Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:10, 29 June 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38Auto-archiving period: 10 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Italy This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Italy may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

A news item involving Murder of Meredith Kercher was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 5 December 2009.

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Trial of Knox and Sollecito was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 December 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Murder of Meredith Kercher. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

The contents of the Meredith Kercher page were merged into Murder of Meredith Kercher on 13 November 2007. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

The contents of the Amanda Knox page were merged into Murder of Meredith Kercher on 13 November 2007. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38Auto-archiving period: 10 days

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Restored omission: Police released Guede days before murder

11-Feb-10: The article has been re-expanded to note that Rudy Guede had been caught with a large stolen knife (16-inch, 40-cm) inside a closed Milan school on 27-Oct-07 (5 days before the murder) with a laptop PC reported stolen 14-Oct-07 from a Perugia law office burgled with a rock breaking an upstairs window. The Perugia police were notified Guede had the laptop, plus a cellphone also stolen from the Perugia office with the broken window. However, Guede was released by the Milan police, and not transferred to the Perugia police, as testified by the two Perugia solicitors (attorneys) at the Knox/Sollecito trial hearing on 26-June-2009 and by the school director 27 June. Hence, the reports of Guede holding a woman's watch, a hammer, a stolen knife and stolen property from a prior upstairs-window burglary could be confirmed by Milan police, Perugia police, and the 2 solicitors (lawyers Palazzoli and Paolo Brocchi) whose PC, printer and mobile phone were stolen on 14-Oct-07. I regret these major events had been omitted from the article, even until late December, while the details had been in major news reports in June 2009. The details are not rumors, but rather, confirmed by Milan police, Perugia police, Judge Micheli, and court testimony of 3 professionals. See source "Knox Trial Witness Points Finger at Guede" by Ann Wise (Rome) 26Jun09, web: ABCNews. -Wikid77 23:49, 11 February 2010

Draft new version

As discussed above, MLauba recommended that we should rewrite the article as a factual account, and there was a consensus to go ahead with this. Also above, at the end of May, The Magnificent Clean-keeper notified people that a draft was ready for discussion. I have now proposed that the draft should be moved here, to replace the current article and there is a straw poll in progress on the draft's talk page. Please take the opportunity (on that page) to say if you agree with this proposal. Bluewave (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This was little more than a few people with an agenda hijacking a prefectly good page in the dark of night when no one was looking. The present page is not NPOV and is not well written.PhanuelB (talk) 10:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleting the Defense Side of the Story Will Violate NPOV and BLP

This proposal to substitute a one sided, pro-guilt/pro-prosecution article, drafted in virtual secrecy mostly by one or two people, for the far more balanced article that currently exists--and which dozens of people have contributed hundreds of hours to-- is simply outrageous!!!

I don't agree with the way this is transpiring at all. This new proposed substituted article is highly POV, and was drafted behind closed doors by editors who all agree with one another. Meanwhile, there is unwelcoming, sometimes hostile and bullying treatment of those who do not hold similar views. All editing should be done out in the open, with fair and equal opportunity for everyone to participate. That means, editing should be done on the article page, not some page that people clicking on here don't know about. This is not a procedure that is consistent with the Wiki policy of having articles open for everyone in the world to participate in.

No one group "owns" this article or Misplaced Pages. By removing almost all the info that supports the defense side of the story, the proposed article is clearly unbalanced. The reader will come away with the view that A and R are certainly guilty, although that is disputed by thousands of people and no final determination of guilt or innocence has been made. The substituted article in no way complies with NPOV or BLP. I have contacted the Misplaced Pages Foundation because what is going on is in no way consistent with the rules and polices of Misplaced Pages. I have contributed financially to Misplaced Pages on the basis that all editors can contribute to an article, and that basic policies like NPOV and BLP are to be followed. But it seems that things are just getting worse and worse and worse with these efforts to block out the defense side of the story, or to make the defense side sound ridiculous, and now also trying to block any other information about Amanda Knox from being included in other articles on the website, and trying to get those with other opinions blocked or banned. There needs to be compliance with NPOV, BLP and basic fairness and respect for those with other views. Throwing away hundreds of hours of work of other editors, just because you don't want the defense side of the story included, is beyond unfair. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There should be no removal of this article, with substitution of a pro-guilt, pro-prosecution article, until someone at the Misplaced Pages Foundation approves of this. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not wish to comment on the alleged pro-Knox and anti-Knox factions, because that's a matter of opinion: I believe that no such thing as an anti-Knox cabal exists; you disagree. You're entitled to your opinions. However, I object to your claim that the new article was drafted behind closed doors. Since May 16, there has been, at the beginning of the article a rather visible template, informing all users of the drafting attempt, as can be seen here; and you've been personally notified on your talk page of said attempt, as can be seen here. You chose not to intervene. It's, once again, your prerogative, but you shouldn't claim that TMC-k and the others acted surreptitiously.

