxx zzz". Think of diff-links as part of the "Rules of evidence" of Misplaced Pages. -Wikid77 11:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Great info. Still trying to figure these out, but with your help I am getting closer to tackling this stuff. Thanks!

Templates

Wikid, where do I go to find the selection of templates available currently? I notice that some people have lots of templates on their User page, which look nice. My User page looks quite boring. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Many users display the user-boxes (or "user-boxen"), which have been created by numerous people and are scattered everywhere. A friend tells a friend, who knows someone who created a variation of some user-box, and so on. I would avoid the userbox {{User Antifasist}} (which mentions "Fascist Italy"!). Many userboxes are named as "Template:User..." which can be listed by index-search or category:

• List pages named "Template:User...":  Special:PrefixIndex/Template:User
• List pages in the category: Category:Misplaced Pages-related_user_templates

Many people, who got bored fighting over articles, just started creating whimsical boxes, or writing humorous essays under Category:Misplaced Pages essays, which allows people more freedom from censorship, but they still contribute by giving Misplaced Pages a richer web culture with various essays and user-page templates. All those various people also prove that Misplaced Pages has thousands of interesting, fun-loving editors (not everyone is deleting other people's text). I expanded my user-page by just copying and modifying others, and listing several user-boxes. However, beware not to reveal too much information on your user-page: I still dread the future headlines, "Person murdered by Misplaced Pages user over edit-war". Anyway, just limit what boxes you list in the following style, between "{{Userboxtop}}" & "{{Userboxbottom}}":

{{Userboxtop|header=Userboxes}}
{{User United States}}
{{User Texas}}
{{User Florida}}
{{User Massachusetts}}
{{userbox |id=] |id-c=white |info=This user knew massive ]-format images were often 8x to 21x slower than ] or ] images.}}
{{User:Blast san/userboxes/User browser:Firefox logo}}
{{User structurist}}
{{user contrib|442000|Wikid77}}
{{User en}}
{{User de-1}}
{{User gatech}}
{{User:Disavian/Userboxes/Java}}
{{User:Disavian/Userboxes/HTML}}
{{Userboxbottom}}

There are, by now, more than a thousand userboxes already created, and scattered, across Misplaced Pages. If you want to create custom tables on your user-page, read about tables on the related help-page HELP:Table. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Wikid. I am amazed how you always know so much.Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

More Dispruptive Editing by The Magnificent Clean-Keeper

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Misplaced Pages page, as you did at Murder of Meredith Kercher. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Misplaced Pages policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The Magnificent Clean-Keeper: I have repeatedly asked you to stop with this harassment. I expressly noted in my edits that I was in the process of adding cites. You are the one blocking me from adding the cites by deleting my text while I am trying to type. I could have added several cites by now if you had not engaged in this harassment once again. I have been very diligent in properly citing all of my text, so there is no legitimate basis to be deleting my work while I am typing. ENOUGH! I have asked you over and over to stop deleting my work while I am typing. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

More MK issues to clarify

29-March-10: I have been thinking about other MK issues noted in sources. (I missed the "Trials of AK" but perhaps there might be a transcript to use as a source?) Meanwhile, I am concerned that "common sense actions" should be emphasized, in the alleged activities, such as:

• How would 3 new acquaintances trust each other as co-murderers? (they wouldn't and I have a source for that common-sense opinion)
• How could AK&RS stay overnight in his apartment, but NOT know for sure if the other had left? (it was a 2-level house, with bedroom upstairs, where someone would not be sure about the downstairs; to state certainty would likely be a lie, even if that sounded suspicious)
• Why would AK call Filomena if a "cleanup" was not finished?
• Why would Sollecito leave "his" blood footprint on a bathmat, easily washed the next morning in the nearby sink? (he wouldn't).
• Why would AK risk her desklamp to illuminate a blood-soaked room? (she wouldn't, and Filomena's room was scrambled, so use her lamp)
• If Knox was involved, why weren't there several blood drops in her room? (no bloody fabrics, only 1 spot of blood on floor near desklamp table)
• If blood spots were removed from Filomena's floor, doesn't that mean AK did a cleanup the next day? (not if 8 people were in the house walking across that floor to view the broken window: step on dry blood enough times, and it will seem partially removed)
• If AK&RS were involved, why no trace of their luminol or blood shoe-prints in MK room, bath or hall? (only Guede shoe-prints in rooms/hall, requiring wealthy AK/RS committed actions barefoot, like peasants, hence not likely)
• If fruit juice activates luminol, and Guede claimed he got juice from frig, why no test for blood? (I suspect they feared a non-blood result, so they suppressed that test)
• If Guede needed towels to help Kercher, why use 4 towels plus duvet & pillow & clothes? (he needed towels for cleanup or wipedown, not like creating bandages from 4 towels)
• If Guede walked barefoot in blood to bathmat, then why no blood footprints in MK room or hall? (he walked in shoes, dropped blood-soaked towels on floor, then accidentally stepped barefoot into blood on towels, then onto mat, washed foot and put on shoes, then put towels just inside room, such as middle of bed where found)
• If Guede did a lone-wolf cleanup of footprints in rooms, then wouldn't all his footprints be gone from the hall? (not if they were his shoe-prints when he left for the last time; someone who lived there would have plenty of time to clean all hallway prints)
• If Guede saw photos with "new" desklamp on floor (per Micheli), why would he say, "Light was cast from another direction" rather than this desklamp was not in the room earlier? (because he knew what unusual direction the desklamp shone light, from having used it on the floor that night).

Someone speculated that Guede put the desklamp on the floor to hunt something under the bed, such as dropping his iPod, but I wonder if he merely wanted an external room light, to avoid tracking more blood from the original room light, and used the desklamp to clean footprints near MK's doorway. Any wipedown papers could be flushed in the nearby bath, but not towels. There must a source that reports blood smears near MK doorway. The major news reports will just focus on blood foot-prints, not smears or scattered droplets.

I think the single piece of evidence that convicts Guede, as lone killer, is after he insisted the pillow was still on the bed, it is found under the body, marked with his full Nike Outbreak 2 shoe print and blood palm print matching 16 points to him. Yet he protests, "He didn't stab her; he didn't return; he didn't move the bed pillow". Methinks the "man doth protest too much". It is understandable that he wanted to blame others for the cleanup, because it implies a bold 2nd visit (blood stains had set), but in trying to pretend MK was killed by a simple stabbing, near a clean bed, he revealed that he was deeply involved in the murder & moving the body onto a blood-stained pillow with his shoe-print/handprint, and no others in the room, or hallway. He wanted to totally deny that he returned, to deny that he put the de-nuded body on that "clean" pillow, to deny that he did everything. I just don't see any other explanation. We need more sources that state some of those issues for the article. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow Wikid. You have done a far better, closer, more rational analysis of the crime scene than the crazy prosecutor did.

Too bad you missed the documentary. It showed chilling, frightening scenes of the courtroom from high above. The camera must have been in a balcony. The place was jam packed, with Mignini in a long black robe painting Amanda as a psychotic, deranged person, a woman of pure evil, and the judge sitting before a giant crucafix. She must have been almost frightened to death, like she was one of the women of Salem, Massachusetts accused of withcraft. The clips from the courtroom looked like a scene from Pontius Pilot condemning Jesus Christ, due to the great crowd. It was breathtaking and frightening to watch at the same time. I was scared just watching the courtroom scene on a TV screen, imagine the impact on an audience watching on a movie screen. This case will definitely be made into a movie because such clips like that are available and the whole case is so bizarre. The courtroom scenes clearly smack of WITCHHUNT.

In terms of your many outstanding points, we do indeed need to find sources, but apparently not that many reporters are as smart as you are. I do anticipate that we can start using Candace Dempsey's new book when it is released in just a couple of weeks. It is called "Murder in Italy." Candace is extremely smart and may have documented some of what you are raising. I intend to run out to the bookstore the very day this book comes in. In fact, I will call today and try to advance order it.

