Talk:Amanda Knox/Archive 3

Neutral viewpoint?
This page isn't neutral (as it is supposed to be according to Wiki policy). You are missing many facts of the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF60:21F0:C969:6F1C:17AC:4774 (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree. Was written by the alleged murderer's lawyer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:41:4100:E15A:55C5:AA62:E61A:F5D0 (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * & You are welcome to add missing facts as long as they are verified by reliable sources. Peaceray (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The article is not neutral, no. It makes false claims by repeating highly partial reports in the mass media, suggesting that the Supreme Court cleared Knox and Sollecito of any involvement in the murder. This is one of those unfortunate instances where Wikipedia rules don't work well, because English-language reporters who didn't know any better were parroting whatever the defence lawyers told them, and the defence lawyers were not telling the truth. The acquittals were issued under Article 530 Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (as stated in the published 'disposizione' the next day, which is repeated at the end of the full 'motivazione', the motivation report, published several months later). Art.530,2 is the 'insufficient evidence' clause, known in Italy as 'the dubitative formula', equivalent to Scotland's 'Not proven.' It is quite distinct from Art.530,1, which is the 'Not guilty' clause. The first two paragraphs of Article 530 read as follows:-

1. The judge shall enter a verdict of acquittal if the act did not occur, the accused did not commit the act, the act was not a crime or the accused was not of sufficient mental capacity.

2. The judge shall also enter a verdict of acquittal if there is lacking, insufficient or contradictory evidence that the act occurred, that the accused committed the act, that the act was a crime or that the accused was of sufficient mental capacity.

In either case, the court has to state, in its initial disposizione, which of the four scheduled matters it considers to be at issue, and it's usually the second one: whether or not the accused committed the act. Due to an informal rule enforced some years after the 1988 Code of Procedure was introduced, the court has to use the same negative formula under Section 2 as it would under Section 1, stating, 'because the accused did not commit the act.' (You may have noticed that very influential Italians like Giulio Andreotti and Silvio Berlusconi have found themselves up before the courts, so there is pressure from the elite to tone down verdicts.) In this particular case, the Supreme Court's disposition read, 'Acquitted under Art.530,2, under the rubric of "because the appellants did not commit the act." ' The mention of a rubric or heading makes clear that this is not the court's own opinion but merely a prescribed form of words.

In its motivation report, published after a considerable delay, the court stated that Amanda Knox was 'certainly' present in the apartment during the murder; that there is 'eloquent proof' that she washed the victim's blood off her hands in their shared bathroom afterwards; that there is 'strong suspicion' that Raffaele Sollecito was also present; that Rudy Guede, the only one convicted, could not have committed the crime alone, and nor could any supposed lone burglar, because the evidence does not allow that interpretation; that the break-in was faked; that Knox and Sollecito both lied to investigators and gave a 'failed alibi'; and that Knox falsely blamed an innocent man in order to divert suspicion from Rudy Guede, because Guede, if questioned, could retaliate by incriminating Knox herself. That is what the Supreme Court actually said. As opposed to what Wikipedia says they said.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Marasca-Bruno_Report_(English)

In the original:-

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Marasca_Supreme_Court_Report

Judge Marasca, president of the court, has subsequently stated in an interview with French TV that, 'as a citizen, I just don't know.' He declined to say that the defendants had not in fact committed the crime. Although, given the factual findings of his own court, he should obviously have convicted them under the joint enterprise rule, if the norms observed by British or American courts applied.

The Florence appeal court later refused all compensation to Sollecito, citing the Supreme Court's finding that Knox was certainly present during the murder and that both of them lied about it. This decision has since been upheld by the Supreme Court itself.

http://www.finoaprovacontraria.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2-16-RID-ORD-SOLLECITO.pdf

In English:-

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/images/0/0f/Sollecito_Compensation_Refusal.pdf

Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The lead is meant to adequately summarize the article per WP:Lead
Regarding the recent editing by Overagainst and Michipedian, as seen here and here, I just want to note that the significant cutting has made for a wholly inadequate lead. The lead barely covers this lengthy article. WP:Lead is clear that the lead should summarize the article, not simply minor parts of it. This version of the lead was much better. I see that Curly Turkey briefly edited the article. Given his experience with WP:GAs and WP:FAs, maybe he'd be willing to comment on this matter? I also see Binksternet. Binksternet, do you have any thoughts on this? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with your assessment. A more complete lead section would be much better, and was certainly better in mid-August this year before Overagainst began reworking it. There's no new information, so I don't see why the article needs such a radical change. Binksternet (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Binksternet. Peaceray reverted Overagainst on a very recent lead edit. But, yeah, I still feel that the bigger lead (the one I linked to above) is better. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't remember why I would've edited the article, but—superficially, at least—the lead is awfully short for an article that is 27kb of readable prose (assuming the article should really be that long). The original could be trimmed, though—and I think this is the first time I've come across "unbeknown".  If someone has a bone to pick with "unbeknownst", they should at least choose a word that's not going to draw attention to itself. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for commenting, Curly Turkey. You made two minor edits to the article in 2016. So even though I realized that you are not really involved with the article (I'm not either, by the way, other than this matter), I felt that it might be a good idea to ping you since you have a lot of experience building good or great articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I left the short version lede alone for a while to see what would be settled on. As I see it the lede should cover the case not just the verdicts. It ought to finish on the prosecution's case against Knox for murder being dismissed, not start and finish on her what her current occupations are. The current lede is so chopped there is hardly anything about the ins and outs of the case she is known for. It's incoherent and it gets the half the few facts it mentions wrong, Guede was definitively convicted in a one stage trial well before even the first degree trial of Knox, and as that information is clear from even the section headings I have to assume someone is attempting to edit the lede without bothering reading the article. I'll put the lede back to a reasonable length version and if anyone wants to make changes I trust they will start by at least familiarising themselves with the article before deciding to remove important things from the lede.Overagainst (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Overagainst, I appreciate you restoring some material to the lead. But how is the current lead better than the one I linked to above, the one that Binksternet said "was certainly better"? I don't see that the previous version in question "start[ed] and finish[ed] on her what her current occupations are." Also keep in mind Curly Turkey's statement above about "an article that is 27kb of readable prose." What belongs in the lead should not be based on editors' personal opinions; it should be based on what WP:Lead states. As for cutting, the discussion is about what you and Michipedian cut. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for causing any controversy on this page. I honestly just meant to improve it, but I agree that I cut too much. Please restore whatever you see as appropriate. Michipedian (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The main improvement to the lede I would like to see is the discussion of her as a current, living person who is a writer and activist and is not necessarily defined by the events of the Kercher murder. Including her current employment at the West Seattle Herald and Westside Seattle, as well as her activism with the Innocence Project, I think, is appropriate. Michipedian (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Flyer22 Reborn: Keep in mind that the guidelines for lead length vs article length are rules of thumb and subject to editorial discretion—an article might be best summed up briefly, or may require more bytes than the guideline recommends. As the lead depends on the body, it's best to ensure the body is the "right" length and depth before fussing over the ratio of lead to body.  Of course, the lead might be "too short" for other reasons. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Curly Turkey, I do that keep in mind. When I state that the lead should adequately summarize the article, I am not speaking of the rules of thumb. I am speaking of what the guideline makes clear in its introduction. There is no way that the initial lead I complained about would be considered a good lead for the length of this article. You recognized that immediately. And the current lead is also lacking. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that there is clearly disagreement about what is appropriate for the lead and what is not. It appears to me that there are two thoughts here: (1) Amanda Knox is primarily the victim of a wrongful conviction, and that that wrongful conviction is the defining feature of her life, and (2) Amanda Knox is a journalist and activist who rose to fame due to the wrongful conviction but is now known for other things (albeit perhaps ultimately due to the wrongful conviction). I am certainly on board with the second of the two options I've presented and feel that extensive coverage of the murder trial, beyond a paragraph, is inappropriate. Any thoughts? Michipedian (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2018
In Paragraph 3.3 "Final decision": The word "calunnia" is not self-explaining, since it is of Italian descent. There exists a calunnia-Artikle in the English-language Wikipedia, so please put the word "calunnia" into brackets calunnia, that a link to the explanatory article is added. Ecoduck (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌: Calunnia is wikilinked earlier in the article, and the manual of style rule is to only wikilink the first appearance of a term in an article. Wham2001 (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2018
Source No. 139 tells that the charge upheld in the final decision for calunnia was 3 years imprisonment. "The charge carried a three-year jail sentence, but is moot because of the time Knox already spent in jail." This should be added to describe all main parts of the final decision. Ecoduck (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅: I have added a paraphrase of the text from the Guardian article. Wham2001 (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

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


 * Looks like no one has noticed this until now.--TMCk (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of that content doesn't belong here anyways. Details are for the main article and only a short summary should be given here.--TMCk (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe that there should not be detailed information regarding the trial in this entry. And instead there should be a link to the "The Murder of Meredith Kercher" article. To major contributing editors: Has this been discussed before? Rybkovich (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request
The current photo of Amanda Knox is very dated, and poorly shot, as it does not even show her face head on. There is a new photo to wikimedia commons that is much clearer and more representative of what she looks like now. I suggest it be used as her main photo.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amanda_Knox.jpg

Thanks, Geraldbostrum (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NOT WHAT SHE LOOKS LIKE. In fact, I don't think anyone would recognize her from this photo. Please find another. ---Dagme (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅ I also reused the File:Corrado maria daclon - amanda knox.jpg image at the top of the Acquittal section, as the photograph is from the day of the acquittal. Peaceray (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There are things beyond the purely technical matter of showing what someone looks like. The subject of this BLP could have uploaded an image of herself smiling like that if she chose. She does not have anything like that at the top of her website.  One might reasonably consider that the subject does not want such a photo at the top of the wiki BLP about her. As should be obvious the new photo is rather discordant with the tone and content of the article. I don't think it is very appropriate, and so a discussion is in order before adding it.Overagainst (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * While I can understand your argument about tone, your argument that "She does not have anything like that at the top of her website" is contradicted by the fact that there is a smiling image at the top of her website. My question to you is why would she want a picture of here leaving the ordeal of prison be the first thing that a viewer would see of her rather than a later picture showing her in better times? Therefore, the arguments you make about what the subject does not want make little sense to me.


 * What exactly is your conflict of interest? Do you have a personal connection with Amanda Knox? This is germane, since if you uploaded this picture of her you presumably had her consent.


 * Peaceray (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi. I am one of Ms. Knox's representatives. You can see me listed on her personal website under Speaking. As you noted, she does have a smiling photo on her website, and would gladly see that photo on her wikipedia page, but it is not public domain; it belongs to People Magazine. The photo I uploaded of her came directly from her and I uploaded it with her consent. If someone thinks that the new photo is discordant with the tone of the article, I would suggest that the problem is with the article's tone and content, not the photo. Ms. Knox's life (and career) have continued beyond the events of her trials. This article makes it seem like she mostly stopped existing after she was acquitted. The personal life section is scant, and there is a dearth of information about her continuing work. For instance, she is hosting an upcoming show with VICE and Facebook called the Scarlett Letter Reports where she interviews other women who have been publicly vilified. She has written op-eds for the LA Times and essays for VICE/BROADLY. She recently published a piece about Asia Argento and the #metoo movement in Marie Claire. And she has not simply attended Innocence Project events, she has been a guest of honor at them. The Florida Innocence Project gave her the Frank Lee Smith Innocence Award (see the speaking page on her website, linked above). As one of, if not the most high-profile exoneree in the world, she regularly speaks at Innocence Project events to help raise awareness and money to help get wrongfully convicted people released from prison. If you read any of the many interviews she has done in recent years, you will readily see the more rounded person who is not solely defined by the Italian trials. That person, the actual Ms. Knox, is not very apparent in this article. Ms. Knox would happily see that rectified.

Geraldbostrum (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, I reverted the page to feature the portrait image as the infobox photo, moving the profile image of her in a car to the lower part of the article. As a biography, the main image should be a recognizable portrait. Shameran81 (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2018
Knox graduated in 2005 from the Seattle Preparatory School and studied linguistics at the University of Washington, where she made the university's dean's list and gained a reputation as one of the school's most attractive and charismatic students

Does the statement "gained a reputation as one of the school's most attractive and charismatic students" need a reference / citation? 213.42.59.147 (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Yes, you need reliable sources to make changes, and even more so on biographies of living persons. LittlePuppers (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

In this case, the phrase "gained a reputation as one of the school's most attractive and charismatic students" is already included without citation to a reliable source. So should it be changed as there is no reliable source referred to?

86.98.46.237 (talk) 08:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree; there is no source given for that particular statement and it isn't, so far as I can tell from the amazon preview, in the part of Follain cited later in the paragraph. I would remove it as being uncited.  Pinging  Wham2001 (talk) 09:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks and  - I misunderstood that as meaning that you wanted to add that.  I'll remove that and look into NPOV, although I don't have access to either of the sources for that paragraph. LittlePuppers (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done LittlePuppers (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Corrado maria daclon - amanda knox.jpg

NVoE
Although this article is templated for using a regional dialect of English, there is at least one occurrence of an English English spelling in the word "behaviour" within this article and not within direct quotes. If someone with edit rights could please run the content through a regionalised spellchecker and catch any other words which haven't been adapted appropriately for localisation, that'd make the article consistent and be fantastic. Thanks! 49.180.94.119 (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2019
The "Personal and professional life" section is woefully incomplete and misrepresentative of Ms. Knox's actual current personal and professional life. Right now, it has a few sentences about her memoir, then some tabloid junk about her upcoming wedding. May I suggest some additions and deletions.

Things to add: Knox produced and hosted 2 seasons of a TV show, The Scarlet Letter Reports, for VICE and Facebook Watch, in which she interviewed other women who've been publicly shamed. (https://www.facebook.com/TheScarletLetterReports/) Many of those episodes have millions of views. Seems noteworthy to include in a section about her professional life.

Knox writes, produces, and hosts a podcast for Sundance TV / AMC called The Truth About True Crime, which just wrapped it's 4th season. (https://art19.com/shows/the-truth-about-true-crime).

Knox has an extensive publication record, writing essays for Broadly, The LA Times, USA Today, Medium, and Crime Story. (links to all those articles are easily found on her website: http://www.amandaknox.com/selectedwork/).

Knox is now a sought-after keynote speaker, especially for fundraising events for nonprofits. There are testimonials on her website, but here are some direct source links to places she has been a keynote speaker.

For Yoga Behind Bars (https://www.thestranger.com/events/26158424/eat-drink-give) (https://yogabehindbars.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/YBB_EatDrinkGive10Year_HannahLetinich127.jpg) For The Midwest Innocence Project (https://themip.ejoinme.org/MyEvents/FacesofInnocence2018/tabid/948202/Default.aspx) For the Oregon Innocence Project (https://www.oregonlive.com/events/2019/04/amanda-knox-is-coming-to-portland-to-discuss-spending-time-in-italian-prison-for-a-murder-she-didnt-commit.html) For Roanoke College (https://www.roanoke.com/news/local/amanda-knox-talk-on-why-truth-matters-draws-crowd-at/article_9f5cebc3-0201-5703-9c86-5c49b056c90a.html) For the Florida Innocence Project, which awarded her the Frank Lee Smith Innocence Award. (https://www.facebook.com/pg/Innocence-Project-of-Florida-96600458051/photos/?tab=album&album_id=10154897142833052)

Right now, all of that is represented by the sentence "In a 2017 interview, Knox said she was devoting herself to writing and activism for the wrongfully accused." Hardly does it justice.

Knox also recently made an historic trip back to Italy for the first time, giving a keynote speech at the Italy Innocence Project's inaugural justice conference, where she spoke about trial by media and her wrongful conviction. This was world-wide news.

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/06/15/amanda-knox-tearful-return-italy-roars-against-wrongful-prosecution/)

It should definitely be included in a section about her professional life.

Regarding her personal life, I recommend deleting reference to the tabloid story about her wedding, which is hardly noteworthy and worth placement in an encyclopedia article. There are a hundred other stories like this. They start in the Daily Mail and the Sun, then get recycled by outlets like CNN (which is linked here). It's a fleeting tabloid moment that won't be remembered. It should be deleted. Regarding her personal life, I recommend one simple sentence: "Knox lives in Seattle with her fiance, the novelist Christopher Robinson, with whom she jointly writes and produces the podcast The Truth About True Crime. Geraldbostrum (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I've added the podcast and series, and removed the nonsense about the wedding. I haven't added the essays or a lot of the speaking events because we'd need better sources. Reliable, secondary sources are always required. NiciVampireHeart 15:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Pre-Trial Media Sensation
I think the section about the media sensation that surrounded the case is inadequate: “Knox became the subject of unprecedented pre-trial media coverage drawing on unattributed leaks from the prosecution, including a best-selling Italian book whose author imagined or invented incidents that were purported to have occurred in Knox's private life.[59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67]” I would also say this is citation overkill.

I would not characterize the pre-trial media coverage as “unprecedented” without any elaboration on how it was unprecedented. There is little information about the nature or scope of the media coverage, and how this coverage elevated the case to a much higher profile. While her nickname in the media, Foxy Knoxy, is offensive, it is not mentioned. This blurb also understates the role of the press in scrutinizing (and fabricating) details about her behaviour and personal life, and how this depiction may have lead to the presumption of guilt. Knox herself acknowledges that some her behaviour could be seen as unusual while denying the press’ most outlandish accusations: https://www.businessinsider.com/amanda-knox-explains-bizarre-behavior-2013-5 Bevhead (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you can read through the nine sources plus the Business Insider article, digest them, then expand what is written about the pre-trial media hype, perhaps expanding it & making it into its own section.
 * Additionally, you may wish to look at it:Omicidio di Meredith Kercher or Google's machine translation, https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=it&tl=en&u=https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omicidio_di_Meredith_Kercher. it:Amanda Knox redirects to :it:Omicidio di Meredith Kercher. Peaceray (talk) 05:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Knox implicated herself
Given that the murder accusation against Knox was ultimately resolved in her favor, it's not accurate to state that she "implicated herself". Rather, what she did was purportedly implicate herself. This is evidenced by the fact that the prosecutor who argued in court for her purported guilt, was ultimately determined to be wrong; Knox was definitively acquitted of the murder. Thus, it cannot be accurately said that during the interview she "implicated" herself. And given that she's been acquitted and that no proven to be true reliable source evidence exists to the contrary, Knox's denials must be taken at face value. Knox has consistently denied any guilt or involvement. Thus, the correct inference to draw from the conflicting accounts of the interview is that the interrogators had the story wrong and Knox had the story right. The interrogators may have claimed she implicated herself and until the final acquittal, that may have been an unresolved question. But the simple fact is that Knox's position, by virtue of her acquittal, has been vindicated. We should, therefore, change this sentence to read "Knox purportedly implicated herself". 98.118.62.140 (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ I used "Knox allegedly implicated herself". Peaceray (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I think purported is the better word, given that we must avoid editing in hindsight. At the time of the evnts, the claims she implicated herself were taken to be true, which is what purportedly means. See this: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-purportedly-and-allegedly-and-which-carries-more-weight 98.118.62.140 (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As a legal term, I think allege is closer to the mark than purport. Please compare these definitions from legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com:
 * https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/purport
 * https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/allege
 * Peaceray (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the layman's typical connotations of both, I'd still go with "purported" 98.118.62.140 (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Lede
"...Patrick Lumumba. Knox and Sollecito were initially accused of murdering Kercher while acting in concert with Lumumba, but Lumumba was soon released, and the known burglar Rudy Guede was arrested, after Guede's bloodstained fingerprints were found on Kercher's possessions. [...] However, Knox's conviction for committing calunnia (calumny) against Lamumba was upheld by all courts. On January 14, 2016, Knox was acquitted of calunnia for saying she had been struck by policewomen during the interrogation.[1]" I don't think Lumumba (whose legal given name is not Patrick) should be mentioned by name 4 times in the lead, because it is skewing the lede with a peripheral issue of lesser notability. If the conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba is mentioned in the lead it only seems balanced to also mention the way his civil suit against Knox for defamation (in addition to the criminal charges of committing calunnia against him) being heard contemporaneously by the same jury as the murder charge allowed his lawyer to say in front of that same jury what in America was thought outrageously prejudicial things about Knox, such as she was "dirty inside and out and a demonic she devil" See here. "However" is argumentative language advised against in the style manual. The acquittal of Knox for calunnia against the police is related to the fact that she claimed they had improperly mentally and physically pressured her into committing calunnia against Lumumba. As already discussed in above in Talk, Calunnia should be linked in the first use. Lumunba should be named in the main body of the article, at most once in the lede, and there should be balance to the two related allegations of calunnia Knox faced. It should also be made clearer she did not, according to Italian justice, lie about being struck while the police were questioning her about Lumumba (as the Italian courts have found in acquitting her of calunnia against the police). Her conviction for calunnia against Lumumba stands nonetherless. She served actual time for a murder she was innocent of and not a single day for calunnia, so the emphasis on calunnia against Lumumba is on a purely technical point especially in view that the courts ultimately declined to find her guilty of lying about being smacked by policewomen trying to get her to accuse Lumumba.

Also in the lede is this "and the known burglar Rudy Guede was arrested, after Guede's bloodstained fingerprints were found on Kercher's possessions". The above text in the lede is point of view because it is suggesting that Guede just broke in and murdered Ms Kercher. At the time he committed the murder Guede was not known as a burglar. He was known to Kercher as an acquaintance of her boyfriend, and had socialized with her in the boys' walk-in basement of the house (though he did not tell them his real name). No one knows how Guede got in to the girls' apartment, but he may well have knocked on the entry door and had it opened to him by Ms Kercher while she was alone there, killed her, and faked a burglary as a red herring. Knox has her own website and it's linked to I believe. Details of her latest activities should not be added to the lede, although suppose there is no harm in putting such things on the end of the main article. Overagainst (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The reason that I restored the lead is seen at Talk:Amanda Knox/Archive 3. Peaceray added to it after I restored it. You keep unnecessarily cutting the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * As for words like "however," per WP:Editorializing, they are words to watch; they are not banned. If something can be worded better without "however," it is an easy fix. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

This article has woefully incomplete information about the crime. I don't know if it is the purpose of this article is to talk about the crime because it is titled "Amanda Knox." However the article does delve into the crime but leaves out many important details of the crime. For instance when Sollecito was called to the police station the police told Amanda they did not want her to come but they just wanted to talk to Sollecito-she went anyway. He was a potential suspect but she was not. They were interviewing Sollecito and when he changed his story during his interview and did not support Amanda's alibi she had given before then that's when they wanted to ask her a few questions. They waited for an interpreter. When the interpreter arrived within an hour an a half Amanda had written a statement that she was actually at the scene during the murder. This is different than what she had told police before. To this day and most people don't know this Sollecito has not supported her alibi. During this interview she also fingered Patrick Lumumbra and let him sit in jail for two weeks knowing he had nothing to do with any of this. This is how police investigate murders. They ask people for their alibis. When their alibis don't stand up it makes police suspicious. This is not rocket science. (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Citations? Peaceray (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * While it is legitimate to have opinions, one cannot fudge the facts. Sollecito has given Knox an alibi, since he himself was free from his own coercive interrogation, where he was threatened with a beating if he 'continued to protect her'.  Indeed, no less than the prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini, sued Solletico for writing in his book, 'Honor Bound' that while in prison, Sollecito refused a prosecutorial deal where he'd get a reduced sentence for testifying against her.  He refused, and later Mignini sued Solletice for the perceived insult.  That suit was thrown out of court.  The fact about the calunnia conviction that Knox received, is that she appealed to the ECRU, to which Italy is a signatory, and Knox won.  The ECHR directed Italy to rectify the conviction, which Italy had yet to do.  Given that the ECHR accepted that Knox's 'confession' at interrogation had been coerced, there remains no evidence that the crime of calunnia against Lumumba had been committed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.15.53 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 06 April 2021 (UTC)

Sexist Language
It’s not “the girls’ flat.” All living there were university-aged women. Do better.76.29.89.21 (talk) 07:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2021
"She spent almost four years in an Italian prison following her [wrongful] conviction for the 2007 murder of Meredith Kercher..."

Please add *wrongful* before 'conviction'. Subject was exonerated and Rudy Guede was found guilty and sentenced. 24.128.87.118 (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 20:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Name and pronoun change to Rowan Jetté Knox
Rowan Jetté Knox has come out as a trans man. https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/08/02/author-rowan-jette-knox-comes-out-trans-man/ Article should be updated to reflect this. GayFesh (talk) 01:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * ❌ Your cited source begins The Canadian author is known for his memoir Love Lives Here, ... The subject of this article is this Amanda Knox who is an American & is different than this Amanda Jetté Knox (now Rowan Jetté Knox), the Canadian author who wrote Love Lives Here.
 * See also:
 * https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au=%22Jette%CC%81%20Knox%2C%20Amanda%22
 * https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3D%22Knox%2C+Amanda%22
 * Peaceray (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Too much detail maintenance tag
I am going to work on addressing this maintenance tag message: "This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience". There is quite a bit background information in the body of the article. I am going to work on paring it down and putting some of it into notes.

Please comment with any additional thoughts or suggestions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Done, mostly by putting detailed content into notes see Amanda Knox. Also did a bit of editing to group duplicate info and (hopefully) in better chronological order.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2023
Amanda Knox had another child. Son Echo was born on Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 9:23 p.m., weighing 7 lbs., 6 oz. 2601:1C2:1900:FE10:45F2:3951:7CD9:4189 (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * ❌ We need verification from a reliable source first. Please provide a citation. Peaceray (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Italian court orders retrial in defamation ruling
On October 13 a court threw out the old conviction and ordered a re-trial.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/13/amanda-knox-slander-conviction-overturned-italy-retrial.

"However, Knox's conviction for committing defamation against Lumumba was upheld by all courts." should be edited.

My suggestion:

"In October 2023 it also overturned Knox's initial conviction for defamation against Lulumba and ordered a retrial (yet to be scheduled)."

This will help to quicker exonerate in the eyes of the public someone wrongfully convicted.

Best regards, Chris Chrisnatterer (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)