And, by the way, even if the draft gets moved to the mainspace, as I hope it will be, for I think it is a much better article than the one we have here, it's not set in stone. All editors can, collegially, edit it. Salvio ( ) 23:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I note that people on here just got Wikid77 blocked for three months because he allegedly communicated behind closed doors, called "canvassing." Why isn't re-writing a whole article just with a group of people who all agree with each other, with no clear notice to the public what is going on or where this draft is located, or how they can participate, even worse? This sure looks worse to me, like some sort of Tag Team situation, even if it isn't exactly canvassing. I don't see why it is okay for a group to plan to remove a whole article behind closed doors, while what he did is so egregious you wanted him blocked for three months. In my opinion, this attempted re-write behind closed doors violates Misplaced Pages policy on openness. That is all I am going to say for now at this level. Have a nice day. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikid77 is not blocked; he has just been topic banned, you can read why here. Anyway, that's not the point, IMHO. The point is that the existence of the draft has never been hidden. Even as we speak there's a notice on this article, pointing there. If you wish you can edit the draft or wait for it to be moved and the edit it, here. Nobody is trying to approach this in a cloak and dagger fashion. Salvio ( ) 23:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The notice at the top of the page reads "This article is going through a major rewrite which was outsourced to a subpage. You are welcome to assist by editing it." If you have not accepted the invitation that the Magnificent Clean-keeper left on your talkpage, I hardly think that you have grounds to complain on this page that the rewrite has been "drafted behind closed doors". Could you also attempt to explain the glaring discrepancy of your allegation that the draft is "highly POV" when it includes a section titled "Support for Knox"? Finally, for someone who claims that there is "unwelcoming, sometimes hostile and bullying treatment of those who do not hold similar views", it does not appear sensible to place misrepresentative and aggressive notices such as this on an AfD discussion page. SuperMarioMan 01:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, user Zlykinskyja was blocked for a month this morning. Salvio ( ) 12:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What has happened to this page does not stand so we might as well begin mediation or arbitratiion. Anyone who has studied this case here and elsewhere knows there are two strong minded camps on this subject and almost no one in between. For a long time this page had been pretty fair -- I watched it but didn't edit anything. Now I come by and I'm sorry but those of one opinion have hijacked this page while nobody was looking. What we have now is not NPOV, not even close.PhanuelB (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, that the article was being reworked was explicitly noted at the top of the page, so assertions that some sort of conspiracy has been permitted to unfold without other people's knowledge is both inaccurate and a slur on the characters of the editors involved. Having examined the history of this talk page, I respectfully suggest that this topic has already generated enough personalised conflict and drama without a (second) attempt at mediation. SuperMarioMan 11:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest that you extend a bit of good faith - you might get off a better foot with other editors without suggesting that there is some sinister cabal that hijacks the article. And you're of course welcome to improve the article; maybe starting by specifically pointing out what makes this article so "far from NPOV". I find it pretty balanced, to be honest, and I agree with the change as IMHO the previous version was an incoherent mess. However, if you make a concise point, you might be surprised that it is actually possible to work constructively with many people here.

Much of the drama, in my eyes, came from the fact that some of the editors fell into a "us vs them" mentality and always assumed that there was an evil mob out to get them. They appeared to take any attempt to change from "their version" to something else as personal attack. Others lost their calm, too, things got nasty and good faith was lost on both sides.