In terms of Mignini's stupidity, well that was clearly shown in the documentary. He claimed that he "knew immediately" that the break-in had been staged BECAUSE the front door was not damaged. He said that if the front door had been damaged, he would have thought differently of the evidence of the break-in. But because the front door was still intact with no signs of an attempt at forced entry, the break in HAD to have been staged. HUH?????? What planet is this guy on? Guede could have simply avoided the front door as a place to attempt a forced entry because it is on a main road and he did not want to be seen by the folks across the street in the large apartment complex. So he went around to a place less likely to be seen breaking in. Mignini could not grasp that possibility? Yikes!!Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked as a compromised account

Since you are absolutely certain your account has been compromised, I blocked it indefinitely as required by the blocking policy.

I would suggest securing your personal workstation (virus, malware, trojan scan, etc.) prior to creating a new account. –xeno 19:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about this. As xeno said, this is not a punishment for your editing, it's a mandatory step that must be taken in the case of compromised accounts. Please, virus scan your computer (or reinstall your OS cleanly if you don't trust scanners to catch everything) and create a new account (with a strong password; no dictionary words, at least eight characters, with a mix of upper and lower case letters, plus a smattering of numbers and punctuation). This may have been just a nasty technical fault in your internet connection, but being careful never hurts. —ShadowRanger  20:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked per your ANI post. –xeno 22:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and thanks for removing the compromised tag. I have no idea what happened, but will just try to move on. Good night!Zlykinskyja (talk)

RESOLVED. PROBLEM WAS SOFTWARE MALFUNCTION.

Just as an FYI, and an epilogue, since this incident, I've seen several other editors also have their edits corrupted in exactly the same way (sorry I didn't think to record diffs). So maybe it's something with Mediawiki itself... –xeno 23:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Materials on Problems in Italian Criminal Justice System

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/12/10/can_anyone_get_a_fair_trial_in_italy?page=0,0

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/04/rendered_guilty?obref=obinsite

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/10/06/will_berlusconis_get_out_of_jail_free_card_be_revoked?true=obnetwork

Keep up the good work!

Hello. I wanted to write here to tell you that I appreciate all of the work you've put into the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. I can tell you are passionate about the case, and I think you've been very thorough in adding pertinent information as it becomes available. Do not let yourself get chased away from this article by any perceived harassment or hounding. You are doing good work, and you have every right to edit this article, so long as all of your edits include reliable and verifiable information...as they have. So, again, thank you. I'd given up on this article months ago, but I'm glad you're still there adding information, sources, and striving for a neutral point of view.

However, if I could offer a bit of advice in dealing with contentious edits and editors -- just be cool, and kill them with kindness. You're being portrayed (unfairly, in my opinion) as unnecessarily confrontational, and as someone who does not assume good faith in your fellow editors. It seems to me you've been relentlessly hectored by several editors across several different articles and noticeboards, which is very unfortunate. But, even worse, their tactics seem to be working -- your lengthy responses, while well-intentioned, are just fanning the flames...especially when uninvolved editors and administrators become involved (such as xeno, EdJohnston, SlimVirgin, and ShadowRanger). You need these people on your side if this article ever goes to mediation.

For instance, I would refrain from using the words "Stop" and "Do not" altogether (as in "Stop with this endless harassment" "Stop deleting this information" and "Stop trying to interfere with my edits" "Do not alter the text" "Do not delete work" etc.). While I get what you're saying, and having someone revert good-faith edits with poor justification is maddening, no one owns any of the information on Misplaced Pages, so it's not really your place to issue orders on editing habits. And for God's sake, no more legal threats like this. Ever. Explain briefly. Cite policy if applicable. Always use "pleases" and "thank yous." And stay cool. As I said, you're doing good work, and I appreciate the fact that you're working hard to expand and balance the article. Keep it up: Illegitimi non carborundum! -- ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If you ever have some extra time to come back and help edit the article, that would be very appreciated. When there are just one or two editors up against a crowd holding an opposing view of the topic, achieving NPOV is very difficult. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Another deletion avoided

As more proof that there are level-headed admins, I noticed that admin User:Beeblebrox found no consensus to delete, and advised people to discuss any merging as an article talk-page topic, not as an AfD. At this point, you can resume thoughts of adding information to the article, to help other readers understand feelings of loss, long after initial events. -Wikid77 11:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

More MK details

I have uploaded a potential image for the article, see: File:Amanda_Knox.jpg. It seems to be an appropriate photo (from start of trial, 16-Jan-09). For the actual trial section, I will try to find a wider, courtroom scene with other people. More facts:

• People are saying the 2 cell phones were found further away, from the house, opposite the direction of S. or G. residences, with the possiblity of travelling outward to drop the phones, and then circling back.
• Some indicate Meredith's call to England was stopped (at 8:56pm?), interpreted by start of attack, and Micheli noted invalid call to MK's UK bank at 10pm (22:00).
• Some claim S. had evidence of watching a PC video circa 9:15-9:45pm, even though prosecutors claimed the last keyboard activity was 9:06pm, but they destroyed all the PC disks "during testing" (aka "falsifying evidence").
• A police officer testified he heard Amanda scream during the final night of "mild questioning".
• Also, it seems the prosecution kept sliding the time-of-attack to find an hour not covered during the alibis. Guede said 8:30-10:20 in his story.

However, the coroner set time-of-death as 10:30-11:30pm, due to lung suffocation, not total blood loss as people claim "Amanda knew" before the police told her. Hence, I'm thinking: final convulsions when air ran out. Anyone who claims they saw suspects "hanging around" the hillside at 11:00pm must be using the old murder-scream-and-wait-there-like-idiots plan for killing people. Even half-wits know to wait over 1 hour before returning to the scene. Every supposed action either contradicts the evidence or denies the most basic common sense. -Wikid77 18:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• NBC "Today Show" noted that head prosecutor Mignini (?) has, again, sought a life term for AK, but the NBC legal analyst believes judge/jury will quickly reject that, in favor of typical reduced sentence. I think it's "common knowledge" at NBC that the verdict is bizarre, plus they probably know celebrities who handle murder scenarios & this just doesn't fit. I'm surprised no one has forged her handwriting, to write a note hidden in her pillow, "If they hang mio, I want all Italia to know I'm sorri I dekilled her" (do I detect fake-English in that true confession note?!??!). I couldn't resist the joke. -Wikid77 10:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Pretty funnyZlykinskyja (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Renaming as WP:Wikifogging

For over 2 years now, people have noted that the poorly-chosen term "WP:Wikilawyering" (typical juvenile wording) needed to be renamed, but they could not find a "clever" alternative. I have suggested the simple term "wikifogging" (after "pettifoggery"), as an instinctive term to mean "casting a fog" to obscure a clear reasoning of the issues. I am hoping this new name will be accepted, but you might need to express your opinion (or alternative term) at talk-page:

• Wikipedia_talk:Wikilawyering#Offensive Title

If it takes years to rename an offensive term, then it's easy to see how much resistance there is to fixing issues here. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with your proposal to change the name of the term, and added a comment in support. Thanks for doing this. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Some users noted the term (as WP:LAWYER) might be too entrenched to rename, even as an issue in arbitration disputes. Also, I thought the WP:LAW essay had held a milder view of the issues, but I see it is directly connected with highly devious behavior, such as "misrepresenting" the facts. Instead, perhaps I can write another essay, as Wikifogging, about the "fog" aspect, not the accusations of devious, unscrupulous actions: I would like to focus on people performing any fogging activities, such as:

• using acronyms few might know ("text removed per WP:XYZ, ZZXXYY, DFGDG, RTYRT & even WP:NOTNOTHUH");
• trying to change most anything someone inserts, not necessarily as a sinister action, but fogging a user's updates;
• in a simple discussion, flooding the page with objections, giving 17 reasons, when perhaps 3 or 4 would suffice.

As a milder term, wikifogging could be used to describe a troublesome user's actions without insinuating that they had devised an evil conspiracy to harrass a user into abandoning an article. Already, I think the policy WP:Wikihounding can be used when there is clear evidence of devious intent. Instead, I would say a user is "wikifogging" because of fogging the discussion with excessive "cloudy" clutter and removals of text (or images) to create a hazy page. By focusing on the actions (not claiming evil "intent"), then the term could used, any time, to describe actions that obscured the obvious. -Wikid77 12:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand this hostility they have to lawyers around here. Perhaps those who see lawyers as "devious" are just afraid they might be smarter. Wikifogging sounds like a badly needed term to add to the vocabulary. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)