Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 14

Timeline and police investigation
The police investigated the upstairs flat, which they concluded, apart from Kercher's bedroom and the nearby bathroom, had been "thoroughly cleaned with bleach"[17].

There are several lines, like the one quoted above, that cite police conclusions. This is a timeline and should be completely factual. Mixing fact with conclusions/opinions or speculation is not appropriate.

Yes it is a fact that someone voices a conclusion. However, you are equating apples to oranges by the inclusion of two different types of fact.

Replacing the reported police conclusion with the reasons for the police conclusion would be appropriate. For example: "The other rooms were so clean of fingerprints that one police officer - a Mr. xxxx - replied "The rooms were so clean is as if they had been cleaned with bleach".

If such fact cannot be found, all references to "police conclusions" should be removed from the timeline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faborn (talk • contribs) 09:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Faborn (talk) 09:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC) FAborn 09:45, 2 March 2010 Sorry, forgot the signature. This is my first reply.


 * Faborn: I totally agree with you that the information should not be included. This is especially so where the information about the bleaching turned out not to be true. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Donald Trump in the Reaction to ...?
The Donald gets a should out, and appear before the Kercher's position even ... can we lessen the significance of Donald Trump's opinion and perhaps give a bit more respect and condideration to the Kercher's?

Also, but Knox's position is still relagated to this sentence, which is inaccurate: "Knox, her family and supporters in the U.S. and around the world maintain that she has been unjustly convicted.[171][172]"

This unjust conviction is contradicted by Knox's post-trial comments, no? 99.8.149.98 Jonathan (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No, stop with this false information. She never said the things you attribute to her. http://abcnews.go.com/International/AmandaKnox/amanda-knox-family-denies-approved-trial/story?id=9315568Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP Violations Accusation
Zlykinskyja, you undid an edit and the reason you gave was that "Jonathan Violated BLP" and "false defamor"... why did you accuse me without first asking for my clarification?

You are taking a very narrow and limited view of what the concept of BLP. No editor here is personally "accusing" Knox of anything, but simply reporting on the results.. Me, personally, Jonathan, I did not say anything that could remotely be construed as a BLP. I was simply referencing the article and quotes in the the Correira.

To be quite honest, your actions are bordering on disruption, I would like to continue to engage in polite and civil discussions here on the talk page with you, but I will not allow you to accuse me of a BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathancjudd (talk • contribs) 23:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan, by including false and defamatory information that violates BLP. The quote is false. You went to great lengths to have that quote maintained in the story. Yet the information was false and you had made no attempt to verify the information. It is your responsibilty to verify information before including it or maintaining it in the story. http://abcnews.go.com/International/AmandaKnox/amanda-knox-family-denies-approved-trial/story?id=9315568 Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Zlykinskyja, I am going to raise a formal complaint of harassment against you. Out of respect for the spirit of Wikipedia and your fellow editors, I suggest you offer everyone a courtesy and temporarily withhold editing this page. Jonathan (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Knox Family Claims Mistranslation, not Knox herself or legal team
Once again, taken out of context. The "mis-translation" is attributed to Knox's family, not Knox herself or her legal team. I'm removing this until consensus is reached.

On 9 December 2009, when visited in prison by Democratic Left Italian Member of Parliament Walter Verini, Knox reportedly stated that her "rights were respected" in the trial and that she still has had faith in Italian justice.[174] However, the Knox family issued a statement unequivocally denying this report. They explained that Knox strenuously disagreed with the verdict and that she had been misquoted in the press. They explained that Knox merely expressed her satifaction with the work done by her lawyers, not approval of the trial or verdict. They cited the incident as one of many examples of the misinformation that has been circulated about Knox in the media.[175]Jonathan (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You should not be removing information without consensus first. This is yet another BLP violation, because it removes information intended to protect Knox's reputation--a formal clarification by her parents. That is a perfectly legitimate source clarifying that the quote you were using is false. Knox is in jail in a foreign country. She cannot speak for herself. Her lawyers speak Italian. To say that this is not a legitimate statement by her parents is plain ridiculous. By removing the clarification by her parents, while insisting that the false and defamatory information be retained in the article, you are violating BLP. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop your baseless accusations on this talk page and in edit-summaries. If you have a complaint bring it up at the appropriate board or desist.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The policies are confusing, so the accusations made by Zlykinskyja can be seen to be correct. Even the top notes of the talk-page advise unsourced controversial text per WP:BLP "must be removed immediately" while the policy states to "correct the text first" not remove it. Common sense would conclude that a defended, convicted person claiming the "trial was fair" is highly controversial, then even more controversial for this case, an opposing view would be likely. Certainly, the parents who attended the verdict session have a voice to reject that statement back to the more-logical view of the trial as "unfair". The parents opinions are not violations of "original research" because they are a typical part of a young girl's life and attended some trial hearings (not a "fringe group" conducting research), plus their rejection of the "fair trial" wording was published by ABC News, not self-published. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Zlykinskyja, There is no reason to respond to you any longer, I have tried to be polite and civil and you decide to accuse me a second time (along with The Magnificent Clean-keeper). Quite simply, you are hiding behind BLP to be disruptive. Jonathan (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No. You have been insisting on posting false information, then you deleted the information which could have served to protect the reputation of a living person by including the clarification issued by her parents that the quote you were using was wrong. So now the false information is included in the story, and the clarifying statement by her parents is deleted. This is not consistent with BLP policy which is aimed at accuracy. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll clarify for the sake of the other editors. The "Trial was fair" quote would have to be recanted and retracted by Knox herself to be considered invalid, or Knox's Italian legal team. You cannot say that simply because her parents claim it was a mistranslation it nullifies what Knox said. Knox is of the Age of Majority in both the USA and Italy and her parents can no longer have any legal responsibility or her statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathancjudd (talk • contribs) 00:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the clarification and denial issued by her parents was pretty thorough, persuasive sounding and was reported in detail by ABC News. http://abcnews.go.com/International/AmandaKnox/amanda-knox-family-denies-approved-trial/story?id=9315568 I don't see why that should be deleted. But I will do some research and may seek further info from those who are the experts on BLP policy and see what they say. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Knox's parents can speak in Amanda's support but not on her behalf. Only Knox herself and her lawyer(s) can "clarify" and/or "deny"/dispute things she said and haven't done so to my knowledge.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Magnificent, you are correct, Knox is the Age of Majority & legally means she is responsible for her statements. Only if the Knox family requests the Italian Defence Team to validate or vlairfy should it be considered mis-interpreted. It is articles like this ABC news one are the exact type of pieces that make Knox so hard to give any sympathy to. Jonathan (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Knox's parents can speak on her behalf, and act on her behalf, if she has given them permission to do so. In her situation, given that she has been out of the country and incarcerated in a foreign country for two years, it is likely she has designated them to act as her agent or power of attorney. That is pretty much necessary for her to do under her circumstances. It seems unlikely that they are acting without her permission. In any event, ABC news is a good source, and they published the story, so I don't see a basis for your deletion of that news story. I will check for other sources tomorrow. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As pointed out to you again and again and again: "...it is likely she has designated them to act as her agent or power of attorney." Either you can source this speculation of yours or it is, well, just your speculation on which we don't build an article. Source it or go find a blog for it.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You two are the ones jumping to the conclusions that the Knox parents are making unfounded statements about their daughter or on her behalf in the ABC new article. Then one or the other deletes my text and the cite, all based on the assumption that the Knoxs don't have the authority to act on her behalf. You have no source for that conclusion, yet the very legitimate ABC news story and information gets deleted. The general rule is that mainstream news sources are considered reliable. There is no basis here not to consider the information reliable. When you or Jonathan deleted the information you bore the burden under Wiki rules of establishing that the information was no good. You never showed that. Pretty obvious. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read the section title and the posts made. You seem to be off track here.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I re-added the ABC source itself quite a while ago with some relevant info from there as I pointed out earlier.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Statements of Knox's Parents Denying Approval of Verdict