As for the mediation - it appears to be a bit pointless as this point, as some "key players" are currently blocked (and thus cannot participate) or may have moved on. In other words, at the moment it would make only sense if you required mediation - having already decided that you find it impossible to work with the other editors here. However, if any of those (now or after an unblock) requested another mediation, showed a willingness to work constructively and to recoup some of the good faith that was lost, it would be a way to go.

If the drama flares up again, Arbcom may be the final result. However, remember that an arbcom case wouldn't deal with the content issue at all, but with the behaviour of the editors. Averell (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

One of the reasons that his article is poorly written (more on no NPOV later) is that the first paragraph doesn't properly sum up why the case is important. This is a fundamental of good writing, at least as it was taught to me. There is only one reason that this case is news: the questions about whether an American exchange student received a fair trial. And the story is big news (Italy's trial of the century) because of widespread, credible allegations that the trial was a "kangaroo court", a "public lynching", and a "railroad job from hell." It is an outrageous violation of NPOV that a small group of editors are determined to see that this article should not state this obvious truth. Young adults die tragically everyday from natural causes, accidents, warfare, and criminal acts. It's not world news. A modern day Salem witch trial, as alleged by the New York Times, is news.PhanuelB (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed para

I removed this:

In the early stages of the investigation, well before the trials of the defendants, some of the details of the evidence were made known to the media and were commented on freely around the world. The UK media, who, at home, are constrained by the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (which criminalises the publication of information about cases which are sub judice), freely published details of the evidence and opinions about events surrounding the murder.

This seems to me to be an unnecessary amount of detail and I can't see how it helps the reader. --FormerIP (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The difference is important in this case. English law is unusual in that there is an almost complete moratorium on the release of information about a case prior to the verdict. In Amanda's case Italian authorities relied heavily on the release of information prior to trial, much of it false and known to be false, as a strategy to influcence the jury. Barbie Latza Nadeau in The Trials of Amanda Knox stated that "there was a time when they were handing out crime scene photos like business cards." Judge Michael Heavey in his letter to the Italian judiciary details a number of false statemnts made by Italian authorities prior to trial to the media. One example was the lie that Amanda Knox's diary said she had had sex with 7 men in Italy. She had not had sex with 7 men in Italy and her diary did not say she had. The version of her diary that corrupt prison officials had provided (presumably sold) to European tabloids had been improperly translated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhanuelB (talk • contribs) 02:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You may well be right about all of this, Phanuel, but we should be careful not to slip into Original Research. Do you know of a Reliable Source that thinks that the UK Comtempt of Court Act is particularly relevant to the Kercher case? --FormerIP (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The UK law is not particularly relevant to the case although comparison to other legal systems is a legitimate part of the discussion of the deficiencies in the Italian system and of its failure in this specific case. The leakage of false information to the news media prior to the trial is an essential part of this story. Of course those who are apparently controlling this page do not permit criticism of the court. PhanuelB (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I was again the culprit in mentioning UK Contempt of Court act. My point was that the UK press, when reporting on their home patch, are accustomed to having a virtual news blackout on any case that is sub judice. In this case the UK rules did not apply and it seemed like the UK press had a field day and wrote the kind of articles that would have put them behind bars if the case had taken place in England. However, I'm happy to go along with FormerIP's deletion. Bluewave (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Despite repeated requests prior to and during the rewrite, the article still is very heavily based on sensational news reports. Is it really necessary to start tagging them all with {{better source}}, or will editors exercise some modicum of academic self-discipline about this? Few if any of the useful points need these sources. If it is absolutely necessary to use news sources, try to find better ones that are not from Italian, US, or UK sources pandering to their national audiences. Try English-language services in other European nations, though there might also be some coverage in Australia, Canada, India, or even China. Google News Archive can help with that. In the rare cases where it might be constructive to discuss national viewpoints (though nothing really comes to mind) it should be from first-tier news publications, not slashervision. The article should also lose the refs to ambulance chaser television programs such as are seen on many Fox News affiliates. Treating these as WP:reliable sources is indefensible. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I generally agree, but think that what type of source is used ought to relate to the likelihood that a statement will be contentious. So, for example, I've just replaced a few dead links such as one for the amount of damaged awarded to Lumumba. I've used Sky News for this, just because it came close to the top in Google, and I can't see why that type of source isn't suitable for that type of info. Also, I think some of the reports in what people might think of as "quality" publications also appear quite lurid (for example, we have a source from The Times which has "I will drink your blood" in its headline). --FormerIP (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Clearly that's an instance of a headline writer getting carried away. The article puts the line in context as a lame bit of Facebook humour. But still, what statement does that source provide support for that can't be done using a less partisan source? LeadSongDog come howl! 20:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm probably one of the main culprits for referencing The Times. This is for several reasons: one is that it's the only daily paper that I read, so I'm quite familiar with its coverage of the case; second, it still has some credentials as a "quality" paper (though not many!); third, The Times does not seem to have had an editorial policy on the case and its coverage has included a range of views. However, I agree that the article would benefit from some better sources. To make things worse, The Times is now making its archive into a subscription-only site, which will really bugger all our references. Just one caution on using non-UK/US news media: quite a lot of the English-language material is traceable back to the same UK journalists who write for the national papers. For example, Nick Pisa's material crops up in lots of publications internationally, although he writes for the Daily Mail. Bluewave (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Timings

