Talk:Amanda Knox/Archive 2

Merge?
Is there anything here that couldn't be included or summarised on the article on the one thing she is known for? --John (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The various attempts to delete or merge this article have failed, and since those closures the only thing that has changed is that Knox has gotten more notable. Binksternet (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think this ship sailed long ago. Knox meets the initial criteria of WP:BLP1E, but the coverage has been sustained and in-depth for, what, half a decade now? Tarc (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Most of the content of this article doesn't belong in the MoMK article, yet is properly sourced. The article has survived previous deletion/merge requests for a reason.LedRush (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I wasn't looking for precedent or opinion here but actually asked a question above. I will try again. Is there anything here that couldn't be included or summarised on the article on the one thing she is known for? Again, I am not looking for opinion about her supposed notability, but for an answer. Thanks a lot to anyone who can give it. --John (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe we fully understood your begging the question the first time around, yes. If you believe that the trial details are too excessive in this article, then by all means pare it down a tad.  But there's been more than enough coverage of Knox pre- and post-trial to justify a standalone BLP. Tarc (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That may be true but it is only visible then to the eye of faith. The rest of us can only see an article which, aside from the three sentences of the Early life section, could wholly be included (and mostly is) on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. Once again, what is the advantage of saying it all twice? I can see plenty of disadvantages but I cannot see anything that pushes us in this direction. Far from begging the question, this is an honest inquiry. If, after three shots at it, you are unable to answer it, I will take that as a "no". I don't know why you couldn't just say that in the first place but whatever. --John (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please tell me who "the rest of us" is exactly? You and your family?. It has been described to you now twice why it shouldnt be merged and if you decide not to see or understand that then it is your problem my friend. Let the discussin run its course instead of trying to diminish other users opinions. Just being frank with you. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this has already been dealt with through a AfD previously. Also the subject has reached notability on her own as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Question What is her notability, outside of the murder allegation? --John (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The murder that has given her continued media attention for almost a decade you mean?--BabbaQ (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that one, the one we have an article on. Apart from that, what is she known for? --John (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I have to ask you about this comment you made above Sorry, I wasn't looking for precedent or opinion here but actually asked a question above. But if you ask a question you effectively asking for an opinion, it might not be the answer that you prefer but it is still an answer and opinion. Secondly, there is enough material on Knox both pre and post-trial to justify a separate article on her. I will not respond further to this discussion. Regards, --BabbaQ (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to apologise, and it's perfectly fine with me if you don't respond when you have nothing to say; we are volunteers after all. I was looking for an opinion but I was really looking for an answer to the question. If one was going to come it would have come by now. So we can safely conclude from this discussion (such as it was) that Amanda Knox has no notability whatsoever apart from her role in the murder trial, and that this article exists as a kind of spin-out for the non-essential froth generated by her many fans. As such it probably violates policy, but hey, vox populi. At the very least it should be trimmed down to summary style and the extensive coverage at the other article also, so we are not duplicating content. --John (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing that can't be merged. A lot of people reading WP seem to want to read the AK angle right now though.Overagainst (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The answer to the question is yes, there is material here which would be best left out of the Murder of Meredith Kercher article.     ←   ZScarpia  23:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - I'm assuming this separate article was created in an effort to reduce the size of the main article. That's usually the reason a linked article is created from a section in a main article. Since Overagainst has spent time recently reducing the size of the main article, perhaps it is time to reconsider merging. I also fail to see any notability outside of the trial. Her only written book is all about the murder case, as is her media coverage. Such "notability" is a direct result from that. Jodon |  Talk  12:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I did object to it the way it was before, but I was maybe assuming more resistance to bold editing than actually existed. I don't see the current incarnation of this article as a problem. There isn't the kind of edit warring there was a few years ago. The MoMK article must be over 100K so things would have to be taken out both to merge. Yet there are things that are having to be added to both 6 years later. I don't think this is the time to merge it with AK. It would look like an attempt to take out the page that's being visited a lot. At present people want to know about the subject of this article specifically, and can go to the MoMK to get the more involved background of how she became notable. Someday perhaps a merge will be practicable, now is not the time in my opinion.Overagainst (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Those reader reaction things at top o' article page are presumably there for us to pay attention to. WP is there as a service to the readers. Readers don't want to be tasked with going through a long but very summarised article to get the info. I do agree more of a summary style can be used for both articles It's easier to put things in the article,  then summarise it and  I intend to do more summarising. Hopefully the two pages will not duplicate too much.Overagainst (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Paraphrasing reliable sources, outlining Italian law
Testify definition "to talk and answer questions about something especially in a court of law while formally promising that what you are saying is true." Guede did not testify at the trial of Knox and Sollecito, although they requested him to. Do I have to justify the using the word 'testify', even though it is the word a reliable source uses?

(addendum: Guede did testify at the appeal trial on 27 June 2011, but only in relation to denying he'd discussed the trial with the fellow prisoners who were called by the defence. Then Mignini read out a letter Guede had sent to his lawyers in which he directly accused AK and RS of murdering Kercher.. Knox lawyer Dalla Vedova tried to question Guede about exactly what AK and RS had to do with the murder but he refused to say more. Guede refused to be questioned on what he said about AK and RS being involved in the murder of Kercher.)

We can't just copy and paste from sources. My approach is to be somewhat more conservative than the source. 'Many American jurists were...' was very conservative (as anyone who checked the ref would know it said in one place that Americans were appalled). The article wording was changed to 'Some commentators and jurists were...'. I object to editors  making significant changes without explaining how the text they alter misrepresents what is in the referenced source. It really will not do to reflexively tone down all text in a know it all fashion without citing why and where the source has a different meaning. What American were disturbed by could be made clear by providing quotes of what was said by prosecution and plaintiff's lawyers about Knox:'a talented and calculated liar' or 'she-devil focused on sex, drugs, and alcohol, living life on the edge'. Is that going to be necessary?

I think we have to explain a little about Italian trial law rules of evidence and the role of the judge. Evidence was given in court which would not be allowed in the US, although it was quite permissible in Italy, unless that is made clear it would give the impression rules were thown out in this trial. The judge questioned Knox at some length and introduced a new issue: the lack of heating in the house where she said she had had returned to take a shower (which came through in the judges written explanation of the guilty verdict, when they said Knox lied about showering as she'd had a shower earlier at Sollecito's apartment after sleeping with him. There is going to be a brief point made for the Italian system and the ease of a successful appeal in Italy in contradistinction to the US, where once a court convicts there is no review of the facts in the case, making it very difficult to overturn a wrongful conviction._Overagainst (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Categories
The category Overturned convictions in Italy seems to have been created so this article can be placed there, the category is redundant as it has only MoMK and AK. AK does not belong in Category:Fugitives wanted by Italy or Category:People convicted of murder by Italy or Category:21st-century American criminals either IMO.Overagainst (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Until Italy asks for her extradition, I don't think she belongs in the fugitive category. For the rest, she was convicted, it was overturned and she was convicted again.  That's her current state and categories based on that are valid.  You might want to try CFD for the Overturned convictions category though. Ravensfire ( talk ) 00:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if Italy did ask one day, a fugitive is a person who fled or is fleeing from custody, and she won't be that, because she left Italian jurisdiction openly as an acquitted person, and is living in the US. The category is for people on the run.Overagainst (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

PR-firm hired info
Found a detailed article which gives more insight into Marriott's role and as to when [Three days after Knox was arrested] and why [They didn't knew how to handle the bombardment of media requests] Knox's family hired him. Should be clarified in Knox's bio.TMCk (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A PR man plying his trade to promote his business is not a reliable enough source to hang a section on IMO. Marriot says the effect was wholly beneficial. I don't doubt it was with US media, or that Marriot received a commensurate fee. However Knox was not in the jurisdiction of the US and there were a variety of opinions on the how PR causing the US media to cast a long shadow over the trial actually affected the case, which was being tried by 8 Italians in Perugia where in 2002 local prosecutors managed to convict the former prime minister Giulio Andreotti of murder in a verdict that even his arch enemy the head of the  the  communist party couldn't understand  (see here) . Pre trial publicity section ref in MoMK mentions that AK's Perugian lawyer (perhaps the most effective of her defence attorneys) was against the attacks eminating from the US on the prosecutors and police, as counter productive; he thought it would alienate the judges. If we mention a PR firm's claim to have got the message that there was no evidence against Knox accepted, we would have to balance the impression given by Marriot in their puff piece that it had worked wholly to Knox's advantage. Which would involve explaining how some thought it worked against Knox with the people that happened to be deciding the case (as well as for her in the US with no-one who actually mattered; for there are people annoyed by the media attention on one story, eg Natalee Holloway). The only unchallenged impact of hiring a PR would be the cost. I don't think it's necessary to detail that the book money went to pay for PR;  along with agents, the book collaborating author, taxes, and  debt  to her entire family who had lost all their assets in funding defence of her in English language media, and Italian courts.Overagainst (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary style?
There has been a bit of reverting on the grounds that details are 'a fact that can/should be kept'. I would like some imput on the level of detail to be used. I think only the essential points should be mentioned, and mentioned once only. Overagainst (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC) Anybody?Overagainst (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your editing style makes it very difficult to assess changes. Quite honestly, I wanted to revert all of your edits and ask you to make them one at a time, making a case for each.  However, your life seems devoted to the project and I don't have the time or energy to fight on that point.  I'll just say that we could do with a bit more detail, and the article had better information for readers before you edited it.LedRush (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Re. the style which you're complaining about. OK point taken. In future, if I want to edit I'll put a final version of any section of text I propose adding here, and await reactions.
 * There are editors with thousands of pages on their watchlist.
 * It seems you are not alone in wanting certain details back in the article as can be seen here The information that subject's parents hired a public relations firm, the subject's appearance in a sexiest women list  and a comedian's joke about having sex with the subject are back in. As is her being a bigger personality than Carla Bruni (the link to the Carla Bruni page is back too). Overagainst (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * On the whole, your edits are trying to bring focus to the notion that Knox is a poor, wrongly-accused soul rather than the reality of the situation, which is that she has been convicted (with further appeals to go) of murdering another person. This shift has been reverted.  This is the Wikipedia, where we adhere to WP:NPOV, not injusticeinperugia.com's web forums. Tarc (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think I ever visited injusticeinperugia.com's web forums. I certainly haven't posted on or spent any real time on it or similar ones, but I can't prove that so attribution of bias to me will stick.  I do have Follain's book on the case, and I have edited the MoMK page a lot. I am not aware that there is any principle to the effect that editing many pages (one editor I had extended argument with on DoNH has over 10,000 pages on his watchlist) gives an editor extra weight over others in discussion on a particular page against a more focused editor.  Mine is by no stretch a single use account. I have created the pages Silas Jayne, Geoffrey J. Morton, and  Danilo Restivo. I have done a lot of editing on the pages Vitamin D, Giovanni Falcone (I have John Follain's book on Falcone), Valerio Fioravanti, George Edalji and Cleveland Elementary School shooting (San Diego). Most recently I tried with extensive discussion over several months on the talk page, and a little success, to alter the page Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. I thought I had achieved all I could and stopped there after getting agreement to change certain aspects of the lede of that page a month ago.


 * "poor, wrongly-accused soul rather than the reality of the situation, which is that she has been convicted " If she is a poor, wrongly-accused soul, no court verdict can alter that reality. It is not, I think, our job to discount that possibility by suggesting that her current status is exactly equivalent to having been convicted of murder in a US trial. The point at issue is the status of Knox's conviction, and whether it can be described as the infobox would pithily have it, or as you describe it: "she has been convicted (with further appeals to go) of murdering another person".


 * Here is a reliable source: Mirabella, Julia Grace, Scales of Justice: Assessing Italian Criminal Procedure Through the Amanda Knox Trial (January 5, 2012). Boston University International Law Journal, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2012. link. Some quotes "In adopting features of the adversarial system, Italy did not simply transplant U.S. features into its legal system;169 rather, it translated such features into an entirely different legal language". A fairly reliable news source, the  Wall Street Journal (which I had as ref 1) said: "Italian law doesn't consider a conviction final until the appeals process has been exhausted regardless of the number of times a defendant has been put on trial. In an interview with Italian daily la Repubblica earlier this month, Ms. Knox said she would resist extradition if the appeals end in a guilty verdict."  So it is by no means true that Knox's legal position in Italy can be conveyed by the English word "convicted" without any qualification. Sollecito was found guilty on the same charges as Knox and sentenced to 25 years, yet although he has had to surrender his passport, Sollecito is walking around free as a bird in Italy  And he is not on bail, it does not exist there. They are convicted, yes; but not definitively. There is no word for that status in English, because it is a legal status not found in the US, which has a quite different legal philosophy as to the purpose of a trial, as Mirabella explains in the above linked paper. We should not give the impression, as is being done in the  infobox*, that AK and RS have been 'convicted acquitted and reconvicted" as if every country's legal process must boiled down in parochial fashion to an American style 'black box' verdict as to the facts of the case.


 * (*BTW ref 1, the infobox ref, is giving false information. Kercher asked Knox to make sure she flushed their toilet properly, an incident which the prosecution said was the motive for the murder at the recent trial. But Guede had nothing to do with that incident. No one says Guede was ever in the apartment Kercher, Knox and the Italian women occupied on the ground floor of the house before the night of the murder. Weeks before the murder he was in the walk in basement apartment of the house where the Italian men lived, and he fell asleep on their toilet. The recent trial judge has said they got together by 'coincidences'. The written judgement at the first trial speculated Knox and Sollecito (together 5 days) might have just bumped into Guede in the street on the night of the murder and invited him to join them.)


 * There are four people being mentioned in the lede and I happen to think my wording explained things more clearly, but I don't have any real problem with the lede as it currently is. I do still object to the infobox wording. I don't understand why the name of a PR firm or a comic's jokes about whether men would have sex with the subject or  appearance of the subject in a rating of  females'  percieved sexual attractiveness by the 'readership' of Maxim (WP:BLPSOURCES) is considered relevant to a section called  Public image._Overagainst (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is that Wikipedia should remain neutral if we change the article into the "poor girl who was perhaps wrongly convicted in Italy" it will become a totally irrelevant article as it isnt neutral. You seem to be the kind of user that gives 100% and all your time to one article at the time and push to have your edits included, well that is your style and I respect that but you will also have to consider other users input. regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But I have now seen your comment at the BLP noticeboard and realised that you are only out to get your own way instead of discussing. And when I left a nice message at the board you responded with the classic "im right you are wrong sadly you can not see it .. the section will be removed no matter what".. kind of response. I will not continue discussing it with you as I can see you are the kind of user that is mostly interested in being right than doing right. And yes, you are acting like it is "your article". I am being hard in my tone but I will not take any kind of bad behaviour from anyone lightly anymore, neither yours. Just finding it really weird that you are so upset with me telling you to discuss before removing an entire section of an article for consensus. But I guess it is not your style. I will not look at this talk page again as it is to infected by several huge egos at play. cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Explicit concensus isn't required for BLP violation removals and as can be seen above I did complain about that section 10 hours before removing it. You have made no reasoned argument for keeping it, either here or at BLP noticeboard._Overagainst (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem for you is that I have made no attemot to give an argument for keep or deletion as I was not making a point about that. I was making a point that it is not a good idea to remove an entire section without consensus. But now as you are so inclined to continue discussing it I guess I will agree with both Mosfetfaser and Rodericksilly and the other users when I say that the section should stay as it is sourced, not excessive and a big part of the Knox fascination in the public eye. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * hi guys, I added her book deal to that section, I don't think the verified details of her public image in the article are excessive at all. Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that I agree. Public image was part of the article for a long time, consensus was that it should be there and there is little doubt that Knox's image has played a major part in the extensive media coverage and tone that she has garnered. Rodericksilly (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The 'Public image' section says very little about " verified details of her public image".  To summarise it:-
 * 1) 'Supporters of Knox' complained about how she was portrayed
 * 2) She called herself Foxy Knoxy on myspace
 * 3) The subject has a big PR firm looking after her public image.
 * 4) She is rated in a sexist magazine poll by the 'readership' of Maxim (WP:BLPSOURCES), and a TV presenter joked about whether men would want to have sex with her. See Public image. I suppose it's possible a model celebrity type BLP subject might reasonably be assumed to have no objection to this. But AK can't be.
 * 5) Spaced so it stands alone (which can only have been a deliberate attempt to highlight it) is gossip about money from a book deal, being stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice "Knox signed a book deal worth US$4 million", although the source actually just says "The deal is reportedly worth $4m". Which may well be very misleading about her current financial situation, as can be seen HERE:  "There was an outcry when it was reported that she had received a £2.8m advance. I asked if the book would make her rich. No, she said. The family were in huge debt because of lawyers' bills; they had had to remortgage the family house, and even with the advance she might not have sufficient funds to get through college." (The long time text suggesting that her father is vice president of finance at 'Macy's', instead of the local branch was corrected by me).


 * The section is not about the subject's public image. It consists of things that negatively influence the reader's perception of the subject. Mosfetfaser, Rodericksilly and BabbaQ are prolific celebrity BLP authors.  But they don't go to other articles and add a 'Public image section' to mention and specify which PR firm has been hired or repeat  gossip giving a partial and misleading account of a person's current financial situation. The  context in which AK came to be notable enough for a book when counter-posed with the sum she allegedly received  produces a negative impression, if not outrage.   This 'Public image section' effectively is a  WP:COATRACK section for  tendentious information that holds a BLP subject up to contempt.Overagainst (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I inserted, reported in the press to be in an attempt to resolve your comment. Overagainst's claim that I am a prolific celebrity BLP author is nothing less than a lie, a falsehood. Mosfetfaser (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is correct you are not a prolific celebrity BLP author, as it's not habit causing you to treat AK as something other than a person known for only one event, it must be quite deliberate. Anyway, BLP noticeboard is the venue for this now._Overagainst (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop your lies about me. I have no opinion at all about Amanda Knox, you are clearly obsessed about her, you have an article in your userpage about her. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Overagainst - I am a simple WP:npov passer-by wikipedia contributor making a single addition to the article .Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Rodericksilly, prolific British celebrity BLP editor has linked  minor British celebrity Matthew Wright (to explain who he is) then went on to mention his 'controversal comment' via a  quoting from a flippant opinion piece that is only mentioning Knox tangentally. I thought it was established at BLP noticeboard that recounting of  Wright's sexist joke  or other trivial references to rating of sexual attractiveness of the subject of this BLP did not merit a mention, being undue weight, So how come all this is going back in slightly different guise?Overagainst (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It was established "by you". You seem to think you own the article and are much better than other editors, hence your repeated "celebrity editor" nonsense to try and demean anyone else. The information I added was neither an attack nor a defense of Knox, it fits perfectly well with information about how Knox has been portrayed in the media. Rodericksilly (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with editing Brit celeb BLPs I have done it myself. However I would not consider Wright someone to be linked to this article, but at least you dropped the link to his TV show you had before. I thought it was established at BLP noticeboard that recounting of  Wright's sexist joke  or other trivial references to rating of sexual attractiveness of the subject of this BLP did not merit a mention, being undue weight. You are pting it back in slightly different guiseOveragainst (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * References to Knox's appearance, her sexuality and her "pretty face" have already been made in your edits, since you presumably acknowledge that this is a significant element of how Knox has been covered. I'm not criticizing you for your edits, nor attempting to change them, so I don't see why you could possibly have a problem with my addition. Rodericksilly (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * One obscure Brit TV celeb hitting the wrong note while trying to be funny is not notable, or enlightening as to anything not better covered and sourced already in the article about an American woman. Wright made a silly remark and a Guardian journalist in disapproving of the remark mentioned Knox only tangentally and flippantly. Editors other than myself said at BLP noticeboard it was inappropriate weight on trivia to mention Wright or similar stuff about Knox. I can't help wondering if you are finding a way to insert a link to the Matthew Wright article (which you just edited) in a more popular page, irrellevance notwithstanding.Overagainst (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not been my motivation, but I have removed a direct link to the Matthew Wright page to avoid any misunderstanding there. Wright is reasonably obscure, but his comments on Knox were widely reported and criticized, so I would say they are notable. Rodericksilly (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Notable for his page, perhaps. Yet you have not used what Groskop said in The Observer about him on his page. It does look like you think that naming and quoting Viv Groskop columnist in The Observer wriing about Wright (mainly), is not relevant to Wright's page, as you have not added it there. But you have put it on the AK page, though Groskopot refers to Knox tangentally to talking about other matters, and expresses flippantly prejudiced views about Knox's status at that time. By my way of thinking it does not merit inclusion in the AK article on the grounds of relevance, weight, tone or NPOV.Overagainst (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Moreover, Wright's were not "controversial comments" as even he did not defend them. The source you ref says he apologised almost immediately. Groskop was not "Referring to salacious coverage of Knox, in particular focusing on a British television presenter's controversial comments regarding Knox on UK television", she mentioned Wright's remark only, once at begining and tangentally at the end, and hardly discusses Knox at all. When she talks about Knox it is by way of assessing the viewers of Wright's show actually in in the hypothetical situation Wright apologised for  posing, and she used carefully phrased innuendo about AK being a woman  previously implicated in  murder. It refers to Knox obliquely, but inappropriately; it's not summary style to use it, and I don't think it belongs in this article. Take it off please.Overagainst (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

.

Use of the word convicted in the lede
The lede is a condensed version of what is in the main body of the article and statements in the lede do not require refs. Here is a reliable source:_

Mirabella, Julia Grace, Scales of Justice: Assessing Italian Criminal Procedure Through the Amanda Knox Trial (January 5, 2012). Boston University International Law Journal, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2012. link. Some quotes "In adversarial systems, efforts to prevent insufficiently probative evidence and provide fair process creates an assumption that “whenever fair rules have been applied in the trial contest . . . the result is necessarily just.”155 As a result, trials in the United States can only be appealed on narrow questions of law, not fact, and claims of innocence are not considered constitutional questions.156 [...] The adversarial system stands in stark contrast to continental systems and Italian criminal procedure, where “reopening criminal proceedings is always available after the trial. In Italy, when corte di assise cases are appealed, the criminal appellate court, the corte di assise d’appello, reviews both findings of law and fact, allowing “supervision of the trial fact-finder’s use of the evidentiary material, the rationality of his enquiry into the facts, and whether the data that his judgment is based on are complete.”158 Thus, Knox’s criminal trial was in no way her last chance to provide or contest the evidence against her; the case was not over as it might have been in the American adversarial system."

For the opening sentences the word "convicted" is misleading. There have been three trials the last two of them corte di assise d’appello, and Knox has been found guilty, then not guilty, and now guilty. Using the word "convicted" straight off in the lede  without any qualification is not going to help understand, because in English the  word 'convicted' denotes a certain legal status that comes with one trial and its definitive verdict, as in the US. In Italy until the appeal process has been exhausted you can't correctly speak of an unqualified conviction in the US sense. This is already touched on in the lede with mention of when a conviction becomes 'definitive' in Italy, Sure, there are sources that use the word in relation to Knox, but we give a better understanding (encyclopedic right?) of a subject than news articles can. If we use the word 'convicted' right off, the reader will not understand the context and is will be likely to understand that word in a parochial US sense, which is a misunderstanding, really. So I think the lede giving the verdicts of all her trials to date while of course mentioning she was found guilty at the latest trial is the best way.-Overagainst (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for posting. I agree that the word "convicted" is not appropriate in the first sentence, as it is not definitive. That word means something quite different in the Italian court system which allows so many appeals. Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree. You are clearly denying a highly cited fact that is over sourced. You are interpreting your own views on the matter which is WP:NOR and the lead will be reverted to state the facts as they stand. 25162995 (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional. There is no need for any consensus on this issue due to overwhelming sources stating clearly that the conviction is in place. These sources include the BBC which is a very reputable source. Do not start an edit war over this. You have zero consensus on this issue nor facts/sources to back up your claims other than OR opinion. 25162995 (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * She is obviously "convicted", nobody doubts that. You do not need any references for that word. The problem is that the conviction is capricious, seen as impermanent, a result of the quirky Italian court system. Your insistence on that word is a statement that Knox is a murderer. However, such a fact is widely believed to be false, and her conviction, the latest crazy development, is widely believed to be transitory. So the word is not appropriate at all—it does not fit the neutral point of view. Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Your OP is OR. Please see WP:OR where it clearly states "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist" 25162995 (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Find a source that says her conviction is final. Except, you won't because it's not because of how the Italian court system works.  It's not like the US where appeals are based solely on questions of law.  Appeals in Italy are essentially retrials where facts and evidence are reviewed.  Convictions aren't, as multiple people have pointed out time and again, not seriously considered until they've gone all the way up the chain. I'm also finding the comments by 25162995 about 3RR considering they are past it at this point and liable to get blocked if reported.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 23:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No, let me explain something. The fact of conviction will remain and to balance this article to your POV you should find the relevant facts that state the conviction IS NOT final. That is how WP works. Infact the complexity of the whole issue is contained within the very sources stating the conviction for you to dissect and flesh out this issue without bring NPOV into it to suit your own OP25162995 (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Not interested in arguing with someone that won't consider other views and will aggressively push their view into the article. This is something that has been extensively discussed here and on the MoMK page.  For now, see the WP:EWN report.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 23:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This issue isnt about your views or my views. Its about relevant sourced information based on research and fact from a legal standpoint. What you provide is Opinion which you want inclusion for in this article which makes no sense. This article like all other WP articles is about FACT and not Opinion&original research on how "you" see the issue. 25162995 (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem is that Wikipedia reflects common usage of terms. It should be obvious that there is an inconsistency using the word "convicted" as per common usage at this point in time. The finality of this "conviction", or lack thereof, should be apparent by Sollecito's guilty "conviction" and the fact that he has not been arrested or put in jail. How many countries and or instances do you know of where somebody who is convicted of murder continues to walk around free? He is only "banned" from leaving Italy. Until the final appeals are heard, neither Knox nor Sollecito face arrest or jail time until a final verdict by the highest court. That would be at odds with most readers' understanding of what a "guilty conviction" would mean, and would therefore itself be a violation of NPOV. The last sentence in the lead actually explains this already, with a reference. If you have a problem with that reference I'm sure there are plenty of others, such as this, or this. Jodon |  Talk  11:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Lumumba damages
I could have sworn that this article used to state the exact amount of monetary damages that Knox was ordered to pay to Lumumba for falsely accusing him of the murder. I don't see it there now. Also, did Knox ever pay the damages to Lumumba, or is the debt still outstanding? Cla68 (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is Knox not referred to as a "murderer"?
She has been convicted of murder, yet the article says "is an American woman who was tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher"

She has been tried and found guilty.

Hence she is a murderer.

If she wins the next appeal the article can be edited to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.102.129 (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you bother to read the discussions above?98.209.42.117 (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of convictions, I oppose labeling anyone a "murderer" for the simple reason that we cannot know for sure whether that statement is true. Wrongful convictions take place every day and if we went by convictions, we would have a certain percentage of inaccurate articles, which bothers me. We can't truly know if anyone is factually guilty, but we can know with certainty that a person has been convicted. And especially in a case where guilt is disputed, such as in the Knox case, I think it's important to stick with facts that you can know for sure. The only time where I would stand by the murderer label is if the person has admitted to the crime (fully, willingly, and has not retracted), the evidence supports that admission of guilt, and their guilt is not in dispute by anyone. Jeffrey Dahmer, for example. The remains were found in his home, he has fully admitted to the crime and his guilt is not in dispute by anyone. Even then, I would use words such as serial killer or murderer sparingly in favor of more neutral language to describe the situation. Bali88 (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly my sentiment Bali88, agree 100% Optimale Gu 22:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The article should say, "is an American woman convicted of the murder of Meredith Kercher." Cla68 (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ^That's how I would phrase it. Bali88 (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Ditto. We shouldn't automatically assume that the justice system is always right. That she has been convicted is right. There is also enormous public doubt about her guilt. Aside from the Italian court determination, there is no decisive wider consensus about the veracity of her guilt. 75.80.114.227 (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * " American woman convicted of the murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia, along with Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede. Guede was convicted of the sexual assault and the murder in a separate trial and is currently serving his sentence". She has been tried on the same charges by the same courts and 'convicted' with Sollecito, hence her legal status must be the same as Sollecito's. As Sollecito has not spent any further time in custody at all and is wandering around Italy free, Sollecito and Amanda Knox are not in same position as Guede. Guede's status is just what people would assume from reading that he has been 'convicted of murder', because he is in prison. Even if they immediately lodged an appeal, no one convicted of murder in Britain or the US would remain at liberty after being found guilty of a murder charge; so it is not correctly summarising their actual legal status in Italy to use the word 'conviction' or anything similar like 'guilty of  murder' front and centre in the lede about Knox and Sollecito, thus implying that the legal status of Knox is the same as that of Guede. Guede has been definitively convicted, Knox has not. Overagainst (talk)
 * There is a bit of difficulty here in trying to refer to Italian justice system concepts using American justice system terms. There is likely no perfect translation. Bali88 (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a guilty verdict that is not yet definitive and hence not what is understood as 'convicted' in Britain or the US. So the concept is foreign to English, but once the legal status is correctly understood there should be a form of words for it in English. The beginning of the lede should reflect what is notable about the case (ie why the article exists) and the repeated trials and conflicting verdicts are central to that.  The Amanda Knox article should not exist if she is simply a convicted murderer, because an article named after a perpetrator is against Wikipedia policy.Overagainst (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say that criteria #2 of WP:PERP is satisfied, given the enormous media attentino this case has received over the years. It is amusingly ironic to note that the creation of this article was at the urging of many pro-Knox editors, who at the time believed that once she was let out of jail and returned to the U.S., that was the end of the affair and that a Great Wrong Had Been Righted.  They considered it a violation of WP:BLP to have Amanda Knox be a redirect to a crime page Murder of Meredith Kercher, a crime which they (mistakenly) believed she had been vindicated from.  There's a particularly messy deletion review at Deletion review/Log/2011 October 3 that may be an interesting read.  I voted against article restoration at the time, even. Tarc (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Assuming her conviction is made definitive and sans Recentism, she is not more worthy of an eponymous article on criteria 2 grounds as a perpetrator than Brenda Spencer, whose article had it's name changed to Cleveland Elementary School shooting (San Diego). AK only qualifies for her article, because of the publicity concerning the dispute over her trials in Italy and imprisonment. Making it very odd to claim without qualification that she is currently convicted of  murder when, although the article does not mention it, Sollecito is free despite being in exactly the same legal position; it's not a purely technical quibble to point out the non definitive nature of the verdicts at present. Overagainst (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * At the end of the day, I don't really have a strong opinion on whether Knox has a standalone article or is just covered as part of the Kercher murder article, I was mainly just pointing out the reasin why this spin-out existed in the first place. Anyone can nominate it for deletion again, but I predict both pro- and anti- camps will want to see it retained for different reasons. Tarc (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Todays Court Ruling
I consolidated the data that MSN has published regarding the courts ruling today, it has merit and should be included. The courts document was in Italian, regretful a language that I do not speak. The ruling and the judges words should be included, I did some significant modification of the original report, only quoting the judges words, yet 2 editors have reverted the contribution. Here is the story, if someone cares to add it I am not going to try again. Cheers! http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/amanda-knox-fought-meredith-kercher-killing-court-n92491 talk→  WPPilot   00:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think your addition definitely belongs in the main article on the death of Meredith Kercher. For this article, I would suggest trying to shorten it to one sentence and include Knox's rebuttal so that it's fair and balanced.  Since this is a BLP, it's better to reach an agreement first here on a controversial addition to the article before putting it in. Cla68 (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You go right ahead, I do not want to be reverted and would rather not edit this now. talk→  WPPilot   01:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Since this won't be fully decided until the top court in Italy issues its final judgment, I think most watchers here, including me, are waiting before making any major changes to these articles. Cla68 (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this?:
 * In its decision reasoning released on 29 April 2014, the court declared the evidence indicated that while Guede restrained Kercher, Knox was responsible for delivering the fatal blow.


 * My objection was never to the content, but rather to the blatant copyright infringement. The sentence there looks fine. Tarc (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)\


 * The words issues in a ruling by a Judge are considered public, and can not in any way be copyrighted. The ONLY thing as I has mentioned before that was copied verbatim was in fact the Judges Words. You can not change the judges words. I have truncated and rewrote almost everything that the MSN story had, so your claim of a copyright violation is simply not correct.talk→  WPPilot   22:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No. You copied straight from the article.  Some of it was the judges words but a lot of it was article text. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 22:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You also confused what the article said (meaning how the author interpreted the ruling) and what the judges said. This section "The fight with Kercher became increasingly aggressive, the court said, adding that the group had gathered to use drugs before the 2007 murder." is not a direct quote from the ruling.  No quote marks, but you said it was from the ruling.  I could go para by para of what you added (to both articles(!)) and most of them have issues. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 23:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * , what you are saying is not truthful; whether it is untruthful from ignorance or from deliberate deception, I do not know, nor do I really care. At User_talk:Tarc I posted one example of your copyright infringement where you altered only a single word from the AP source.  As I said, I really don't care about the lying itself, but if you  plagiarize again in this project, steps will be taken to see that that behavior is curbed. Tarc (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * , Excuse me, I spent a hour rewriting the story, dont call me a liar, that is just plain rude. I have already excused myself fro,m this thread, what are you looking to accomplish with your personal attack? Edit the story and have a wonderful time doing it, but don't lie about me in the process. <font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→  WPPilot   19:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously? You won't acknowledge that substantial parts of the edit you made were copied straight from the the article with minimal editing and then usually just fluff.  Tarc is not lying - at least half of the paragraphs you wrote are pulled almost exactly from the source.  If you want, I'll put a comparison on your talk page and show you. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 19:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Your wrong, I made a edit, my phone rang I spoke for a hour returned to complete my edits and this attack had already commenced. I do not care to be involved in this Wiki in any way shape or form.<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→  WPPilot   19:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's be accurate - you made a bad edit. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 20:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes lets be clear, I did make a edit that was perhaps out of line, but if you are going to be accurate, the error was corrected the MOMENT it was brought to my attention, then the two of you started call me names, like schoolyard bully's, after the edit was corrected. User:Cla68, a respectable and obviously skilled editor and I were working to correct it and provide a non biased post, that's when you: Ravensfire & you editorial pal: Tarc decided it was best to resort to childish, unproductive name calling. Now we are accurate. Take a look at how many hours you nice fellows have lost in this silly conversation, the log files clearly show just that. <font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→  WPPilot   21:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

"Foxy Knoxy"?
I'm familiar with the term, but I can't find any information about its origin. I think there's a place for that in this article.73.15.177.40 (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought she used the term for herself in her diary, and after her diary entries were leaked the British media picked it up and ran with it. Is that what happened? Cla68 (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There was a very short section in the MoMK talk archives on this - Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive_16 that seemed to explain the origin - kids soccer. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 22:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Reason for controversy
The introduction suggests that the conviction was controversial due to a "anomalous absence of forensic evidence", but that is neither correct nor makes any sense. The absence of evidence is not an anomaly! The real reason for the case being controversial - in the USA - is because Knox is an American, and for some reason the American press cannot accept that she is guilty of murder. Just as the African-American community refused to accept that OJ Simpson was a murderer. This has more to do with politics than a miscarriage of justice.

The lede should be corrected, and a section added about the political reaction in the USA.Royalcourtier (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No, the reason that this case was controversial in the USA is that Meredith Kercher's friends and family jumped to the conclusion that Knox was the murderer, and they filled the media with their suppositions and accusations. The case against Knox was indeed lacking any kind of good evidence. Binksternet (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ...And all my African American friends thought (and still think) that O.J. was guilty. Binksternet (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The difference is that Amanda Knox has been found guilty of murdering Meredith Kercher. If today's pending ruling upholds the murder conviction, then the extradition process will begin. Tarc (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Another key factor about this case staying so long in the eye of the news media (and on social media) is that it reads just like a warped episode of CSI. Good-looking girls with erratic motives, violent sex and home orgies (the videos Knox and Sollecito were watching and then the brutal murder/rape), duplicity, a good running whodunnit. It's pretty obvious that many, especially Americans, have been following this story as if it were a piece of pulp fiction or a tv crime show where weird things happen at every turn and you pick your favourites and scapegoats - and then it actually is on the tv news, even better!

Knox seems engaging to many people, and as the OP pointed out she is an all-American girl with great looks, so that makes her an ideal underdog innocent and she got the U.S. media on her side fairly easily. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of reasons why this case attracted so much public interest. These include the international element, with the media of at least three countries being interested (and inclined to their own nationalistic prejudices); the fact that Knox, a young white woman from a relatively well-off background, made for a very unusual murder suspect; for the media, that she was considered photogenic and attractive; the lurid allegations initially made by the Italian prosecution; the lack of any real evidence, opening the way for endless speculation about what 'might' have happened; the sheer length of the proceedings; and the high-profile PR campaigns waged by both the Knox and Kerchner families, both claiming to be victims of injustice. I remember wondering once why this case became so high-profile, but setting it out like that it seems obvious. But all this is speculation and commentary that doesn't really belong in this article. Robofish (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Prospect of extradition
I removed the entire section "Prospect of extradition" as it reports pure speculation that is moot now that her conviction has been vacated, and that there is no further possibility of judicial proceedings relating to this matter. This section just seemed wildly inappropriate in a Wikipedia article, given the current situation. Nick Beeson (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I support that change. Good thinking. DreamGuy (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2014
Please add to biographical details table for Amanda Knox that she is an author who has published Waiting to Be Heard: A Memoir. I presume this would go into a Notable work(s) section of the details table. The book is published by Harper Collins and can be verified on their Web site.

Sanmasonic (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please note that WP:PRIMARY sources, like their web site. are not accepted as reliable. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 14:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I tend to disagree with this one...unless you're saying that a primary source is an unreliable source for whether the book is notable or something, but a website for a major publishing house is suitable to establish the fact that the book exists. Anyway, here is a NYT article that no doubt used the publishing house press release as their source. There is no logical reason why the primary source in this case is unreliable when the secondary source (who is just relaying what this primary source said) is somehow more reliable. The message passed in a game of telephone doesn't become more reliable the more the message is passed.  Bali88 (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that was a very bad call. The article doesn't seem to mention her book at all. The book was big news across multiple reliable sources, and it ties in with more recent professional writing she has done (which has also been covered in other reliable sources) to show this as her profession. Seems ridiculous not to mention this in the article. DreamGuy (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Time to change the lede
Amanda Knox is an American woman, whose arrest, trial, conviction and ultimate acquittal put her in the international public eye as one of the most well known wrongly accused persons in recent history. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The beginning of that, or something like that, would be better than the current lead, which focuses too much on the conviction and only gets to the ultimate acquittal at the very end. "among the most well known wrong(ful)ly accused persons in recent history" would need a reliable source. DreamGuy (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The early part of what is suggested is quite okay, but the final words are on the weasel-y side, even if they were corrected to "wrongfully accused" and even if you could find some pundit like Nina Burleigh or Mo Dowd saying it in one of their pieces in a U.S. newspaper. There are plenty of celeb trial cases where somebody's been accused of hot and/or lurid things and attracted high publicity but ultimately has been acquitted, O.J. Simpson and Dominique Strauss-Kahn spring to mind, and now also Rebekah Brooks (I personally think Ms Brooks was perfectly aware of what was happening on her watch and tacitly encouraged it, but that's beside the point in this connection: she was acquitted, after a tremendous amount of legal and journalistic battle).


 * And "one of the most well known wrongly accused persons" is a vague phrase in itself, since damaging, shady accusations can be fielded both in the mass media and in a courtroom. Sepp Blatter has never been accused or heard in a court of law over FIFA's dealings and suspicions of corruption but he has certainly been accused in no soft tones by various national football associations (and individual top-rate players), journalists and self-appointed investigators - and the prominence of those allegations outweigh all the coverage around the Knox/Kercher trial. At least outside of the USA. Since he hasn't been convicted of anything so far, any of his supporters would say that he has been "wrongfully accused". 83.254.154.164 (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Even in America, there would have been probable cause for an arrest and charge. You can have lots of doubt in the charging phase of a criminal prosecution.  You only need a fair probability that a crime has been committed and the defendant is responsible for the crime.  It appears that there was probable cause to charge her and accuse her of the crime, just not sufficient evidence to prove under the standards of the Italian justice system.  "Wrongfully convicted" would be true in accordance with the results of the appeal, but not "wrongfully accused." 24.190.51.21 (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum to argue about the case itself, but, strictly for the purposes of determining how this article should be worded, I see nothing to support the idea that there was anything like probable cause for a charge, and the wording of the ruling here suggests the court did not think there was either in this most recent and final(?) case. They outright ruled her innocent and said the charges were baseless. I guess we'll have to wait for their final report to know the details, though. DreamGuy (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Not so fast. The bit about "one of the most well known wrongly accused persons in recent history" would obviously push a) an implicit comparison with other very high-profile cases, though they are not named, and b) a statement that Knox was wrongly accused, that is, the accusation was (morally?) flawed from the beginning. The implication of that seems to be that the original prosecutors and the cops were overstepping their rights and initiating miscarriage of justice simply by arresting her on suspicions of involvement in the killing - and this view would be blatant back-reading from what has been said later in various courts and in the media.


 * The Italian Supreme court certainly hasn't said anything to the effect that Knox and Sollecito would have been exposed to a made-up trial, that the suspicions in themselves were unreasonable at the time of the early rounds of the trial, or that key evidence and testimony had been deliberately fabricated. They seem to be saying that there wasn't enough sound, solid evidence to prove any of the two guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Demanding that the evidence should always be solid enough, well before the trial even begins, to all but ensure conviction of the suspects (because that is when they are named suspects. some time before the trial), that's something no judicial system would stick to. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * From my reading of what the court ruled, I do believe they suggest that. Again, we will have to wait for their report to know for sure, though. I find that argument academic at this point, as I would not support introducing language that she and Sollecito were wrongfully accused without multiple reliable sources to that effect, though certainly there are enough such sources at this point to state that multiple sources have that opinion (which is different from stating a fact). If the court report states they were wrongfully accused and enough sources at that time still agree, then we might consider adding that as a fact (instead of just the opinion of multiple sources) in this article. DreamGuy (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Looser definitions
"Looser definitions" is not acceptable as a description because "looser" is a comparative and you need to say what it it looser than, otherwise it is meaningless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.82.83 (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I noticed that, too. Furthermore, I can find no reference to any looser definitions in the reference source. I'll delete it. It doesn't seem to have much weight anyway once you understand that evidence is public before the hearing, which explains a lot. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposals
AMANDA KNOX NOT GUILTY (JUST LIKE OJ SIMPSON AND MICHAEL JACKSON) THUS SHE IS A WINNER NOT LOOSER. HOWEVER NOT GUILTY IS DIFFERENT THAN INNOCENT.

PROPOSE 1 THAT WHOLE ARTICLE IS DELETED AS A POOR GIRL MEREDITH WAS MURDERED. AMANDA WHO WAS ONLY NOTORIOUS DUE TO BEING ACCUSED OF THE MURDER HAS BEEN ACQUITTED. OTHER THAN THAT WHAT WOULD MAKE AMANDA KNOX HAVE A PROFILE ON WIKIPEDIA. AS FOR SUGGESTIONS OF ITALIAN JUSTICE BEING MEDIEVAL - IT DOESN'T HAVE THE DEATH SENTENCE COMPARED TO US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.83.47 (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There are 164 Wikipedia articles in the category "People acquitted of murder". Why would Amanda Knox be different? JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The anonymous all caps poster also fails to understand that, unlike Simpson or Jackson, Knox and Sollecito (and it's telling that all the detractors focus solely on Knox and forget the guy who had all the same charges made against him and who was also ruled innocent -- showing that the hatred is based upon her gender or nationality or something like that and not the facts of the case... you rarely see these people attacking Sollecito) were not merely found not guilty, they were actually ruled innocent. The Italian supreme court ruled that the claims the prosecution made were not only not proven but completely without merit. And that matches what experts around the world have said for years. DreamGuy (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Relatives
In the summary display panel, Deanna Knox is named as a relative. Why is just the one sister identified there? Perhaps it’s because there is no suitable reference to the surnames of the other two sisters, being either Knox or Mellas, or perhaps it's because the other sisters were minors at the time; I'm guessing.

In any event, it seems incongruous that just one sister is listed under “Relatives”. Amanda Knox certainly has many more relatives.

Can a suitably knowledgeable Wikipedia editor cast light on this, please? JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * None of the relatives in the case should be mentioned unless they are "newsworthy". Amanda Knox is not royalty.  Who her siblings are doesn't matter, unless her siblings did something which mattered.  Read up on Biographies of living persons.


 * Since we are talking about the display panel, the Amanda Knox Pay page link is inappropriate to wikipedia. I'm sure that people who want to give to Amanda Knox will be able to find it. I forgot the special WP:________ discussing this, but linking to a pay page is just not good for a wikipedia.   That said I've seen no page out there that is appropriate to link to as Amanda Knox, herself, is not keeping an online presence.  Hilltrot (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Hilltrot (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. It's pretty standard to list parents, but unless they are major players in the case, I don't see any compelling reason to include them. Bali88 (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Minor Typo to be Corrected by Someone with Editing Rights
There is a typo, I think, where the word "door" should be, instead of "does": 'and in a mixture of Italian and English said she was worried something had happened to Kercher, as on going to Via della Pergola 7 apartment earlier that morning she had noticed an open front does' User:anon (User talk:anon) 14:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅, and thank you -- Chamith   (talk)  19:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Self Evident Bias.
This article lack NPV and is riddled with self evident bias similar the narrative perpetuated by the Knox PR machine. It repeats sever myths that have been discredited. http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Myths_debunked

Has anybody actually checked to see if any of the admins guarding this page from NPV edits have any connection the Knox PR machine?

This article needs to be investigated for this systematic bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.117.208 (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * To me, the website themurderofmeredithkercher.com reads like stuff propagated by holocaust deniers, notably in that it appeals to those who are biased in the first place, gives seemingly logical reasoning, and illogically leads to false conclusions. In my opinion, themurderofmeredithkercher.com needs to be revised thoroughly in the light of the Italian Court of Cassation's final ruling or the site's perpetrators risk being sued for libel. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, Joe is right. Once someone has been acquitted of murder, it is slander and libel to continue to accuse them of that murder.  You notice that Kercher's family, even though they obviously believe that Knox was involved, have always been careful never to actually accuse her of being the murderer. Cla68 (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is any factual inacurracy please point it out so that it can be remedied. The article should reflect fact, not opinion. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 09:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyone complaining about "the Knox PR machine" can be summarily dismissed as a crank not worth taking seriously. There is no such machine. If anything the vast majority of the early media coverage was highly biased against Knox and Sollecito, because of Kercher's family connection to tabloid publications in the UK and Italy's media running with whatever the police told them. The website being recommended for "unbiased" info is the most biased source of all, as it makes claims that even the prosecution in Italy never claimed and has nothing to back them up. As a source it fails Wikipedia's rules on reliable sources just about as strongly as anything could. DreamGuy (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As Pablo says, if there are any factually incorrect parts of the article, please point them out here on the talk page and we can review what sources say about them. In case it is not clear, the website you have posted is a blog and a heavily biased one at that. It is not a reliable source and cannot be used to source this article. But if there are inaccuracies contained in this article, post them here and we will discuss it. Bali88 (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

When only favorable sources are considered "reliable", how can you make this request? Very little about the confession, very little about the false accusation of Lumumba, we're to believe, and you stand by the notion, that all you could find was the most positive information pertaining to Ms. Knox. But, how is that possible? It was a controversial case because of the contradictions and inconsistencies, none of which make an appearance here. Is not a confession in such a notorious murder case even somewhat notable? According to you folks, no, no it's not, and you've made that decision unilaterally. Someone turning to Wikipedia, wondering why it was such a controversial case, will come away having no idea why it was so. Look, you don't think this piece was un-biased. I simply refuse to accept it. You wouldn't be able to function in day-to-day life with that kind of skewed view of reality. Nobody her needs to prove to you that it's biased. You know it is. And you know that whatever evidence presented to back that up will be deemed "invalid" for one reason or another. We don't need to prove it because you already know. This article is nothing short of offensive, and it will do far, far more to damage the credibility of Amanda Knox. The first thing I thought after reading it was "Good gracious, what a dishonest team of people", and I didn't have much of an opinion, prior. I'm afraid that any backlash you get is well-deserved. That such obviously-biased articles are allowed to stand I think are going to hurt Wikipedia long-term. I've already withheld my donation this time around. I mean, I can get this kind of stuff on subject's fan club pages, what do I need Wikipedia for? LeaFarthington (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

And by the way, the "inaccuracies" are what is known as "lies by omission". See, posting only favorable information while challenging people to point out it's incorrectness is not exactly intellectually honest. I could write a favorable article about Adolf Hitler which could withstand an assault purely on the accuracy of the included statements. I could leave out the 1940s altogether, then say "fine, point out anything I've said that's inacurate", and you couldn't. It wouldn't exactly be honest, though, now would it? Please don't think that people are not aware of that game, for they are. Using such a well-known tactic of manipulation only serves to underscore the extent of the bias. The offensiveness of this article is due to deceit by omission, not necessarily by the accuracy of the individual pieces which the author carefully chose to include. Once again, you know all of this. I haven't told you anything that you weren't already aware of. At least I believe that to be true. LeaFarthington (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that you attack the integrity of the editors of this page while also misrepresenting their positions and beliefs; it is an irony not lost on me. If you would like to suggest or make specific edits, please do.  Remember that these edits must be backed by reliable resources and presented in a NPOV manner.  If while you're at it you could try to focus on the article and not the problems with America as a whole, Wikipedia as a whole, or the edits of this article, that would be fabulous.LedRush (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

So, I joined just to comment on this, which probably means I won't be able to post sources. This article is NOT NPOV, though, and as was mentioned, it is almost wholly via omission. I think different authors are being held to different standards, either intentionally or not. As far as proponents of the PR Machine being cranks, well, that really shows extreme bias as the term Amanda Knox PR Machine was used by the mainstream media for over a year.

Just tried to save one link, and it was "blacklisted", although why, I can only guess.

So, that link is not reliable, well how about this one:

http://elitedaily.com/news/world/the-media-and-the-amanda-knox-case/764282/

No, not that one either? Gosh darnit, I guess we have to go more corporate mainstream then ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/selene-nelson/amanda-knox-pr_b_5694432.html

C'mon guys. You're stacking the deck, and that is unfair. There's a pretty strong consensus that this is not NPOV, and they likely not all crackpots. I join the ranks of those opining that this was a page authored by a PR team. Or maybe you guys just missed your calling.

Calvin Davis851 (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

BTW, from that certainly "unreliable" link:

The PR Party Line

It’s no secret that there is a PR company behind Amanda Knox. Her father has described hiring Gogerty Marriott, the largest PR firm in Seattle, three days after Knox’s arrest as “one of the smartest things we ever did.”

Gogerty Marriott’s first task was to get Americans on board with the case. While much of the tabloid press was consumed with reporting on Knox’s appearance and sex life, the news coming into the US from Perugia was meticulously sieved free of any negativity. In fact, no American reporters were given access to the Knox family without guarantees of positive coverage.

I should mention that, despite calling people named like "Cranks", no one on this page has ever denied being affiliated with Gogerty Marriott.

Calvin Davis851 (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I should add that I refuse to edit the Wiki article because I do not feel that I could do so in an unbiased manner. I have the cognitive ability to recognize this, and I am not nearly narcissistic enough to believe that I could author something encyclopedic while harboring such biases. I think outlining my concerns on the talk page is appropriate, though. I clearly can spot bias, and this is about as bad o a PR job I've ever seen on Wiki. The problem I have, is that those biased to the other extreme have been shameless and bullying, calling commenters names for stating facts, such as the employment of a PR firm. They did hire a PR firm, and this has been mentioned in nearly every article written about Knox. This omission in and of itself should call into question the neutrality of the authors. Again, my sincere opinion.

LeaFarthington (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The first article is an opinion piece written after a conviction and before the final acquittal. It is humorous in its bias and distortion of facts and events.  If used at all, it would have to be attributed to the author and be used in the context of an opinion at that specific point in time.
 * The second is written by the same person as the first, is another opinion piece (posted on a blog) and makes all the same mistakes. Those articles are bad jokes.
 * Regardless, if you want to make an edit, please suggestion a specific one and provide a reliable source to back it up.LedRush (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You guys are mad about a PR firm being hired? Why would you worry about that when the issue is whether Knox killed Kercher? That issue has been settled, with Knox cleared of the accusation. Of course anybody who was sure Knox was guilty is going to be angry at being wrong. The anger being vented on a PR firm being hired is ridiculous. Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If someone wants to add a sentence about hiring a PR firm, and offer the official explanation of why, I would be fine with that.LedRush (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is "mad" about Amanda Knox hiring a PR firm, I think what they object to is the PR firm writing the Wikipedia article. I think the vast majority of Wiki readers would have a problem with that. I think they would also have a problem with the PR firm unilaterally declaring which links are "valid", and repeatedly deleting non-abusive, dissenting opinions from the talk page. In my opinion, your actions here today provide strong evidence that you are working for the PR firm in question. Can you at least address that? Given your (IMHO abusive) conduct on the talk page, repeatedly deleting opposing opinions, I don't think asserting a NPOV is reasonable on your behalf.

LeaFarthington (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

That is very big of you, LedRush. I mean, as long as you'd be fine with it. How many words can we use? You'll let us know if we use too many now, right? It would really be nice, however, if you'd stop deleting my comments. I'm not warring with you in the article, I'm staying in talk. I haven't even tried to edit. And I mean, the one calling people a "crank" above is allowed to stand. Selectively deleting opinions *is* bias. This type of behavior is what people object to, and it provides reasonably strong evidence that the article is being controlled by a PR Firm, and yes, it is relevant if a PR Firm is writing the bulk of the article, as a PR Firm would not have a NPOV. I mean, really, that shouldn't need to be said.

Calvin Davis851 (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Because the article reflects how reliable sources portray the subject in proportion to the weight of such coverage, this must surely be the result of a PR firm, right? Or maybe, just maybe, the bias you'd prefer to see in the article doesn't reflect how the subject is generally covered.  Spend some time reading WP:WEIGHT, please.  Understanding how Wikipedia works (hint, very different from how a blog or attack site works) will be helpful here. Reading the reliable source will also be helpful in determining what sources to use. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 19:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The question was asked if any of you are employed by the PR firm. Instead of answering the question, you've attacked people for asking the question. That's your decision. Since you're big on "how Wikipedia works" please read: Since this is an encyclopedia, after a fashion, it would be best if you represented your controversial views either (1) not at all, (2) on *Debate, *Talk, or *Discussion pages linked from the bottom of the page that you're tempted to grace, or (3) represented in a fact-stating fashion, i.e., which attributes a particular opinion to a particular person or group, rather than asserting the opinion as fact. (3) is strongly preferred. See the NeutralPointOfView page for elaboration. I re-iterate to please stop delete my talk comments. I also dispute the Neutrality of the Article, as well as the Neutrality of the talk page editing. Judging from the talk page and past edits, it's a common dispute. I get that you're angry that people have asked the direct question of whether or not people here are employed by a PR Firm. It certainly opens you up for liability of you lie, then again, if you admit it, that is also problematic. Yes, that could present a problem, and I understand your anger. I understand that you don't want the question to be asked. I understand that you have to attack the question instead of answering it. I don't fault you for trying. That being noted, I stand by the question.

Calvin Davis851 (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Stop. Take a few minutes and read through WP:OUT.  That's not a question you can ask here, especially without any solid evidence.  If you are convinced that someone is a paid editor (and working for a PR firm and editing an article who's subject is represented by that PR firm, you need to go to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard.  These articles have seen significant editing and are the product of lots of editors being involved in them.  I really doubt that any PR firm has had any significant impact, if any, on the articles.  Likewise, members of the various anti-Knox websites have also had very little impact, if any, on the articles.  Which is how it should be. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 19:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I asked a simple question. Do you or any of the other article authors work for a PR Firm? That's all. Whether the answer is yes or no, I'll take you at your word. That's hardly accusatory. Nobody needs solid evidence to ask a question. Tell you what, I'll go first, no, I do not work for a public relations firm. I mean, goodness, it's just that simple. I can't imagine being so incredibly defensive about it. Again, it's just a simple question.

Calvin Davis851 (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, read WP:OUT. And no, I'm not.  But you do NOT get to demand or repeatedly ask that question for others, that's a violation of WP:OUT and a good way to get blocked.  In general, editors are very sensitive paid editing and actively work against it through our WP:V and WP:NPOV policies.  If you want changes, you need to read and understand how Wikipedia works and work within those guidelines.  Right now you're coming across as an extremely partisan editor with a strong POV you are trying to push.  From a Wikipedia standpoint, the only difference between that and a PR firm employee editing is the PR person is getting paid. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 20:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it a violation of that policy to call people "cranks"? Because I didn't see any scoldings, and I'm pretty sure that selective scoldings are also a violation of policy, but hey, who am I to ruin a good self-ritoeus finger-wagging? Also, I see nothing in there about not being able to ask people questions. If the parties say "yes", "no", or "I decline to answer the question", then that's that. See, the worst part of you admonishments is the elephant in the room ... that one which points to the policies you conveniently overlook in your favor, while being a stickler for those with whom you don't agree. See, if it's a violation for the people you don't agree with, then it's a violation for those you do agree with. If you are that concerned about the letter of the rules, some obsessive self-critique might be the better course of action. It's a human flaw that we always think it's the other guy who's breaking too many rules. While obsessing about my perceived violations, you've abdicated your responsibility to be neutral. And no, asking a question is still not against the rules simply because you do not like the question. Anyone is more than free to decline to answer the question. Instead, people were called names for asking it, and then a discussion was started about why they were asking it. Once the debate starts, the accused is free to answer, re-terate the question, or the asked is free to answer or decline to answer it. As much as you wish the rules of Wikipedia were "What I interpret them to be solely according to my own self-interests", I just don't think you're accurate in that interpretation. Just my opinion of course. Then again, I'm fallible.

Calvin Davis851 (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I haven't edited the article. As the rules state, if you have a biased point of view, you can (among other options) keep it to talk. I continue to dispute the neutrality of the article, and I dispute your neutrality of your defensive, somewhat hysterical policing of the talk page. Your critiques are only apply to those individuals with whom you disagree, which is a violation of the neutrality policy, but which you readily accept because, well, let's face it, because you're you. It's a common mistake, but with age and wisdom, hypocrisy should become reasonably apparent to most people. Please consider the possibility that you've been a hypocrite, unfair, and definitely not neutral. If I am wrong across the board, and you have been none of those things, then I apologize. I don't think that this is the case, however.

Calvin Davis851 (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

In good faith, I just re-read some of the links that were offered by Ravensfire, and I do feel that the information presented was cherry-picked to suit a particular agenda. In particular, when addressing "possible" conflicts of interest:

"Apparent conflict of interest: There is reason to believe that an editor has a COI, but he does not. Question Example: An editor has an apparent COI if he edits an article about a company and for some reason appears to be the company owner, but in fact he has no such connection. Apparent COI causes bad feeling and should be resolved wherever possible. Editors should try to allay suspicion through discussion." Editors should try to allay suspicious through discussion. There's nothing in the slightest wrong with that. And if someone says "I decline to answer that question", well, respecting that decision is the right thing to do. And if the person asks the question attacks the asking party, impugning that person's motives, well, the party is certainly allowed to respond. All-in-all, I'm afraid that you misrepresented what Wikipedia's policy is. It's actually good to allay suspicion through discussion. That's a good thing, and it helps everyone feel better about the neutrality of Wikipedia. Why would anyone have a problem with that? I couldn't say.

Calvin Davis851 (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If I worked for a PR firm, imagine how pissed they'd be that most of my edits are about the Sega Genesis, Rush, and Led Zeppelin. This whole thing is quite stupid...it's an imagined COI which is being levied as an accusation more as a personal attack (your editing is so bad you must have a COI).  LedRush (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems odd to me that two new editors would register at about the same time, exclusively edit the same page, make basically the same arguments, and have the same general understanding of WP policy. It's been a while since I've been quite active here (largely because of people like these two), but this seems like more than coincidence.LedRush (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

So long as you are leading the conversation in that direction, and will not cry foul when it's requited, I certainly have no problem with the observation. As it stands, you guys pretty much say what you want, and then fly off into hysterics and begin quoting Wiki rules whenever anyone else deviates into territory that YOU find irrelevant. Also, I can't help but notice that you still haven't answered the question. In a nutshell, your official position is that those who helped shape the articles that were written, should be primary authors of the Wiki page, and the only "valid" links to external sources, are the links whose content you helped shape. We're not really debating right or wrong anymore, it's my opinion that you're just getting away with this whole thing for as long as you can. And while my opinion wasn't well-formed before, I will absolutely admit that after all of this, I think the girl must be guilty as sin to need this kind nonsense so long after the fact. Oh well, do what you do and so will everyone else, but at least have the decency to dispense with the charade that you're anything approaching non-biased. And please either restore my comments or I'll restore them. I mean, if you want to get into that kind of thing, I promise you I can keep up. The funny thing is that you don't know what's actually going on. What's say you say your peace and leave everyone else's stuff alone. Or not. Up to you.

LeaFarthington (talk) 02:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Two? Odd? Oh no. No no. Not two. Looks like you got a couple of live ones, Lea. lulz AnonAmosIII (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

What has been read on this page is troubling. It is obvious what is going on here, and the way sincere people have been treated is unacceptable. You control that which is yours. Wikipedia is not yours. This is one of the most abusive attempts at controlling information I have seen in awhile. 03:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotJustAnyMouse (talk • contribs)

Ganging up on a lone woman and then verbally high-fiving each other like a bunch of drunken frat boys when you impose your will? I guess we know why you picked this article to control. HouseofMickeyMouse (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Now, now fellas, don't you know it's against the Geneva Convention to think negative thoughts about Amanda Knox? No really I read it on the interwebs it's right here on page 455 ... no wait, I just made that up. Admit it, though, I had you there for a minute! Seriously, though, I will quote made-up rules in a desperate attempt to control the conversation. If it comes to that, I mean. Don't make it come to that. I'm a Wiki expert. AndrewMiceClay (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Lede is biased against AK
Amanda Knox was FALSELY accused of murder - why is this FACT omitted from the lede!!?? 98.118.62.140 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Falsely accused
As per the latest news today - where the conviction has been irrevocably overturned, it's time to change the lede:
 * "[a]lmost four years in an Italian prison accused of the 2007 murder"
 * "[a]lmost four years in an Italian prison, falsely accused of the 2007 murder"
 * 98.118.62.140 (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Her conviction over her false accusation of Patrick Lumumba remains in force, so "exoneration" is not an accurate description. I amended the article to make sure readers are aware of that.  She was acquitted of murder, but she remains convicted of slander for falsely accusing an innocent man of the murder, resulting in his false arrest and imprisonment. Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's true she remains convicted of slander, but all reasonable people know that conviction was also based on tissue paper case. Go back and check my posts - I was 100% right from Day 1 that AK was innocent - even when the wiki hordes were baying for blood. Also, you omitted the fact that AK herself was falsely accused - so your edit leaves the article lede biased against AK. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Has Knox ever paid Lumumba the $10K the court says she owes him for lying about his involvement? Cla68 (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

No, she hasn't. And the idea that everyone acquitted at trial was falsely accused to begin with is... quaint. In fact, given what the supreme court's motivation report actually says -- that Knox was present at the house at the time of the murder, that she washed the victim's blood off her hands, that she lied about her alibi, that she attempted to blame an innocent man in order to protect Rudy Guede and that she and Sollecito should have been convicted if the investigators had not made a number of mistakes -- calling her 'falsely accused' is a bit POV. And comical. Khamba Tendal (talk) 10:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I know a number of pro-guilt websites and bloggers are pretending that the court's report makes all sorts of claims about Knox and Sollecito being guilty but not convictable. Only problem is that they made all of that up in their heads. It doesn't actually say that. It says very clearly that there was no evidence at all ever that would make anyone think they had anything to do with the murder. You really need to pick more reliable sources and stop trying to spread that misinformation around here. DreamGuy (talk) 05:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Defamation
Now that she was found not guilty otherwise, it should be mentioned more clearly that the 3-year sentence for defamation was not overturned and thus she indeed remains a convicted felon for that crime. -213.243.172.234 (talk) 09:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, it should also be mentioned that Knox's lawyers and outside experts on the legal system have argued that that conviction was bogus as well because the police were . Of course after she has already served the time for it there's a lot less reason to fight that particular conviction. The Italian prosecution and the guilters get to keep that as a consolation prize more out of practicality than anything else, much like what happened with the West Memphis Three. It's accurate to say it still stands legally, but it's misleading and biased to not mention that it's still disputed. DreamGuy (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree (edit: with the first comment here; the one by DreamGuy was posted in between later), and it should also be made clear (and it can be done in calm terms) that while Knox is now legally cleared of accusations of murder, the case has been very divisive over the years among those who followed it, and it has *not* simply been an issue of incompetent or bribed Italian prosecutors and cops and bigoted Italian newspapers trying to put her away and almost everybody outside of Italy (and well, some people in the UK) rallying to her support. The affair has been divisive across the board, people have been taking sides in a very personal way, in all sorts of countries, as if Knox was their own college buddy, and that's not something you will find said openly by most of the pundits and journalists writing about this in the mass media or commenting on tv or in books. They would rather frame it like, "those guys on the other side, in that other country, managed to trick their people into believing what they said, but here outside, we know what it's really about" - because that angle sells copy and it's an easy kind of story to understand.


 * People like Nina Burleigh (and others) have consistently been writing as if it was the country of Italy per se that had tried to get Knox smeared and hanged, because Italian justice is medieval and the Italian news media are supposedly all deeply in hock to the Mafia and the Catholic church, or at least too lazy and afraid of them to do any accurate reporting (see The Fatal Gift of Beauty and lots of articles and columns by Burleigh). But the world outside of Italy, especially the USA, rode in on a white steed and ultimately rescued their captive girl from the dungeons. That kind of storytelling should not really be taken seriously, but it works fine with readers of course, providing the illusion that most people outside of Italy stood united and that the mistakes and occasional over-bids of the Italian prosecutors and some Italian news outlets couldn't happen much closer to home. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That line of thought is really more appropriate on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article than this one. And of course the article itself can't take a side or be written like a soap box. DreamGuy (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with DreamGuy in that this is an encyclopedia article, not a tabloid article. It is an instrument for factual research and not a platform for argument or opinion. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I suspect that this article will have more soapboxers, in a few weeks from now, than you'll begin to know how to handle. Pro-Knox soapboxers, mostly. The MOMK article used to be exactly that way (and its talk page archives provide ample proof of what I was saying about how the case has made people take sides in a very personalized way, as if Knox was their old school buddy or a school bully). And that it was never simply the Italian media supporting the court at Perugia and most of the non-italian media and readership supporting Miss Knox.


 * And urging people not to use weasel words and weasel/POV-pushing turns of phrase in an article is, by itself, really useless in this kind of article, if it's still an accepted method rule that "well, I'm not actually going to invent weasel phrasings and slippery, subjective prose for this text by myself, but I'm happy to lift/tweak them from anyone at some media outlet who is packing their column, interview or book with weasel words, biased judgments and overstatements, if it's what I want and I can sell it as coming from a "reliable source"". Just because somebody's column or interview piece appeared in the NY Times, the Daily Telegraph, Time, Vanity Fair or some established US tv network, that placing doesn't guarantee it is reliable or even that anyone bothered to take a long hard look, polish and fact check it before it went into print or went on the air - newspapers and tv channels will publish all sorts of texts and features, and they sometimes pander a great deal to what their audiences want to hear.


 * The editorial sifting and pre-publication control of what gets printed is much less tight now than it used to be, even in upmarket newspapers and magazines. This article on Knox was originally branched off from MOMK at the time of the first acquittal a few years ago, and if you've been around that one you will be aware that people have been pumping in all kinds of statements from people who were writing and talking about the case and about Knox in the media, with or without a hanger "X said that...", "X explained how..." and sourcing it with "hey, this was in the LA Times or on CBS News, so it is verifiably right as far as I'm concerned!". 83.254.154.164 (talk) 04:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the history of the MOMK article also shows a long extreme bias against Knox and Sollecito for many years, along with some pro-Knox supporters objecting to it but not knowing how to use Wikipedia properly to get it fixed. Multiple pro-guilt editors said things that on a number of other articles would have gotten them blocked from editing, like an editor who said that the idea that there was only one killer was supposedly an extreme fringe theory, when it was actually the view of one half of the legal fight and a good portion of the world, just not the part that they agreed with.
 * Anytime there's a controversial topic with a Wikipedia article there are going to be people with unconscious bias about that topic who want the article to support their views. That's just human nature. I don't think we can presume that one side is any worse than the other, as that involves a judgment call. A truly objective editor can find things wrong to an article that are both pro- or anti- one side. If an editor consistently only finds problems on one side that suggests either than the article is very lopsided or that the editor is biased. All we can do is follow the standards of objective writing and meticulous sourcing. DreamGuy (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume that since her conviction for defamation/slander was upheld, that she now has to pay the financial judgement to the guy she tried to frame for the murder? If so, this article probably should mention that. Cla68 (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I dare say it will be mentioned, as soon as there's a clear and reliable reference to it. Perhaps it's best to wait until the court's reasonings have been published. Meanwhile, it's certain that Knox and Sollecito can now sue for the time they spent wrongfully imprisoned. In that regard, it would be in Knox's interest to overturn the slander conviction if she can, so clearing her name entirely and increasing the value of her claim. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * She can't get the slander conviction overturned, this was Italy's highest court which affirmed the conviction. There are no other appeal avenues. Cla68 (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are no other appeal avenues in Italy, and even that is subject to sight of the Court of Cassation's reasonings. JoeMCMXLVII (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I know the conversation is old, but "the guy she tried to frame for the murder" is an extremely biased claim. She did no such thing. The police badgered her over hours to imagine a scenario fitting details they wanted to hear and then treated it as a confession of of reality instead of a speculative scenario. The police misconduct is responsible for all that mess. There was no reason for the lawyers to press on that point, however, as she had already served enough time to cover that conviction. The same thing happened with the West Memphis Three. Police and court get to save face by having them accept a guilty verdict for one charge that no longer matters as far as prison time goes to smooth the way to get the rest overturned. This happens everywhere. Wikipedia can report the facts only and not disputed narratives. That means the facts are that that charge is still on the books as valid, but we can't say she did try to frame anyone, because that would be declaring one side (the side that primarily lost and was determined to be wrong legally, in fact) as more correct than the other. DreamGuy (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

No, she remains convicted of laying false information. The article, which is no more than a POV fanmag piece, is big on false information as well. For instance, Guede did not receive any sentence reduction for incriminating Knox and Sollecito. He got the same six-year 'generic mitigation' that Knox and Sollecito got, for youth and lack of previous convictions, plus the automatic one-third reduction for selecting fast-track trial. At the time of his final sentence, he hadn't yet incriminated Knox and Sollecito. Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "POV fanmag piece"? "Pro-Knox soapboxers"?  "Knox was their old school buddy or a school bully"?  The obsessive need to point out the calunnia conviction, even though both Sollecito and Knox have been exonerated by Italy's highest court on the murder and related charges.  The closing of the "Self-evident bias" section of this talk-page, and the weasel terms associated with people clinging to a guilt point-of-view, is all that needs to be said... and is the reason why Wikipedia will need to keep the main article on lock-down for the near future.  Too many invested, self-interested guilters who won't let this go. 70.70.249.154 (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Knox has been found not-guilty of murder, but she is still guilty of defamation for trying to frame that guy who was wrongfully imprisoned. That has not been overturned and will not be, since Italy's highest court has affirmed it.  Therefore, if this article says that Knox has been convicted of a crime, then that is correct. Cla68 (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As long as the article keeps the wording focused on the actual facts instead of slanted interpretations. DreamGuy (talk) 05:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Knox's conviction that was upheld
I can understand the focus of this article being on her acquittal of the murder charge. However, remember that the high court upheld her conviction for slander and its associated three-year sentence and $10K damage award for Patrick Lumumba. The article currently makes almost no mention of that. She almost sent Lumumba to prison for a crime he didn't commit. He was saved because he was lucky enough to have an air-tight alibi. Instead of you all mass-reverting me, why don't you come up with a text addition which will mention this in the article. Cla68 (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Mentioning it is one thing; rubbing it in with repeated insertions is another. The literature about Knox does not put much emphasis on the slander and defamation, and that is why we don't, either. Binksternet (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I think Patrick Lumumba would beg to differ, since he almost got sent to the big house for a crime he didn't commit and is apparently still owed $10K by Knox for what she put him through. The fact is, she is a convicted criminal in Italy because that conviction was upheld, and that is very significant as part of her legal status.  I would suggest that all of you, instead of mass-reverting me, that you take the time to modify what I add to the article in line of what you think is more fair and balanced. Cla68 (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how close Lumumba came to being jailed for the murder...this matter is a very small one in the context both of Knox's life and the trials, as demonstrated with how this is treated by reliable sources. One or two mentions is more than enough, and of course it needs to be mentioned how the police allegedly obtained Knox's "confession".LedRush (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Black Lives Matter in Italy as well as in the US, I would think (and hope). I'll go ahead and again do the legwork to mention Lumumba in the article and, instead of mass reverting me, I suggest you all modify what I add to be more in line to what you think is appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Modified to make it simply matter of fact and not to support the false idea that she actually accused anyone of the crime. This is the last fighting ground for the guilters out there since their false claims on every other point have already been thrown out by Italy's highest court. The slander case was not appealed as rigorously because she had already served the time for that charge and fighting it would serve little purpose. DreamGuy (talk) 05:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess we could quote Italy's high court verbatim if everyone feels that way? They didn't mention anything about "guilters out there" when they gave their reasoning about why they were upholding the defamation conviction.  Is that how you all want to do this?  If so, the language in this BLP may end up being a little stronger.  Cla68 (talk) 10:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Lumumba brought a defamation action against her. It is not defamation or slander she got three years for, it is a much more serious matter as should be obvious from the fact that she was given a prison sentence. As it says in the article, Knox was charged with Calunnia, which in Italian law is a criminal offence of blaming someone of a crime that the accused knows is innocent. Knox also faced faced additional years in prison on for saying policewomen slapped her during the interrogation. It is interesting that in this interrogation Knox accused someone who, if she was thinking straight, she'd have known had a perfect alibi for the time of the murder, because Knox definitely knew Lumumba was serving customers at his bar all that night. Rather makes one wonder what went on in the interrogation to make Knox say something that could not possibly stick to get Lumumba convicted, and couldn't fail to get her into serious trouble. _Overagainst (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Focus of article
Recently someone totally removed the personal life section of the article, discussing her autobiography and other writing and so forth. This article is about Amanda Knox, NOT the Murder of Meredith Kercher. There is no reason for this article to go so in depth on the murder and trial when there's a whole other article for that. Now that more is going on Knox's life than the trial and it's getting news coverage, those things should be highlighted here to focus on her life in general instead of just the trials. DreamGuy (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Her notability derives from some aspects of her life and those are the things in the article. I don't think her private life in recent years belongs in an encyclopedic article.Overagainst (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Info box Known for:
"Being convicted and then acquitted of murder in Italy". This is being insisted on and I don't think it can be justified especially in a BLP and in view OF THE Italian SUPREME COURT'S final verdict


 * "The prosecution's case, void of any physical evidence from either Knox or Sollecito, showed "stunning weakness" and "investigative bouts of amnesia," the court wrote, according to The Guardian. Despite that, the pair was convicted, then acquitted, and then convicted and acquitted a second time, spending a total of four years in an Italian prison. "

She is known for being wrongfully imprisoned. The case attracted attention from the beginning because of the widespread contention that her imprisonment was wrongful, and the supreme legal authority in Italy has said that the conviction was wrong.-Overagainst (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You know far more about it than I do. But, the fact remains that to say that she is most notable for being wrongfully imprisoned is incorrect.  The conviction may have been shown to have been wrong, but, under the Italian legal system, she was quite correctly imprisoned for the charges of which she was originally convicted.   She is most notable for being accused of a serious crime, convicted, imprisoned, and then acquitted.  It was only, in one sense, "wrongful" in hindsight - at the time, it appeared correct.  So, it is the use of the word "wrongful" that is misleading and will confuse readers.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: I would not object so strongly to saying that she was "wrongfully convicted and imprisoned before being acquitted". It was the conviction that was shown to be wrong, not the imprisonment.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But she was imprisoned from early November 2007 and the trial was Jan to December 2009. So Knox was imprisoned for over a year before the trial started and 2 years before she was found guilty, yet there was no real evidence against her according to the Italian supreme court. How can it be confusing to describe this as wrongful imprisonment? For most of her time in prison she had no verdict against her, and even the initial verdict was not final in Italian law as she was still officially referred to as 'the accused' subsequent to it.  The full conviction did not come until the last trial of the second degree (her third trial) when she was in the US. The details of the case are confusing because the Italian legal system is different. I think if we are going to have info boxes on BLP's they should steer clear of discredited accusations, especially ones of such a serious nature. An infobox 'in a nutshell' sentence would be she is known for: 'being wrongfully imprisoned in Italy', the reader who looks at the lede can see that there were a series of trials and hearings that ended with the highest court in Italy  concluding that the investigation/prosecution case that kept her in prison was without foundation.  In the main body of the article it is spelled out how there were a series of  Italian legal system trials and hearings different to what would have occurred in the US, so there is no room for confusion.-Overagainst (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "it can be said that her imprisonment was unjust". Very well the subject of a miscarriage of justice in Italy, which is what the Italian supreme court ruled. "Known for	Being the subject of a miscarriage of justice in Italy".-Overagainst (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I got a bit side tracked with Ghmyrtle taking it upon himself to move my comment here, however let me note his text did not pass BLP standards. Overagainst (talk) 12:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read and learn from WP:AGF, and do not post misleading information here. Thank you.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPCRIME "If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other, refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information.
 * "But to baldly state that she was wrongfully imprisoned is to give a misleading impression to readers that the proper legal processes were not carried out." In good faith, no doubt, you advanced the aforementioned abstruse reasoning. I think the issue is a simple BLP one and the Supreme court's final decision makes it improper to mention the overridden judgements in an infobox.Overagainst (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2015
Grammar: towards the bottom, "having went" should be "having gone."

76.70.68.23 (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done! Peaceray (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2016
At the bottom of the page in the "See Also" section, I request the removal of the link to "List of wrongful convictions in the United States". While Knox is an American, she was never tried in the United States (she was tried in Italy), let alone wrongfully or rightfully. Therefore, that page is effectively unrelated to this one.

98.247.52.79 (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Done! Peaceray (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Amanda Knox has been acquitted of Calunnia or slander against Italian police. 01/15/2016
Amanda Knox has been acquitted of Calunnia or slander against Italian police. 01/15/2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.240.102.94 (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Source? 98.247.52.79 (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * http://www.newsweek.com/amanda-knox-italy-court-slander-not-guilty-police-415906 LedRush (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

"Miscarriage of justice"
Isn't that a bit of a loaded term in the info box up top?Aresef (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hardly.142.105.159.60 (talk) 03:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. The real miscarriage is that she was acquitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:882:101:17E6:21A8:584D:FA57:438E (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Can't we say she's known for being on trial for murder without taking a position of whether or not she was guilty? Should be a bit more unbiased. 108.183.22.133 (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * She was acquitted. The only way to present it without bias is to say that. Trying to push the POV that she was guilty violates Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 12:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


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

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


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

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

Bruce Fischer (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Please see WP:OSE and WP:OTHERSTUFF. All in all, you have to come up with a better rationale, or at least provide reliable sources to show that the books are notable enough to be mentioned. ChamithN   (talk)  05:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/30/amanda-knox-booklist/2112895/ Bruce Fischer (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

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


 * I don't think there's an issue with using a source that is sympathetic to one party; so long as it is only used to support verifiable facts, and not simply as a rationale for editorializing. However, With something as politicized as this, the real issue is going to be leaving NPOV territory, which is going to be very hard, ESPECIALLY with this recent release of the Netflix documentary.  Protecting the page from frivolous editing on those grounds, for awhile, seems prudent.Ironlion45 (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2016
NataliaAlexia (talk) 11:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  13:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

American v.s. world view?
I don't see a section suitable for the fact that Americans view her as innocent while the rest of the world views her as guilty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.169.240 (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As per the Final decision, "On March 27, 2015, the ultimate appeal by Knox and Sollecito was heard by the Supreme Court of Cassation; it ruled that the case was without foundation, ..." I would venture to say that the Italian court system ultimately believed in her innocence, & in the end that matters more than popular opinion. Nevertheless, a section regarding how domestic & international perception about her innocence or guilt is probably warranted. Care to be bold & to write an unbiased section with reliable sources on that? Peaceray (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Investigation
(not added 21 February ... either this correction has been made already or I misread the article) Createangelos (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Minor correction request: this sentence is probably not accurate "Under pressure, Knox falsely stated that she had been in the house when Kercher was killed."

Could someone look up the exact conversation as Knox described it in her oral trial testimony, I recall it had been something like "We know you were there, did you hear Meredith scream?" "No." "How could you not have heard her scream if you were there?" "Maybe I had my hands over my ears?"

Agreeing (finally, out of politeness etc) to answer a question premised on a fact which you disbelieve but which the police claim to be fact, is different from stating that the false premise is a fact, in other words.

I'm not going to edit the article, but surely the sentence should say something like "Under questioning, Knox eventually agreed to say that if she had been at the house when Kercher was killed, as the police insisted she was, a possible reason she did not remember hearing a scream might be because her ears were covered."

I'm not suggesting this edit but it is just too much of a simplification to say that she stated she had been in the house. She never stated that.Createangelos (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to add to that: in other cases I'm looking at (Michael Stone, Jerry Sandusky etc etc) it really bothers me that media, even wire services, take tremendous liberties transcribing a witness statement, writing, not what the witness said, but what the journalist interprets it probably meant. Here the case is in the past, so this is not crucial, but the truth tends to be complicated, and journalistic summaries of what witnesses probably intended to say have in the past caused tremendous damage to fairness and justice. Wikipedia should not summarize what an editor imagines was said, but try to find what was said verbatim wherever possible.Createangelos (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2017
Add Amanda Knox's official website to the External links section: http://www.amandaknox.com Retronimble (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done JamesMLane t c 01:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amanda Knox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111209082802/http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/15578433 to http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/15578433
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150208004309/http://www.komonews.com/news/70617977.html to http://www.komonews.com/news/70617977.html
 * Added tag to http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/15391447

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


 * Khamba Tendal should be immediately banned from editing pages related to Amanda Knox. The post above suggests that this person is delusional. Khamba Tendal wrote: "The article is also clearly tainted by the PR campaign conducted on behalf of Knox's family (of which Bruce Fischer is a representative hired by Knox's stepfather Chris Mellas)." This nonsense is only spewed out by obsessed anti-Amanda Knox lunatics. I have never been hired by Chris Melas and I have never worked for him in any capacity. Maybe you could ask Khamba Tendal to back up his statements with proof. That would be interesting.
 * Bruce Fischer (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comparing The Economist to David Icke... This is wrong on so many levels. clpo13(talk) 20:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It is best to let the Italian judiciary define what the Supreme Court verdict meant. A subsequent judge, the one who acquitted Knox of calunnia against the police for saying that they'd hit her, called the previous March 2015 acquittal, an "exoneration".  "CONSIDERED AS FACTS AND MATTERS OF LAW - The defendant was summoned to trial by the Judge of the Preliminary hearings with the decree of 20-Mar-2015, for the facts cited in the charges. The case is a follow-on of a more complex and serious one, regarding the murder of Meredith Kercher, a young English student, which occurred in Perugia between 01-Nov and 02-Nov-2007. Those proceedings concluded with the exoneration of the defendant of murder, that she was accused of together with her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito".

Saddened by what this young soul had to go through... Also cannot decipher the motivation behind the clearly unscrupulous practice of lawless law exhibited by the Italian judiciary. Through it all, one has to derive certain lessons from this epic conundrum. While such misfortune isn't unheard of especially when a level of prejudice is in the midst, there's always a deeper meaning. LKapish (talk) 10:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)