Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 11

Explain the murder not the prosecution
07-Feb-10: With all the talk of one-sided viewpoints noted in the article's content over the past 2 months, I have to admit that I also fell into the trap of viewing the article from a certain viewpoint: as if it were an explanation of the prosecution events, rather than an explanation of the murder. The lede, intro section even ends by noting that the 3 accused were convicted [as though "case closed"], as if that were the main goal of the article. Instead, we should attempt to describe the murder as the main focus (6 W's: who, what, when, where, why and how), including the events preceding the murder, the evidence with major forensic details, and the follow-on events. I, for one, offer an apology now, that I regret not insisting that the lede provide an overview of the murder, rather than dwell on the suspects and the convictions (Lumumba does not need to be in the lede section). After studying the reliable sources for weeks, I noted that the defence lawyers often said they would not try to prove who committed the murder, but instead would focus that their clients didn't do it. The prosecution seemed, at times, to be explaining the murder, by claiming that only someone who lived at the flat would want to move the body, clear bloody footprints, and lock Kercher's door; however, by the end of the Knox/Sollectito trial, prosecutors explained that Guede DNA was on the same bra strap, severed during the staged clean-up, with Sollecito DNA on the metal clasp, by claiming Sollecito pulled the clasp while Rudy held the strap: but wait, Guede didn't LIVE THERE so why is he now part of the cleanup? Surely Guede could have removed a bra all by himself. In Milan, he returned to the scene of a crime at a nursery school. In Perugia, Guede returned to the scene of an upstairs-rock burglary to tell the owners he bought their stolen merchandise at the train station. He knew how to return to places. We need to stick to the facts of how the murder happened, since we cannot rely on the defence or the prosecution viewpoints. Hence, the murder hasn't been explained by them, so that's why the detailed evidence needs to be described in the article. The prosecutors seek convictions, and the defence seeks acquittals; they don't solve the murder. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources largely consist of newspaper reports of the trials and the official papers of the trials. The events that we are relating have unfolded along with the trials. I think the statement that we "cannot rely on the defence or the prosecution viewpoints" would lead us into some sort of original-research-based Wikipedia interpretation of the facts. That's not our purpose. Let's stick with the sources and with what actually happened (ie trials where particular points of view were put forward). Bluewave (talk) 09:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are more sources than the news reports of the trial: some witnesses were also interviewed by investigative journalists (professionally trained, often with more experience and much broader perspective than jurors, or perhaps more than even some lawyers). -Wikid77 (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikid77, sincerely, I'm a little bit confused: where should we find the truth about the murder? Do you really think that what you read in newspapers is more reliable than the verdict of a Court, that explains why they convicted the defendants? Salvio giuliano (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Salvio. Wikid77, please observe the policies WP:NOR and WP:Verifiability. Any attempt to 'explain the murder' using anything other than the evidence admitted in court and relying on the decision of the court can only fall foul of these principles.  Any other interpretation is your opinion and therefore worthless (this is true of the opoinions of all editors when expressed in the article space rather than the talk space).  Nor should we include comment by uninformed shock-jocks: to be worth including, any disenting opinion needs to come from a peer level, such as a professor or respected senior practitioner in jurisprudence or forensics. --Red King (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To Salvio & Red King: Beyond the trial events, there are articles written by investigative journalists, who interviewed witnesses and even reviewed police-evidence files, because they are notable people trusted not to slyly tamper with the evidence files that the police let them review. We are not trying to "find the truth" but rather provide details (from reliable sources) that explain the murder, even as multiple viewpoints (not a universal "truth"), and even if all people are wrong. For example, suppose that Guede is correct: that among the 40,000 students in Perugia there was a con man, who met Kercher during her many outings in the nightclubs (such as at "Merlin" or "Domus" or "Le Chic" etc.), that he got into the apartment and stole the 50+250 euros rent money. Perhaps the thief also knew Knox and was aware she kept rent money in her 2000-euro ATM account. Then perhaps he returned and killed Kercher (thinking she was alone because Guede was 5 rooms across the house), and then returned again after Guede left, to move the body since he might also be known to the neighbors (there were 7 other roommates, so imagine all acquaintances) and thus the scene had to look like a "faked burglary" or "faked assault" thereby knowing that theft of 300 euros & 2 credit cards would be considered insignificant so they would think the murder was more sinister, not just to silence a witness to a simple theft. Also, there were 9 U.S. DNA experts who reviewed the DNA evidence, so I agree with you to consider the reports by professors or respected senior practitioners in jurisprudence or forensics, and avoid (WP:NOR) original research. So, basically, we actually all agree to use reliable sources, but some are written by non-Italian experts. Thanks for clarifying that point. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be very surprised if the police gave any journalist, however well-respected, direct access to police files and key witnesses, during an ongoing murder case. Do you have an example? Conversely, there are plenty of examples, in this case, of lazy journalists who copied material from each other and from blogs and then recycled it as their own work. In fact, rather few journalists even seemed to bother to read the Micheli report. Bluewave (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Names removed
I've removed the names of all people who are not directly involved (and not public figures). I say that BLP applies here - there is no useful information for the reader in learning the names of neighbors, roommates and witnesses; so I see no reason to invade their privacy just for the sake of it. I also suggest that the names of the uninvolved roommates are removed from the floor plan. Averell (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Bluewave (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Red King (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur, as well. Perhaps we should use initials of names where such names are needed in sentences. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Consider romancing-the-theft led to murder
07-Feb-10: Some people think of the event as a "sex-game forced into murder" and others think of an "upstairs-burglary concealed by murder" but also consider a charming downstairs acquaintance who talks his way inside, faking stomach pains, or an awkward romantic-mood, to conceal inside theft but is suspected upon missing rent money, then confronted by screaming, and tries to strangle and knife his witness into silence; however, being known downstairs, he creates a staged break-in plus staged assault as if a total stranger. I mention this scenario to avoid focusing the article text only on evidence that supports other ideas of how the murder occurred. Try to think of numerous scenarios when adding evidence to the article. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This seems to be entirely your own original research, based on your interpretation of the evidence. Please do not think up numerous scenarios when adding to the article. Pleae stick to those available from reliable verifiable sources. Bluewave (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, this situation illustrates my point: because the article was so focused on the prosecutor's idea of a "sex-game" (Italian: gioco erotico), the common idea of a hustle might now be considered "original research" as the scenario that Meredith was hustled until she discovered her rent money was gone from her room, then a confrontation began, then she started screaming and was silenced. This is not original research and has been known for years, just read articles: Hustle, Hustler (disambiguation), or Confidence trick. So, I think we should definitely add the hustle-scenario to the article because it is considered so "original" even though it is not. When a hustler takes a large amount of money, he might go to the bathroom to hide the money inside his clothes, then if the victim suspects him, he can say, "It wasn't me; I'm even emptying all my pockets to prove I didn't take your money". This is a good reason for him to walk to the 2nd bathroom across the house, for further privacy when hiding money in his clothes. When he leaves, the money is hidden inside his layers of winter clothing (the date was 1 November). Guede's DNA was matched, in high concentrations, on Kercher's handbag zipper. See the Micheli Judgment document (end of section about the Guede inquiry):
 * Italian text: "Sulla borsa si era rinvenuto invece sia una mistura genetica dell'imputato e della vittima, con picchi complessivamente molto elevati (anche oltre 1.000, e valori comunque superiori a 300), sia il medesimo aplotipo Y: il materiale biologico era stato prelevato più o meno al centro della chiusura lampo, su uno dei due lati."
 * Rough translation: "On the [Kercher] purse was found instead to be a genetic mixture of the accused and the victim, together with very high peaks (beyond 1000 [where below 50 would be excluded in most U.S. courts], and values greater than 300), is the same haplotype Y: the biological material had been taken, more or less, at the center of the zip, on one of the two sides."