The article quotes Amanda Fox and Raffaele Sollecito phoning people starting at 12:07pm on 2nd November and the police then arriving. This fits in with the quoted time in Seattle being 4:00 a.m. but did this happen 13 hours after the murder at c.11:00 p.m. on the 1st Prestonmag (talk)

Recent additions

These recent additions are, I think, problematic. The quotations are from, among others:

1. John Q. Kelly
2. Paul Ciolino
3. Doug Preston
4. Judy Bachrach
5. Peter Van Sant
6. Timothy Egan
7. Donald Trump

and a lot of them are sourced to youtube.

This raises some questions, including;

Are these commentators themselves reliable sources? Is Donald Trump qualified to opine on a murder case? Who the hell is John Q Kelly? should youtube be a reliable source for programme content?

  pablo_hablo. 15:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought the whole newly-added material unbalances the section on media coverage. But I have held off editing it for several reasons: for one thing I was a major contributor to the new version of the article and am now trying to stand back a bit. This is also one area of the article where I have strong personal views (I get quite irate at the arrogance of people who don't appear to have troubled to examine the case in any depth but consider themselves better able to comment on the verdict than the judges, who spent almost a year of their lives studying thousands of pages of evidence, over a hundred witnesses, etc). For instance Judy Bachrach has also claimed that the Italian justice system is based on the "the inquisition" and that, in Italy, you are "guilty until proven innocent". Bluewave (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The last time I had looked at this page it provided a reasonably balanced view of the case. In an outrageous violation of NPOV, it has been extensively edited (attacked) by those who see Ms. Knox as guilty. Who let this happen?

The quotes that I provided are the defining editorial commentary on the case.

John Q. Kelly was chosen as a commentator on this case by the CNN Larry King Live, one of the most respected and credible outlets in the history of television. He has provided commentary on other cases prior to his appearance in this case.

Paul Ciolino was hired by CBS news to investigate the case and was put on site in Perugia for this purpose. He is one of America's leading private investigators. His words are from his appearances on a segment of CBS 48 Hours.

Doug Preston was chosen by CBS news to comment on the case. He also had firsthand experience with the same prosecutor in the Amanda Knox case.

Judy Bachrach was chosen by both CNN Headline News with Wolf Blitzer and by Larry King Live to provide commentary on the case.

Peter Van Sant is a CBS news correspondent with 25 years of experience. He was chosen by CBS news to provide commentary on the case.

Tim Egan is a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist chosen by the New York Times to provide commentary on the case.

Donald Trump was chosen by KOMO news in the Seattle area to provide commentary on the case.