This is the text that was deleted by Jonathan:


 * However, the Knox family issued a statement unequivocally denying this report. They explained that Knox strenuously disagreed with the verdict and that she had been misquoted in the press. They explained that Knox merely expressed her satifaction with the work done by her lawyers, not approval of the trial or verdict. They cited the incident as one of many examples of the misinformation that has been circulated about Knox in the media. http://abcnews.go.com/International/AmandaKnox/amanda-knox-family-denies-approved-trial/story?id=9315568

This information is from a good source, a national news organization. It is not a matter of undue weight, or violation of BLP, or violation of NPOV. It provides an alternative view on the prior sentence, which gave the misleading impression that Knox agreed with her conviction. The sentence was supported by footnotes stating things like "Knox says trial was "correct". That sentence was based on an original source in Italian based on a conversation with no witnesses involving a man who is not connected with the case. In comparison, the Knox parents are reliable sources for purposes of this news story. Yet Jonathan deleted the Knox position from the article. No prior discussion, no prior notice to allow for tweaking. Just removed it entirely. His justification is that the parents have no authority to speak for Amanda. Yet they were at least speaking for themselves on a subject they are in a position to know a lot about. So I object to this deletion of the information on the basis that there is no Wiki rule preventing its inclusion in the article. I don't mind tweaking it or suggestions to improve it, but total restriction of the information from the article does not seem warranted. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC) } This is semi-civil, so I will respond, Zlykinskyj. "..is from a good source, a national news organization..." So what? The English translation of the quote supporting the "fair trial" angle was also from a national news organization (the AP). This is another example of putting things into context: the same quote being translated two different ways. You are choosing to agree with the translation that Knox's family supports, I prefer the translation as presented in the AP article, for multiple reason. If you are seriously so passionate about keeping in the translation as attributed to Knox's family, then by all means, put it back in the article, with the appropriate references and as much passion as you wish. Just understand that this once again places Knox in direct contrast to the US State Department, and shows Knox as being defiant and disrespectful to the Italian Legal System. You've had multiple editors point out to you that Knox was handed an olive branch and given the opportunity to be presented as cordial, cooperative and respectful of Italian justice, but you choose to reject that. Your call. WP:HORSEMEAT

Violations of WP:NOTCENSORED
03-March-2010: Please heed policy WP:NOTCENSORED. In this Murder article, as well as many other articles, some editors delete information as though the deletions are, somehow, readily defended by Wikipedia policies. Actually, deletions are not supported by many policies, at all. The goal of Wikipedia is to write the encyclopedia (or revise it), not delete it. The most risky text, which is subject to immediate modification (not deletion), concerns possible libel, or privacy violations, against living persons (WP:BLP), and includes insults or slurs against them, as well as revealing personal ID numbers, phone numbers or images of birth certificates (etc.), which should be immediately modified to block that information. For example, in an extreme case of an uploaded birth certificate, a user might overwrite that image with a photo-blurred copy, as modified to obscure the private information, then request the image be deleted by an admin. The admin, in turn, might conclude the photo-blurred copy as acceptable and delete only the prior revisions (as being privacy violations). Within the text of the policy WP:BLP, the rule is directly stated that wholesale deletion of text is NOT condoned, and the appropriate response is to modify the text, without removing it, to correct that text. The general rule is simple: upon finding a spelling error in text, Wikipedia does not delete the entire sentence nor paragraph. The same concept is extended to other types of questionable information: there is almost no case where entire blocks of information should be entirely deleted. There is no policy that permits deleting verifiable short quotations or Italian phrases from an article: a quote of under 10 consecutive words, properly attributed, typically passes any copyright dispute, and insulting phrases can be modified (not deleted). For those reasons, entire articles are typically reviewed, for group consensus, to determine an Article-for-deletion action, which might result in a merge, move-rename, or total revision of a page, rather than outright deletion. Remember the goal: to write the encyclopedia. For people who feel a strong need to delete text, they might want, instead, to post comments to article-for-deletion requests to help with the deletion of pages that do not pass the Wikipedia criteria for notable subjects (see: WP:AFD). Meanwhile, unilateral deletion of whole sentences or paragraphs from the article "Murder of Meredith Kercher" is a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED: text cannot be deleted based on the grounds that some people find the material "objectionable" even to their religion or family norms; any vandals could claim they "objected" to every sentence and thereby justify wholesale blanking of article sections. That is the reason that such deletions cannot be condoned: large deletions seem identical to vandalism and there is almost no way to separate them. In a nutshell, there are 2 main reasons: the goal is to "write" not delete the encyclopedia, and any rogue vandals could claim they are merely deleting objectionable text from every article in Wikipedia: that's why such deletions require consensus. Please remind other editors about WP:NOTCENSORED. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikid77, I'll assume that you are acting in good faith here, and assume you are addressing me specifically, but as a courtesy to myself (and probably to other editors) could you kindly try to keep you points slighty shorter and a bit more focused? It is a bit hard to grasp all the nuances and subtlties you are trying to geta cross and it gets quite difficult to respond, which will prevent you from getting any input. That is, if you are at truly interested in other's input. I'll still assume good faith. Insinuating editors need to be reminded of NONCENSORED is a bit bombastic.