Once the hustle-turned-violent scenario is considered, then all types of evidence begin to seem important which were formerly omitted from the article. Knox testified (on 12 June 2009) that when she and Meredith went to parties together, not just travelling to university classes, they had both met Guede in his mid-October visit downstairs. Thus, a con game could begin: step 1 meet your victim in advance & gain confidence. That evidence is crucial to the article's explanations. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. All material added to articles on Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed in the text. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions. Bluewave (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC) (or anyone else who reads the most basic principles of Wikipedia)
 * Or, to put that into clear words using your example. The idea that there may have been a hustle is your idea. That makes it original research. We cannot talk about any possible scenario unless that scenario comes from reliable sources. It doesn't matter if it's obvious, "common", or "easy when you look at the evidence". That's why we can mention the "sex-game" scenario, but not your "hustle scenario". The first was proposed by the prosecution and mentioned in reliable publications, the latter is mentioned nowhere in reliable sources. (If you find a reliable source, then you can include it). To put it as bluntly as possible: If you add to Wikipedia, don't have own ideas. Averell (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Amanda & Raffaele
Citing both American and British press reports, I've added one notable weakness of the prosecution's case against Amanda & Raffaele, i.e. the knife found in his apartment that prosecutors claimed tested positive for Amanda & Meredith's DNA tested negative for blood. I also added the notable detail (from the linked Telegraph article) that the ambiguous text message that first brought Patrick's name into the case was sent to him by Amanda. On the other hand, someone with more knowledge of the case might want to address more directly one of the incriminating facts against Amanda & Raffaele, i.e. that their alibis don't seem to match: the Telegraph link reports that Amanda described a romantic evening with Raffaele, but the WP article says he claimed to have been home using his computer and apparently did not mention her.TVC 15 (talk) 08:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please observe WP:NOR. It is not the function of Wikipedia to speculate what happened or to interpret the evidence.  We can only report the evidence and the court's assesment of it.  If somebody wants to come up with an alternative theory, they can do it on their own blog. --Red King (talk) 13:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To claim a mismatch of alibis is a difficult issue, even if it seems obvious (to us), because so many alibi phrases have been taken out of context. If you read the 12June09 transcript of Knox's testimony, she repeatedly explained that when police or Mignini repeatedly demanded, "Did you hear Meredith scream?" and Knox replied "No" (and "No" and "No"), then they would ask her how was that possible to NOT hear her screaming, then yell "stupid liar" or hit her. So, the "confession" became, "When Kercher screamed, then Knox put her fingers in her ears". Meanwhile, the so-called forced confession did not even mention Kercher's missing 300 euros (with rent money) even though Guede, in both his first-trial and his appeal-trial, kept testifying that Kercher yelled about her missing money, but he is the only one that knew or talked about that. Police confirmed Kercher withdrew that money, but it was not found in her handbag/room. Hence, it is difficult to relate the alibis to what actually happened, and some might suggest the police took part/all the cash, and few seem to want to make everything fit together as a coherent crime. Thus, Wikipedia has to stick to the basic facts, and let people reach their own conclusions. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Bleach
09-Feb-10: I am tagging the phrase "cleaned thoroughly with bleach" for dispute of WP:NOR (no original research). The comment was emphasized (above) that "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought". Some of us had talked of removing that remark of bleach-cleaning due to a lack of evidence at trial, but now, I remind everyone: why would someone "thoroughly clean a house with bleach" and leave blood smears on the sink, bidet, bathmat, lightswitch, door, etc.? Talk about original. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The intent of WP:NOR is to avoid unsubtantiated ideas, not just of Wikipedia editors, but of fringe theories of a tiny minority that have no evidence or credible witnesses. WP does not include "Elvis sighted on Mars" as sourced text. It is my understanding that the Judge at trial restricted the police to NOT claim the house was bleached unless they could show solid evidence: I think this might be like in American courts where, for decades, witnesses could not interject personal opinions ("witness is stating a conclusion") of what happened or suggest motives that others were thinking ("Just the facts, ma'am"). Anyway, let's consider removing that very extreme and unusual phrase: "cleaned thoroughly with bleach". What does everyone else think? As long as the phrase is marked for dispute, it is not a total embarrassment to Wikipedia (although it does seem poor quality) because WP contains so much vandalism. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Vandalism such as you have committed, by questioning a reliable source? Please see WP:Verifiability: Wikipedia reports what happened, not what one editor thinks should have happened.  The Times is a reliable source, and the reporter has indicated clearly that the words "cleaned thoroughly with bleach" are not his own but a verbatim [translated] report of what the police said. Even if they were his own, it would still not be a breach of WP:OR: please read the policy. --Red King (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I re-read the source and added the exception of Kercher's room and the nearby bathroom. I realize that journalist Richard Owen was combining multiple aspects in writing that report, but the phrase "thoroughly with bleach" is somewhat like saying they found "all walls were completely re-painted and all floor rugs had been replaced" (not true). Again, the issue is the extreme nature of claiming that a house had been "cleaned thoroughly with bleach" (not just soap), which would almost certainly leave partly bleached fabrics, and bleach spots on the clothes and skin of those involved. Total cleaning with bleach is a bizarre, labour-intensive claim that requires an enormous amount of evidence. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, nobody is interested in your opinion. Wikipedia can only reflect faithfully what the external sources say.  Anything else is WP:OR.  We have to leave it to the reader to decide whether or not he believes it.  Incidently, you've obviously never used bleach for cleaning: it is only used neat in drains.  Think - sterilising babies' bottles. --Red King (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Guédé or Guede?
This should be consistent throughout (except of course for the first mention, where we have both). Rothorpe (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like WP:Diacritics advises: "Follow the general usage in English reliable sources in each case, whatever characters may or may not be used in them." So, I'm not entirely sure what usage reliable sources dictate (I've seen it both ways), but I think, since this is the English-language Wikipedia, we err on the side of "no diacritical marks."  Hence: "Guede."  ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am putting the spelling as "Guede" during editing, as found in each source. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Amanda Knox
Hi, minor point of correctness

Apart from the alleged murder weapon, there was no forensic evidence, such as DNA, hair, fibre, blood, skin or fingerprints, directly indicating that Knox had been in the bedroom..

The phrase 'Apart from...' is misleading unless someone has a source suggesting that Knox dna on the handle constitutes forensic evidence that Knox had been in the bedroom. There are allegations that blade dna comes from the victim, constituting a link between the knife and the apartment. Also we have seen 'double dna knife' in blogs, but is this a supported concept? Do any reliable sources refer to a residents' dna in a drawer of knives in a kitchen as a forensic link between that resident and the murder? Createangelos (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I rephrased as "The prosecution presented no forensic evidence" for more specific wording. Also, the knife DNA should be a separate section because the Kercher knife DNA has been guessed as "4 cells" (in picograms?) and I saw the knife-blade DNA graphs that showed almost all loci peaks below 50, which seems like a few cells got transferred or left in the DNA test kit. People have suggested that LCN DNA tests be rerun as 6 samples tested (or at least 4 samples), so testing just one sample and claiming a match is like testing the dust at Graceland and claiming Elvis must have been there recently. Thanks for your comments. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, no problem (it's me again not logged on). Re the unrelated matter of the lcn, I am not sure what to make of it but it's not related to the issue here -- though I agree your edit solved a minor inaccuracy in that regard. I do know that one concern is that previous PCR amplifications in the same lab would have generated vast amounts of DNA matching the victim, and the risk is that some tiny residue of this could be in the apparatus. Anyway this was fairly explained during the hearing and in some sources. 89.240.170.15 (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Knox's statement against Lumumba
The section about Amanda Knox's statement which implicated Lumumba looks like it was written by Knox's lawyer! (See the 'Amanda Knox' subsection which mentions "53 hours of questioning", "non-recorded interrogation", "supposed confession", etc.) What statements were made by whom, and whether they were admissable in court should really be a matter of fact, rather than allegation and speculation. I have had a go at piecing together the events surrounding the statement, but accounts are not consistent. I have been checking the accounts against Knox's own testimony for which there is an audio recording and transcript online. This is probably not admissable in the article as it is a primary source and is hosted on a blog, but it looks and sounds genuine and is is a helpful check, when trying to get the story right. I'm not suggesting we put it in the article! If we can agree on the facts, we can summarise them in the article...I'm not suggesting putting all the detail into the article, either!

On 5 Nov 2007, Knox voluntarily accompanied Sollecito to the police station. During the course of his interview he said that he did not know for sure that Knox was with him on the night of the murder. The judicial police (rather than the prosecutor) then decided to question Knox. It would make sense that she was initially questioned as a possible witness (and therefore with no lawyer present) but I haven't found a citation.

At 22:40 Knox called a flatmate: the police questioning had not yet begun. According to the Newsweek summary cited above, the interrogation began at about 23.00.

At 01:45 on 6 Nov, under questioning, Knox made a statement that she had accompanied Lumumba to Kercher's house and had been in the kitchen and heard screams while Lumumba committed the murder. At this point, it seems that the questioning stopped, presumably because Knox was no longer a witness but was a suspect. At 05:45, Knox made a second statement, descibed in some accounts as a "voluntary statement" or "spontaneous statement". This was still without a lawyer present but, by this time, the prosecutor had arrived. This statement confirmed the earlier statement. Knox claimed that both statements were made under duress and that at one point she had been hit twice by a policewoman. This is denied by the police who have now responded with a defamation charge. The contents of these statements was widely reported in the press at the time.

Knox was formally arrested later on the morning of 6 Nov. Knox also made a written note to the police. The Telegraph say this was written at 2300 on 6 Nov 2007, but the audio recording of Knox's testimony to the court seems to place it on 7 Nov. Either way, this was leaked to the press and the Telegraph, for example, published a full transcript. In this, Knox explained that she was confused when she made the earlier statements. However, it still seems to incriminate Lumumba: "I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik [Lumumba], but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house." She went on to say "I see Patrik as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night."

Knox's defence lawyers tried to have the statements made at 01:45 and 05:45 ruled inadmissable at their trial. The various newspaper accounts seem a bit confused about what ruling was made. It sounds from the trial audio that the 01:45 statement could, in any case not be used in the case against Knox, because it was self-incriminatory. Regarding the 05:45 statement:  in the "Court of Cassazione, first section, sentence number 99-08, dated April 1, 2008, it is asserted that the spontaneous declarations from 5:54 [sic] are inadmissible regarding both the accused and the other subjects involved in the same crime, being contrary to the defense guaranteed to a person who is already officially a suspect." Nevertheless, the judge (at the Knox trial) ruled that both statements were admissable in Lumumba's civil case against Knox, which was being tried in the same court at the same time as the criminal trial of Knox and Sollecito.

Do other editors agree that the above is a valid (long) summary of events. If we can agree it at this level of detail, it will be easy to summarise it in a few sentences in the article. However, if the above is correct, I don't feel that the current summary adequately represents the facts. I'm sorry to labour this, but I think that if I simply rewrite the section of the article, it will just start another edit war. Bluewave (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but I think I would include that Knox testified (on 12June09) that the interpreter asked her to consider if she had a traumatic mental block, then could she (Amanda, at age 20) try to imagine what her psyche was blocking her from remembering, and then the police suggested, "Did you hear Meredith scream?" (reply: "No") and "Was Raffaele there?" (reply: "I can't remember him being there"). Hence that became the forced confession that she said Meredith's screaming was hard to hear and Raffaele might have been there as well (all not true). I think that begins to seem a more-balanced explanation. Perhaps we should link: "interrogation tactics" to explain forced confessions. -Wikid77 18:39, 10 February 2010
 * But no, you can't put in this analysis because it is your analysis. Please read WP:SYN.  Wikipedia is not a bulletin board.  And yes, you can't use material that is in a blog since we know nothing about its provenance. --Red King (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think I'm trying to "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", which is what WP:SYN is about. I'm trying to piece together the sources into a longish version of the story, so that we can write a short summary that fairly reflects the sources. As I said, what statements were made and their legal status ought to be a matter of record, not allegation (which is what the article says at the moment). Of course HOW two of the statements were obtained is disputed and we need to reflect the views of Knox (as reported in reliable sources) and of the police interviewers (again from reliable sources). Bluewave (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Red King was talking to Wikid77...
 * In my opinion, your summary could be directly put in the article.
 * And as far as Amanda's self-incriminating statements are concerned, I think - I think, I cannot quote any reliable sources! - they were deemed not admissible only with regard to the murder charges, because she was, by the moment she rendered them, already technically a suspect but they were considered admissible with regard to the obstruction of justice charges (calunnia), because, in that instance, they were not a testimony, but a crime in themselves. I mean, it was a crime for Amanda to try and witness that she thought that Lumumba had something to do with the murder, since she knew he didn't; so, there was no other way of proving her guilt... But, as I've said, this is just an educated guess. Salvio giuliano (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The current section in the article reads as follows:
 * Knox was arrested on the morning of 6 November 2007. This followed 53 hours of police interrogations, which became the subject of much controversy. Some of the statements allegedly made by Knox during her non-recorded interrogation in the early morning hours of 6 November, 2007 were later excluded from evidence by the Supreme Court of Italy. The Court found that Knox's interrogation was illegal because she did not have a lawyer or an official interpreter present. The excluded statements included a supposed "confession" in which Knox purportedly said that she was home the night of the murder, heard Kercher scream, and indicated that Patrick Lumumba had been in Kercher's bedroom. Knox later retracted her statements. Knox claimed that she had been struck twice on the back of the head during her interrogation and called a "stupid liar." Knox also claimed that she felt panicked and confused during her interrogation and that she had been threatened with incarceration for 30 years.

I suggest replacing this with:
 * On 5 November 2007, Knox voluntarily accompanied Sollecito to the police station where he gave a statement, in the course of which he said that he did not know for sure that Knox was with him on the night of the murder. The police then decided to question Knox and began the interview at 23.00 that evening. Knox was interviewed twice during the night of 5-6 November, firstly by the judicial police and then, later, in the presence of a prosecutor. During these interviews, Knox made statements that she had accompanied Lumumba to Kercher's house and had been in the kitchen and heard screams while Lumumba committed the murder. The contents of these statements was widely reported in the press at the time. Knox later claimed that both statements were made under duress and that she had been coerced into implicating Lumumba: she said that she had been struck twice on the back of the head during her interrogation the interviews and called a "stupid liar." This is denied by the police who have now responded with a defamation charge. The conduct of these interviews remains an area of controversy in the case.


 * Knox was formally arrested later on the morning of 6 November. Some time afterwards she made a written note to the police, explaining that she was confused when she made the earlier statements, saying "I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion". However, she still seemed to incriminate Lumumba, saying: "I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik [Lumumba], but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house." She went on to say "I see Patrik as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night."


 * This written note was admissable at the trial of Knox and Sollecito. However, the statements made to police during the night of 5-6 November were not: one because she was being interviewed as a witness and the other (which was the subject of a ruling by the Court of Cassazione) because no lawyer was present. Nevertheless, the judge (at the Knox trial) ruled that both statements were admissable in Lumumba's civil case against Knox, which was being tried in the same court at the same time as the criminal trial of Knox and Sollecito.

I will of course add citations. Any views from other editors, please, before I edit the article? Bluewave (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, I object to your POV editing in this article. You intentionally try to slant the article to make Knox sound guilty, as you are doing above. Your edits are consistently along that objective. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought I was taking great care to set out my reasoning and then my proposed change on this talk page, so that the issues can be discussed rationally, here, rather than editing the article directly. So I'm a bit confused by your objections about my "POV editing in this article". I don't think I've edited the article on this subject yet. Or are you referring to some other POV editing that you think I've done to the article. If so, please tell me what it is. Bluewave (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Amanda Knox has consistently claimed that she was led by her interrogators into implicating Lumumba. She has consistently said that she was confused and intimidated during her interrogations. You cherry pick the facts and you cherry pick her statements to paint her in the worst possible light. Furthermore, if the fact that she is being charged with defamation is to be mentioned, then the fact that Mignini is also charging with defamation her parents, the West Seattle Herald, her lawyer, Raffaele's lawyer, Joe Cottonwood, an Italian magazine, and others (for a total of eleven additional victims) must also be mentioned. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was really trying to get the balance right here. You say Knox says she "was led by her interrogators into implicating Lumumba": I have said that she says that her "statements were made under duress and that she had been struck twice on the back of the head during her interrogation and called a stupid liar." You say she was "confused and intimidated": I say "she was confused when she made the earlier statements". You say we should also mention the defamation charges against other people: I agree, but it doesn't belong in this section about the statements that she made about Lumumba. The fact that she made the statements is a matter of record and was printed in newspapers around the world in November 2007. The degree to which Knox was intimidated into making those statements remains a matter of controversy and I am genuinely trying to reflect that and to give both sides of the argument. The fact that she didn't fully retract her allegations about Lumumba in the note to the police is again a matter of record and I don't think I've "cherrypicked" that. I'd really welcome the views of some other editors on this - I feel I have put quite a lot of work into sorting out a consistent story from the various sources, to try and improve what is a very poor part of the article. But, if I'm just wasting my time, I'll do something else instead! Bluewave (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your efforts, Bluewave. Do go ahead & edit the article. Rothorpe (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have slightly refactored my proposed text, to take account of Zlykinskyja's points. Also changed "interrogation" to "interview" because the former word carries POV connotations. Added text is boldened and deleted text struck through. Bluewave (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC) One further point: Zlykinskyja lists various people who may have defamed the police. They may well all be under investigation, but I have only been able to find a reference for Amanda Knox actually being charged with slander. Time will tell if anyone else is charged. Of course we need to be very careful about how we phrase the allegations about the police, too! We don't want Wikipedia to be charged with libel. Bluewave (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Bluewave, your proposed text still misses many main points and reflects an attempt at POV editing. You have added much incriminating detail, while removing crucial exculpatory information. You delete the fact that Amanda was subjected to 53 hours of interrogations over several days. You delete the fact that she claimed she was threatened with 30 years of jailtime during the interrogation. You delete the fact that the Supreme Court of Italy ruled that the interrogation was illegal--you leave in only that some of the statements were ruled not admissable for certain purposes. You quote the damaging part of her written statement, while leaving out information that would tend to show that there is a sound basis to question what really happened in connection with that interrogation. The significance of the interrogation is that it led to her arrest. Yet, that interrogation was deemed illegal. In the U.S., a case based on an unlawful interrogation would be thrown out of court. And the proper legal term is "interrogation", not interview. Amanda has said that she was crying, confused, frightened, hit, intimidated and threatened. She had no lawyer present, and had been actively dissuaded from seeking a lawyer. There was no reliable, official interpreter involved, while Amanda at that time still had limited knowledge of the Italian language. No recording of the interrogation has been disclosed, although the police were careful to record/video many other aspects of the case. Amanda was just twenty years old and alone in a foreign country. This highly suspect interrogation resulted in an alleged "confession" by Amanda. There is a legitimate basis to question whether her alleged confession was made of her free will and in sound mind. If you are going to re-write this section, then the other side of the storyabout this suspect interrogation process needs to be included as well. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Bluewave, Here is some of the text of Amanda's written statement that you left out when you cherrypicked the quotes:

"In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received.

However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked....The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at the house, my house, at the time of Meredith's murder. I don't know what proof they are talking about, but if this is true, it means I am very confused and my dreams must be real." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlykinskyja (talk • contribs) 18:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Bluewave, if Amanda's words that incriminate Patrick and herself are to be quoted or used in the article, then her words that show that she did not believe her statements to be based on fact but rather on dreams or images resulting from the stress of interrogation should be included as well. The police made a decision to arrest Patrick based on statements which Amanda clearly and repeatedly said she did not know were accurate memories rather than dreams or invalid visions. While some in the press tried to make Amanda sound like a liar who falsely implicated Patrick--her written statement shows that within hours of her interrogation she tried to make clear that she did not believe her memories were real. On a different point, it should also be noted that Patrick claims to have been hit by the police, consistent with Amanda's report of her treatment. Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to address some of these points:
 * "53 hours of interrogations over several days". This looks like propaganda from the Knox-funded PR firm. She made the statement about Lumumba after less than 3 hours of questioning. No doubt the police had spoken to her before that....maybe 53 hours earlier.
 * "She claimed she was threatened with 30 years of jailtime." I think I've made clear that she claims there was "duress" and she was "coerced". We need to summarise, not reproduce all Knox's allegations.
 * "Supreme Court of Italy ruled that the interrogation was illegal" No I don't think it ruled about the legality of the interview. It ruled on the admissability of the statement to the criminal trial. The statement was included in the civil action.
 * "You leave in only that some of the statements were ruled not admissable for certain purposes." I do because I think that is the truth and is verifiable.
 * "The proper legal term is "interrogation", not interview." To me, "interrogation carries a connnotation of coercion.
 * "Amanda has said that she was crying, confused, frightened, hit, intimidated and threatened." I've said she was confused, and allegedly under duress and coerced
 * "She had no lawyer present" as I have said.
 * "Actively dissuaded from seeking a lawyer." That is an allegation that I didn't mention.
 * "There was no interpreter." I thought Amanda has suggested that the interpreter put ideas in her head, so ther must have been one there.
 * "No recording of the interrogation has been disclosed" so we can't say anything about it.
 * "There is a legitimate basis to question whether her alleged confession was made of her free will and in sound mind" which is why I say that this remains controversial.
 * "Some of the text of Amanda's written statement that you left out...". The first one you quote is not left out. ("I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements....etc")
 * Alleged hitting already mentioned.
 * How much of her 4-page note to include is open to debate. I think this is quite an important source because it is one of the few things that has not been filtered through some journalist.

Having answered some of the specific points, I am a bit wary of making a major change on the basis of one editor's views. Particularly when that one editor (Zlykinskyja) has, within a couple of weeks of creating an account on Wikipedia, accused me of anti-Americanism, hypocricy, sock-puppetry and POV editing—all without backing it up with specific details. I'd welcome some views of other editors (especially those who don't display antagonism to me personally). Bluewave (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave:
 * You conclude that the mention of "53 hours of interrogation" sounds like a claim by a "Knox-funded PR Firm." Just what do you base that on? The "53 hours" of interrogation has been reported in many media sources. There is no basis that I have seen for any claim that Knox's PR firm made that up. It is pretty clear that Knox was interrogated repeatedly over several days and that some of those sessions were many hours long. Obviously, the stress of those many hours would have a cumulative effect. Amanda's written statement was composed after she had been up all night being questioned by the notorious Mignini. It is common sense that for a young girl to go through all of that (and in a foreign language)she could end up quite confused and tramatized and saying things that are not reliable. That is exactly what happened, since it turned out that Patrick had never been at the murder scene at all and that her memories were illusions--just as Amanda had expressly warned the police and Mignini.
 * Being threatened with 30 years of jailtime in a foreign country would scare even a mature male (such as the terror experienced by American middle-aged author Douglass Preston when interrogated by Mignini), never mind a young girl. It is not a minor detail that she was threatened with 30 years of jailtime, as you seem to suggest. That threat should be included in the article as it is surely relevant and important.
 * You say the Supreme Court of Italy did not rule that the interrogation was illegal. My understanding is that there is an actual statute in Italy that makes it unlawful to question a suspect without his/her lawyer present, and that the court ruled that the statute was violated. This should certainly be included in the article, as it is a major finding about the interrogation. If you have a copy of the ruling showing that no finding was made of unlawful activity, please provide the link.
 * The caselaw in the U.S. consistently uses the term "interrogation" when someone is questioned on the record by the police in a formal setting, such as occurred with Amanda. The term "interrogation" is an actual legal term. The term does not have a negative connotation. What Amanda experienced was an interrogation, not an informal, off the record questioning.
 * I have to go now and watch the Olympics on the telly. I will fill in more info later. If you have a link to an actual copy of the full text of Amanda's statement, it would be very helpful if you could provide that link. Thanks. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's get some more views by other editors. The "53 hours" is an interesting case, so I'll probably write something about that under a separate heading. Bluewave (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Slanting the article to say Knox is guilty is not POV. It is a fact established by the courts.Kwenchin (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Italian law prescribes that a suspect must be heard (not interrogated, but this is a technicality) with his lawyer. If someone is not a suspect, then there doesn't have to be a lawyer present.
 * In this instance, Amanda was heard as a witness and so, she didn't have to have a lawyer; when she disclosed pieces of information that could incriminate her, her interview, her interrogation was interrupted, just as article 63 of the Italian Criminal Procedure Code requires.
 * What she had said, before the interruption, under Italian law is inadmissible in Court; and this is the technical name of the procedural sanction: it was not an illegally-gathered evidence, because the Prosecution could not foresee that she was or would be a suspect. But, nonetheless, since her right of defense had been limited, the statements she had rendered were considered inadmissible.
 * Then, about the threat of thirty years of jailtime, it was not a threat. Thirty years is the temporary maximum penalty that a Court can mete out in case of murder (then there's life imprisonment, but for a Court to inflict that punishment, the murder must be aggravated); so I think they were just informing her of the crime she was charged with and its penalty.
 * As far as the beating, insulting and name-calling thing goes, I really think that it was made up by Amanda. I remind you that, in Italy, a defendant may freel lie. Granted I was not present during the interrogations, and granted that Italian police (just like American, French and so on) can be a little overzealous at times, I pose a question: she is an American young girl; she is studying abroad, so it means that she is at least well-off; as far as the cops are concerned, she could even be the daughter of a U.S. Senator. They would never manhandle such a girl, just as they'd never manhandle the daughter or a son of a rich doctor or professor in Italy. If the ill-treat someone, it's always the dregs of humanity as they see them (poor immigrants, usually).
 * By the way, let us not forget that she was found guilty of calunnia (obstruction of justice), for trying to implicate Lumumba; under Italian law, had she retracted (ritrattato) her statements, she could not be sentenced for that felony; obviously, since she was actually sentenced, she must not have retracted her statements. Salvio giuliano (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Salvio: I have not been able to find a link to the ruling of the Supreme Court of Italy on this issue. Do you know where I can find such a link in either Italian or English? Thanks. Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

To use the word "interrogate" would be POV because it is value laden and does not reflect police terminology in any English-speaking country. It is an exclusively military term. So, while she was not a suspect, she was 'interviewed'; when she became a suspect, she was 'questioned'. --Red King (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Red King: the word "interrogate" is most definitely not exclusively a military term. It is a standard legal term in the U.S. applied to formal questioning in a criminal case. As a standard legal term, it is not POV. I will try to link to a case showing the use of this term in the U.S..Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This particular article is written in British English, so I suggest you look for the British usage of the terms. Bluewave (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

53 hours of questioning????
Statements to the effect that "Amanda Knox implicated Patrick Lumumba after 53 hours of police interrogation" have entered the folklore of this case (along with things like the "satanic ritual" theory already discussed). The problem is that the arithmetic just doesn't work. Amanda Knox accompanied Sollecito to the police station sometime on 5 Nov 2007. The police began questioning her at about 2300 on the 5th. She made two statements about Lumumba, one at about 01:45 on the 6th and the other at about 05:45 on the 6th. Even if she was questioned continuously (which she wasn't), that can't come close to 53 hours. I've been trying to track down the origin of the 53 hours and note that it was widely reported in the press in early December 2009 (hmm, strange that no-one commented on it within the 2 years before that!). One of the earliest was a report in The Guardian on 3 Dec 2009. This says: On Wednesday, Luciano Ghirga, a lawyer representing Knox, claimed Knox had blamed an innocent man, local barman Patrick Lumumba for the murder after 53 hours of police interrogation spread out over "four days of stress and fear". So now, it sounds like the source for the 53 hours is Knox's defence lawyer, so this is not a "fact" at all. Predictably, this was picked up by the rest of the UK press and lazily quoted as though it was a fact, not the opinion of a defence lawyer. eg the Mail (9 Dec). The next puzzle is why the 53 hours wasn't challenged in court. The Guardian said the statement was made "on Wednesday"...that would have been the previous day, 2 Dec 2009. That was the day Ghirga completed his summing-up. So, the 53 hours is not an undisputed fact: it was part of a statement made by Knox's defence lawyer, during his summing-up (ie when he cannot be challenged). Yet another example of how we need to be extremely careful in our use of press reports as definitive sources. Bluewave (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Bluewave: Amanda was interrogated over four days, not just on Nov. 5-6 as you suggest. The sessions each lasted many long hours, so 53 hours is indeed possible. The information on the number of hours is still valid, even if presented in a summation. It is not true that the claim of 53 hours was immune from challenge because it was stated in a summation. The prosecutors certainly could have objected to a falsehood being stated by the defense lawyer if he made a false claim. But I doubt Amanda's lawyer would have lied to the court on the number of hours of interrogation involved. It is an objective fact as to how many hours of interrogation were involved which could be verified, not merely the expression of an opinion, so the lawyer would have been crazy to make something like that up and state it to the court. Zlykinskyja (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The statement about Lumumba was made in the early hours of 6 Nov 2007. The Newsweek source that I gave previously says that the police questioning started at 2300 on the 5th, and I haven't found any source that disagrees. The Murder was discovered on the 2nd. On the evening of the 3rd, Knox and Sollecito were shopping for underwear and at that point "they seemed very relaxed, they were hugging each other and kissing each other non-stop." I don't know where you can find these 4 days of interrogations prior to the statement about Lumumba. Bluewave (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There was plenty of time--November 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Unless you can find a source saying that the lawyer was incorrect in claiming 53 hours of interrogation, that number appears to be the only number claimed by anyone involved in the case pertaining to the length of hours Amanda was questioned. Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, see WP:verifiabilty. We have to regard the lawyer as a verifiable source in the absence of any disagreement from another reliable source. The article cannot presume to question that.  It is certainly not incredible. --Red King (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely the source about the lawyer is only a verifiable source for saying "Knox's lawyer stated, during his summing up, that Knox had been questioned for 53 hours", not for saying that the 53 hours is a fact. The Newsweek source says she was questioned between 11pm on the 5th and 5:30am on the 6th. That is also verifiable. A statement that she was "interrogated over 4 days" gives the reader the impression that she was in police custody and under pressure during that time. In fact we know that, half way through that time she was buying underwear and very relaxed (also from a verifiable source). This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia and I, for one, would question the reliability of a "fact" stated by a defence lawyer in his summing up, when there is other evidence that is inconsistent with that. I would doubly question the reliability when the "fact" seems only to have been introduced during the summing-up and was never previously mentioned during the case, and was never subject to scrutiny by the court. Bluewave (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would also point out that it was during this 4 days of supposed interrogation taht Knox put on her display of cartwheeling for the police. This was "while she was waiting for her Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, to be interrogated by detectives" on 5 November. This is consistent with the Newsweek citation but difficult to fit in with the picture painted by the defence counsel. This source describes Knox as being interviewed "long into the night" but that is not 53 hours. Bluewave (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Newsweek doesn't say that she wasn't questioned [US: interrogated - I was wrong earlier] for 53 hours in the course of 4 days [96 hours elapsed, 64 waking hours], so it doesn't contradict her lawyer. At the risk of being charged with POV, I suppose we could say that 'her lawyer said [not claimed] that she had been questioned for 53 hours' but there isn't any way we can cast doubt on that (even though as you say it is very difficult to credit).  As for the cart-wheeling, she says it was yoga so we have to give her version as well as the police version. --Red King (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you really proposing that we must take everything said by a defence lawyer as being a fact? If so, we must also say that Knox was definitely innocent, that she was found guilty only because the police mishandled the case and because she was misrepresented in the media. We must say that Kercher was killed by Guede alone (except that his equally truthful defence lawyer says he was innocent too)... Where do we stop? Bluewave (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Amanda's self-incriminating statements
Let me first contextualize the ruling, which you can find in Italian here http://www.alphaice.com/giurisprudenza/?id=5285.

The Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari (Judge for the Preliminary Investigations) issued an ordinanza, ordering Amanda and Raffaele's arrest as a precautionary measure. This ordinanza was, then, upheld by the Tribunale della Libertà (Court of Liberty, the appellate court in this instance) and by the Court of Cassation. The ruling of the Court of Cassation contained also a paragraph about the admissibility of Amanda's statements with regard to the ordinanza.

The relevant paragraph reads as follows:


 * ''2. Con riferimento alla seconda censura difensiva la Corte osserva che le dichiarazioni indizianti sono caratterizzate da un differente regime di utilizzabilità sotto il profilo soggettivo. Nel caso in cui esse provengano da persona a carico della quale già sussistevano indizi in ordine al medesimo reato ovvero a reato connesso o collegato con quello attribuito al terzo le stesse non possono essere utilizzate, oltre che contra se, neppure dei confronti dei coimputati dello stesso reato (o degli imputati di reati connessi o collegati). Il regime di inutilizzabilità assoluta di cui all'art. 63, comma secondo, c.p.p. è, invece, da escludere nell'ipotesi in cui il dichiarante sia chiamato a rispondere, nello stesso o in altro processo, per un reato o per reati attribuiti a terzi, che non abbiano alcun legame processuale con quello per cui si procede, rispetto ai quali egli assume la qualifica di testimone. Infatti, mentre nel primo caso, in forza dell'intima connessione e interdipendenza tra il fatto proprio e quello altrui sorge la necessità di tutelare anche il diritto al silenzio del dichiarante, nel secondo caso, invece, la posizione di estraneità e di indifferenza del dichiarante rispetto ai fatti di causa lo rende immune da eventuali strumentalizzazioni operate da parte degli organi inquirenti (Cass., Sez. Un. 13 febbraio 1997, Carpanelli).
 * ''Alla stregua di questi principi, le dichiarazioni rese da A. M. K. alle ore 1,45 del 6 novembre 2007, all'esito delle quali il verbale venne sospeso e la ragazza venne messa a disposizione dell'Autorità giudiziaria procedente, emergendo indizi a suo carico, sono utilizzabili solo contra alios, mentre le "dichiarazioni spontanee" delle ore 5,54 non sono utilizzabili né a carico dell'indagata né nei confronti degli altri soggetti accusati del concorso nel medesimo reato, in quanto rese senza le garanzie difensive da parte di una persona che aveva già formalmente assunto la veste di indagata.
 * Al contrario, il memoriale scritto in lingua inglese dalla K. e tradotto in italiano è pienamente utilizzabile, ai sensi dell'art. 237 c.p.p., poiché si tratta di documento proveniente dall'indagata, che ne è stata la spontanea autrice materiale a scopo difensivo. La disposizione in esame consente di attribuire rilevanza probatoria al documento non solo in quanto tale e per il suo contenuto rappresentativo, ma anche in forza del particolare legame che lo lega all'indagato (o imputato), così lumeggiando il sindacato di ammissibilità che il giudice è tenuto a operare.

I'll summarise this paragraph, pointing out the relevant pieces of information.


 * The Court of Cassation points out that the self-incriminating statements can be utilised, during a trial, in a particular way: if they were rendered by someone against whom there was already circumstantial evidence that he or she had committed the crime or a connected crime, they cannot be used either against the stating person or against his or her co-accused. If this circumstantial evidence was not present, they can be used only against his or her co-accused.
 * In keeping with these principles, Amanda's 01:45 statements could be used against the co-accused.
 * After these statements, the interview was interrupted and the girl was turned over to the Judicial Authority (the Prosecutor).
 * Amanda's 05:54 statements could not be used either against her or against her co-accused, because Amanda was interviewed without a lawyer. Salvio giuliano (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Salvio, thanks so much for posting the link and translation. Can you clarify who her co-accused was at that point? Was it Lumumba or Sollecito? Also, does it say what it was that Amanda said at 5:54 that was excluded? Thanks again.Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Great work Salvio! This site has an audio and a transcription of evidence given at the trial. It is probably inadmissable for the main article because it is a blog, but it looks genuine. It looks as though Amanda made the initial incriminating statement at 01:45. Then the interview by the judicial police was stopped and the prosecutor was called. When he arrived, the interview was re-convened at 05:45 and she essentially repeated the statement about Lumumba. Bluewave (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right. According to the Court of Cassation, her statements were:


 * n) dichiarazioni rese il 6 novembre 2007 ore 1,45 dalla K. che indicava in L., invaghitosi di M., l'autore dell'omicidio dopo un rapporto sessuale con la vittima; o) dichiarazioni spontanee rese dalla K. il 6 novembre 2007 ore 5,45 dalle quali emergeva che L. e M. si erano appartati in camera, che, ad un certo punto, M. aveva iniziato a urlare, tanto che A., per non sentire, si era portata le mani alle orecchie, che forse in casa era presente anche S.;


 * First Amanda stated that Lumumba, fallen in love with Kercher, was Kercher's murderer, after having sex with her; then, she states that Lumumba and Meredith had withdrawn to Kercher's room and that, suddenly, Kercher had begun to scream so loud that Amanda, in order not to hear, had covered her ears; perhaps Sollecito too was in the house. Salvio giuliano (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Halloween/Satanic Ritual Theory
This comment is in response to Bluewave above concerning the issue of the prosecutor's theory of a satanic ritual or Halloween ritual. The prosecutor did indeed have a theory that the motive for the murder involved some sort of Halloween or satanic ritual. It was not clear exactly what it was-Halloween or satanic. But he did have that general type of theory early on. Amanda and Raffaele were held for a year before they were indicted. At the hearing on their indictment before Judge Micheli (around the time of the Guede trial) prosecutor Mignini presented his theory of a Halloween or satanic ritual being the motive for the murder. That became a source of ridicule for some, and alarm for others. Clearly, it was a ridiculous theory. The newspapers have reported that Judge Micheli rejected the theory. But the fact that the prosecutor relied on that theory to hold Amanda and Raffaele for a year and seek their indictment is relevant to any assessment of the case. This is especially true given that Mignini then changed his theory on the motive at the start of the trial to a sex game or sex orgy. Then Mignini in his final summation to the jury abruptly changed his theory of the motive to a desire of Amanda to seek retaliation against Meredith for being "prissy", ect. So the prosecutor's theory on the motive kept changing right up until the end of the case. The issue of a weak or defective prosecution theory on the motive for the murder is an important one and a very appropriate issue to include in the story. Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The "satanic ritual" theory has very much entered the folklore about this case, but the only citations that I can find for its origin are those discussed above: namely the words of Sollecito's defence lawyer, giving his version of what the prosecutor had said at a closed session of the court. I have not been able to establish the complete "audit trail" but I think the lawyer spoke initially to a journalist from Il Tempo, who published a story, which was then picked up by the English-speaking press. By looking at the various papers, it is apparent that some of them (eg Times and Scotsman) make it clear that the quote originates from the lawyer: others (eg Independent) miss out the middleman and make it sound like they are quoting the prosecutor directly. There is a well-known debating trick which dates back at least to Classical Greece to re-present your opponent's argument in the most ludicrously extreme version that you can get away with and the to rubbish it on the basis that it is extreme and ludicrous. Sollecito's defence lawyer has clearly tried to do that (and that's what he is paid to do) and the Knox-funded PR firm have probably done the same (which is what they are paid to do). If you believe the prosecution case was based on a "satanic ritual" theory, you will need to find a more reliable source than I have been able to find so far. Actually, I don't believe we have any sources for the full details of the prosecution theory because things like the prosecution's reconstruction of the murder were held in closed sessions of the court, where journalists were not present. Bluewave (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree with Bluewave.
 * And I'd like to remind Zlykinskyja that it was not the prosecutor who chose to hold Knox and Sollecito for a year. He asked the Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari (a Judge) to order their arrest; then, his order was upheld by the Tribunale della Libertà (3 Judges) and by the Court of Cassation. Salvio giuliano (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Bluewave, I have come across numerous other sources saying that a satanic type motive was being put forth by the prosecutor. I don't have them right at the moment, but I'm sure that I can find them again when I re-do the Goggle search. I can assure you that the satanic/Halloween theory is much more than "folklore." To ease your concerns, I will agree that any inclusion of the theory in the article must be based on multiple citations beyond the Times and Scotsman. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, You deleted some paragraphs on the issue of motive, which were properly sourced, so I restored them. I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that Il Temporo was relying only on info from one of the lawyers. Where does it say that? Also, how can you assume that Popham did no independent verification on his own? In any event, there are several additional sources providing info consistent with this that have been included. Also note that Judge Micheli is reported as expressly rejecting Mignini's theory on Halloween, ritual and Manga comic books as a "fantasy". This is a quote from the one of the sources I included: "He [Judge Micheli] dismissed as “fantasy” prosecutors’ claims that the sex game in which Miss Kercher is alleged to have died was inspired by Satanic rites, Halloween rituals or violent Japanese ‘manga’ comics about dead vampires." In order for Micheli to have rejected the theory, Mignini indeed must have presented the theory. You can find that quote in here. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/3285478/Meredith-Kercher-suspect-Amanda-Knox-tells-of-disappointment-at-being-sent-for-trial.html So you are incorrect that this Halloween, Satanic stuff is just folklore about the case. It really was part of the case.Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the paragraphs because I thought that the above discussion had established the origin of the satanic ritual theory as being from the defence counsel and therefore hardly reliable or notable. You said you would find citations "beyond the Times and Scotsman. You've come up with a piece headlined Masonic theory that put Knox in the dock in which Peter Popham puts forward his own theory that Mignini was duped by a blogger. Starting off a section on the prosecution theories with this far-fetched piece of journalism is hardly giving the article a balanced content! I hope someone else might agree with me and delete it, but if no-one else finds it unacceptable, I will at least correct some of the errors when I have time. Bluewave (talk) 09:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave: No, the origin of the satanic/ritual/Halloween type theory was Mignini, not the defense counsel. Your re-write makes it sound like Mignini may never have actually presented such a theory. Did you check the link I cited above? Clearly, if Judge Micheli expressly rejected that type of theory in his ruling on the indictment of Knox and Sollecito, then that is proof that Mignini did present such a theory to the court. Thus, it is legitimate to present such a theory as Mignini's in the article.Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)