The links to YouTube videos are legitimate as they document the spoken words of those quoted in television appearances.

PhanuelB (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Think this material should be removed per WP:Quotations#Overusing_quotations. Perhaps a line such as "Commentators including x, y and z have declared their belief in Knox's innocence" would be okay, but we don't need the verbatim contents of every such opinion that can be found on YouTube. There should also be balance, so that countervailing viewpoints are also included (ie we should not be building one-sided collections of quotes into the article). It also doesn't appear balanced to include only news sources with which the Knox family have a contractual relationship (it has been reported that the family only give interviews on condition that positive coverage is guaranteed). --FormerIP (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That would make sense.   pablo_hablo. 18:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Rothorpe (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The condemnation of this tribunal by commentators in major media outlets in the United States has been all but universal and is essential knowledge for those who seek to learn about the case. It is not OK to just say "oh somebody criticized the trial" and "some others didn't", implying that the neutral point of view must be somewhere in the middle. The readers need to see exactly what was said for themselves. What really kills me is that the hijackers of this page have left their own utterly obscure quotes in place. BTW, Amanda's lawyers were not free to comment publically on the fairness of the trial.

The efforts by a handful of editors here to re-write history and remove from public view some of the most important elements of the case are like nothing I have ever seen on Misplaced Pages. PhanuelB (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you ease back on your attacks on other editors, PhanuelB.
It very much is OK to state that some journalists criticised the trial and others did not. It is not OK, however, to unduly weight the article with many verbatim quotes which happen to agree with your self-confessed 'Knox is innocent' stance.   pablo_hablo. 15:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Attending Trial

I have changed the wording that Rudy Guede "attended the trial." This implies that he was there for much or all of it. It is undisputed that he made a single appearance when called to testify by Mignini and asserted his right to remain silent. ~~PhanuelB~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhanuelB (talk • contribs) 18:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It's probably better the way you have it now, but he certainly did attend.   pablo_hablo. 19:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

There maybe issues of incomplete understanding of the English language by those who are bilingual in Italian and English. In the context above "attended the trial" cannot be construed to mean a single appearance.PhanuelB (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There do seem to be issues of misunderstanding, but they don't seem to be related to bilinguality:

attend (v)

To watch over, wait upon, with service, accompany as servant, go with, be present at.
To present oneself, for the purpose of taking some part in the proceedings, at a meeting for business, worship, instruction, entertainment. 
e.g. to attend church, school, a lecture, a meeting, a funeral, the sittings of a court, also a place of worship.
To be present in readiness for service, or in answer to an authoritative summons.OED

"attend" can be construed as a single appearance; that's how I read it. I agree that it is best avoided in this instance, however, because it can also be construed as being present over a longer period, and that's how you read it.   pablo_hablo. 10:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Original Research in footnote

I removed this:

An English language summary by Salvio Giuliano states that the Court of Cassation points out that the self-incriminating statements can be utilised, during a trial, in a particular way: if they were rendered by someone against whom there was already circumstantial evidence that he or she had committed the crime or a connected crime, they cannot be used either against the stating person or against his or her co-accused. If this circumstantial evidence was not present, they can be used only against his or her co-accused. In keeping with these principles, Amanda's 01:45 statements could be used against the co-accused. After these statements, the interview was interrupted and the girl was turned over to the Judicial Authority (the Prosecutor). Amanda's 05:54 statements could not be used either against her or against her co-accused, because Amanda was interviewed without a lawyer.

I do appreciate Salvio's efforts, but this appears to be OR, which is no more permitted in footnotes than in articles in general. Also, there appears to be something wrong with the wording. It seems to be saying that if there is already circumstantial evidence, self-incriminating statements can be used but not against any of the accused. Who could they be used against, then? --FormerIP (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it really OR to summarise a source? Regarding the meaning, I thought it meant the following. At the time of the 01:45 statement, there was no circumstantial evidence against AK (she was not a suspect) so her incriminating statement could be used against the person she was accusing (PL) but not against AK herself. Having made that statement, there was now circumstantial evidence against her (she had become a suspect), so her 05:45 statement could not be used against either PL or AK. Bluewave (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I actually didn't know I was quoted; it's flattering though. xD