 * You choose to see that I deleted that specific text as a Violation of BLP. I prefer to see my actions as simply holding back specific text, just recently added by the one editor who disagreed with the position that was under considerable discussion on the talk page - from being instered into the article before a common consensus was reached, not as an act of censorship.  As an aside, the way I prefered to see the text reflected - that Knox supports the notion that she received a fair trial - makes her look better in the eyes of the Italian justice system. Steadfastly clinging to "unjust / tainted trial" continues to leave Knox open for slander and /or libel charges. But if you prefer to keep the fires of the "unjust trial" roaring and if you support the bombastic, caustic claims of the FoA, then that is clearly your choice. I'm dropping this stick. WP:STICK Jonathan (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't had time to review the claims of FoA, and instead, I am just reporting the facts from reliable sources, but if you think that the FoA claims match the facts, then I find that intriquing and thanks for taking time to validate their general claims as true. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it might be wise not to follow your "advise" in regards to your interpretation of policy as it led yourself and another editor who adhered to it to a month long block. Patronizing and accusing editors of not being capable of understanding wp policies and guidelines and even going so far as to accuse them of vandalism is not exactly a good and neither reasonable approach here. Furthermore, talk pages are not for general talk about the article's subject nor any other subject which is not directly related to improve the article. See wp:FORUM.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, interpretation of policy did not lead to a month-long block, which was decided based on incorrect information by admins who had no interest in discussing the subject. Meanwhile, let me remind you of WP:NPA & WP:CIVIL: there is no need to slur my actions as being "Patronizing and accusing editors of not being capable of understanding wp policies and guidelines and even going so far as to accuse them of vandalism", none of which is true. I have emphasized the policy of WP:NOTCENSORED as a general notice to all readers here, as it obviously relates to the recent large deletions of text from this article. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

WP policies are confusing
03-March-2010: Again, unfounded deletions of text are made in many articles, where numerous people are confused about the policies, so they imagine they can delete whatever. Even the top-notes of this talk-page advise, for unsourced controversial text, it "must be removed immediately" rather than corrected as actually stated in policy WP:BLP for over 2 years (since 2007): modify text first, then delete only "as a last resort". In general, think of it this way:
 * People are trying to work together to write the encyclopedia, and rapidly deleting someone else's carefully sourced text is likely to offend that person, as being attacked by a rude, callous, destructive and barbaric action.

Most people will "roll with the punches" but some people will be highly offended and, actually, totally despise the person who deleted the text. They might view the person who deleted the text as a total loser, as an utter failure who is completely worthless to Wikipedia. I don't react that way, because of all I've learned in making over "375,000" edits to a myriad of articles: some former ruthless vandals are now productive Wikipedia editors, improving articles and fixing other people's vandal-hacks to those articles. No one is totally hopeless, and many people have deleted text without realizing such actions are against the core policies and goals of Wikipedia, so there is enough blame to pass around to everyone. Frankly, it could be somewhat awkward to be helped by a former vandal when trying to improve an article, so avoid thinking of vandals as "jerks" or such. Wikipedia is a society where everyone gets a 2nd, 3rd or millionth chance, sort of like Christianity, where it is never too late to "repent and forswear thy evil ways". So, let's try to resolve the confusing policies and remember the goal as writing the encyclopedia, and in this article: describe the murder. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it might be wise not to follow your "advise" in regards to your interpretation of policy as it led yourself and another editor who adhered to it to a month long block. Patronizing and accusing editors of not being capable of understanding wp policies and guidelines and even going so far as to accuse them of vandalism is not exactly a good and neither reasonable approach here. Furthermore, talk pages are not for general talk about the article's subject nor any other subject which is not directly related to improve the article. See wp:FORUM.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

They might go free: so focus on the crime scene
03-March-2010: Please remember that Knox and Sollecito might soon be acquitted of all charges, but they would be handled, diplomatically, through the appellate court, working with other groups, to quickly move them out of the region, for protection, once free. I, personally, was stunned to learn that Sollecito's attorney Giulia Bongiorno has declared that Sollecito will be freed upon appeal: she didn't indicate "might" but rather "will be freed". We don't know everything that is happening over there, so the article needs to be ready for acquittal. Bear in mind: Although their release might be shocking to numerous readers, we should not let the article become an "embarrassment" to Wikipedia. We should continue to expand the text, with the viewpoint that Knox and Sollecito will be released soon, as totally innocent. We don't need the article to insult them or accuse them of unproven activities. Meanwhile, shift the focus to: who really murdered Kercher and why. There were 13/14 unmatched fingerprints and no suspect's fingerprints inside Kercher's room except for Guede's palm-print hidden on a pillow under the body. There is unmatched DNA on Kercher's clothing, so perhaps Guede is correct that someone else fought with Kercher, but in March 2008, Guede changed his story because perhaps he was advised if he changed to say the knifer looked like Sollecito, then Guede might be freed. Also, consider the possibility that the prosecution will match the 13-14 fingerprints+DNA and then, surprise, everyone goes free because they matched the real killer(s) who were fingerprinted elsewhere. Let's always keep the article focused to quickly handle these issues: in particular, plan to move the trials to subarticles, so if acquitted, then those trial events do not clutter the article with false trials that obscure solving the murder. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sollecito planned to be found "not guilty": while in prison, he completed his degree in computer engineering, and was accepted into graduate school for 2009. He even fixed the prosecutor's computer during one of the hearings; they do not fear him, and he might begin graduate coursework during his appeal.
 * Knox planned to be found "not guilty": while in prison, she became more fluent in the Italian language, to completely understand the trial dialog and her cellmates, and she continued to write her diaries. She is planning to publish her book about the case, once she is freed, and don't be surprised if it becomes the biggest-selling book about Italy since The Da Vinci Code.
 * Wikid77, you seem to be proposing that we adopt a totally POV approach in this article. You say that "we should continue to expand the text, with the viewpoint that Knox and Sollecito will be released soon, as totally innocent." We can't anticipate future events and it is not our job to decide whether they are innocent or guilty. Bluewave (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * . We don't need the article to insult them or accuse them of unproven activities.  Exactly. Which is why the suggestions to add more text to the Rudy Guede section becomes even more absurd, and Bluewave's suggestion is appropriate. Wikid,77, what else do you see when you look in your Crystal Ball? Might they remain convicted? You need to stop crusading. WP:GREATWRONGSJonathan (talk) 12:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I, personally, was stunned to learn that Sollecito's attorney Giulia Bongiorno has declared that Sollecito will be freed upon appeal. You shouldn't have been. It is customary for an Italian lawyer to say il mio cliente sarà assolto in Appello (my client will be acquitted). It is a way to show that they're convinced of their client's innocence, because they're paid to show that. It is some sort of a platitude: you should not attach that much credence to it, unless you're just listening to what you want to hear. Salvio giuliano (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Salvio, well put. This is another example of needing to read-between-the-lines. The Friends of Amanda have not grasped this incredibly simply concept and are still falling for sound bites. Jonathan (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have not read the Da Vinci code but followed the link and it says: Murder in Louvre Museum in Paris, Sex games in Normandy, Showdown in Westminster Abbey, London. Are you sure it is about Italy?

Kwenchin (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

False Suggestions that some editors are from "Friends of Amanda"
I would like to point out that these suggestions being made by Jonathan and Kwenchin that some editors are from the "Friends of Amanda" group are false and unfair. There is no basis whatsoever for such claims and those comments should not continue. Just as it would be unfair to claim that those on here who are anti-Knox are members of the True Justice for Kercher group. Please focus on the text and not on the editors. Thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faborn (talk • contribs) 03:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Defense is one source of fact. The Prosecution is the other source of fact. It's also true that they are also sources of fallacies and lies. The newspapers are second sources of information in that nothing they report is first hand. The newspapers get their information largely from the defense and prosecution. Amanda Knox is the ONLY person that knows for sure what she did that night. And police did their best to implant ideas in her head and confuse her. This thing is a mess. However, bear in mind that "Friends of Amanda" represents the defense and that they are trying their best to be creditable.

Consequently, "Friends of Amanda" should be the fundamental source. If other sources seem to contradict "Friends of Amanda" and are plausible, then that contridiction should be noted.

I am new at this discussion. Please give me a quality reply.

03:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC) FAborn 3/3/10 at 10:30PM  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faborn (talk • contribs) 03:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Faborn: Welcome to the discussion! Actually, the article uses a variety of sources, mostly newspapers, but also some magazines, news websites, an occassional blog from a major news source, news outlets like Associated Press. To date, the views of the defendants have not been much included. But that is a good suggestion if the views can be found in a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards. Zlykinskyja (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This Article is in Need of Dispute Resolution, Mediation, or Arbitration
Because the editing on here is so polarized, with some accusing others of being part of an actual support group for Knox, and others advocating for deletions of large amounts of material to create a more favorable view of Guede, I wish to suggest some sort of formal dispute resolution. Some editors have put huge amounts of time into this article, and the deletion of their hard work should be subject to a formal review process before that is done. There also needs to be some guidance on how the various policies apply to this article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Zlykinskyja, I do agree with your assessment that the talk pages are becoming polarized, and that it would be better to see if some sort of mediation to determine which way this article should go. Personally, I would prefer to continue editing this article in an environment in which all editors discuss a topic and upon mutual consensus, the changes are made, I completely support your proposition.Jonathan (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyone else? Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree in principle. BUT, there was a previous attempt to do something like this which just turned into another opportunity for personal attacks and didn't resolve anything. I think the reason for this failure was that the issue to be resolved was never clearly articulated. So this time, I strongly suggest that you are really clear about the issue that you are raising. For instance, I would be wary of raising something like people "advocating for deletions of large amounts of material to create a more favorable view of Guede" as an issue, firstly because no-one has advocated that and secondly because you don't need any form of arbitration to handle an extreme suggestion made on the talk page. Bluewave (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There has not really been a prior attempt at formal dispute resolution. There was just an informal discussion which went nowhere. I am talking about a formal, structured process, by which these constant content disputes are attempted to be resolved. I have come across info where structured discussions and a set of rules were adopted in an article on an international dispute, like Israel/Palestine issues for example. I can't recall now where I saw it. But it looked like there was a process for a very formal way of working out the disputes. That is what I am suggesting. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to the page which describes the formal process of arbitration. It sounds good to me! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What exactly are we mediating here? What is the specific dispute?  It seems to me that anything done here becomes fodder, so what are we looking at resolving?  And if we get that resolved, are we to use mediation for everything?  I think the first step is just work it out here first.  Stick with one issue at a time.  One day there's a dispute about Knox and her fair trial statement and the next day it's about putting Guede in a favorable light.  The first thing an admin will want to know is, did you use the talk page?  Just posting complaints here is not using the talk page.  You have to come to agreements within WP:NPOV using proper citations.  That's all anybody here is asking. Malke  2010  19:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As Gwen Gale has said, ask for a Request for Comment. If you feel you are not being heard, try this option first. Malke  2010  20:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the situation has gone beyond some sort of informal complaint process. It needs formal mediation, or these problems will just go on and on. There have been countless hours of talk, but it never gets better, it just gets worse. I think things are actually a whole lot worse now, especially with this talk of deleting a lot of material to make Guede not look as bad. This has happened before, and it took a huge, huge amount of time to put all the information back. The situation is dysfunctional. There is no hope for a well functioning editorial process without some sort of formal mediation. Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So far, Jonathan, Bluewave, myself are interested in mediation. Anyone else willing to try a formal mediation? What is there to lose, it couldn't get worse than it has been. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is more information on how the mediation committee operates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee/Policy 21:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlykinskyja (talk • contribs)
 * "Interested": yes. But first be very clear what you think requires mediation. Second, make sure you have tried to resolve it without mediation. Bluewave (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What about Wikid and Salvio? Any interest in formal mediation? I think if we had a small group of four or five that might be big enough to sort out the issues, even if not everyone wants to join in. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * At risk of repeating myself ad infinitum, if you clarify exactly which issue should be mediated, you may get more support for the mediation (or even of resolving it without mediation). Bluewave (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mediation for the types of issues that keep coming up, such as NPOV, BLP, deletion of material, legitimacy of sources, ect. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well before reading this, I've just deleted the description of and quote attributed to Donald Trump. It wasn't with malice aforethought in view of the above, but I still believe it was right. I'm sure that many people have commented on the case. I really can't see what qualifies Trump to have his voice heard more than anybody else. We really can't include every opinion: it should stop at senior parliamentarians and government cabinet members, senior judges and highly regarded jurisprudence professors. --Red King (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Red King, please restore my work. I put a lot of time an effort into finding that information. It was not legitimate to remove it. This is what I mean by needing mediation. Other people's time and effort should not be thrown away like that. There is no basis under the rules for deleting Trump. His actions in this case are being carried by much news media in the US and United Press International. He is a very major figure in the US. It makes the story even bigger. Yet it gets deleted! Please restore my work and consider mediation. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

and the next day it's about putting Guede in a favorable light. If you were referring to me, I think I didn't make my point clearly enough: I don't want to make Rudy look like the good guy, here; I just thought we should not have packed his paragraph with negative information that has nothing to do with the murder: it's quite different. He might have burgled a computer; o broken in a school; so what? Anyway, I do not think an arbitration is necessary; what should it deal with, already? Salvio giuliano (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Those 2 burglary events are part of both trials, plus the Guede appeal, plus the handprint/DNA basis of his arrest, hence all the emphasis does not violate WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE. See further below: . Wikid77 00:37, 4 March 2010


 * What is the point of trying to write an article if everything just gets deleted for POV reasons. Its delete, delete, delete, delete. Wikid is right, it is like censorship. Something needs to be done, it just can't go on like this. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The rules of Wikipedia are simple: material must be WP:verifiable, expressed neutrally without taking a position and any quotes used must only be from people who are WP:notable in this context – for example, the opinion of the Chief Justice on the Olympic Ice Hockey game is irrelevant but on this article, they would be highly relevant. Material that fails these tests gets deleted, thems the rules. WP:Wikipedia is not a blog or a debating platform. --Red King (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Salvio, none of my references were personal to anyone, just looked at the section headings and picked two to mention as my point. I'm fine with mediation as Bluewave says, but what happens next?  We can't keep going to mediation.  We have to sort it out on our own eventually. Malke  2010  00:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What is the point of trying to write an article if everything just gets deleted for POV reasons. Its delete, delete, delete, delete. Wikid is right, it is like censorship. Something needs to be done, it just can't go on like this. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The rules of Wikipedia are simple: material must be WP:verifiable, expressed neutrally without taking a position and any quotes used must only be from people who are WP:notable in this context – for example, the opinion of the Chief Justice on the Olympic Ice Hockey game is irrelevant but on this article, they would be highly relevant. Material that fails these tests gets deleted, thems the rules. WP:Wikipedia is not a blog or a debating platform. --Red King (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Zlykinskyja, think of this as a living encyclopedia and not The World Book. It will always be a work in progress.  You can't be married to your edits.  They'll get deleted eventually or rewritten.  That's why it's important to keep as close to neutral POV as possible and with good citations.  It's hard to delete stuff like that.  Just go and look at a couple of FA articles. Malke  2010  00:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Where does it say a quote must be from someone Notable? The Notable section relates to the standards for deciding whether someone is notable enough to have his or her own article--not notable enough to be quoted. That just isn't accurate. Plus, it is hard to believe that Donald Trump calling upon the president for action and advocating for a boycott of Italy is not really notable enough. The rules being applied here are not consistent with Wikipedia rules. The rules for this article are more: 1)if it makes Knox look good, it must be deleted; 2)if it makes Knox look bad, it stays. That has been the pattern over and over, and this is why mediation is needed. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment
But if you really feel that the question must be escalated, the relevant procedure is at WP:RFC. --Red King (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I think a full scale mediation is needed. That is what I am seeking. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have not been involved in a Wikipedia mediation but I have done some in "real life". The first thing you do is to speak to each of the parties and ask them some simple questions such as what exactly is the dispute that needs mediating, what steps have they taken to sort this out themselves and why they think these steps have failed. Zlykinskyja, I strongly suggest you get these basics clarified before you seek mediation. We can't simply say "we need mediation on the application of the BLP policy" or "we need mediation because some of my edits get deleted for POV reasons". Bluewave (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Use flat-earth NPOV check
04-March-2010: As someone has noted, a good method to check the balance for NPOV is to compare coverage about flat-earth versus round or spherical-earth views. Being neutral is not about 50% positive words and 50% negative words, but whether each mainstream issue was presented in proportion to the real-world coverage. Hence, the analogy is that if 95% of mainstream views considered the Earth to be flat, then roughly 95% of Wikipedia geography text should reflect that viewpoint when describing locations. Instead, a "million" Wikipedia articles have latitude/longitude coordinates, according to the notion of navigation on a globe, not a flat-earth model, because the globe represents the major real-world coverage about Earth locations. Similarly for this article: Guede's prior police bookings were the source for his fingerprints, handprints, DNA profile, filed charges, plus these issues were noted during his arrest, during his trial, during his appeal, and during the Knox/Sollecito trial, where 3 professionals, not homeless drifters, testified as to Guede's possession of deadly weapons and stolen property that was stolen from 2 locations: the closed Milan school where he was caught with a large knife allegedly taken from the school kitchen (27 October 2007), and the Perugia law office of the 2 solicitors (lawyers) whose laptop PC, printer & mobile phone had been stolen on 13-14 October 2007, where Guede returned on 29 October 2007 and stated that he had bought both the stolen PC and stolen phone at a Milan train station 200 miles (320 km) north of Perugia. Just because Sollecito or Knox were not arrested with concealed weapons (or any stolen property) does not mean Guede should have his police files expunged and Wikipedia ignore the facts of the trials, and the basis for his arrest. -Wikid77 00:37, 4 March 2010


 * Yes but there's objective evidence that Earth is not flat. The NASA photos would allow us to say, "the Earth is round."  And as a reminder, WP:BLP applies to talk pages.  Be careful when synthesizing your take on Guede's guilt or innocence. Malke  2010  01:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia page Byron Scott does not mention Guede.
 * The Wikipeda page Foxy says "Foxy Knoxy, nickname of Amanda Knox (born 1987), American murderer".
 * So according to this principle her nickname should be mentioned and Guede's shouldn't. Kwenchin (talk) 03:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just on a point of information: "a flick knife [US English: 'switchblade knife'] was also found in Sollecito's possession when he was initially questioned by police". Bluewave (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

But Wikipedia allows information on both sides to be presented:-
 * Relative sizes of Wikipedia articles:-
 * Flat earth size 74,731
 * Spherical Earth size 31,846
 * Kwenchin (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Notability and weight are not linked all that much to article length. A cultural-historical, controversial and/or widely covered topic may be drawn from sources with many and sundry outlooks along with a long, meandering background. While shortness is often sweet, a lot of text may be needed to cover everything, moreover when done through open editing. The article may need to grow to quite a length before editors can understand how to trim back without losing neutrality and helpful, encyclopedic coverage. Meanwhile WP:UNDUE should not be taken as a means to keep reliably sourced text out of an article but rather, as a way to deal with that text within the article's flow. Lastly, PoV is allowed, it's a big slice of WP:NPOV. Edit warring and untowards comments about other editors and what they may have in mind are not allowed. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There has already been a lot of trimming back of information about Amanda Knox's background and behavior. While this has been trimmed back more information has been added about Guede. Edit wars? I have not deleted/undone any edits. I did not realise that saying some editors were biased or were Friends of Amanda would be taken so badly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwenchin (talk • contribs) 13:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I wasn't writing about any individual editor, but about the open editing of sources and content. The trimming may likely have come too soon. WP:Consensus is not a vote. Strong PoVs, even when stirred by conflict of interest, are allowed, so long as the outcome is encyclopedic. Likewise, as I said above, WP:UNDUE is not meant as a means to skive sourced text some editors may not agree with, or like, from the article. Moreover this topic is a current event. The sources will be sloppy, sometimes unmatching and always unfolding. An editor's job is not to parse truth, but to write in ways which echo all the independently published and reliable sources to be had at a given time. This can be daunting, but we do what we can, together, as volunteers. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Gwen, I agree that UNDUE should not necessarily remove text that supports one side or another. As an example above, I have showed above that Senator Cantwell's concern that there was an "unfair trail" was from and unsolicited, open letter statement, and was quickly correctedby the US Department of State, who stated the trial was fair. Because the State Department has the complete repsonsible for representing US citizens in Italy and not a US Senator, their position trumps Senator Cantwell. This is an example of UNDUE being given to Senator Cantwell's position, and almost presents her as representing the official position of the US Giovernment, when in fact, she has no jurisdiction whatsoever on this case. Jonathan (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is spot on what I'm getting at. WP:UNDUE does not support any notion that the reliably and independently published comments of a US senator cannot be carried in the text, whether or not the senator is speaking for state. The only worry would be that readers should be given a way to straightforwardly understand who is speaking for whom and that's all. Put another way, the US Government has zero jurisdiction as to criminal trials Italy, no more than any senator. It could happen that a senator's comments on something like this could wind up being more widely published and notable than those of state. I should also say that public statements from foreign ministries (like the US State Department) are often meaningless spin and don't have too much to do with the outlooks of those running the government. Likewise, statements/quotes from Knox's family are highly allowable, there is no need to show they are legally speaking for her (they aren't), their outlooks are wholly notable to the topic. Please mind, I'm speaking about policy, not what editors may do with the text through consensus. However, editors can't keep that kind of text out of the article by citing WP:UNDUE. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

US Senators & The Constitution
Why does this article make a tangental statement such as this: "Senator Cantwell is one the 100 U.S. Senators, who decide all American foreign treaties and approve U.S. ambassadors, such as with Italy, as submitted by the U.S. President.[169]"

Yes, the US Consituition states that the US Senate, as part of the Legislative branch, decides "American foreign treaties". The US Constituion also states, that via the checks and balance system, that the Executive branch is wholly responsible for the enforecement of those US foreign policies and representing US citizens in Italy.

This not a magtter of legislation, nor is it a matter or decing a "foreign treaty" This is wildly misleading. Senator Cantwell's "concern" of an unjust trial is not even the opinion of the US Senate, let alone the US State Department. Please stop trying to mislead and place UNDUE on Senator Cantwell's "concerns".

I would strongly suggest that this article clarify that the US Department of State in fact has no such concerns of an unjust trial, and the postion of the US Department of State should receive a higher prominence in this article, rather than being muddled together in two paragraphs..Jonathan (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia rules on synthesis are always a tricky area of interpretation, but my view would be that this falls within them. Giving Cantwell's statement and following it by a sentence saying that she is a senator and that the Senate approves treaties and ambassadors, suggests to the reader that all these things are linked together. (It looks quite like the example of the UN and wars, given in WP:SYN.) Putting these individually true statements together could give the impression that her statement has something to do with the Senate's role in approving treaties. I haven't seen any source that supports such a link. To me her statement reads just like a supportive statement for one of her constituents. It's notable that a public figure such as a senator should make such an outspoken statement about another country's legal processes and so I would argue that it should be in the article. But we can't imply that she was speaking on behalf of the Senate or that her statement was connected with international treaties unless we have some evidence. Bluewave (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Her comments can be carried in the text, but any hint they have something to do with treaty-making powers would have to be straightforwardly linked by a source. Putting the two side by side in the text, each to its own source, could easily be synthesis/spanning. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Gwen, agreed, I think this is a case of extrapolating I also think that SYN is giving the readers the impression that Senator Cantwell speaks on behalf of the US Department of State.  I agree that Senator Cantwell's statement should be definitely be kept in the article, as it is quite notable and well publicized. I also believe that the views of the US Department of State - that they at least tacitly support the verdict and have release press statements saying much more - could be emphasized a bit more, along with their role and responsibility as representing a US citizen abroad. I also think that Senator Cantwell's remarks should be placed more into the context that they disagree US Department of State position. FYI, all Wiki references to the senator should be using the proper title of Senator Cantwell, I use that in my comments as well as a matter of respect for the Office of the Senator... Jonathan (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What you have in mind is indeed within what WP:WEIGHT is meant to make happen. Caps, by the bye, are but an MoS worry, nothing more. I recall reading about someone once, his official, legislated title was "His Excellency President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada." Gwen Gale (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Jonathan and Gwen. Regarding the U.S. senate and treaty negotiations, let's be very clear here.  The U.S. Department of State negotiates all treaties.  The House and Senate must approve them.  U.S. Senators do not in any way represent U.S. interests abroad. President Obama is the head of the government and his representative abroad is Hillary Clinton.  So if Obama wants to make a treaty with a country he sends Hillary and she negotiates along the lines of what Obama wants.  When the agreement is hammered out between the U.S. and the other country, President Obama sends it to the House and Senate.


 * Senator Cantwell represents the people of her state on the federal stage. Not the world stage.  But Jonathan's idea is a good one.  Senator Cantwell's statement should remain, no reason to take it out, but she should not be given more powers than the U.S. constitution allows. Malke  2010  16:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Her "powers" have aught to do with anything as to weight in the text, nothing, likewise those of someone from state. What has sway is whether her comments are notable to the topic and this is mostly shown by how they have been published by independent and reliable sources (coverage) and how widely, along with any editorial commentary carried with them. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, agree. Another editor was suggesting that Cantwell's powers were greater and therefore her statement carried more weight.  As for how notable Cantwell's statement is, in the U.S. it is notable when a U.S. senator makes a statement about a constituent who's just been convicted in a foreign court.  As for the rest of the world?  Can't say.  How notable is notable?  Would an editorial in the New York Times count more than an editorial in the Seattle Times?  I think there was coverage on the network news channels and certainly the cables mentioned it.  Malke  2010  17:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability has mostly to do with levels of independent coverage in reliable sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, conspicuously absent is any public statement from Senator Patty Murray, the other senator from the state of Washington. I think it would be more than fair to make a mention that other sitting Senator from Washington has not commented, no? That would further isolate Senator Cantwell and further emphasize that her stament is more an opinion lessen the impact that Senator Cantwell's concerns have been proven as fact. Jonathan (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The objective should not be to "isolate" an opinion to "lessen its impact." Her opinion is what it is. It is not our job to try to undermine her opinion in some way because an editor does not agree with it. Her opinion does not have to be "proven as fact." It is her opinion, correct or incorrect. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Without a source, saying Murray has not made a comment would be original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Zlykinskyja, agreed, Senator Cantwell's opinion should stay. But accusing a foreign nation of a corrupt legal system borders on libel and slander. As such, I suggest that Wikipedia should take a stand and clarify the following:

Senator Cantwell does not speak on behalf of Senator Murray Senator Cantwell does not speak on behalf of the State of Washington Senator Cantwell does not speak on behalf of the US Senate Senator Cantwell does not speak on behalf of the US Department of State Senator Cantwell does not speak on behalf of US citizens from states other than Washington Senator Cantwell speaks only as one of the two elected representatives of Amanda Knox

Senator Cantwell issued such a extraordinary, caustic statement, I would say that until Senator Murray, the US Senate or the State Department issue any statement that their official position supports and corroborates an unfair trial, I think Wikipedia should actually go out of its way to note that the United States officially, at least tacitly, supports the guilty verdict. This will at least make it clear that it is not the average US citizen accusing the Italian Judicial system of corruption Jonathan (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've tried to say this before, I'll say it again, it does not matter in any way at all if someone is speaking on behalf of someone else or not, all that has sway is the coverage of what was said. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand your point. It's the level of independent coverage. Malke  2010  18:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

To borrow "we have an app for that", in wikipedia, we have an article for that. The very fact of including United States Senate as a wikiklink means that people can go to that article to read about the US Senate. Wikipedia uses hypertext, it doesn't need to repeat (except where particularly relevant and then only an extract) material in the referenced article. --Red King (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Evidence
Where is a discussion of the evidence in the case?

The knife and the forensic evidence that it is NOT the murder weapon. The knife and the forensic evidence that it IS the murder weapon.

The statistical significances of that forensic evidence.

The fallacies concerning that piece of evidence. The logic of that evidence.

A discussion of whether the fact that the DNA sample couldn't produce reproducible results indicate that it was contamination.

There is other evidence, but none so damning...

What about the lack of evidence?

The killer of the hockey dad in a hockey arena a few years ago had dozens of eye witnesses and a confession. Not only that, but the police arrived while the victim, the killer and the witnesses were all there. The killer got six years and yet the evidence showed that he was 99.99% certain to be the killer. What is the statistical probability that Amanda was the killer? (Very low)

Faborn (talk) 03:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC) FAborn 3/3 at 10:54 PM

Hi Faborn: I agree with you that the article does not do a good job at discussing the evidence issues. I had plans to do specific sections on the evidence, like the alleged knife and the problems with the DNA on the knife, the issues with the collection of evidence, the issues with the prosector who himself has been convicted of criminal activity, the lack of any DNA of Knox and Sollecito reflecting their participation in a violent assault, ect.. Yet, when I have tried to add information it keeps getting deleted, and this has been a major hold-up in writing the article. If you would be so kind as to help write this article, that would be hugely appreciated. Zlykinskyja (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I had been planning (see discussion somewhere above) to draft an addition to the trial section which summarised the evidence as presented by both sides. The problem is that with so much evidence, it is necessary to summarise quite a lot, which means making editorial decisions about what is most important. That will probably require a lot of debate to reach consensus. Meanwhile, we are expecting the report of the trial judges to be produced within the next few days, and that might shed a completely different light on what evidence they considered to be important—and I think that will be something we should take into account. Hence, I delayed doing anything about the summaries for a few days. Bluewave (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, Bluewave, I what is also difficult about simply presenting a "List of Evidence Items Presented by the Defence / Prosecution" is that is does not address the !) Context of each piece of evidence B) the manner in which it was cross-examined and C) the relevance or importance to which the jury placed upon it. I've mentioned above, that the Defence might present evidence that initially may be thought to be something that they believe shows Knox's innocence, but after cross examination, and set in the context of all the other evidence, the jury might dismiss it entirely or even worse, consider it as something that instead shows Knox's guilt.Jonathan (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Jonathan, see below. We now know exactly what the jury thought of all the evidence. At least those of us whose grasp of the Italian language is rather better than my rather meagre tourist/business Italian will do so. The court has published the entire rationale for their verdict (427 pages of it) Bluewave (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Besides, it is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia editors to presume to retry the case. It is entirely irrelevant whether any one of us thinks that she was totally framed or that she was guilty as hell.  The purpose of Wikipedia is to reflect as accurately as we can the information we can collect from a variety of reliable and notable sources.  We have no authority to propose any conclusions from that information or evidence.  We must leave it to readers to draw their own conlcusions: in legal terms, we must not lead the witness. If external sites want to copy it and add commentary, they can certainly do that.  But Wikipedia cannot and must not. --Red King (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, I would love to help write this article. My emphasis would be to get the discussion of evidence fallacy free, pertinent and correctly sourced. Large amounts of evidence have to do with the DNA evidence of Knox and Sollecito. This whole body of evidence could be handled collectively as Amanda lived in the apartment and should have her DNA in many areas. The inconsistencies in the alibi of Knox and Sollecito could likewise be handled collectively unless one fact is particularly persuasive. The evidence regarding corroboration between Guede, Knox and Sollecito is absolutely necessary as it is illogical to have one person murdered by several people without corroboration or collusion. It would be even more illogical to see one person murdered at several different times.

Faborn (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC) FAborn 3/6 at 5:20 PM

Red King, I agree with you completely, I think that it is going to be impossible for this article to ever reach the stage in which you could print it out, hand it to a group of jurors and send then into deliberation and ask if they could reach a verdict using the print out of this article only. Much of the value of a piece of evidence is in how it is presented, body language of witnesses, the length of time it takes to answer a question - all are factors in the jury's verdict.

Bluewave, timing is everything! Jonathan (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Breaking news -Judge's report
The report from the trial (over 400 pages of it) has now been published. This is wHen we really need to speak nicely to Salvio! Bluewave (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * English language summary is at Amanda Knox murder case 'has no holes'] (BBC).  --Red King (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the full report has only been released in paper form. No doubt, it will all be put on line in due course. Bluewave (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL, Bluewave. As soon as I can find it on the net, I'll start its translation. ;) Salvio giuliano (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's good to know that the Italian court has yet again done a very thorough job (427 pages worth). Following a trial in the UK, all you get from the jury is "guilty" or "not guilty". Bluewave (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Having such a detailed document is indeed very helpful. It provides a concrete basis for the defense to argue that the conviction was based on certain errors, and that those errors were not "harmless". In the US oftentimes errors are dismissed as "harmless errors" because the defense can't show that the verdict was actually impacted by the error. But if the error is set forth in a memorandum as a basis for the veridct, then the harmless error doctrine becomes of less significance.Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Since the memo says there was "no planning or grudge" it sounds like the sex game theory could be back on the table. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I hope it will be helpful to us because it provides one very important point of view on the evidence. Undoubtedly it will be massively helpful to Knox and Sollecito's defence teams too. I bet most defendents in the UK would be very happy to ge an automatic right of appeal and a detailed explanation of the court's decision-making process! With regard to the motive, the BBC News site says the judges couldn't find a motive. Bluewave (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * An admission that the court found "no motive" is huge for the defense and will certainly be part of the appeal. But if there is no motive, then the case is mostly forensics. Yet, the defense has always contended that the forensics were weak. Sounds like much additional expert testimony at the Appeals Court will be needed to unravel the mystery. One point of error will likely be that the trial judge denied the defense motion to allow the testimony of an independent DNA expert. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be your own original research. Please keep in mind that this talk page is not a forum for the unsourced outlooks of any editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay. Sticking to the reliable sources, CNN is reporting that the Court found that Rudy Guede was the main instigator. And that he tried to assault the victim, she resisted, and then Knox and Sollecito took his side of the fight. CNN says the motive was of an "errotic sexual violent nature" but that appears to focus on Rudy Guede's motive. The Court said that Knox and Sollecito acted "without malice" or premeditation. In the Italian article, it refers to the Court putting emphasis on the youth and inexperience of Knox and Sollecito. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/04/amanda.knox.jurors/index.html?eref=edition_us Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes the BBC has updated the citated page, too, while I've been eating my dinner! Bluewave (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Zlykinskyja, you've added into the article a sentence that says that Guede was the main instigator. I can't see that in the cited source. Can you point out the source to me please? Bluewave (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * CNN. Middle of article. It says jury rejected prosecution claim that Knox was main instigator and instead said Guede was the main instigator. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/04/amanda.knox.jurors/index.html?eref=edition_us|Zlykinskyja]] (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bluewave (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone had changed "judges" to "jury" in this section. I've changed it back on the basis that (as far as I understand) they were a panel of judges (some professional and some lay judges), not a jury. The BBC citation calls them judges throughout, so I think that's right. Bluewave (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems that the use of the term "jury" vs. "judges" is probably best left for Salvio to fill us in on. The terms apparently are used differently in Italy than they are in the US and UK. For example, it is not clear if this was a ruling by a jury or a ruling by judges, or if it was a ruling by a jury that was written by two judges. I assumed this was technically considered a "trial by jury" but maybe not. In the meantime, I have avoided the issue by changing the language to "the Court found this", "the Court determined that", ect. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was referring to Italian Criminal Procedure which says "It is important to note that Italy does not try anybody by a jury of peers. Everyone is judged by professional judges or by a panel of judges (three or five or nine). The only exception to the use of professional judges is in the Corte d'Assise, which is made up of eight judges: two are professional, six are lay." However, I'm happy to leave this to Salvio, as you suggest. Bluewave (talk) 08:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see why you may think that we are dealing with a jury: after all, it is a bunch of citizens who are called upon to judge a defendant; however, this is not technically, considered a jury. Aside from technicalities (such as the fact that they are referred to as judge, sit alongside the judges and are paid like the judges), the fact that they continue in office for two years and try all defendant that committed a crime falling within the cognizance of the Corte d'Assise (and so they are not summoned and impaneled for one single trial) should explain why they are not jurors... Salvio giuliano (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Salvio. What then is the proper way to refer to the panel at the trial court, and also the panel at the Court of Appeals? Is this type of procedure the same as what we will see at the Appeals Court? Thanks for any info you can provide. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * They can be called either the Corte d'Assise or the Court (la Corte) or the Judge (in Italian, the term il Giudice can refer both to the panel itself and to each member thereof); the appellate Court can be called either the Corte d'Assise d'Appello, or the Court or the Judge or the Judge of the Appeal (il Giudice dell'Appello). And the procedure is similar, in that they judge in the same way, but the istruzione probatoria (admission of evidence) is just possible and not compulsory (as it is during the trial before the Court of first instance). Salvio giuliano (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)