Seriously, I don't think it is OR, it's just a translation from a Judgement rendered by the Court of Cassation, regarding the admissibility of Knox's statements (this one), which reads

Template:It 2. Con riferimento alla seconda censura difensiva la Corte osserva che le dichiarazioni indizianti sono caratterizzate da un differente regime di utilizzabilità sotto il profilo soggettivo. Nel caso in cui esse provengano da persona a carico della quale già sussistevano indizi in ordine al medesimo reato ovvero a reato connesso o collegato con quello attribuito al terzo le stesse non possono essere utilizzate, oltre che contra se, neppure dei confronti dei coimputati dello stesso reato (o degli imputati di reati connessi o collegati). Il regime di inutilizzabilità assoluta di cui all'art. 63, comma secondo, c.p.p. è, invece, da escludere nell'ipotesi in cui il dichiarante sia chiamato a rispondere, nello stesso o in altro processo, per un reato o per reati attribuiti a terzi, che non abbiano alcun legame processuale con quello per cui si procede, rispetto ai quali egli assume la qualifica di testimone. Infatti, mentre nel primo caso, in forza dell'intima connessione e interdipendenza tra il fatto proprio e quello altrui sorge la necessità di tutelare anche il diritto al silenzio del dichiarante, nel secondo caso, invece, la posizione di estraneità e di indifferenza del dichiarante rispetto ai fatti di causa lo rende immune da eventuali strumentalizzazioni operate da parte degli organi inquirenti (Cass., Sez. Un. 13 febbraio 1997, Carpanelli).

I recognize, however, that this can be construed as a primary source.

In short, anyway, it means that if there was no way of knowing that a person had committed a crime when they made self-incriminating statements (and they contain something that can lead to or support someone else's indictment as accomplice or accessory), these statements can be used against the co-accused; if there was circumstancial evidence (basically, if the Prosecutor knew, should have known or suspected that the person he was questioning was involved in the crime), these statements cannot be used against anyone. Salvio ( ) 08:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see. So we have an Italian legal document, which could be cited in a footnote. And I suppose an English translation can be provided. However, what was in the footnote seems to go further, by giving an outline of how the law might have applied in this case. Surely that counts as OR (?). --FormerIP (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's the Judgement that gives an outline of how the law might have applied in this case, it's not me commenting on it. However, I have no objections whatsoever to it being removed. Salvio ( ) 10:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, then I also don't have objections to it being included. But the quote you give above is dated 1997. --FormerIP (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Err... What quote are you referring to? If it's the judgement you're talking about, it's dated 21.04.2008 (n. 16410/2008). Salvio ( ) 12:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I now see! The Knox Judgement (21.04.2008) quotes the massima (point of law, you might say) from a 1997 Judgement by the Sezioni Unite. Salvio ( ) 12:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The matching of the knife

Currently, the article says, "The knife matched one of the three wounds on Kercher's neck." This was introduced by this edit which is entitled "Neutral tone". However, the statement lost neutrality in that edit. As currently written, it implies that the knife matched the wound in the same way that a fingerprint matches a finger. However, that's not true. That's not how that kind of matching works. Any knife of the same size and shape could have made that wound. Some number of knives with different sizes and shape could also make the wound It is conceivably possible that that knife could have inflicted that wound. However, a simpler explanation is that all three wounds were made by the same knife, as stated in this reference (94).

The issue is that the wound in question does not give a lot of evidence as to the nature of the knife that made it. It could have been made by any number of knives. The previous wording was "could only have made" which was more accurate. The knife did not make the fatal wound nor a third knife wound. The prosecution acknowledged this with its two knife theory. It conceivably could have made one of the wounds, but there are other, simpler explanations. "Matched" is neither accurate nor neutral (although it is shorter and more concise). I don't insist on the "could only match" wording, but the wording should indicate that the knife could have made the wound without indicating that it did.

I'm not commenting on the rest of the edit at this time. I introduced the "could only match" wording and am confident that something like it should be retained. Given the removal of the other exculpatory evidence in that edit (the statement used to be in a list of statements with the same general purpose), a more accurate and neutral wording might be "The knife could not have made two of the three wounds." Both the prosecution and the defense agreed on that.

Possible alternative paragraph, "Knox's DNA was found on a kitchen knife, recovered from Sollecito's flat, and Kercher's DNA (although not from her blood) was found on the blade. The knife could have made one of the three wounds on Kercher's neck, but not the other two. The prosecution suggested two knives, while the defense argued that all three wounds were made by another knife. At trial, Knox's lawyers argued that she used knives for cooking at Sollecito's apartment." Mdfst13 (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Think the main change you talk about to "The knife could have made one of the three wounds on Kercher's neck, but not the other two." is okay, but the other two changes are not. The word "necessarily" should stay in "not necessarily from her blood". The source tells us that the knife tested negative for blood, but this does not mean that the DNA sample was not from blood, it just means they couldn't tell what it was from (it was a very small sample). "The prosecution suggested two knives, while the defense argued that all three wounds were made by another knife" does not seem to be supported by the source (I am looking at the right one - The Telegraph, right?). Common sense says the statement itslef is likely to be true, but in general I think we should keep "defence said this but prosecution said that" to a minimum anyway. --FormerIP (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd also be in favour or removing "(although not from her blood)" altogether. Too much detail. --FormerIP (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Remove the "detail" that the knife alleged by the prosecution to be the murder weapon was tested for blood and came up negative? If it didn't have blood on it wasn't used in a stabbing incident. And if they cleaned it up with bleach, there would be blood in the sink or drain pipes. Competent police forces always examine drain pipes BTW. If ever there was an example of the warped efforts to violate NPOV that define this page, this is it.PhanuelB (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Phanuel, "came up negative" does not equal "didn't have blood on it". Furthermore, even if we could be sure there was no blood on it, this would not equal "wasn't used in a stabbing incident". There was some kind of organic material from the victim's body on the blade of the knife. The negative test result means nothing more than that we can't say for sure that the sample found was blood. It may have been skin or muscle tissue, for example, but this would still be consistent with the victim having been injured by the knife. In any event, I support the removal of that sentence, because it doesn't contain any information which is useful to the reader. We are not supposed to be providing information for amateur sleuthing here but, even if we were, I do not think that this negative test is a material factor in determining whether S's knife was or wasn't used in the murder (and, clearly, the court did not think so either). --FormerIP (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe just maybe some will begin to see a pattern here. When there is no DNA in the room, then it's because Amanda cleaned it up. When the knife doesn't fit, there must have been two knives. When Rudy's DNA, and not Amanda's or Raffaele's, is found everywhere, it must have been Amanda directing Rudy to do everything. When they can't find Amanda's fingerprints in her own room, it means that she was cleaning up evidence elsewhere. When a semen stain is found underneath the victim it must have been from before the crime. And now when scientific testing for blood indicates that no blood was present then it doesn't mean that no blood was present. The idea is that you go where the evidence takes you, not where you want to go regardless of the evidence. By the way, in democracies courts of laws are accountable to the public. In virtually all cases this scrutiny can be called "amateur sleuthing." It is more difficult in this case because of the lack of public access to the trial record. That is why the words "Public lynching", "kangaroo court", and "railroad job from hell" as stated by multiple commentators on news segments broadcast to much of the English speaking world belong in this article. That is but one of many reasons this page is devoid of NPOV. PhanuelB (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that this article should go "the way the evidence takes you". It should go with recording the known facts about the murder, together with a brief summary of the trial and its outcome, as reported in reliable sources. It should not be an attempt to re-try the case based on any editor's interpretation of what they imagine the evidence to show.   pablo_hablo. 17:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. We report facts, not opinions derived by our editors from other sources - that's a violation of WP:SYNTH, which is policy, and will be removed wherever it is seen. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• C-Class Death articles
• Unknown-importance Death articles
• C-Class Italy articles
• Unknown-importance Italy articles
• All WikiProject Italy pages
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Italy
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles