Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 29

Knox's confession under duress
As it stands, this is what the Wiki page reads: "Knox later claimed that these statements were made under duress and that she had been assaulted and threatened by the police." It seems to provide no detail on what was actually claimed by Knox and since this is the subject of the slander case it may perhaps be wise to give this a little more attention. Knox in court gestures to show how the officer slapped behind her head and explains that she was threatened with jail time if she did not tell the truth. I would like to see if everyone agrees that this is an important part of the trial and should be explained in more detail - rather than "assaulted and threatened"? Perhaps a transcript from the trial and her claims can be linked? --Giselle 10:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiselleK (talk • contribs)

If no one is opposed to this change, I am going to go ahead and change this - adding a quote from Knox - instead of "assaulted and threatened". Giselle 05:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiselleK (talk • contribs)
 * Sounds like a useful thing to do. Let's see how it goes. She spoke of this on the stand and earlier in the trial where she spoke of being terrified and not knowing what to do. She was barely 20 at the time. PietroLegno (talk) 09:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

If you have the transcript, that would be great - otherwise I am looking for it (let me know please). If I remember clearly, she was speaking English at the time so it should be pretty straight forward. Not sure how her age plays into it? Giselle 10:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiselleK (talk • contribs)

Witness might have lied on the stand

 * (I renamed this topic with "might have lied" per WP:BLP. -Wikid77 05:36, 31 March 2011)

It seems that recent coverage of the de novo trial/appeal are reporting that the witness that puts Knox and Sollecito near the scene near the time of the lied on the stand about several issues, and gave conflicting accounts on others. LedRush (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow. Kudos and more for bringing up something that is actually of material relevance to the case! Given that this has so far dominated the current appeal hearings, isn't it a million times more important than anything else we have decided to discuss of this talkpage? Isn't it rather odd that the article hasn't previously even mentioned it (clue: since no-one has blogged a weird theory about it, no it isn't, really). The theories of a blogger that the police arrived at the wrong time because of something to do with CCTV for example? How important the opinions of some guy who used to work for the FBI are? What the difference is between a footprint and a shoeprint? Whether Rudy Guede should be mentioned before or after Raffaele Sollicito?
 * I would suggest that identifying the issues on which the case turns according to the courts and reliable sources would be an excellent way forward.
 * I don't think its very neutral to suggest that Curatolo actually lied on the stand, as opposed to being confused. But bring forth the sources I beg you and let discussion of something that might actually matter commence! --FormerIP (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The first source said he lied, and the second one says he either lied or was confused.LedRush (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Where does it say he lied (seriously, I can't find it).
 * What do you think about the broader issue. Should we be worrying about the titles of DVDs watched by the defendants or should we be attempting to cover the actual issues which are being debated by lawyers as opposed to bloggers? --FormerIP (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops, you're right. Both say that he appeared to either lie or be confused.  Even if the first said he lied, because of what he "lied" about I still wouldn't want to put it in the article as a fact.  The headline here was more to generate interest as, like you said, this seems more relevant than most of the current conversations.LedRush (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Even more embarrisingly, it seems they are the same AP report. I'll go put on my dunce cap.LedRush (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This article has lots of useful information on this latest development, including that the homeless man has admitted to being a heroin addict, couldn't remember what night he saw Knox, and has been used by the prosecution as a witness in "a number of different murder trials"! That last one, to me, is the most shocking. Legal analysts have called this testimony a "game changer".LedRush (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * With 2 independent sources, I would consider explaining this witness testimony in the article. He had been the only half-way credible eyewitness, I believe. I think in the article, he could be called "Antonio C." per WP:BLP name restrictions. -Wikid77 05:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * please also refer to It seems to be the only article I can find that actually quotes Curalto and the lawyers and judge. As always news articles are slanted, so actual quotes are more helpful to an encyclopaedia and legal analysts should be named and referenced. Giselle 07:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiselleK (talk • contribs)

Useful Statement of Controversy
Hard as it is to believe, several users here are fixated on the absurd notion that somehow the fact that this is a meaningful and controversial case has not been established. More neutral users may find the following lengthy quotation from an article entitled "Can Anyone Get a Fair Trial in Italy" from the eminently respectable Foreign Policy Magazine interesting and useful. All of the issues needed to be included in the lead are touched upon here--fairness of verdict, quality of police work, prejudicial media. The farcical idea that the Knox-Sollecito trial may not be "controversial" is something I will continue address at great length in coming days.

"The Knox trial was fraught with controversy, and the media coverage in the Italian and British press was obsessive. Papers painted Knox as an ice queen, a libertine, and a demon. Speculating wildly, prosecutor Giuliano Mignini accused Knox of "harboring hatred against Meredith" until "the time came for taking revenge," and drunkenly attempting to drag Kercher into "heavy sexual games." Moreover, Knox's family argued the DNA test upon which the case rested was compromised. U.S. cable shows declared the verdict a sham, shredding the evidence and the court's conduct. And now, the Knox case is turning into an international trial on the reliability of Italy's justice system.

"The truth is, Italians have long since recognized the unreliability and compromised nature of their courts. At the moment, the Italian public's trust in the justice system is at an all-time low. According to a November poll by Euromedia research group, only 16 percent of Italians fully trust it; just two years ago, the figure was 28 percent. And Italian civil rights groups are intense in their criticism of what they view as kangaroo courts.

"For one, they say that coerced confessions and the use of dubious forensic evidence, as might have happened in the Knox case, are way too common. "Inquiries are conducted without any reliable methods," says Roberto Malini, president of EveryOne, a nongovernmental organization that defends ethnic minorities in jail. "Tests take place solely in the laboratories of the state police. There's no independent lab, and independent observers do not have access to the police's work."

"He also claims that prosecutors routinely present evidence as proof. "Recently we've followed the case of Romulus Mailat, a young man accused of raping and murdering a woman in Rome," Malini says. "The prosecutors [said] the defendant had blood under his fingernails, assuming it was the victim's. Oddly enough, they didn't think of taking a DNA test. The defendant's lawyer had to ask for it. When finally the test was taken, the prosecutors claimed it was unreliable because the blood had been reportedly altered by water, and they refused to show the results." Mailat was convicted.

"Legal experts also share concerns about Italy's bar for admissibility. Il Giornale, a conservative newspaper, for instance, recently published an interview with Marco Morin, a Venice-based firearms expert who declared he no longer wanted to work in Italian courts. "In the United States, federal judges must study a 637-page manual in order to be able to evaluate [forensic] evidence," he told the newspaper. "Here, they accept everything without questioning, as long as it comes from the institutional laboratory."

"Further, some Italians believe the media is complicit in "creating a general sense of social alarm," says Malini, pressuring authorities to arrest, indict, and sometimes even convict suspects without solid evidence. Newspapers routinely blame blood crimes on suspects belonging to "dangerous minorities" -- that is, immigrants from Romania or Italian Roma -- not just perverting the course of justice, but stoking racism to boot.

"Here in Italy trials take place in TV, rather than in court," Judge Francesco Cananzi, a representative of the national council of magistrates, publicly stated this year. And as the Knox case demonstrated, the court of public opinion is often defamatory. For instance, the Italian press routinely demonizes defendants by revealing embarrassing details about their personal lives, even if unrelated to the trial -- such as the pornography kept on their home computers. Knox's alleged sexual promiscuity, even her preferred underwear, made headlines across the globe."

Anna Momigliano, Foreign Policy, December 10, 2009 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/12/10/can_anyone_get_a_fair_trial_in_italy PietroLegno (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Read recent topics in /Archive_28
Reminder: Check recent topics in subpage "/Archive_28" because the talk-page has been getting gigantic and the auto-archiving has again been lowered to 3 days (from 7). Perhaps 4 days would be less frantic? -Wikid77 08:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for edit: Forensics Section
The article reads, "A further footprint, believed to be a woman's, was found under the body. It was the right size to be Knox's, although it was never matched to her footwear." The edit should change footprint to shoe-print. This was not a bare footprint. Massei did not conclude that this was Amanda's as he stated his belief that Amanda was barefoot during the murder.RoseMontague (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The word "footprint" has been changed to "shoe print". --Footwarrior (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Might it not also be useful to point out more explicitly that the print that was insinuated to belong to Amanda was made by precisely the same brand of Nike shoe that Rudy Guede was known to have worn that night? Amanda of course did not own such a shoe. This adds credence to the claim that this was simply an incomplete print for Guede.PietroLegno (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Source? Hipocrite (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The source on this on is the defense expert's report (Vinci). His conclusion was that all of the shoe-prints on the pillow were made by Nike Outbreak 2.  :http://go.redirectingat.com/?id=673X542464&xs=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.friendsofamanda.org%2Fmiscellaneous%2Fvinci.pdf&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.injusticeinperugiaforum.org%2Fvinci-s-analysis-of-the-pillow-t732.html
 * Page 49 Google translated reads "CONCLUSIONS: Found on the pillow below

the basin of the body of Meredith Kercher There are traces of the left shoe ALL clearly related to a shoe Nike Outbreak 2 brand model, as well as that have successfully attached by C.T. a right shoe of the same brand and model." The prosecution expert claimed it was a print from a shoe of Amanda's size and Massei concluded as I stated above (Basically he didn't bother to make a conclusion either way because he felt that Amanda was barefoot during the murder).RoseMontague (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

re: "Luminol revealed footprints in the flat, which the prosecution argued were compatible with the feet of Knox and Sollecito.[53]:373[59] Knox's DNA was found mixed with Kercher's blood elsewhere in the apartment.[citation needed] A further shoe print, believed by prosecutors to be a woman's, was found under the body. It was the right size to be Knox's, although it was never matched to her footwear.[60] An expert defence witness stated that this was a partial print that matched the pattern of Rudy Guede's right shoe.[53]:367-8"

This collection of sentences is no longer a paragraph and masks a great deal of controversy. If there is a logical flow of material supporting a topic, I don’t see it. Plus, starting with the phrase “ A further shoe print…”, this material needs to follow information to the effect that an outline of Guede’s shoeprints, etched in Kercher’s blood, was found in several places in Meredith’s room, and also formed a trail from Kercher’s room through the hall and to the front door (a very important fact not mentioned once in the entire article btw). A direct connection does not exist between the luminol revealed ‘prints’, which are supposed to be bare feet, and the shoe prints, which of course require the wearing of shoes.Moodstream (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Kercher DNA
In this edit, User:LedRush wrote: "everyone agrees that Kercher's DNA was on the knife...the issue is the defense says it was from contamination; Please don't revert...rewrite it."

Let's ignore that I was the one who already rewrote it and got reverted for my trouble so the warning was backward, the fact of the matter is that it is NOT agreed upon that Kercher's DNA was on the knife.

First off, this should be self-evident if you think about how the DNA testing works: a sample is removed from knife, samples taken from other locations (including samples of confirmed Knox, Kercher and Sollecito DNA), tests are done on sample. Any potential contamination of Kercher's DNA would have happened in the lab on the sample and not on the knife.

(This is different from the question of Sollecitor's DNA on the bra clasp, as that was in the house Kercher lived in and uncollected for many days getting kicked around and very easily contaminated there. But I don't believe anyone has ruled out that that could have been contamination in the lab also.)

Second, based upon the kind of test done being experimental and something the scientist who performed it had no training on, I believe some experts maintain that there never was any Kercher DNA on the knife or the sample taken from the knife, and that the expert was simply in error.

I respectfully suggest that User:LedRush self-revert. One way or another it will have to be removed, as it is extremely biased for this article to state it is a fact that her DNA was on this knife, and it would be nice for him to admit his error and fix it himself instead of forcing someone else to do it for him. DreamGuy (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems that all sources agree that the judge says that Kercher's DNA was on the knife. Also, I've seen many other sources that say that Kercher's DNA was on the knife.  I have also seen many sources which state that the defense has argued that the DNA on the knife was there from contamination (see above in a discussion with Former IP).  Can you please provide sources which state that the defense states that Kercher's DNA is not on the knife (not that it was there because of contamination).  Perhaps you are right about how contamination occurs, but we need a source that says it.
 * What about appeal documents?


 * So you know, Former IP argued for the exclusion of defense arguments on this in the past, and is currently trying to find evidence that DNA experts who have disputed the quality of the Italian Court's finding are mere Knox lackeys. Perhaps you would like to get involved in that discussion as I believe that is where the defense and prosecution/judge arguments are really being made.LedRush (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not currently trying to find any evidence. I've found the source that says that a letter, which has been referred to in the article as if it was independently authored, was actually written at the request of Friends of Amanda Knox . I haven't looked at recent versions of the article. But I'm very reassured that so may editors have been stressing that all they care about is producing a balanced article that gives fair coverage to all sides of this case. So, I'm assuming the information will already have been added. Am I to take it that it hasn't? --FormerIP (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing as your source doesn't actually say what you say it does, and actually implies that what you're saying is completely wrong, I think you should try and find more (read: any) evidence of what you're saying. But that's besides the point here.  DreamGuy wants to say that there is a disagreement about whether ANY DNA  from Kercher was found on the knife.  Everything I've seen says that both sides agree that there was DNA, but one side argues that it was so minuscule it should not be used as a reliable indication and that it probably came from contamination.LedRush (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, you guys own the article now, so it's up to you. --FormerIP (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps keep knife text simple until DNA testimony in May 2011: Reports state the knife DNA will be re-examined by a university in Rome, with results by the end of April 2011, so maybe the exact text could wait until then, with a few days to consider multiple sources. At that time, a ruling to dismantle the knife handle might be decided, as basis for further text. -Wikid77 23:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But I can't find any sources which say that no DNA (from Kercher) was found on the knife.LedRush (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is very hard to get a handle on this because the reporting at the time was bad. The arguments seem to have been over the heads of many reporters. Adding to this, the police and prosecution have apparently not released all of the electronic data files needed for analysis. I believe Dreamguy has it right here but part of the reason I believe this is that there is abundant material written on low template analysis (LCN) for a lay audience and I made this a point of study. There are two problems with saying that Kercher's DNA was "on the knife" 1) the process that produced the electropherogram was enormously flawed; therefore the prosecution is not entitled to say this is Kercher's DNA in fact; and 2)the DNA is Kercher's but it was never "on the knife"--what the machine read was residual contamination from previous runs. I will see what I can do to source this properly, distinguishing what was said at trial, what is said in the appeals, and what has been said by outside experts who have been critical of the claims. Both Mark Waterbury (in the book The Monster of Perugia) and Chris Halkides (in his blog The View from Wilmington) discuss all this at length. I believe they are reliable because both have the academic and work experience needed to comment on these issues and both base what they say on the work of acknowledged experts. That is, both have functioned as good journalists or good academics would. Finally, having said all of this, I have considerable sympathy with Wikid77's suggestion that we keep it simple until the experts report in May. They have been brought in to referee the dispute on DNA issues. I note with interest that there are already stories being written that say that these experts will say that Stefanoni's work does not support the conviction. But these are based on leaks out of Sapienza University. We may be best advised to wait.PietroLegno (talk) 11:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The future testing is irrelevant to the data now. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball - besides, who can say that there's still another cell or two left to be tested?  More to the point, the case is viewed by some as an indictment of the Italian judicial system, and those issues hinge on what has been done already.  It's important just to cover what everyone did, what the results were, and how these were criticized by other notable forensic authorities. Wnt (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Some people are clearly missing sight of the issue here. Someone above is saying they can't find a source that says no Kercher DNA was found on the knife. The prosecution has said there was. The defense has not said they agree with it, and there's no reason why they would until they are allowed to have their own experts look at it, which is the whole point of a major part of the appeal process. In order for Wikipedia to say her DNA was found on the knife, you *need* sources from both sides saying that. Real sources, not that your recollection is that they haven't argued against it. The whole point of having the DNA retested is so they can then make an informed legal argument about it one way or the other. Having the article claiming something as a fact requires that the prosecution and the defense (and, hell, outside observers of note as well) agree to it. The outside DNA experts clearly dispute it. The wording needs to be as neutral as possible, and even if the defense later decides to admit the blood was on the knife, saying that the prosecution argued it was there is still accurate. It is therefore the more accurate, undisputed and NPOV wording this article needs. This is pretty basic WP:NPOV policy here, and I don't get why people don't understand. DreamGuy (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As the evidence stands today, the DNA of Meredith Kercher was found on the knife confiscated from the house of Sollecito. This is the ruling of the court and should be considered an objective point of view and a valid reference for all intents and purposes. However, in order to highlight the non-agreement of defence and prosecution on this matter it should be clearly identified as being reviewed on appeal with references to possible contamination issues. I think we can safely assume that anyone who reads the wiki page is intelligent enough to comprehend this and infer what they will from it. (Giselle 08:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiselleK (talk • contribs)
 * It is an item of evidence admitted by the prosecution and accepted by the judge. The defense contests it in ________ (these) ways.  That would be a neutral way of putting it.  Saying it is objective, because the judge ruled it, doesn't work, since there is reason to doubt the ruling.  On what grounds is it "objective"?  How does it go that far?  It doesn't.  Both those points - the prosecution's inclusion/judge's ruling and the defense rebuttal - would be pretty easy to cite in the article, wouldn't it?  It has been widely reported on, including the reasons that exist for doubt.  The article should convey those events to the readers.  If anyone needs a further reason, there is the fact that the trial is its first appeal and in the Italian system, a defendant is not considered convicted until the final (second) appeal.  The methods/styles of the trial stages even reflect this, it has been reported.  Pieces of contested evidence should not be called fact or objective, especially while the case has not even closed yet. All sides are still weighing in before different judges in different kinds of courts. Perk10 (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Perk10
 * A court is by definition objective and takes no sides - of course in the real world things may be different - but I see your point and your "It is an item of evidence admitted by the prosecution and accepted by the judge. The defense contests it in ________ (these) ways." seems like a balanced way to present the notion, except that it should read "accepted by the judge and jury of peers" - since it is ultimately the jury who decide on the validity of evidence based on the testimony of experts (without getting too technical on legal procedures). --Giselle 11:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiselleK (talk • contribs)
 * It is the court's job to be impartial, however a court is fallible. It can make mistakes or deviate intentionally from objective rulings. A court can commit an error, crime, or blunder just like anyone else. Perk10 (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Perk10
 * It is for the jury to decide on the facts of a case. Therefore for encyclopaedic reference it should be clear that the jury and ultimately the court found that Meredith's DNA got on the knife during the murder. While also stating that how the DNA got there is a matter of dispute and appealed, the DNA evidence is being reviewed by independent scientists and they will testify 21 May etc. Giselle 05:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiselleK (talk • contribs)

In court, it is up to the "jury to decide". This is not the case in the public arena. If a jury decides the sun revolves around the earth, we don't say "The sun revolves around the Earth, but some people dispute this." — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeniusApprentice (talk • contribs) 18:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding photos and images
It took me months to find an "iconic image" of Amanda Knox, the photo hung in the Perugia police station, as a photo famous for being a specific photo, rather than noted for what is in the photo:
 * File:Amanda Knox blue sweater Perugia police.jpg

That photo can be shown only in articles (not talk-pages) which have been listed with a {&#123;Non-free use rationale}} for each article needing to use that photo. In general, it is extremely difficult to find a news photo which is considered "iconic" and can be used only because the photo itself is famous (as perhaps because of the photographer) or in this case, where the photo was displayed, as noted in news articles. If anyone, or friends, plan to visit Perugia and can take some photographs, then those can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons for use in both talk-pages as well as articles. -Wikid77 07:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That photo of Amanda Knox (talking with police officers) was quickly deleted, as well, due to extremely severe restrictions, which might require more expertise to resolve. International copyright laws are just not as difficult to understand, as getting people to stop deleting a fair-use photo. The reason(s) for deleting the photo remain on the talk-page of the deleted image:
 * File_talk:Amanda Knox blue sweater Perugia police.jpg
 * Over the past few years, fair-use images have not been this difficult to defend, so perhaps there is some increased legal scrutiny now. Hence, the tendency might be to "delete first, ask real questions later" where the image could be re-created after a period of prior discussion to alleviate unfounded fears. Talk about an ageing bureaucracy with numerous, endless bureaucratic restrictions. I think perhaps the best bet is to contact some "wiki-bureau of image licensing" to complete the necessary paperwork ("in triplicate") to authorize typical use of an iconic image posted in a police station. Otherwise, free images, if available, are the easy route. -Wikid77 09:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with your frustration. Still, haven't Amanda Knox's family members or lawyers issued any press releases with pictures? Wnt (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Many websites show Knox photos from her Myspace page, so that might be an easier route, rather than using an iconic photo. There is a Guede mugshot (profile+forward) from when he was booked by the Milan police (on 27 October 2007?). -Wikid77 02:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

New Opinions on DNA
It seems that a group of independent forensic investigators have concluded that the DNA "on the knife was insufficient to immediately carry out new tests". It appears I was once again wrong on this...the defense has not conceded that Knox's DNA is on the knife, and it appears there are doubts among experts as well. Additionally, "They also found that the bra clasp was too damaged to try to find DNA".

Furthermore, Time is rerporting that "the investigators have been unable to find enough genetic material on the knife that Knox and her Italian co-defendant Raffaele Sollecito are alleged to have used to stab Kercher in a sex game gone wrong." . Furthermore, it seems like

This article details everything (I think) from above. LedRush (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think things like this illuminate the needs for a separate subsection of the article for the appeal trial. Thoughts? (GeniusApprentice (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC))


 * I completely agree. A new article - The Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito should be created. It is clear on this discussion page that most of the article is about the trial and not the actual murder or the investigation.  Why not move most of this information to a new article about the trial itself? Issymo (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would support the idea of a separate article. There is a good precedent for that in the Peterson case, the Sacco & Vanzetti Case and others. One point I want to make about the DNA, though, and that is that Raffaele's defense has claimed from the first that the bra clasp DNA was NOT his. His defense also claims, of course, that whatever is on the clasp is hopelessly compromised by clownishly inept police procedures. In this as in so many areas the press was completely out to lunch. I gather that many reporters did not even stick around to hear the defense experts. The only person I know for certain did pick this up is Frank Sfarzo who was there and listening closely all the time. The issue is covered extensively in Raffaele's appeal.PietroLegno (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. There is not enough detail sourced to reliable secondary sources in this article to merit a sub-article at this time. If there are important facts not in this article discussed by reliable secondary sources, please provide the sources and include the facts. Hipocrite (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, as some people are ignoring it: we CANNOT have a separate article if the purpose behind creating that article is to cover important things about the case not on this article. If there are important parts of the case not currently on this article, they need to go on this article. This is a principle of our WP:NPOV policy. It's not like the article is horribly long to begin with, and to be honest a significant portion of what is currently here is pretty pointless / nonnotable / added only to push a POV and needs to be removed anyway. DreamGuy (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to note that I never actually said we should have a separate article for the appeals. But I do think there needs to be a separate SECTION about the appeals post verdict for Rudy's appeal and Amanda and Raffaele's appeal separately. (GeniusApprentice (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC))


 * You know that we have already two sections, one for Guede and one for Knox and Sollecito?TMCk (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC) What I do know is that we have literally two sentences on the appeals, yet there has been plenty of news covering it.  I think that the developments during the appeals should be reflected in the article and they are not. (GeniusApprentice (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC))

The impartial Italian Juror
One of the reasons a media section is so important is the following, which I think should be made explicit in the article:

"In the Italian justice system, it pays to play to the press. Most trials are presided over by professional magistrates, but some — like Knox's — also include a panel of jurors known as "citizen judges." Unlike in the U.S., where those deciding a case are carefully screened for bias and sequestered during the proceedings, Italian jurors are not only free to hold preconceived opinions; they're also at liberty to follow the news of the trial as it unfolds, leaving them vulnerable to swings in popular sentiment." LedRush (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It isn't clear that the source, albeit in Time, gives a correct impression of the US justice system. According to this source, "Sequestration has fallen so far out of favor that judges rarely bother anymore". That sounds about the same as in Europe. --FormerIP (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't think we would need to include the US info anyway...it gives the sense of one system being better than the other. I do think this info and analysis should be included in the article, though, as Knox was found guilty in the Italian and UK press far before the Italian courts, and because the media attention on this has been so great.LedRush (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation source for "Under the Italian justice system, .....
Under the Italian justice system, defendants are not considered guilty until the appeal process is over.[citation needed]

"In the Italian system, the end of this yearlong trial closes only the first chapter. Unlike in the American system, in which appeals center on issues of law, not fact, in the Italian system, appeals are automatic and defendants can ask to retry the entire case in a first round of appeals. From there, the case can go to Italy’s highest court, which is required to hear every appeal. It may be years before a definitive sentence is reached." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/world/europe/06perugia.html Verdict in Italy, but American’s Case Isn’t Over By RACHEL DONADIO Published: December 5, 2009

This doesn't deserve a section of its own, but I did not know where else to put it.Moodstream (talk) 05:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ADDED. I have put a footnote to that webpage in the intro. If a better source can be found, use it instead. -Wikid77 07:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The one in use only reflects the idea but not the fact thus a better source should be looked for and added.TMCk (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone recently linked to a mistranslation of the constitution of italy as the source for the original, as opposed to rewritten statement. This is obviously prohibited WP:OR by WP:SYNTH and must be removed or verified in reliable secondary sources related to this case. Hipocrite (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's consider a fact. That is the intro, a sort of summary with the key points of the content of the article. Why is this so central to clear the fact that "innocent until proven guilty is granted? It is obvious. BTW the above presented source is uncorrect. Absolutely under Italian law appeal are not automatic (see here to verify ).--Grifomaniacs (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that this sentence should be removed as not discussed in the text at all. However, when I previously attempted to remove it, I was constantly reverted. Your personal views about how Italian appeals work are not a reliable source - the new york times, which says appeals are automatic, however, is a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Answering to assertion of so called "personal views". I usually provide sources, as I did here in the past (see and  in these two cases I've prevented evident errors to be added to the article). As a verified editor I thought I could be considered one that checks its contributions, that are not my personal views as you suggest... My source is the Codice di Procedura Penale(art. 595). I do not know wich source the NYT curator of that article consulted. . --Grifomaniacs (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What exactly is a "verified editor," and how did you become one? If your source is the ICCP, why did you link to a mistranslation of the constitution? Could you provide the text of art. 595? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I found the CCP, which can be viewed at http://www.altalex.com/index.php?idnot=36868. The correct word is not "automatic," but rather "guaranteed," based on my understanding from google translate. Appeals must be filed in a timely fashion, but if the paperwork is done, the appeal is heard. This is different than in the US, where appeals are not always heard. Hipocrite (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not own any special status in the Wikipedia project (at the most I could say I am an autoconfirmed user), I was referring to the fact that I'm not a fly by night contributor, I joined Wikipedia (it and en) and Commons back to 2006... As a Wikipedian I remember you have to presume WP:GOODFAITH. That's all. The source for the "Innocent until proven guilty" is the Italian Constitution (and I'm afraid if the Wikisource text appears to be mistranslated, why dont you correct it as well? "Sentence" does not match 100% the original "Condanna", but I agree that's beeter than "Judgement"), instead the source for "Appeals are not automatic" is Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (art.595). --Grifomaniacs (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Under the legal systems of every English-speaking country I know of, once you are convicted of a crime, you are guilty under the law regardless of the status of your appeals. During any appeals, the burdens of proof have almost all been shifted.  It Italian law works differently, and it is clear that it does, this should be noted.  Otherwise, we are doing a disservice to the readers.  That a new trial is proceeding de novo is already mentioned in the text, but I think it would be good to more specifically call out that the status of an appellant under Italian law.LedRush (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are you certain that Italian law works differently, aside from the continued assertions of editors here? Hipocrite (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Because appeals are not trials de novo in the US and, to my knowledge, all other English speaking countries.LedRush (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're not certain that one is no longer "guilty," while the appeals are in process? Hipocrite (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is my undestanding, but, no, I am not certain. Also, I think this is a hard question to answer.  I think we all agree that new evidence can be presented (unlike in other legal systems) and that the burdens of proof have not been shifted (again, unlike in other legal systems) as that is the definition of a trial de novo.  However, I am not sure of the technical legal status of the person under Italian law.  If we can't find a source that explicitly says that the appellants are not guilty until the conclusion of the appeals, we shouldn't say it.  However, we should make clear that it is a new trial which will proceed de novo when talking about the appeals so that readers would recognize that the appeals process in Italy may differ from those in their home country.LedRush (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

So, let me ask you - here's where you revert that claim, which you now doubt, back in -. Here's you adding a citation needed to your own statement -. Here's someone linking to a crowd-sourced mistranslation (with bonus invalid link on the mistranslation!) to restore your statement, committing OR by SYNTH by removing a reliable secondary source for their personal interpretation of the italian constitution. What should be done to correct this situation? Hipocrite (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, to be fair, that was not my statement. I reverted your mass revert because I thought it was way too broad and unwarranted.  Then I added a fact tag to the statement regarding not being guilty under Italian law.  What should be done now is exactly what I said above: either (1) find an explicit source; or (2) change the statement to say something like (under Italian law appeals are treated as new trials where new evidence can be submitted and existing evidence is reexamined).LedRush (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hipocrite, it is clear that the source you provided stated something completely errate, that in Italy appeals are automatic. That's way I removed that, thus I provided a source for the claim that in Italy defendants are considered innocent until the process is over. Period.


 * I'm not a law expert, but reading your answers I I'd like to highlight a fact: in Italy in each process only the first appeal is a "de novo" trial. The second appeal (in Cassazione) is not a proper appeal and it argues only on technical(intended as procedure errors) issues. In the end, remember also the reformatio in pejus procedure, wich states that appeal sentences cannot determine a tougher sentence.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You need to provide reliable secondary sources for your statements. The word "automatic" and "guaranteed" are close enough as to be irrelevant. The consistent ustatement you make that "in Italy defendants are considered innocent until the process is over," is still unproven - they are innocent until "final sentence," whatever that means. The plain reading of "final sentence," is unclear. Does that mean innocent untill sentenced by trial courts then guilty until unsentenced? I have no idea - neither do you. Please find reliable secondary sources for any information you want to include, and do not presume that your judgment of what is true is better than said reliable secondary sources. Hipocrite (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely appeals arent automatic in Italy, and this is not equal as to say they're guaranteed. However to solve this issue we could link to the NYT keeping the correct term "guaranteed" into the Wikipedia article. IMHO I repeat, this is not a central issue, I would at least move it in another section, not in the intro... --Grifomaniacs (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is not an important issue. My understanding is that all people convicted in Italy have a right to two appeals. But they don't have to exercise it. It isn't at all clear, though, that people are considered innocent until the process is exhausted. This would definitely need a source. If someone chooses not no appeal, does that mean they can never be considered guilty? If so, do they get released from prison? --FormerIP (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The second appeal is a right, but it has to be requested specifically for specifical reasons (mainly technical legal issues) to be admissible. If somone chooses to do not appeal, at that point the sentence become definitive, and if that was a guilty sentence, he has to be considered guilty.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Expanding trial events to month summaries
Last year, the Knox/Sollecito trial had been summarized, by month, to provide a better understanding of the aspects being investigated. I would like to re-add those month-by-month summaries, to also mention when homeless man Antonio C. testified, due to his recent re-questioning during the 2011 appeal trial. The summary would also briefly mention the fingerprint experts and the DNA testimonies. Some short phrases about those testimonies would provide a little background (and names) to explain the upcoming events in the appellate trial. In that manner, the MoMK article will answer some background questions for readers who are tracking related events. Although adding more detail will make the article larger, note that a huge article can be split into subarticles, as quicker for readers to view. -Wikid77 07:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Unless reliable secondary sources provide the detail you propose to include, we can't include it. Please provide reliable secondary sources for your proposal, thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be impossible that this material would not have been covered by reliable secondary sources, because there has been ongoing press coverage of the entire trial and day by day coverage when it is in court. If you are suggesting that instead of sources documenting each detail as it happened we need some source that later summarized it all again, that is a twisting of what our policies say. Lots of coverage has included time lines of varying amounts of details. Combining those time lines and adding facts from other sources is all well within WP:V and WP:RS. We should have a reasonably sized time line in the article itself or on a box on the side, but a more detailed time line would also work in a separate article as an addition to instead of a replacement to its coverage here. DreamGuy (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't put words in my mouth. I said that "Unless reliable secondary sources provide the detail you propose to include, we can't include it." Certainly, you agree - if the only source that has whatever information is being discussed here is a trial transcript or a blog, then we can't include it, right? Hipocrite (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't put words in my mouth. I dont see this and other comments from you very constructive. Please be more faithful on other editors. Thank you. --Grifomaniacs (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the above comment was edited and redacted here. Hipocrite (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why you would want to point out that you often make personal attacks, but that another editor is big enough to try and scale back what could be considered by some to be borderline uncivil. Why would you want to draw attention to this?LedRush (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This, and all of your other frequent attacks against me as an editor as opposed to my edits, are merely playing the man and not the ball. I don't intend to respond to it any more. Hipocrite (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am still not sure why you wised to point out that edit. Were you trying to embarass him for trying to be more civil?  Regarding your above comment, I will take this question regarding your latest attacks against me to your talk page.LedRush (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are you presenting this as putting words into your mouth? I said "if you are suggesting" and not "you claim this and it's wrong". Your statement was a little unclear, as it should be blindingly obvious that everything he suggested for the time line would be in reliable sources. DreamGuy (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting that "we need some source that later summarized it all again." You set up that strawman, and then attacked it for some reason. I am suggesting that "Unless reliable secondary sources provide the detail you propose to include, we can't include it." Certainly you agree, right? I contend that not everything he suggested for the time line would be in reliable sources, unless he specifically focused on making sure that was so. Hipocrite (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you contend that not everything he suggested would be in reliable sources, it would be helpful if you named something he suggested that you think would not be, because it all looks extremely straightforward to me. Otherwise you are directly criticizing him for something he didn't say. DreamGuy (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * He should provide reliable secondary sources for everything he proposes to include in the article. Hipocrite (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, anything he suggested that wasn't obviously in a reliable source? If you don't have a specific reason to point it out it's kind of repetitive and a bit harassing to continue bringing it up every time he says something. Oh, by the way, just a reminder, *you* should provide a reliable secondary source for everything you propose to include in the article. Is that helpful? No? Then please see WP:KETTLE. DreamGuy (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder! It was quite helpful, but I think I've been pretty good a hewing to the reliable secondary sources! Hipocrite (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Jury
The page on the murder of Meredith Kercher and the trial seems to be lacking one vital element, that has also been almost ignored by the press! The Jury! The article as it stands implies that she was convicted by judges - this is simply not the case. This needs to be addressed as it is important for readers to understand that the Italian system does use jurors (thats where we all got it from). I have made a single entry addressing her conviction by a "unanimous jury" with reference - if anyone has a problem with this, please discuss. 15:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiselleK (talk • contribs)


 * If a fact was "almost ignored by the press," it probably fails to appear in reliable secondary sources. If there are no reliable secondary sources addressing something, Wikipedia should also not address it. Hipocrite (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have made a reference to a news site discussing the jury's verdict. My note on the press ignoring the issue was in part referring to the paid PR campaign which has slanted the media coverage. Many forget Knox was convicted by a jury of peers and not by Mignini. People come to an encyclopaedia for facts and not what the press has decided to cover - so long as there are valid sources and the issue is important, I see no reason why it should be disregarded on Wiki. If we stick to what most the media had reported - we will end up with David Marriott writing this page. -Giselle 16:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiselleK (talk • contribs)
 * Any reference needs to state that it was by a panel of 2 judges and 6 jurors (I think). The unanimous jury is inaccurate, but we can say a panel of judges and jurors (I think that's what the source says.)  It should all be in the sources already in the article.  Easy fix....LedRush (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It could also be mentioned that the jury was seen sleeping by mulitple witnesses. 1. VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I heard the jury was napping during much of her testimony anyway. No, I`m not even joking. BURLEIGH: I was there, they were sleeping. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1006/01/ijvm.01.html 2. Barbie Nadeau, Angel Face - "Even the prosecutor falls asleep on occasion, and one elderly juror becomes well known for napping after lunch...the juror next to her is the elderly man who tends to doze off in the afternoons." P123 Issymo (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Little tired of the battle on the page so I am going to peace out on this - but whoever changed it should know - the quote was that they were unanimous on the guilty verdict which means that they were not necessarily unanimous on other charges and now the Wiki page is incorrect, making it sound as though they were unanimous on all points! --Giselle 19:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiselleK (talk • contribs)

Use primary sources for descriptive statements
This is reminder to feel free to use primary sources, when needed (please don't remove their footnotes everywhere!), in accordance with Wikipedia policy, see: &bull; No original research
 * which states, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." (quoted from WP:NOR)

There has been a lot of prior talk, in demanding secondary sources for everything, but that is not supported by long-term Wikipedia policy, which instead allows simple, descriptive text from primary sources. For example, primary sources can be used to state:
 * "Suspect was booked at 1:45:20 am and called attorney at 6:05:07 am on 30 December 1987."
 * "The head pathologist testified that cause of death was blunt force trauma, with time of death between 8-9 am 2 May 1996."
 * "The fingerprint expert testified 55 fingerprints were found and there was no evidence of a wipe-down of the surrounding smudges."

There is no need to get a secondary source to confirm a time-of-day entry, precise to the second, as long as the primary source is identified of that simple descriptive fact. The use of a secondary source is only needed for conclusions derived from the descriptive data in other sources, rather than being required for the common-sense facts of a case. There is no need to get a secondary source to list the charges filed against a suspect. I apologize I did not make this clear earlier. -Wikid77 17:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with this to some extent, but the problem then becomes how to choose what to include. There is so much stuff in primary sources that picking and choosing what is most important becomes difficult and can become slanted by what the editor thinks is important instead of what the experts think is important. That's where secondary sources become useful. DreamGuy (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Offer of USB drive of Reliable Sources
I am not PhanuelB! I have been a minor editor on Wiki since July 2010. I offered to post this message from PhanuelIB to the current editors on this page. I sincerely believe that the offer of the USB drive is in good faith!!

A Message from PhanuelB

Greetings all. In the interest of improving Wikipedia I would like to make available to everyone here a USB Stick with a comprehensive collection of all MoMK videos available online. This includes over 600 news segments of typically 2-3 minutes each and all seven television documentaries. The collection is neutral because I don’t know of anything out there that I haven’t found. As a practical matter the best way to provide this information is through snail mail. I propose mailing a 16GB stick with this information to a physical address associated with Wikipedia. I will also make a financial contribution sufficient to cover any shipping expenses Wikipedia might incur in mailing this to interested parties. Naturally we would like to get this to Jimbo Wales, but it is available to everyone, regardless of their views. Anyone who wants the videos could provide Wikipedia a physical address and would be obligated to return the stick to Wikipedia so that others could use it. I want to emphasize that this really is the best source of information on the case. I believe that all videos were downloaded legally and that dissemination of this information for scholarly purposes is consistent with copyright law and Wikipedia policy.

The best pro-innocence content is the CBS 48 Hours documentaries. The best pro-guilt content is the book by Will Savive, “The Study Abroad Murder.” The best neutral content is the Learning Channel documentary “The Trials of Amanda Knox.” The Learning Channel documentary is the best overall coverage of the case by a wide margin. It is available on Youtube and on the USB stick. Please note that the director of that documentary, Garfield Kennedy, has signed the Online Petition about this article.

I am currently blocked and would like to be reinstated. I have been appealing to the Wikipedia Ban Appeals Subcommittee so far without success. I believe that the WP:YESTHEM arguments I make have taken on new credibility with the recent intervention of Jimbo Wales. I don’t agree that any of the conduct by me or others was all that bad. Battleground conduct will not happen again because the battle is over, ended by Jimbo Wales himself. I hope that those here will take a fresh look at a series of blocks (each and every one against pro-innocence editors) that we believe to have been illegitimate.

Turningpointe (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Media controversy
Here we go again. People were disputing that the article covered any media controversy so it couldn't be mentioned in the lead, while at the same time filling up the media section with completely meaningless content that is clearly intended to push a POV and not to cover any significant topic about the case. I tried to make a small improvement and it was already reverted. I don't know why devoting a long paragraph to the victim's father to say whatever he wants can possibly make any sense when other criticism by outside journalists and commentators is so short.

I have since added reliable sources to back up new information about more notable and persasive commentary about the media controversy. The section can certainly still be expanded quite a bit, because a LOT has been said about this aspect. DreamGuy (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't think it's relevant to note that the victim's family have "generally avoided much media attention," in the media section? How about that the victim's father penned an op-ed about the crime? Why would you remove these facts from the article? Hipocrite (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * While I think it is absurd to say that the victim's family have generally avoided the media seeing as how often they speak through the media on a wide range of topics (many even in this section), I agree with Hipocrite that their views on this seem relevant.LedRush (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The "generally avoided much media attention" is cited to an article from 2009 but the sentence citing it is written as if it was current. Since that time John Kercher has written four articles about the case and Arline Kercher has also been quoted in the press.  I'm not sure it can still be said they have avoided attention.  A reference saying they had avoided media attention before the verdict would be more accurate IMO.  (GeniusApprentice (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC))


 * What encyclopedic purpose does any of that serve? Seriously. There are lots of things that have been in the press related to this case in some way, and there are hundreds of things about the media coverage we do not talk about at all right now while giving a huge chunk of space to a grieving father's rants. This is an example of WP:UNDUE weight and straight out WP:NOTABILITY problems. It seems to be included in the article for purely emotional reasons instead of providing any useful information. It's also especially galling that he is complaining about Amanda Knox's alleged celebrity status when Knox and her family's complaints about the exact same issue are not included. He's also complaining about the use of the term "Foxy Knoxy" as if it was Amanda and her supporters who used it when it is actually being used in tabloid news coverage to portray her in a negative light and a lot of true critics of the media have complained about it. This whole section gives a very slanted view of what the preponderance of reliable sources have to say about media coverage. DreamGuy (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this type of information should be limited to a section of "Family responses" where we try to allow 4 sections of text as one each for the 4 families: of Kercher, Knox, Sollecito and Guede. Also, we need to avoid direct quotes because that would open the door to WP:SOAPBOXing issues, where quotes of emotional language might produce a perceived imbalance in the article. The most the media section should state is the frequency of interviews with families. -Wikid77 23:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That might be a good idea to combine the family responces in one section, keeping it entirely out of media and therelike.TMCk (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

List of books about the case
The only book by a serious journalist[disputed] (Barbara Nadeau "Angel Face") is some way down the list. The book most actively marketed on the web (Candace Dempsey "Murder in Italy") - written by an amateur blogger,[disputed] is top of the list. Why is this? A book which certainly does not have a neutral point of view is being tacitly promoted by Wikipedia.[disputed - see Dempsey reply] Why aren't the entries in alphabetical order of author surname. - Unsigned comment by 217.35.229.93 at 06:03, 26 March 2011
 * It seems as if Demsey, the "blogger" was becoming a best-selling author, and I think she attended many of the trial hearings in Perugia, so she was also an eyewitness to the courtroom events and media circus. The list of books should have been in alpha order, so I have sorted it and embedded an internal comment "...alphabetical list by author..." to keep the list in alpha order. Thanks for noting that problem. -Wikid77 06:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Does the anonymous poster above honestly believe that "Angel Face" has a neutral point of view? Why does anonymous poster call Candace Dempsey an amateur blogger? While it is true that Candace is a blogger, she is also a respected journalist and author. Candace Dempsey's book is a Library Journal Bestseller and winner of Best True Crime 2010 Editor’s Choice and Reader’s Choice awards. It's time for everyone to put their personal feelings aside and see to it that the issues with this article are corrected. BruceFisher (talk) 07:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * More silly talk started this thread. Candace Dempsey's book is infinitely better than Nadeau's. The latter bragged about having written her wonder in a mere three weeks. It is error prone and nasty in tone, but, significantly, expresses more skepticism about the verdict than is generally known. Nadeau's tone has softened since then--a clear indication she understands the verdict is being undermined by events. Dempsey's book is the first of the well researched ones to come out. Her credentials as a writer and journalist were established long before this case. She went to Perugia, interviewed principals, and examined the whole trial record. Unlike the Nadeau book, Dempsey's Murder in Italy found a real publisher.PietroLegno (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Another point. Should Follain's book be listed now? As I understand it, the book is not published but announced for August. If we do include Follain, then we should also include Nina Burleigh's "The Fatal Gift of Beauty," also announced for August. Burleigh was the principal correspondent for Time Magazine and her crisp prose is a wonderful antidote to Follain's ham-handedness.PietroLegno (talk) 10:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I find it difficult to decide between Dempsey and Nadeau. On the one hand, Dempsey has a blog: "This is a seattlepi.com reader blog. It is not written or edited by the PI." . She also has a brilliant website, which used to be about Italian cooking before Novmember 2007 . On the other hand, Nadeau writes for Newsweek . So it's a tough call. Dempsey does seem more inclined to write everything as if Amanda Knox can't possibly be guilty though and, I agree, that is the same thing as saying that Nadeau is less neutral, so maybe Dempsey just has the edge. --FormerIP (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * FormerIP, you are letting your personal feelings come through very clearly. You don't like Candace Dempsey. We get it. Many journalists blog. There is nothing wrong with blogging. Candace Dempsey's blog was about Italian culture, not cooking. You are using talking points from hate sites online that have viciously attacked those who support Amanda Knox. You need to stop doing that and do some research. Candace Dempsey's blog has been featured on Newsweek.com and Anderson Cooper360. Candace is a respected journalist who has written an award winning book published by a major publisher. You have shown your inability to be neutral. You should limit yourself to the discussion and hold off on editing the article as I have done. Your attack on Candace shows the behavior that destroyed the Wikipedia article. It is time for neutral minds to correct those issues. BruceFisher (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Honestly... I strongly believe we should remove the book list (and documentaries) entirely. Most Wikipedia articles should not have "Further reading" sections, which is basically all this is. If Wikipedia decides that a book is worth reading for insight on the topic, then it ought to be used as a source within the article multiple times and already be listed in the notes section. If something is not worth using as a source it is not worth listing separately, and especially not in such a way that it gets highlighted more than the actual sources used for the article. DreamGuy (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Further reading sections serve to give the reader information about where to find more information. What is listed in them should be things that give a thorough treatment of the subject beyond just being a source. Wikid77's alphabetizing of those materials is correct because it doesn't give preferential treatment to any being better than the other. Follain's book should not be listed until released per WP:CRYSTAL. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 18:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Dempsey reply about book
How bizarre to claim Ms. Nadeau is the only serious journalist to write a book about the Amanda Knox case. I'm Candace Dempsey, award-winning journalist and author of MURDER IN ITALY (Penguin/Berkley Books): The Shocking Slaying of a British Student, the Accused American Girl, and an International Scandal. Winner of Best True Crime Book 2010 Editor's and Reader's Choice awards, it is a Library Journal Bestseller and has been on Amazon's Top Ten True Crime List and #1 in Criminology. A carefully fact-checked and well-documented book, written over three years, vetted by an Italian lawyer at Penguin and a bilingual, Italian-American Penguin editor. Yes, I went to Italy often, yes, I was in the courtroom, yes, I have the court transcripts and access to the case files; yes, I covered the case from the beginning and continue to cover it now. Kudos to Mr. Wales for checking into Wikipedia's Meredith Kercher/Amanda Knox coverage. His willingness to cast sunshine on this controversial case is refreshing and impressive--in direct contrast to FormerIP's peculiar remarks about me above. Indeed, IP echoes comments made about me on the conspiracy theory sites PMF and TJMK. That I'm just a blogger, that I'm not a serious journalist. IP misrepresents my credentials by linking to a supposed "food blog" from my writer's Website, where I display my journalism awards, cite my master's degree in journalism, display my Chicago Tribune writing links, my business and travel-writing credits. I do have a fact-based, well-documented, high-profile seattlepi.com blog, which I created to explore my Italian-American fascination with Italian culture--writing about Italian language, travel, food, family roots, true crime. After a few months I switched exclusively to the Knox case. Now called "Let's Talk about True Crime," this seattlepi.com blog has been featured on Newsweek.com and Anderson Cooper 360. I've discussed the Amanda Knox case on Anderson Cooper 360, CNN Headline News and many other TV and radio shows. You can read MURDER IN ITALY's reviews on Amazon, where it enjoys a 4 star rating. Finally, I wonder about this remark by "ttrroonniicc" posted on the conspiracy theory site perugiamurderfile.net Sat Mar 26, 2011 5:50 pm  Post subject: Re: XXII. MAIN DISCUSSION, JAN 22 -Perugiamurderfile.net "Raised the issue of book sequence on Wikipedia article / & book promotion, on the talk page. Sadly I realised that "Dempsey" is first in the list alphabetically of authors anyway Sure I said Dempsey is a "blogger" (a dig) -- but check the bias." CandaceDempsey (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Candace. I hope you don't think I'm criticising either you or your book. I don't know you and I haven't read your book. As I indicated above, from looking at the cover, it doesn't look very high-brow to me. But you are not working in the genre of philosophical treatises and many books not aimed at college professors can be excellently written. I have no reason to think yours is not. Besides which, what is it they always say we should never judge a book by?
 * I was responding, really, to comments preceding mine which compared your work with that of Barbie Nadeau in such a way that it was suggested that you were a highly experienced journalist whereas Nadeau was a bit more of a nobody who had rushed out her book, so it ought to be treated with scepticism. Now, I'm sure you're aware that Nadeau covered the case for Newsweek, has written a book and it the only American journalist to have attended court throughout the process. When I point out that your writing on the case consists, by comparison of a book and a personal blog (this is not meant as a criticism - I don't even have a blog), I am really trying to correct what appears to me to be an unfair comparison.
 * Recently, some material cited to Nadeau has been removed from the article on the grounds that it is not reliable, whereas material cited to you has been added. Given that it is not controversial to say that you and Nadeau are distinguished in that you take opposite views regarding the guilt of Amanda Knox, do you think this seems like a balanced approach? --FormerIP (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP, nice try but your true feelings came out when you typed this lie: "She also has a brilliant website, which used to be about Italian cooking before Novmember 2007." Have you seen the cover of "Angel Face?" The title is written in what the author implies is Meredith Kercher's blood. Do you think that cover is "high-brow?" Let's stop describing book covers and let's get to the point. You made an effort to smear Candace Dempsey and you failed. In doing so you exposed your bias. You need to step back from editing this article. BruceFisher (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't edited the article for weeks and I agree. For now, you've won, Bruce, and there's no point in attempting to improve the article. --FormerIP (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP, This is not about you or me. This is about making sure the honest facts are presented in the Wikipedia article. I am hopeful that improvements will be made soon. BruceFisher (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * When you said I need to step back from the article, I made the mistake of assuming that was about me. My mistake. --FormerIP (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Getting a strange impression of Wikipedia editing on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. Former IP, after admitting here that he hasn't read my book, was then able to call it "inaccurate" and less credible than Angel Face on the conspiracy site perugiamurdefile.net where he goes by the name ttrroonniicc. And this person is seen as a neutral editor here? Interesting. His words: "Update on the spat I appear to have started on the Wikipedia article talk -- Candace Dempsey herself appears. Won't get into it. Finding it "quantum" to have caused It .... on and on it goes: Article has become extremely sensitive because of the press coverage due to the intervention of Jimmy Wales. I hope he reads the more credible Nadeau book before the Dempsey one. Yes mine was a "dig" but we KNOW Nadeau is a more credible journalist than Dempsey. Dempseys book is sensationalist -- factually inaccurate -- highly promoted - right down to the bargain bucket at Walmart." CandaceDempsey CandaceDempsey (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Will it be okay if I also accuse you of being someone else, Candace? I really don't think you should get drawn into a Wikipedia debate about the merits of your book. --FormerIP (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Particularly with an editor so omniscient he's able to compare and contrast it to others without even having read it first. Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.21.194.157 (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The book included in the article that I do not believe belongs there

is Amanda e gli altri. Amanda sued and won over this book (covered in the civil section of the article). But we are not going to allow a book from Dr. Waterbury or Bruce Fisher? http://abcnews.go.com/2020/AmandaKnox/small-victory-amanda-knox/story?id=10169888 BTW, Barbie Nadeau has a cookbook on her resume and I still think her book should be listed.RoseMontague (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Candace Dempsey: I am "ttrroonniicc" not "FormerIP" ... normally Wikipedia automatically creates a UTC/IP stamp which identifies on repeat postings. For some reason this time it did not. I often post Wikipedia comments and like the convenience of not having to log in. I do not post on main articles. The only thing I posted is the column heading here "List of books related to the case" followed by one paragraph. Further to that I have not been involved in discussion. Also Candace, www.perugiamurderfile.net is the long standing discussion forum about the case derived from a section on Steve Huff's "True Crime" website, which generated much interest in 2008. It is not as you describe a "conspiracy theory" website. Good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.229.93 (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

ttrroonniicc, I understand this is not the place for this discussion but please clarify for me how perugiamurderfile.net is a long standing discussion forum. It has existed for less than a week. It looks like you copied a "long standing discussion" from somewhere else. Anyway, not really expecting an honest answer to that mess you are a part of. Back to the topic at hand. I think it has been established that Candace Dempsey is a journalist and an author published with a major publisher. She meets Wikipedia's standards. BruceFisher (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it looks like Wikipedia's standards have dropped a little recently. But, yes, there is no doubt that she is a published author and can be cited in Wikipedia. No-one has suggested otherwise. The problem is the removal of material cited to a more authoritative author on the grounds that the source is not reliable, and instead inserting more material from a partisan less significant source. --FormerIP (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What "more authoritative author" is there? Certainly not Nadeau, who has less professional experience and whose book was published by a blog site. All of the existing sources are partisan, so if you are claiming Nadeau's is not you are sadly mistaken. We certainly have to have some balance sources, and I'm not saying Nadeau cannot be used at all, but your argument above sounds like choosing to believe someone isn't a good source solely because you disagree with her conclusions, because the factual claims in your argument do not match up with real world facts. DreamGuy (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If the user is indeed Dempsey they just showed us first hand how much weight they put on research before making false accusations and thus should be handled with great care.TMCk (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If you go to perugiamurderfile.net you will see that "ttrroonniicc" basically suggested that he was "FormerIP." I am not saying who is who. I know people can pretend to be anyone on the Internet. All I am saying is that "ttrroonniicc" gave the impression that he was "FormerIP." I think the smear campaign against Candace Dempsey can stop now. Those involved put up their best effort and failed. Once again, Candace Dempsey is a respected journalist and an author published with a major publisher. She meets Wikipedia's standards. BruceFisher (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not suggest that. "Bruce Fisher" -- perugiamurderfile.net is the original forum run by the original moderator. perugiamurderfile.org is a renegade split. What's the point of posting here the place has been "flashmobbed" by people who post on behalf of the "Friends of Amanda" interest group. Impartiality is lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.229.93 (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What smear campaign? I made a factual observation which still stands regardless of her reputation (in which I have no interest what-so-ever, discussing or else).TMCk (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "If you go to perugiamurderfile.net you will see that 'ttrroonniicc' basically suggested that he was 'FormerIP.' I am not saying who is who." You seem to contradict yourself quite often, if you don't me saying so. If some parties back down from this so-called "smear campaign", would you perhaps be willing to put an end to issuing commands such as "You need to step back from editing this article" (to FormerIP above)? Given your declared conflict of interest, I don't think that indulging in uncivil conduct of that sort so soon is really a wise decision. Regards,  Super Mario  Man  19:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * SuperMarioMan, I am not here to cause any conflict. I simply pointed out facts. FormerIP already admitted bias and stated that he/she would step back from editing the article. It was FormerIP that posted false information about Candace Dempsey. In fact the statement from FormerIP about Candace Dempsey's blog repeated a tired talking point from two websites that repeatedly attack Candace. When I called FormerIP on that fact, FormerIP stated that he/she had not edited in weeks and saw no reason to try and improve the article any further. This implied to me that FormerIP no longer intended to edit. I saw that you took a little jab at me when you wrote this: "You seem to contradict yourself quite often." Please list any instances that I have contradicted myself. If you read what I wrote, I said that 'ttrroonniicc' basically suggested that he was 'FormerIP. I did not come to that conclusion myself. Once again, Candace Dempsey is a respected journalist and an author published with a major publisher. She meets Wikipedia's standards. That fact has been confirmed in this conversation. I really don't know what else there is to discuss. Do you have objections to the conclusions drawn from this conversation? BruceFisher (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Bruce, can you please offer a quote where ttrroonniicc suggested that he was me. I rather think this is just evidence of Candace, as a seasoned investigative reporter, coming to a conclusion about something without any evidence or thought. I'll withdraw that if I can be shown to be wrong. --FormerIP (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "FormerIP already admitted bias and stated that he/she would step back from editing the article." I read it as a mildly sarcastic response to bad-faith remarks that included accusations of lies, smears and bias. "It was FormerIP that posted false information about Candace Dempsey." This excerpt from an earlier comment, referring to FormerIP, also seems to offer "false" and unsubstantiated information: "You are using talking points from hate sites online that have viciously attacked those who support Amanda Knox. You need to stop doing that and do some research." Wikipedians tend to frown on drastic ultimata of that sort. On "contradiction", I believe that I was referring to the fact that on the one hand, in a previous post, you claimed to "respect Wikipedia's guidelines completely", yet on the other you have demonstrated a lack of familiarity with the concept of polite and collegial editing that governs this encyclopaedia. I would also strongly urge you to read through guidelines set out at WP:POVPUSH. With this response, I agree that there is nothing more to discuss here. Regards,  Super Mario  Man  00:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Your response is a great example of all that has gone wrong with this article. You have chosen to ignore the entire basis of the conversation. The conversation revolved around the credibility of Candace Dempsey. If you didn't see FormerIP's attempt to smear her then I would ask that you go back and read the text again. You side tracked the allegation that I contradict myself often. It appears that you realized that I had not contradicted myself when describing ttrroonniicc and FormerIP after all so you decided to bring in the Wikipedia guidelines. You also neglected to answer my question. I asked you if you agreed with the conclusions drawn by the conversation here. Do you view Candace Dempsey as a credible? I am sure there is a guideline that says you are not obligated to answer any questions. I think we are both adults and are perfectly capable of having a civil conversation. I agree with you that my language could have been more polite in one sentence above. I apologize for that. I will reword it here. FormerIP repeated talking points from hate sites that attack Candace Dempsey on a regular basis. I would kindly ask that FormerIp refrain from using that language when describing a respected journalist. BruceFisher (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I would also like to point out that the guideline that you suggested I familiarize myself with applies to articles and generally does not apply to the talk pages. This comes directly from the "WP:POVPUSH" page: "The term POV-pushing is primarily used in regard to the presentation of a particular POV in an article and generally does not apply to talk page discussions." I would also like to point out that I believe your post is a form of baiting. You are aware that this conversation has reached a conclusion. It was proven that Candace Dempsey is credible. Instead of leaving it be you seem to be attempting to get me to lash out. I am sure you are aware that baiting is frowned on by Wikipedians. I have no intention at taking the bait. I am not angry. I am very pleased that this article is receiving the attention it needs.   BruceFisher (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * With all due respect to the posters on this page, Candace is as credible as anyone who writes a book and gets it published. History has always been written with the slant of the writer. Just because the book won awards - does not make it a 'credible source' - it was awarded as a book. It is not an encyclopaedia entry and I doubt that her editors were interested in anything more than her writing. She was free to take artistic liberty in presenting the facts to her liking and fair enough - its her book. But that is exactly the point, she is an avid Knox supporter and that needs to be noted - readers need to be aware of the writer as not everything in black and white is 'objective fact'. (Giselle 08:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC))  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiselleK (talk • contribs)   Giselle, by your logic we can only cite encyclopedias then.  Additionally, every book on this case is slanted.  It doesn't matter how an author "presents" the facts if the facts presented are true.  (GeniusApprentice (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC))


 * The trouble began at the top of this topic, initiated by 217.35.229.93 at 06:03, 26 March 2011, who posted on the next day, from the same IP, self-identifying as "ttrroonniicc" (from the blog website mentioned above). That initial comment was not auto-signed, so I now retro-signed that comment, as dated. -Wikid77 20:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the books that have not been published yet should not be included until the book comes out. It might also be good to only included the top 8 books or so. Issymo (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not true of MURDER IN ITALY (Penguin/Berkley Books). "I doubt that her editors were interested in anything more than her writing. She was free to take artistic liberty in presenting the facts to her liking." In fact, my Penguin book was heavily vetted both by my bilingual Penguin editor and by an Italian lawyer, also at Penguin. I had to source everything. I did not take artistic liberties with the facts or anything else. As for being an "avid supporter,"  I'm not a member of the FOA but an independent, award-winning journalist who's covered the case from the very beginning on my seattlepi.com blog.  I trust this ends the controversy and we can all stand back now and let editors do their jobs. Candace Dempsey, Author of MURDER IN ITALY.  CandaceDempsey (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Enough with the self-promotion! We get it, you think your book is the bible on the case and some of us here disagree. Are you able to accept that there are others who are aquatinted with the case? Even in court the 'facts' have not been agreed upon, so there is no way that your book is completely factual - it depends who has checked the 'facts'. When you are writing your chosen facts the way you structure the sentence and the book, the language you choose and what you exclude from the book all adds up to slant any book. This is philosophy 101 - history is written and re-written- always based on facts and never free of a slant, any educated reader has to be aware of the author. Thats why an encyclopaedia must be NPOV - the language must not echo the author. --Giselle 04:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiselleK (talk • contribs)

I stand by my previous statement. This comment, signed by a "GiselleK" is not true of MURDER IN ITALY, its author, its editor or its lawyer at Penguin/Berkley Books: "... I doubt that her editors were interested in anything more than her writing. She was free to take artistic liberty in presenting the facts to her liking and fair enough - its her book. Candace Dempsey"CandaceDempsey (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV in lede?
I have tagged this statement as requiring a reference.


 * There is a great deal of controversy over the conduct of the police investigation and prosecution, the convictions, and the media coverage of the events.

Can we justify this in the lede? --John (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a key part of what makes the case notable. As far a citation goes, it states what the article shows and almost every news item begins with "In the controversial case of US college student, Amanda Knox..." so it might be common knowledge.  However a few sources would further substantiate that and could be helpful.  The controversies are a main reason for the article's existence, if not the reason, so it establishes the distinction of the case--why it is an article in Wikipedia.  Furthermore, there is no POV given, rather it states that POV's exist on the case and surrounding issues.  One could argue that to leave it out of the lead section would be NPOV, since it is what makes the case notable.  Another way to put it is why wouldn't it be in the lead section?  Is it the wording or the fact, that you are pointing out? Perk10 (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Perk10
 * I agree with Perk, it seems more POV NOT to have it.LedRush (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Everything here has to be WP:Verifiable. I trimmed the sentence to what is justifiable per the source we have. --John (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted John's change as being an unwarranted effort to introduce a non-neutral element and undermine efforts to make things fairer. The source does justify the lead used. It would be possible to find a reliable source that puts things even more strongly. To be neutral, the lead has to stress that the case is controversial on every level and that the verdict, the quality of the police work, and the conduct of the media are in question. The language that was there was a good compromise. PietroLegno (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, if the lede took a stance like you are suggesting, it would breach WP:NPOV, one of our most important policies, and also depart from what was justified by the single source, hence my edit. --John (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @PietroLegno: Then you should provide those sources so they can be looked over and applied as fit.TMCk (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I will do so. The change, which is aimed at making the lead as bland and vague is possible, is not the product of a neutral point of view. People have to understand that the verdict, the quality of police work, and the media coverage have all been questioned. I hope you will not make any more silly and unwarranted changes without leaving adequate time for discussion.People are just waking up here in the States and they are finding the compromises of the last few days evaporating. This is an article where we need expansion not constantly paring down. The drive to pare down is itself a product of a non-neutral point of view in this instance.PietroLegno (talk)

The lead MUST accurately summarize the information later in the article, and all this information is covered later and sourced. It gives a slanted view to remove it, and it clearly has consensus to stay. I therefore returned it. Do not remove it again without a clear consensus to do so. DreamGuy (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I allege that there is no consensus that it stay, but regardless, I contend that there is nothing in the body of the article that addresses a controversy over the "conduct of the police investigation," "conduct of the prosecution", or "the media coverage." Please detail, with quotes and sources, where in the article such controversy is adressed. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I endorse Dreamguys decision to revert John's unwarranted changes 100 percent. The article should address all these issues and the lead should prepare for that. It distresses me that John seems to be recapitulating the attitudes and behavior that created such a biased article in the first place. I urge neutral parties to check the various changes he is trying to introduce in various sections of the article. I also object to his being so fast on the draw and making changes very soon after proposing them and without a hint of consensus to do so.PietroLegno (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes it is a summary of the article (slanted in one direction if you'd ask me but that's another issue) and can stand without sourcing until it is challenged, then a citation or more need to be attached.TMCk (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the source works as is and I think Dreamguy is working his way toward an acceptable and neutral compromise. It's a work in progress. Let's let it unfold without a lot of desperate rearguard action. PietroLegno (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone put in a comment in the article that there is nothing in the article supporting the idea that media coverage was controversial and therefore it should not be in the lead. That seems especially odd as an argument when that's all clearly in Murder of Meredith Kercher. Please, people, take a step back and look at the actual article before jumping in to remove clearly sourced content with claims that it is unsourced. DreamGuy (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Using quotes from the article, please explain where, exactly, it says that the "media coverage was controversial." I could see saying "the media coverage conveyed many viewpoints," or "Various US commentators criticized the Italian process," or "Both sides expressed their views in the media," or even "Knox's lawyers allege that the media coverage tainted the jury." However, that the media coverage was controversial is not currently supported by the text. Thanks for reading the section and pointing me to the current language! Hipocrite (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The last sentence is undeniably about the controversy. You even quoted it above and missed it. Odd, that. The rest is perhaps not as explicitly worded as it could be for readers who need things spelled out in the simplest language possible. That section could also use some expansion, certainly. It also seems to give much WP:UNDUE weight to the claims that people said everything was fair when we know the defense lawyers have said any direct criticism of the process would likely cause a backlash. And whether the families say it is fair in itself isn't particularly noteworthy other than being an attempt to paint an overly rosy picture of the trial and its outcome. That is some pretty hardcore systemic bias there. DreamGuy (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hipocrite is right here, we cannot make the leap from our own ideas about the coverage to justify a tabloidese statement like this unless a reliable source actually says this. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing. A close read of WP:LEADCITE might be beneficial to some participants here. --John (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Perhaps we disagree on what the word "Controversy" means. I believe things are a "controversy" when there are reports that they are "controversial," not when someone says "I think the media coverage made me look like a hideous monster." I previously suggested that using the quotes of paid advocates at all was problematic - they make statements designed to win cases, not designed to be accurate, or what they accurately believe. A user who is directly involved with pro-Knox advocacy decided that this meant I was horribly biased against Knox.
 * However, this is neither here nor there - you agree with me that the section you said included obvious statements about controversy doesn't make any controversy clear. Why did you misrepresent the section when you told me to read it, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there's certainly enough to say that the conviction is considered controversial by some, especially in the United States. Might be enough to say that the conviction is considered controversial - probably need to make sure that is supported.  I don't see anything to support "great deal" of controversy.  I would go with "The conviction is viewed as controversial by some, with questions being raised about the conduct of the police in their investigation and of the prosecution."  It better explains why there is controversy and is more balanced by adding "by some" as there is a fair amount of support for the conviction.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 18:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be a less tabloidese version, certainly. I'd still like to see sources that specifically call the case "controversial". We certainly can't say "a great deal" as that is not the type of language we use here. --John (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to find sources which explicitly use the word "controversy" to say that there is one. However, there are ample sources that do.  This one kills two birds with one stone, indicated that the verdict and comments in the press were controversial. LedRush (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Your source is a start and yes we need to find sources - is that so hard to understand? Now your source calls the verdict controversial but says nothing about "...comments in the press were controversial" as you say, it only says that the media reported on the verdict. I'd say keep digging in that direction.TMCk (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure why you need to be so hostile in your response. I don't believe we need to find a source which uses the term controversial, we only need to find sources which clearly describe the concept of controversy.  And it is hard for me to understand opposition to this language because everything about this case has been controversial from the beginning.
 * Regarding the source, it quotes someone saying that statements by a US Senator caused controversy in relation to the case. Seeing as those were comments in the press, and that they are reported as controversial, I think that qualifies.LedRush (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Even this article has been called controversial in the press LedRush (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Every third word in this article talks of the controversy LedRush (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * [EC]Time said the trial took place among tabloid controversy LedRush (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The first two sources aren't very good as they talk mainly about the movie and the Wikipedia article, which don't really concern us here. The third source has the original trial took place in a charged atmosphere of tabloid controversy. We can use this as a source, but not for the current wording. Is this the best you can do? --John (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course the first source says this article is controversial: that's why when I put it here, I said "Even this article has been called controversial". The second source explicitly says that the case is controversial.  And of course, I already provided sources before this, and there are about 10 below this on another thread.  That the case is controversial has been proven conclusively, and the conversation is over.  Furthermore, I believe that the opposition to this language is an example of obstructionist desires to deter honest editors from making constructive edits by making it too hard to engage in productive dialog.  Having said that, I will try to treat every argument with the respect it deserves.LedRush (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion is reminiscent of the bad old days that led to the article being such a disaster in the first place. This time the tag-teamers call themselves John and Hipocrite. That the Knox-Sollecito trial is controversial is breathtakingly obvious. Just as obvious is the fact that writing a brief summary in the lead without a lot of footnoting makes sense. The neutral editors are trying to rough out a version of the article that is fair. Let them do their work for heavens sake without all this logic chopping and carping. Back before John banned him, a user--called PhanuelB supplied quote after quote that supported the idea that the case was controversial. Do you want me to repost some of that stuff? I think this rush to revert while there is a good faith effort to change things is unseemly.PietroLegno (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The long passage I elsewhere quoted at length from Foreign Policy magazine amply justifies the neutrality of the of the lead. For good measure, here is more support from The Christian Science Monitor: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2010/0923/Amanda-Knox-sings-the-Beatles-attracts-Hollywood-s-eye-preps-for-appeal I can keep doing this ad nauseum with other sources but hopefully there is no need. The lead is fine. This horse died at birth and we should stop flogging it.PietroLegno (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent comments and actions clearly look like a case of WP:CIVILPOVPUSHING (though much iof it is not even civil) from a lot of the same admins and editors who put the article into such a bad state in the first place that Jimbo had to show up to point out how bad it is. Now even eith the most obvious of badly-need changes to get the article closer to NPOV instead of wildly pro-guilt we have people trying to WP:WIKILAWYER every last detail. I suspect that we may not have real progress until some of these bad eggs have a clear dispute resolution process preventing them from trying to slant the article under threat of block. Considering some of these people did block editors (or make highly inappropriate threats to do so) in the past for no good reason other than enforcing their own POV on the article, they should be the first to go.

That being said, I am going to go through and add a lot of material today to reliable sources, just so they shouldn't be able to complain anymore. Not that that will stop them, of course, but that will make their wikilawyering more difficult. DreamGuy (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to join in the editing here. But I have followed this case and am struck by the way proponents of either view routinely trash each other's contributions. I don't think it's objective or fair to call the previous version of the article "terrible" or "wildly biased." I think what's going on is that people's beliefs on this case tend to be weighted with a lot of emotion that genuinely colors the way people see the same facts very differently, and leads people to demonize anyone who has a different take, instead of welcoming the different perspectives as potentially useful in reaching real neutrality. I think a healthy dose of civility and AGF would be refreshing.Grebe39 (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought myself that the sentence about "a lot of controversy" was vague and could be usefully made more specific. At a rough guess, I think it might be accurate to say that the case has generated much controversy primarily in the US and much less so in the European press. There's a suggestion for a neutral way way through this logjam--Grebe39 (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I respect what you are saying Grebe, but the truth is the previous article was a disgrace, and doctored to be non-neutral in about every way it could be doctored. Have you seen Jimbo Wale's excellent discussion of the "testified" versus ""maintained" language that infected the whole? He was right on target. He was also on target when she suggested that the article deteriorated because of unfair banning of certain users and a systematic effort to keep information from reliable sources out of the article. PietroLegno (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I can post material demonstrating that a lead that refers to a great deal of controversy from now until doomsday. In section # 29 here I quoted at length from an article in Foreign Policy. Have a look. Here is an important paragraph:

""The Knox trial was fraught with controversy, and the media coverage in the Italian and British press was obsessive. Papers painted Knox as an ice queen, a libertine, and a demon. Speculating wildly, prosecutor Giuliano Mignini accused Knox of "harboring hatred against Meredith" until "the time came for taking revenge," and drunkenly attempting to drag Kercher into "heavy sexual games." Moreover, Knox's family argued the DNA test upon which the case rested was compromised. U.S. cable shows declared the verdict a sham, shredding the evidence and the court's conduct. And now, the Knox case is turning into an international trial on the reliability of Italy's justice system." PietroLegno (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Media Coverage - Clinton
Reading the media coverage section I see that Hilary Clinton's comments on the case are missing. Since she is the Secretary of State - should her opinion not have some weight - at the very least a little more than Donald Trump!? The entire section seems incredibly slanted towards the critics. Would anyone object if i added Clinton's comments!? (Giselle 11:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC))
 * Did Hillary Clinton state any opinion? AFAIK she said "I can't offer any opinion about that at this time." I agree the section needs some updating. I think recent support of famous FBI profiler John Douglas or FBI agent Steve Moore is more notable than what Donald Trump said in 2009.83.7.233.81 (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Clinton appears in the "Support for Knox and Sollecito" section together with Cantwell.TMCk (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * My mistake, I confused my facts - I was sure that she said that there was a representative of the US Consulate present at all the trials and the trial was fair (anyone have a link?). Regardless, the section can do with some updating and a major clean-up or it should be removed, as it stands it does not add much to the page. I would imagine that Steve Moore deserves a mention, but under Knox Supporters, he is more than 'media coverage', would you agree? (Giselle 13:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC))  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiselleK (talk • contribs)


 * Moore is not notable outside this case so I'm not sure how much weight to give him but I'd like to read what John E. Douglas had to say. Any source for that?TMCk (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Joe Miller65 (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)I disagree about Moore not being notable outside this case. He was the case agent on many high-profile FBI cases including the bombing of the U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan; the bombing of the JW Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia; the white supremacist shooting spree at the Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles in 1998; and the Los Angeles component of the attacks of 9/11, after which he testified before the congressional 9/11 Commission................these just name a few high profile interactions that are public knowledge and give Moore notority outside this case.Joe Miller65 (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Moore was featured prominently in media, but I agree that Supporters section is appropriate.


 * I found a quote from John Douglas on Maxim Digital “Amanda is innocent—I’m convinced of it,” says Douglas. “The Italian police completely contaminated the crime scene. Besides, behavior reflects personality, and there is nothing in Knox’s past behavior to indicate she is a murderer. In both cases—West Memphis and Knox—the police allowed theory rather than evidence to direct their investigations, and that is always a fatal error.” --Footwarrior (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Footwarrior. If he's working on this case as the article suggests there must be a lot more written about it, more than a single quote that is. It would be nice if someone familiar with it could bring those sources together as preparation for a probable writeup in context.TMCk (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A good quote that exemplifies well the controversy in this case. I think including it directly could serve that purpose.
 * So is everyone in agreement that the media coverage section should have a clean up or be diluted into the other parts of the page? I would imagine that the media coverage should engage in conversation of how different media outlets have reported on this case and a little about the paid for Knox PR campaign. The rest should go under supporters of innocence or guilt. BTW Im sorry but even though I sign every single time - it keeps saying I havent signed! Any help would be much appreciated! Thanks --19:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC) --Giselle 19:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say the opposite. The media coverage section should be expanded to better cover the controversy.  The hiring of the PR company to counter the bad Italian/British coverage is already in the article, no?LedRush (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * HJoe Miller65 (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)How many times to we have to see someone say that their is a "paid for PR campaign"? I believe that the Knox/Mellas family had no choice but to hire Marriot in order to deal with the paparazi and other media folks who were camping out in their yard, stealing their mail, calling them at all hours of the night and showing up at their place of employment.  Never and even today is there a "paid campaign".  This is just rubish that is being put out there to discredit the family and to make it look like there is an organized effort (paid) to somehow force the Italians to release Amanda.  So lets quit worrying about a "paid PR campaign" by the family unless you have a source or two that you can refer to that confirms that Marriot's PR firm is being used for such.  He is only the POC (a go between) in order to relieve the family of this hidious task!Joe Miller65 (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless you have a reference to what you have said Joe, your POV is not relevant to Wiki. I have references to the "paid campaign". The campaign is paid for and thats all there is to it. This is not a blog for you to discuss your convictions - the discussion are the facts and you cannot exclude this fact because it doesnt suit your personal opinion. Giselle 05:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC) I agree LedRush, but as it stands the section is almost irrelevant and completely outdated- could you make some suggestions and updates? Giselle 05:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiselleK (talk • contribs)


 * Please GiselleK, provide your sources for your POV. You have stated that "The campaign is paid for" so I am asking if you could please make your source on this available.  What is the campaign that is being paid for?  By who is the campaign paid for?  I think that it is too easy for you to ask me to provide sources when I believe it was your original statement about a campaign that generated my enquiry. In essence, I guess I am saying your POV is not relevant Joe Miller65 (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For sure. Its definitely not my POV that the campaign is paid for - its simply a fact. June 2008: "he family has built up a small but determined team from scratch; they have hired the Seattle PR veteran David Marriott, a former TV journalist, two Italian lawyers and two forensic experts." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4113087.ece (I hope we agree that hired and paid are synonymous in this sentence. Otherwise we can change it to hired - since everyone gets so picky on this page). There is also "Shortly after her arrest, Knox's family hired Seattle public relations specialist David Marriott. Along with Bremner and others, Marriott has waged a polished, aggressive campaign to present a more sympathetic picture of Knox while assailing Italian authorities, particularly prosecutor Mignini." http://www.seattlepi.com/local/395681_knox12.html - Hope this helps. --Giselle 04:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiselleK (talk • contribs)
 * Joe Miller65 (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)This is very simple math to me. First, you have no idea what if any money is being paid to Marriot.  As far as you or me know, Marriot is working for free.  We know that there are many high profile/professional people who are working for Amanda's cause and they are not being "paid" as you say.  As for the family hiring two forensic experts.....are you saying that is for a PR ploy?  Would you admit it would be irresponsible for the family not to have done that?  I believe you are trying to make it sound like the family put together a "PR Campaign" immediately following her arrest. How often have you sen Marriot on TV talking about this case?  If he was waging an aggressive campaign as you say, he would be the first person that I would expect to see in front of the cameras instead of the family themselves.  I am also of the belief that you are trying to insinuate that the family is well off financially by how you are describing these "hired" individuals.  You are also trying to insinuate that the family has a relationship with Ann Bremner to make your point "stronger".  So, without proof of payment, I believe you are in no position to make any comment about who has been hired and who has not been hired.  Show me a canceled check to the people you have refered to and I will believe you!  The only people waging an agressive campaign about Amanda is her family and friends.  They don't do this in order to get a sympathetic picture...I believe they do this to get the truth about this case exposed.  Joe Miller65 (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Wrong. Two sources says he was hired by the knox family so he was and you don't get to "see a cancelled check".TMCk (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. If the sources say he was hired, we say he was hired.LedRush (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I respect Joe Miller's commentary but I must disagree here. I think the fact that they hired a media adviser is indeed a fact. I am not sure it is a particularly relevant fact but it appears adequately sourced. It is the interpretation and the context of this fact that we must worry about. What we must at all costs avoid is the insinuation that somehow a tiny (12 person) PR shop in Seattle, hoodwinked the international media. If that were possible, the Marriott firm would be the most underpaid firm in all of the United States. The Marriott Firm has stated that their principal role has been to handle the scheduling of interviews and media requests. The statement is on the firm website and should be included. I know the Knox-Mellas family has commented upon why they felt compelled to hire a media advisor. I will try to find that. There are other things we need to go into here as well:

--All of the reasons why one might conclude that getting a media adviser was a wise and prudent step to take in the defense of their daughter. The media onslaught was almost beyond belief. --The highly selective (and illegal) leaks undertaken by the police and prosecutors office designed specifically to assassinate the character of the defendants and prejudice public opinion. --Multiple instances of Mignini's "stagecraft" (to use Candace Dempsey's term)--essentially playing to the tabloids and, again, prejudicially inflaming opinion.

All of the things I talk about here--outrageous media conduct, police leaks, Mignini's stagecraft--need to be in the article and all can be beautifully sourced from Dempsey, Nadeau, the Seattle Times, etc. PietroLegno (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Controversies/disputes
The lede discusses controversies about the prosecution and investigation of the case. However, I do not see any discussion of said controversies in the body. Is there any reliably sourced information about public controversy regarding the handling of the case, aside from the statement from Maria Cantwell and some US commentators? Without explaining why Amanda Knox is innocent, please provide references to sources discussing the controversy. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems clear that it is discussed in the slander case against Knox, the forensics evidence section, and in the commentator section. If you are suggesting that we should have a controversies section regarding the prosecution and investigation, I agree completely.  However, that has been resisted by other editors on this board in the past.LedRush (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You did not provide a single source referencing a controversy. Is there a reason you are so adverse to providing sources? Please provide sources. Hipocrite (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Further, let's just take the slander case against Knox - how does that evidence a controversy? Use quotes and sources. Hipocrite (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not be so uncivil when discussing this topic.
 * Regarding sources, the sources are in the article and are there for you to read at will. I don't understand how a lawsuit regarding slander charges concerning police conduct are not evidence of a controversy of police conduct.  Knox says it was bad, police say it was good.  Lawsuit is the controversy and is covered in the sources.LedRush (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I think we have different definitions of "controversy." I prefer the one listed at Wikipedia, which states "Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion." You have demonstrated "dispute," but you are missing "prolonged" and "public." I once sued someone who sold me a piece of real estate over an omitted detail - does that mean that my apartment is the scene of a controversy? No. Just the existence of the lawsuit doesn't get there. Hipocrite (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * LedRush, the onus is on you as the editor restoring this material, to provide sources that explicitly state there has been a controversy. I will put the tag back and give you a day or two to think about this. If no sources can be found for this statement, it will obviously have to come out as at that point it becomes obvious that it is just your opinion, and that won't do. --John (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The slander case is ongoing (prolonged) and is available reported in many sources (public). The article has all the evidence you need.  What part of this are you disputing?
 * Also, when both of you are insulting me, I must confess that I believe your reaction to the edits are probably more based on personality than on fact, and am less inclined to engage in any discussions with you.LedRush (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If the information is in the article, certainly you could just copy it to the talk page? Please? Hipocrite (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Instead of everyone throwing vieled barbs around, maybe there's a better way to state this. Ignoring my suggestion above, it seems this dispute is entirely about the word "controversy". It is possible to summarize the situation without using that word? "The case received much media attention in Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States. Questions have been raised about the conduct of the police during their investigation and of the prosecution." I think that's something both sides can support. Then build on that, possibly adding the types of people raising the questions. "raised by some media observers, legal scholars and celebrities" Please note that last part is NOT a suggestion, but something I threw off the top of my head from reading through the talk page. ANYTHING added needs to be supported either directly via a cite or by specific sections in the article. Given the contentious nature of this article, I don't think that asking for sources or specific section is not unreasonable. It might be useful for someone to create a "common" source page listing the common areas people asking for cites about and the cite for it. You can then refer editors to that page, knowing they can quickly find the information. Just saying the cite is in the article is tough - there are 139 references in there! Ravensfire ( talk ) 19:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

As a novice, I find this discussion bizarre. This is one of the most controversial cases of the century so far. That is self evidently why many contributors are here and whatever their perspective, whether they think the police and prosecutor mishandled the case, or whether they think it is only notable because of a vocal innocence campaign, controversial is what it is. A Google search for 'Amanda Knox controversy' gets around 900,000 hits. 'Amanda Knox' gets over 8 million hits. This means that 10% of all hits for Amanda Knox go to pages where controversy is a feature. What is there to argue about here? Controversy is a given. Surely discussion should move on to fixing the rest of the article? NigelPScott (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ghits are not a particularly good metric as they do not speak to the quality of the sources. If this is as self-evident as some people have been saying, it should be very easy to find high-quality sources which back up the claim. That they have not so far been presented makes me begin to doubt that they exist, and so we need to work towards a form of words for the lede which more clearly reflect what the high quality sources do say. Any takers? --John (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I find this to be a rather odd conversation. Perhaps the reason no one has yet bothered to produce a list of high quality sources which back up the completely obvious truth that this case is controversial is that it is so completely obvious. However, if anyone really doubts it, here are some good quality sources:
 * 1) "Murder in Italy" says "Yet Mignini's group murder theory was causing worldwide controversy, because the particulars were so unusual.  Not only did most murders involve a single assailant, but most were committed by men.  Women seldom killed each other.  Orgies rarely featured knives."  Indeed, the extended title of the book refers to an "International Scandal".
 * 2) "Angel Face" (the leading "guilty" book) says "Back in the United States, there was an intemperate jingoistic burst of outrage from the people who know about the trial only through Knox-approved dispatches".  This shows how controversial the case has been.
 * 3) Christian Science Monitor writes about "two movies to be made about the controversial case."
 * 4) The Seattle Post-Intelligencer calls the case a "complicated and controversial case."
 * 5) The Atlantic Wire (website of the very reputable Atlantic Monthly magazine) says "The Knox trial was controversial from the outset".
 * 6) CBS News writes about "a new version of events in the controversial Amanda Knox murder case in Perugia, Italy."
 * 7) Time Magazine testifies to the existence of controversy surrounding the trial: "But while the original trial took place in a charged atmosphere of tabloid controversy and weekly revelations, this new one is likely to unfold sedately in a media environment more favorable to the defendants."
 * 8) The Boston Globe refers to the "controversial DNA results, the rules of the Italian justice system, and the kind of self-serving, button-pushing tabloid exploitation that turns the world into a jury."

It seems abundantly clear that there is ample evidence that many reliable sources consider the case controversial. But I would like to be completely fair and neutral here, of course. And so before making any actual edit, I'd like to give Hipocrite the chance to find reliable sources who make the opposite claim, that the case is uncontroversial. In a spirit of helpfulness, I'll not that a search of Google News Archives finds zero hits for the three words Amanda Knox uncontroversial, but of course a single search like that is incomplete. Possibly the consensus of reliable sources is that this is a completely uncontroversial case, but I'd like to see the evidence first. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There are many reliable sources which consider the case controversial, for sure. We used to have There is a great deal of controversy over the conduct of the police investigation and prosecution, the convictions, and the media coverage of the events. which in my opinion overstated the case, and we now have There has been much controversy over the convictions and the conduct of the police investigation and prosecution. which is less bad. We should have something less tabloidy and more NPOV, for the lede, per WP:UNDUE. Questions have been raised about the conduct of the police during their investigation and of the prosecution. would be better, as Ravensfire suggests above. I fail to see what is odd about any of this; it is our normal article-writing process at work. Try inserting a sentence like There has been much controversy over the convictions and the conduct of the ... investigation... into the lede of our articles on 9/11 or TWA 800 (where it would be equally easy to find supporting sources as here) and see how long it lasts before being (rightly) changed out for a more balanced, encyclopedic form of words. --John (talk) 04:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be equating those who doubt the safety of the verdicts in the case with 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Most mainstream news channels in the US seem to be questioning aspects of the Knox case, so this is hardly a valid comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 08:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The Fox News Channel article is another good example when one looks how the obvious slant to the right is described in the lead.TMCk (talk) 11:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Jimbo, I never said the case wasn't controversial, I questioned what the controversy was about. You have thoroughly demolished the strawman argument that the case wasn't controversial. Hipocrite (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible change of source?
We say "Before the Carabinieri arrived in response to these calls, two officers of the Italian Post and Communications Police, came to investigate the discovery of Kercher's mobile phones near another house." This is, as far as I can tell, uncontroversial. (Every source seems to agree to the simple fact that the Post and Communications police arrived before the Carabinieri.) It is easy to source. We currently source it, though, to a pretty contentious source, here. Anyone reading this story in the Sunday Times would get the impression that Amanda Knox at some point "confessed".

In particular, this source claims: Italian reports said that the new version of events had emerged because Miss Knox had "crumbled" under questioning and told police what had occurred. Mr De Felice said that the three had “tried to overpower her sexually” but Miss Kercher had resisted.

Additionally, our source makes no mention of the order of arrival of the Carabinieri and the Post and Communications Police, so it doesn't even establish what it is meant to establish.

What I would recommend is that we source this simple fact to both "Angel Face" (the leading "guilty" book) and "Murder in Italy" (the leading "innocent" book).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This fact is mentioned on pages 61-62 of "Murder in Italy", the same reference as the next sentence. As for the source problem, many of the newspaper articles from the early days of this case have similar problems. --Footwarrior (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm discovering that there is a benefit and cost to my using Kindle editions.  I can search for things quite easily, which is quite helpful in terms of finding particular bits of information.  But I don't have page numbers, which is going to make doing good citations hard for me.
 * In terms of the substantive issue, I'm hopeful that we can get general consensus among the most active editors here that at least "Angel Face" (about which many people have some complaints) and "Murder in Italy" (about which many people have some complaints) are credible books published by major publishers and that whenever possible, if we can cite both these books for particular facts (where they agree), we will be stronger than if we cite newspaper articles from the early days. This may allow us to clean up and strengthen the referencing of this article while minimizing the errors that creep in from using preliminary reports.
 * I don't think any serious source today would say that the Times article I discuss here would be a fair or accurate summary of what happened - even "anti-Knox" references seem to concede that she didn't confess in the way this article claims.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Removing sources with disproven text: Sometimes, we might need to use an old source but note it has rejected portions. In general, I agree with the notion to avoid old sources which contain old, out-dated misperceptions or disproven ideas about the case; otherwise, readers might think the article was "cherry picking" text from sources, while (at the same time) ignoring nearby text, without realizing that newer source documents now consider the nearby text incorrect (but the source stated it as accepted at the time). However, in some cases, there are no "totally-correct" sources, so in those cases, perhaps put a footnote inside a footnote to explain how other issues in an old source have been rejected, and perhaps link to those other footnotes. Hopefully, more new sources can be found to avoid the confusion of the rejected ideas in some old sources. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * On the side issue of Kindle, I'm not sure if we ever do, but I can't see why it would not be legitimate to create a citation using the "location" numbers that appear at the bottom of each page. Maybe you should do this, Jimbo. In a minor way, you would become an internet pioneer.
 * I would support an approach of taking a case-by-case approach to sources. There's nothing inferior about newspapers per se. I also think, Jimbo, that you will not find it easy to arrive at an understanding of the case by seeing it in terms of a "pro" camp and an "anti" camp. That's the way it may be on the internet. I guess we are part of the internet, but that shouldn't dictate our view. Blogs aside, it is perfectly possible to see the article as being about a murder, a court case and associated media coverage, rather than as an internet controversy. This is where our article currently falls down, IMO.
 * Murder In Italy should not be valued very highly as a source because it is written by a campaigning blogger. I think it would be the world turned upside down to enter in a process of considering this a go-to source when we have coverage in the Guardian, NYT etc as an alternative.--FormerIP (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think its important to keep in mind that FormerIP clearly hasn't read the book he seems so fixated on (these are based on his own words) and has yet to note any major fact error in the book. Leaving that aside, if he is going to denote a career journalist to a simple blogger just because she happens to also have a blog, then if he was objective, he would be just as adamantly protesting using Nadeau's book as a source as well.  I respectfully submit that reading this page, FormerIP is clearly unable to impartially edit this article, nor is he capable of objectively assessing the strength of sources.  If objective, he would also note that this would make Nadeau a "campaigning blogger" on the opposite end of the spectrum, so we should not source IT either.  The heart of the matter is it appears that formerIP is quick to make ad-hom (and misguided) attacks on sources that disagree with his own view of the case.  What would be more instructive is as Jimbo Wales suggests: look for verification from multiple sources, and see where competing sources agree.  Regardless, FormerIP's objections are suspect IMO. (GeniusApprentice (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC))


 * I would certainly not argue that we should not include Angel Face, bad as I think it is. But I must respectfully suggest that it is a bit of a stretch to call its publisher, Beast Books, a "major publisher." As far as I can tell, it published two bad books before it went belly-up. Penguin, the publisher of Murder in Italy, is major and highly respectable.PietroLegno (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ultimately to be effective we have to deal with 4 topics areas: 1) motivation (or lack thereof) for the crime; 2)statements by the defendants; 3) witnesses and their credibility; and 4) a large number of issues related to physical evidence. And, yes, we need to consider the pros and cons of each point. No other approach makes sense. We do not need to go one endlessly, but the reader should understand what the prosecution claims were and how the defense rebutted them in every instance. As part of defining the controversy (and yes that is the right word), we need also to discuss what various credentialed experts who have had access to the case file say. PietroLegno (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Questions article should answer
Developing a list of FAQ could help expand the article for reader concerns. I recommend: • With 8 living @cottage, why was Meredith alone on 1 November? • What criminal charge was made against Knox but not others, and why? • What is the significance of the exact amount considered stolen? • Who was convicted of that theft and why? • What evidence indicated sexual activity? • How many fingerprints of each suspect were found in the house? • How many footprints of each suspect were found in the house? • How many shoe-prints of each suspect were found in the house? • How much blood was found in Knox's room or her clothing? • What evidence points to a potential 4th suspect? • Why was Guede's sentence cut from 30 to 16 years, in a conviction for murder/assault? The article could answer similar questions. -Wikid77 08:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Unless reliable secondary sources address these, they are not appropriate to include in this article. Hipocrite (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * (edit conf) We should only really seek to answer questions that are both raised and answered by reliable sources. --FormerIP (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to agree. Not sure what the point of the above is, but that's not the process for writing an encyclopedia article. We need to go off reliable sources, and there are plenty of them that exist that the previous version of this article excluded that we can go with. DreamGuy (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think these are very useful questions to take a stab at answering. The reasons some oppose this is they now full well that all of the evidence points to Guede. A recent book in Italian is to the point.

"Rudy, Amanda and Raffaele are accused of murdering and sexually violating Meredith Kercher in the cottage at Via della Pergola 7, in Perugia, on Nov. 2, 2007. Let’s look at the traces that were found of the three alleged killers in the crime room. 1.Rudy Guede --His Y chromosone found on a vaginal tampon inserted (Note: by investigators) into the body of the victim. --His DNA on the left sleeve of the blue Adidas jacket worn by the victim. --His DNA on a brown, fake leather purse, discovered on Meredith’s bed, from which her cell phones were stolen. --His DNA on the straps of Meredith’s bra. --The imprint of his bloody hand on a pillowcase. --The bloody print made by his Nike Outbreak 2 shoes on the floor of the room.

2. Raffaele Sollecito --A mixed trace of his DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp (collected 46 days after the primary investigation).

3. Amanda Knox --No trace"

From: Maria D’Elia in Il Delitto Di Perugia: L’Altra Verita (The Crime of Perugia: The Other Truth), Oggi’s fact-based book on the evidence.PietroLegno (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Last I checked, this was the Murder of Meredith Kercher, not Conspiracy theories regarding the Amanda Knox imprisonment. Tarc (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there was any theory on that last post. It is merely a list of facts.LedRush (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Use of "The Daily Beast" as a reliable source
is alledged not to be a reliable source in this edit, I suspect due to the fact that it is headlined "Blog & Stories." I contend that this is, in fact, a reliable source. Barbie Latza Nadeau is a professional journalist (ref: "Barbie Latza Nadeau, author of the Beast Book Angel Face, about Amanda Knox, has reported from Italy for Newsweek Magazine since 1997 and for The Daily Beast since 2009. She is a frequent contributor to CNN Traveller, Departures, Discovery and Grazia. She appears regularly on CNN, BBC and NPR."). The article is not a personal blog, it is from the Daily Beast section "Blogs and Stories from our contributors" - in other words, a WP:NEWSBLOG. This has been adressed at WP:RSN - see, which makes it clear that the Daily Beast is a reliable source (while the piece in question is an opinion piece, this piece is not) and , which is even stronger in it's case for reliability. I suggest that DreamGuy self revert. Hipocrite (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Gosh, Hipocrite. I thought above you said straight out that people who whose opinions were considered notable when printed in notable publications could not be used as sources when they are on a blog or personal site? The Daily Beast is a blog, and the pieces are, in fact, opinion pieces. Nadeua did some reports for Newsweek as news, which I did not remove, but her Daily Beast work is opinion blog material and has moved onto taking direct sides on the topic, especially as demonstrated in the book the Daily Beast published for her. On top of that, the WP:RSN thread linked to above makes it clear that we have to be very careful when using that as a source and especially on BLPs. This article is tagged BLP and was recently discussed as being biased on the BLP noticeboard. Therefore BLP article restrictions apply.Is there some particular reason why you want this treated differently from other opinion blogs by notable sources? If you think this one should be used, then we would have no choice but to use Steve Moore's personal posts to blog sites as sources as well. Or is it just that you don't like some blog sites to be used but actively encourage other sites for some specific non-Wikipedia reason? I will not self-revert, and anyone who puts those back without allowing other blog posts (which we had all agreed not to do) would be breaking a number of policies as well as ground rules we all agreed to follow on this article. DreamGuy (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The pieces you removed were not opinion pieces. The Daily Beast is not a blog or personal site. Did you read the pieces, or what I wrote? Did Steve Moore write for a WP:NEWSBLOG? Hipocrite (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the Daily Beast *is* a blog site, and whether some of the pieces occasionally take on a newsy tone it is still just a blog site and primarily for opinions, as discussed previously both on this page and on the reliable sources noticeboard. This article has to follow BLP standards for sourcing. Frankly, some of the sites you have complained about previously are just as news-oriented as the Daily Beast is. But let's just test to see if you apply the same rules equally: Candace Dempsey is journalist with a book published about this topic by a reputable mainstream publisher. Her blog posts about the case are just as news-oriented as Barbie Nadeau's Daily Beast's posts are, if not moreso. Are you saying we can use her blog posts too? If not, why? The blogs Steve Moore has posted to follow the news of the case also, but earlier you said we couldn't use those. Why? I'm just trying to see if you have any consistent position or if you are targeting specific authors for some specific ulterior motive... DreamGuy (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The Daily Beast is not a blog site. See the RSN threads. Thanks! If Candace Dempsey's blog posts are subject to the full editorial control of a reliable publisher, you can use them. If Steve Moore's blogs are subject to the full editorial control of a reliable publisher, you can use them. Hipocrite (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If you actually read the most recent RSN thread you would see that it is an opinion blog aggregator, not a news blog, and should not be used on articles that fall under the BLP policy. You seem to keep returning to an argument that isn't relevant. The Daily Beast is a reliable source for opinions, but should not be used to cite facts, and certainly not in a BLP article, where our criteria for reliable sources is higher. DreamGuy (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently DreamGuy has never read wp:NEWSBLOG and they should make themself familiar with it. It sure can't be something elseTMCk (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've read it. You've either not or have something in your head that you think makes it qualify but which you have not actually proven. I see no evidence that the content is under "the newspaper's full editorial control" - or that there is indeed any editorial control or any newspaper involved. But, more importantly, WP:BLP articles have greater restrictions. Apparently there are a whole lot of policies you are not familiar with, not just WP:NEWSBLOG. DreamGuy (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently at least one of us must be wrong.TMCk (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Might I venture to suggest, with due humility, that Candace's blog is hosted by SeattlePI - it is not self posted so it is subjected to exactly the same degree of editorial control, or lack of control as Barbie's blog at the Daily Beast. Both should be considered acceptable or not acceptable. As long as there are no double standards I would be content with this either way. NigelPScott (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of Barbie's book is made up of her Daily Beast blog anyways. That's partly the reason it took her three weeks to write I'm guessing.  Instead of stressing over this issue, just look for a reference in Barbie's actual book.   (GeniusApprentice (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC))


 * The Daily Beast is obviously not a blog site. It is fairly well known news website run by Tina Brown and partnered with Newsweek. Because of this relationship, it is in the privileged position of having a reporter on the ground so it doesn't have to rely on press releases. So, not only is it a reliable source, it's a particularly reliable source for this article. --FormerIP (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we should get over the spurious distinction between blog sites and blog sites. Anyone can start a blog and publish an internet rant. Some news organisations host web sites and include blogs from contributors/employees. There should be (but there is not always) a difference in reliability between a self-published blog and one that appears on the web site of a legitimate news organisation. The Daily Beast/Newsweek is obviously a legitimate news organisation and so is SeattlePI. Therefore blogs posted through these sites ought to (but will not necessarily) be better sourced than the average blog. Both Nadeau's and Dempsey's blogs are written by people who have invested a lot of time and effort in this case so both have an equal claim for consideration as sources by Wikipedia. This does not mean that everything they write will be correct and it certainly does not mean that one of them should be presumed to be more reliable than the other simply because Newsweek is a larger organisation than SeattlePI. NigelPScott (talk) 10:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for general clarifications; however, we need a WP:RS source which confirms the blog portion of The Daily Beast is controlled for editorial review, and not just anyone with username "Isaac Newton" can write how Einstein was wrong despite all those experiments which confirmed that gravitational forces bend the path of light rays. All we need is a reliable source which confirms editorial control and objectivity of blog posts. -Wikid77 02:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Which blog posts are you talking about? Nadeau is clearly a paid reporter for the Daily Beast. She is therefore under editorial control, regardless of whether her contributions are categorised as "blog" or not. --FormerIP (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dreamguy is making a very useful distinction here. I am no fan of Nadeau's but her work on Newsweek, where there is clear editorial control, is infinitely better than her work on the Beast where there is no sign of editorial control or even elementary fact checking. Nadeau's columns on the DB are merely gossip columns. She is paid to express outrageous opinions and is not above using her bully pulpit to settle personal scores. We could have high entertainment cataloging the factual errors and instances of raw, unsourced gossip that occur in all of Nadeau's work. I also question whether Beast Books is properly considered a respectable publisher. Its guiding principle was to exploit controversy by rushing bad books into print--again with no editorial control or fact checking. Mercifully, there was never a public appetite for this junk. As far as I can tell,Beast Books ultimately published just two bad books, including Nadeau's, and then went belly-up. PietroLegno (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Concerns
I appreciate that this article has been a target of intense advocacy, however a quick review I conducted just now has already highlighted significant problems with the prose and sourcing (related less to POV pushing and more to the high level of activity). Here's an example of the problem just to give people an idea, I just fixed this sentence:

At some point during the evening, Nara Capezzali, a neighbour, alleged she heard a "chilling scream" and, soon after, the footsteps of "at least two people" running from the flat.


 * Issue one is that the grammatical construction makes this sentence imply that Capezzali made the allegation on the evening of the offence... I've noted this problem about 4 times already in the same section
 * Issue two is that the cited source does not mention the scream as "chilling", this is probably because sources have been swapped around at some point in the past, but ideally we need to fact check out quotes to make sure they are cited, for now I reworded it to avoid the word.
 * Issue three is that "running from the flat" is also not dealt with in the source, it is specific about hearing footsteps on the stairs, this strikes me as a significant difference from the source, so we need to fact check these specifics.
 * Issue four is the used of "alleged", this word is used a lot in the article... my concern is that when not used by a source it is editorializing that potentially undermines the statement being made. I suspect the word crept in slowly over time (it usually does in these articles) where editors were doing due diligence not to present things as fact. Generally speaking I think that alleged is appropriate when a witness is making a claim about a specific person, but in this case the witness is describing something she heard w/o attributing it to anyone - given the generality it is more acceptable to used "said" IMO.

It's probably a case of high page churn leaving messy content, but as it involves living persons we really need to get a handle on it stat. I suggest reviewing as much of the material, a few sentences at a time, as possible. I'll try to have a look at some more at lunch. --Errant (chat!) 09:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Most of the information in this section is from phone records and witness interviews that were available to investigators before the first arrests. Nara didn't come forward about hearing the scream for several months. I would suggest putting her statements in the trial section, along with the other witnesses that came forward long after the arrests. The homeless guy, people in the disabled car, tow truck driver and the shopkeeper who saw Amanda the next day.  --Footwarrior (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You are correct on the use of loaded terms. I changed the text in a few places to avoid using "claimed", but more needs to be done. --Footwarrior (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure but maybe those events can be (roughly?) dated and left in the section they are in?TMCk (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Preparing article for massive traffic on appeal
Because the evidence against Knox and Sollecito seems to be fading (very fast), there is likely to be enormous article traffic, as the appeals trial winds down. This intense reader interest is likely to occur, for either potential judgment of the jury:
 * If both are acquitted, as logical from fading evidence, then the article should explain why.
 * If both are convicted, despite news of fading evidence, the article should quote sources as to the crucial reasons why.

I recommend a sentence, near the top of the lede, which links to a section named "#Knox/Sollecito appeals trial" and that section should probably have 2 independent sources to back each phrase in the text. We need to get some photos approved. Let's start planning this now. -Wikid77 21:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can someone explain the photo approval process? PietroLegno (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The restrictions on images are extremely, ultra-complicated, so I think we will need to post a request at the WP:Village_pump for policies, WP:VPP to get advice about using Myspace images, mugshots, etc. I will submit the request and reply back, here, for the next step in contacting specialists about this. -Wikid77 08:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I would try it here. Good luck.TMCk (talk) 09:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

We're months away from even a review of the DNA evidence, right?LedRush (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * LedRush, No. The DNA review will be on May 21st, only 1 1/2 months away.  It is even possible the appeal could be OVER at that time.  The judge could order more testimony or tests though.Issymo (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * During a re-trial in the U.S., the judge in the case can actually dismiss the case before the jury deliberates, such as for lack of proper evidence (per "rules of evidence"). Is that same concept followed in Italian criminal courts, or does an Italian jury always decide the verdict (just not a unanimous verdict)? -Wikid77 21:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Needs clarification
First point: In the first sentence of Murder of Meredith Kercher, it isn't clear to the reader why Guede's flat would be searched immediately since he wouldn't be implicated until much later. "The house at Via della Pergola 7 was investigated, along with the residence of Sollecito and Guede's former flat."

Was Guede's former flat adjacent to Kercher's flat? If so, the statement should be amended to reflect this. Something like, "Kercher's flat and the adjacent flats at Via della Pergola 7 (one of which had been previously occupied by Guede) were all investigated as well as Sollecito's residence ".

Second point: In the introduction of Guede, it states that he didn't have any criminal record at the time of the murder...but later, in the section on Guede's arrest, the police are able to match his DNA. There needs to be some explanation as to how the police happened to have his DNA at this point as it seems inconsistent. I believe this point was raised by DreamGuy before but was never addressed. ⋙–Berean–Hun<b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 23:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Point one is strange as the citation doesn't match at all.TMCk (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Point two's reason is as far as I remember that he was an asylum seeker and had his fingerprints taken but couldn't find the source, at least yet.TMCk (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Self-addressing point 2; the phrase that he had no criminal record was completely false and I've updated the section to reflect that he was a drug dealer and petty criminal well-known to police by the time of the murder. The previous source (now removed) was explaining why his sentence was cut in half...when the author wrote "...lack of criminal record were taken into account", he meant a lack of a serious criminal record.
 * Now, it is understandable why the police would have Guede's prints & DNA. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 01:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've read that he did not have a criminal record many times, and I've also read that he was well known to police. I think that both pieces of info should stay in there until we get a source that clarifies if the two sources are in conflict (I don't think they must be, but they certain could be.)LedRush (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already seen numerous reliable sources speaking of his criminal record and logically it follows this is why they would have his prints & DNA. Both pieces do not make sense to stay...we shouldn't confuse the reader. A search for Guede's mugshots reveal earlier pics than the mugshot when he was arrested for Kercher's murder. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 01:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have reliable sources, bring them. His fingerprints (not his DNA) were on record because of his immigration status. --FormerIP (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph states "He became a suspect in the murder two weeks after Miss Kercher's body was found, when DNA tests on a bloody fingerprint and on samples taken from the body were found to match samples which police already had on file following his earlier arrests." <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 03:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

According to these sources, he was a drug dealer and petty criminal:
 * The Daily Telegraph
 * Another article from same
 * ITN
 * Reuters
 * The Independent
 * The London Times
 * BBC
 * TruTV
 * Metro
 * Croydon Guardian

That is a compelling argument that he was a minor criminal.

Don't people in Italy have access to people's criminal record? In the U.S. we do. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 02:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * we all agree that he was a small time drug dealer/petty criminal. However, we don't have any sources that say he was previously arrested, and we have several that say he hasn't been arrested.  The current formulation in the article makes sense and should remain until reliable sources clarify the situation.LedRush (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I should say above that the sources say he had no criminal record. Perhaps he was arrested and then released.LedRush (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox monthly on U.S. networks' Evening news
I have been trying to emphasize this issue, for the past year, Amanda Knox has appeared (in video replay) almost every month on the top U.S. TV networks' evening-news broadcasts. The flood of American users comes with those broadcasts, not as a coordinated "attack by an advocacy group". The U.S. news reports rarely mention the victim "Meredith Kercher" nor Sollecito, and the focus often gives the impression that Amanda Knox is being re-tried alone, rather than the actual "joint" appellate trial with Raffaele Sollecito ("So-Lay-cha-to"). I wanted to explain the U.S. "evening news" in other terms: who is the equivalent of news anchors Brian Williams or Lester Holt or Katie Couric in the UK TV networks, or Canadian TV, or German TV or Italian TV? We already noted several sources stating Amanda Knox was a bigger TV personality in Italy during 2009 than Carla Bruni, due to televised excerpts of the court proceedings. Most of the U.S. interest in Amanda Knox comes from nation-wide TV broadcasts, not from some advocacy sites planning to flood WP with edits. The recent TV movie (and controversial responses from the Knox family, Kercher and Sollecito families) gave Amanda Knox added individual notability for the 2-hour film Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy (broadcast Feb. 21, 2011 at 9 pm EST). These are U.S. nationwide TV broadcasts, not bloggers seeking support. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Assuming that one of the principal objectives of this post is to highlight the need for an individual Knox article: there is rather little preventing interested editors from planning such a biography in their userspace, or indeed going ahead with a full biography in the mainspace . As much as there have been claims on this talk page and at other venues that the simple concept of such a biography has been shunned, the greatest failing of all attempts at a biography to date - I would argue - has been a refusal to understand that a true biography (note the emphasis and continued use of this noun) must establish Knox's own individual notability both in a neutral tone and in a context that goes beyond her involvement in the Kercher case. Wikid, please forgive me for bringing this up, but do you understand that the resurrection of the Amanda Knox link would entail excluding from the article, for example, such content as that which has dominated some of your own efforts in the last 12 months? However, I do admit that the reasoning of WP:BLP1E that has gone against the continued existence of a separate page in previous discussions on this subject is perhaps now not as forceful as in the past.  Super  Mario  Man  05:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no very strong view on this particular case but wanted to re-emphasize a good point that SuperMarioMan puts forward here: BLP1E considerations push us to ask whether there is enough independent material to write an actual biography of Amanda Knox, separate from the material in this article. It's important not to create a POV fork, etc.  I do not know if there is sufficient standalone material for such an article.
 * If Amanda Knox is released on appeal, and goes on to prominence for other things, then of course eventually there could be an article. Or, if there is enough material about her life that doesn't really belong here, then there could be an article today.  Is there?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Doing a Google search for Amanda Knox there are 8,670,000 results, a search for Meredith Kercher gets 298,000 results. People are searching for 'Amanda Knox' and being directed to this site. This is one of the top news stories of the decade and deserves to have its own article. The Amanda Knox Trial is the MAIN story. The question at hand is if the verdict was right and an entire article should discuss this controversy alone. The murder of Meredith Kercher itself has little to add. The current article does not go into the controversial trial nearly enough. It is surprising and strange that Wikipedia does not have an article with 'Amanda Knox' in the title. I suggest a new article - The Amanda Knox and Raffael Sollecito Trials or Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.Issymo (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably. There are even numerous news reports of her personal activities, while incarcerated, including continuing with college classes by correspondance, plus ongoing interviews, the civil suit which she won to stop Italian publication of Fiorenza Sarzanini's book Amanda e gli altri ("Amanda and the Others"), the confiscation of her prison diaries, the false report of her being HIV-positive later retracted as being HIV-negative, her increased fluency of Italian (long talks with cellmates & prison officials), fan mail received in prison, writing letters to friends, each birthday-in-prison event, playing guitar in prison groups, changing her hairstyles, choice of clothes worn in court, and her interactions with other inmates. Those activities might not seem as dramatic as first-degree felonies, but many reporters have been able to print articles about those events. If there are 2 WP:RS sources for each event, then I would consider them significant to include in her bio-page text. -Wikid77 13:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Given that Amanda Knox remains under full protection, I've struck through a small part of my comment - mainspace inclusion of a biographical article would indeed require wider discussion at this talk page. With regard to the one-event guidelines, Knox would appear to represent something of a borderline case. Of course, in light of the appeals and media such as the TV film, it could certainly be argued that, as a biographical subject, she no longer relates to a single event. However, the flipside of the coin could assert that since the original murder of Meredith Kercher effectively entails all of the above, a separate BLP is still not merited. (Similar arguments can be, and have been, offered in response to a number of proposals to rename this article "Trial of Amanda Knox" - however, the murder predates the trial(s).) The rationale for having no individual biography also encompasses BLP concerns, which include the potential for such an article to be a magnet for vandalism and a platform for activism (the reasoning behind the current full protection).  Super Mario  Man  08:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The BLP1E criteria have not applied to Know for at least a couple of years. The policy states: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." There are two elements here (one with two parts) that must be satisfied in order for a person not to be justified in having his/her own article. 1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event; AND 2. The person remains OR is likely to remain, a low profile individual.
 * Element One: Single Event
 * It would take an incredibly narrow definition of "one event" to have Amanda Know fall under that Wikipedia category. Such a narrow definition, as I have noted before, would exclude huge numbers of artists, musicians, authors, actors and, yes, criminals, who already have pages devoted to them. Knox is covered by reliable sources in association with many activities. She is covered for the many lawsuits in which she is involved. She is covered as an example of Italian jurisprudence. She is covered as an example of controversy. She is covered as the subject of a movie. She gives interviews, as do her parents, and she is covered in this context.
 * Element Two: Low Profile
 * Even if you define a single event so broadly as to exclude many BLPs on Wikipedia, the second element of the test is not met. Knox has not kept a low profile. Her parents still routinely give interviews which are covered not only by reliable sources, but the national (US) press. She has a movie about her. She is the subject of biographical books. She remains a high-profile individual even years after the murder, and with new books and shows still coming out about her, it would be impossible to state that she is "likely to remain a low profile individual."LedRush (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The real problem here is that until anyone agrees in concept to a Knox article, it seems like a waste of time to try and develop one.LedRush (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that the focus of this subject has moved on since the murder in 2007. This case is now an international phenomenon and Wikipedia should reflect this. Narrowly focusing on the case misses the broader picture. The reason that it has become notorious is because so much of the evidence is disputed, false and/or irrelevant, for example, the point about footprints in blood being found in the flat was withdrawn by the prosecution's forensic scientist Stefanoni, since tests for blood were negative but this information was initially withheld from the court. The role of the media in painting and sustaining a guilty picture to an unsequestered jury also needs more space. Wikipedia should explain that advocates of innocence are not merely questioning the evidence but are asking why such an unbelievable case was ever allowed to proceed, who is hoping to gain from it and why a prosecutor who is himself indicted for abuse of office should have been put in charge and even now remains in the prosecution team. NigelPScott (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am thinking the controversy about the luminol-revealed footprints was that they nested negative for Kercher's DNA, but I don't think test-for-blood actions could be documented, and anyway the prosecution withheld that evidence, from the defense (until the July-2009 court break), for longer than the normal legal time limit in Italy. Plus similar instances of controversial details have made the Knox/Sollecito trial become WP:UNDUE-balance text, to be moved into a subarticle dedicated to the "Trial of Knox and Sollecito" as (valid) content-fork (not a "POV-fork" - see WP:FORK). -Wikid77 13:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's also WP:CRIME to consider. --FormerIP (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * CRIME doesn't seem to apply either. There are no existing articles which can devote the necessary encyclopedic content about the person, Amanda Knox.  Any attemp to expand the current article to include biographical content would result in WP:UNDUE, and is generally resisted by the editors here anyway.  Furthermore, it assumes that the person is notable only for committing the crime (the same as BLP1E above).  The arguments above has centered around the idea that Knox is now famous for more than that.LedRush (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Amanda Knox is notable and deserves her own article. It never even occurred to me that there wouldn't be one now.  This is not merely due to the TV movie about her, or the international actions on her behalf.  I regard her as notable because she is facing six years in prison for saying that Italian cops smacked her on the head, and because she couldn't pick them out from among those officers whom the Italian police department chose to show her.  They even prosecuted her parents for saying she'd been abused!  This kind of extreme criminal libel prosecution of people alleging police brutality convinces me that brutality must be almost ubiquitous in Italy, because no one knowing the system would dare try to speak up the way that she did.  This is an issue entirely apart from the murder case. Wnt (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The separate article for Amanda Knox was redirected to MoMK because there seemed to be a lack of individual notability, before the controversial film was broadcast by Lifetime (TV network) on Feb. 21, 2011. -Wikid77 27 March, 10:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Amanda has remained the main focus in all of this, to media, forums, and all. Raffaele, has had controversy in these things, but never at the deep extent as her. Meredith has became lost in this horrific battle, and well Rudy.. is sneaking right out of any light shined upon him in this.In fact, imagine the truth here, he will serve a simple 6 years for this horrific crime, when all is said and done. --Truth Mom (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * However, if Knox/Sollecito are acquitted, and Guede is judged to have acted alone (such as "he had to return to the scene, to see did she really die or live to tell" and then did a partial cleanup). I would think the lone-wolf scenario might affect his parole chances, so are there any sources we could quote about how inmates are paroled in Italy? -Wikid77 06:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

User-space draft bio page about Amanda Knox
23-March-2011: After months of discussions about creating a NPOV-neutral, balanced bio page for American student Amanda Knox, I have created a user-space draft: &bull; User:Wikid77/Amanda Knox - draft bio page (set _NOINDEX__ as omitted by search engines) That user-space draft (which is not searchable by either Google Search or Yahoo! Search or Bing.com: see option "_NOINDEX_" in Help:Magic words) has been advised, by the involved admins, as a place to start to consider re-creating a main-space bio page article about Amanda Knox. If consensus can be gained about contents, as having an NPOV-neutral balance, in that draft page, then an article would be more likely. Please feel free to edit that page, and if approved, it would be moved (along with merging the entire editing history) into Wikipedia main namespace for articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure why you have done this. Such a page would be in direct violation of WP:BLP1E.  I cannot possibly see the community supporting it's existence.Griswaldo (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Strawman argument Griswaldo.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I hate to see the BLP1E arguments brandied about because they clearly don't apply here (and people rarely respond to any such proof). As I wrote above:
 * The BLP1E criteria have not applied to Know for at least a couple of years. The policy states: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." There are two elements here (one with two parts) that must be satisfied in order for a person not to be justified in having his/her own article. 1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event; AND 2. The person remains OR is likely to remain, a low profile individual.
 * Element One: Single Event
 * It would take an incredibly narrow definition of "one event" to have Amanda Know fall under that Wikipedia category. Such a narrow definition, as I have noted before, would exclude huge numbers of artists, musicians, authors, actors and, yes, criminals, who already have pages devoted to them. Knox is covered by reliable sources in association with many activities. She is covered for the many lawsuits in which she is involved. She is covered as an example of Italian jurisprudence. She is covered as an example of controversy. She is covered as the subject of a movie. She gives interviews, as do her parents, and she is covered in this context.
 * Element Two: Low Profile
 * Even if you define a single event so broadly as to exclude many BLPs on Wikipedia, the second element of the test is not met. Knox has not kept a low profile. Her parents still routinely give interviews which are covered not only by reliable sources, but the national (US) press. She has a movie about her. She is the subject of biographical books. She remains a high-profile individual even years after the murder, and with new books and shows still coming out about her, it would be impossible to state that she is "likely to remain a low profile individual."LedRush (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The "event" is currently ongoing. There is only one event.  The murder of Meredith Kercher, of which Knox is accused and now standing trial for. If, after the trials are over she sustains notability then write a biography of her, by all means.  But you can't point to ongoing coverage of an event that has not concluded as proof of lasting notability.  Knox currently fits BLP1E to the letter, and we wont know otherwise until the event finishes:
 * Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
 * BLP1E is not being "bandied about". As I stated already I cannot possibly see the community agreeing, at this time, that she qualifies for her own biography.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are ignoring the entire second prong of the BLP1E. Knox is not a low profile individual, and she certainly will not "remain" one.  Even if your arguments on the one-event are right (and they are clearly not), there is no way that BLP1E can possibly apply here, and it is disheartening to see so many ignore essential parts of WP policy.LedRush (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I support the development of this draft. Caught between WP:UNDUE and a tight reading of WP:BLP1E are many encyclopedia-worthy Reliable Sources. Let's make the draft as comprehensive as possible; I can't see how phenomenal level of coverage of Knox doesn't belong somewhere. Ocaasic 18:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can. WP:NOTNEWS.  The key is enduring coverage which is very difficult to ascertain, again, when something is still news. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you've still ignored the text of BLP1E, and movies, documentaries and books are generally not considered news.LedRush (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I recently had a similar discussion over an image of Khaled Saeed which was described in hundreds of RS surrounding the Egyptian revolution, but some questioned whether it was definitely historic yet, or just news (the sources describe it as historic, today, of course that could fade or change). I think cases where the 'news' coverage is prolific, or where the claims made in the coverage are specific to the subject and consistently bold, that News becomes Encyclopedic.  These events may have some of the feel of court-blotter/tabloid as they are rehashed over and over, but the sheer amount of coverage has transformed what was only a news event into a cultural phenomenon of its own, with its own collateral mini-events.  Either these can be covered at the main article (which seems to insult Kercher's legacy) or they can be part of a Knox article (which leans on BLP1E).  That we can't find a great place for them doesn't mean they shouldn't be somewhere.  And that they are still 'newsy' doesn't mean they're also not encyclopedic.  It's a gray area at least, and I'm not sure why a draft which presents the alternative idea shouldn't be brought forth for discussion. Ocaasic 18:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that what is going on right now? It is being discussed?Griswaldo (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Griswaldo, not really, since your comments were that it's wrong even before the draft is finished. I think we should at least finish the draft before discussing whether or not it is appropriate. How else can we compare its content and scope to policy? Ocaasic 19:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would Support an article for Amanda Knox. She even got a TV-film about her in particular. She is the main person even trumpng Meredith Kercher herself in this story. I would strongly advice that we start a article for Amanda.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Griswaldo is into Strawman arguments I can tell. He refuses to see the many things that points to Knox having her own article. Its so obvious that Knox has reached beyond being simply an accomplice in a possible murder.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's also obvious that you've never met an article that you didn't !vote to keep. We all have our own particular faults and points of view, but let's not let that get in the way of the actual subject here.
 * Personally, I'm not too sure here. In all honesty, what can be said about Ms. Knox that will not be in connection to this case?  Some basic "she was born in...", "she went to school at..." stuff?  It most certainly cannot be turned into some sort of advocacy platform for her alleged innocence.  We really need to take stock of just what WP:BLP1E, WP:EVENT, and WP:CRIME are meant to address here. Tarc (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Tarc, the problem is that in no reading of BLP1E can a Knox article be excluded (she's not a low profile person). Crime is similarly not applicable, though admittedly less clearly. (Please see above for more extensive points and references to policies).  Finally, I'm nor sure I've heard a WP:EVENT argument on this before, but it seems pretty obvious that it doesn't apply here either.LedRush (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't really happen to agree with your BLP1E interpretation, particularly the low-profile aspect which has more to do with the intentions of the subject herself rather than of those around her, i.e. parents giving interviews is irrelevant to her profile. This person is a convicted criminal, and crimes routinely receive a degree of coverage in the media, especially and obviously the sensational ones.  If every criminal involved in a notable crime were deemed "high-profile", thus getting them past the BLP1E hurdle, that would render WP:CRIME as it applies to perpetrators essentially meaningless.  Read what is written there; "A person who is notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person."  That is far and away enough of a reason to keep "Amanda Knox" as a redirect to the current article. Tarc (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that a "Trial of Amanda Knox" article, or something of that nature might not be warranted. As in, something split out of this entry.  But I just don't see a bio being warranted.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Griswaldo, I think that is a very suitable alternative, and could avoid a pseudobiography issue, if there is one. We could call it whatever fits, as long as we can cover all of the encyclopedic RS. Ocaasic 20:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I would think that a biographical article would include some ("she was born in...", "she went to school at..." stuff), but it would also include much more on the other trials she's been in, the media reaction to the trial(s), the public perceptions of Knox, the coverage in fiction and non-fiction books/movies and other activities. All of these topics are glossed over here as they cannot be included without introducing WP:UNDUE concerns.  As we seen many times before, these types of articles are very common in this type of situation.  Of course, a biographical article would have to be neutral and not be a content fork (as the previous (and horrible) "article" was on both accounts).  But, if done correctly, it could take some pressure off of this article to cover topics  which clearly don't belong in a "Murder of Meredith Kurcher" article.LedRush (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As we seen many times before, these types of articles are very common in this type of situation. Out of curiosity what is a comparable entry?Griswaldo (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll make you a deal: I'll give you a list of a few prominent ones after you respond to my arguments regarding BLP1E et al, above. (Hint, the list has been produced on these pages before).LedRush (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Notability due to persistent coverage in films/books: The main reason Amanda Knox has individual notability is due to the "persistent" wider coverage, beyond just the news reports, as being the subject of films, documentaries, and several books: the U.S. TV film Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy is presented as based on a true story, and at the end of the film, it displays a message that Knox's parents have been indicted for criminal slander in Italy, as facing up to 3 years in prison (which refers to the real parents). As for "waiting for the news to be over", there must be a "statute of limitations" in claiming all reports are "news" because experts have advised that if Amanda Knox is acquitted of the murder/assault (transporting a knife, and staging a crime scene), there are likely to be follow-on "news" stories of people protesting that she got away, or months later, someone claiming to have found new evidence to convict if they can be paid to appear in the Italian media. When it comes to notable awards, then Knox was awarded the civil suit judgment for 40,000 euros ($55,000) for privacy violation against the publication of the book Amanda e gli altri ("Amanda and the Others" based on her prison diaries) by a well-known reporter for Corriere della Sera. Plus, she is also indicted for another felony crime: of criminal slander against the Perugia police. So, although not being accused as a "serial killer", such is accused of 2 separate crimes as a "serial felon", and hence WP:BLP1E no longer applies if 2 felony crimes are charged, years apart. Hence, the user-space draft is intended to seek balanced, NPOV-neutral coverage about her life, rather than prove notability. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There's obviously a concern about having coverage of Amanda Knox overshadow coverage of Meredith Kercher, the way it has in the real world. This is a sad event no matter what happened, and we should try not to see Wikipedia as extending further injustice either way.  It's simply true that the coverage of Knox has vastly exceeded that or Kercher; a tactful way to separate the two is to give Knox her own article.  As an encyclopedia, we cannot resolve the issue by limiting the coverage of Knox on Kercher's article if RS present a more comprehensive case. Ocaasic 21:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that such a move might create a POV fork of the article or be used as justification to let this article remain slanted. The views of Knox and Sollecito's lawyers as well as the sources supporting the innocence of Knox and Sollecito must be fairly presented on this article and not minimalized. They barely exist here as it is, and when they do they are written in such a way as to leave no doubt that the people who wrote the article disagree. I personally do not think there is anything about Knox other than this case, so anything about Knox needs to be mentioned here. DreamGuy (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think a BIO page is necessary but would like to see a new article that is centered on the controversial Trial and Conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. News about this case is centered on whether this was a wrongful conviction or not. Doing a Google search for Amanda Knox there are 8,670,000 results, a search for Meredith Kercher gets 298,000 results. People are searching for 'Amanda Knox' and being directed to this site. This is one of the top news stories of the decade and deserves to have its own article. The Amanda Knox Trial is the MAIN story. The question at hand is if the verdict was right and an entire article should discuss this controversy alone. The current article does not go into the controversial trial nearly enough. Wikipedia should add a new article about the controversial trial and conviction that has 'Amanda Knox' in the title. I suggest a new article - The Amanda Knox and Raffael Sollecito Trials or Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.Issymo (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We absolutely do not need a new article about the controversial trial. All of that should be incorporated into this article. If this article acts like there is no controversy or minimizes this very noteworthy aspect it would be (and currently is) a violation of WP:NPOV. DreamGuy (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Another option would be to rename this article The Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollectio Trial or something similar. The title Murder of Meredith Kercher puts the emphasis on the murder, when in reality there is far more information and interest in the trial and conviction. The trial is where the largest controversy exists and the current title doesn't reflect that. I would either create a new page or rename this one to more accurately reflect what people want to learn about when they do a search.  Issymo (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I should mention that I just merged in the old Amanda Knox to the userpage draft. There's lots of biography there, and I think it only scratches the surface.  I didn't even add anything about her parents yet, which belongs there, with their own charges against them, etcetera.  This should be moved to Amanda Knox, but should administrators fail to do the right thing, then "Trial of Amanda Knox" or the like could be used strictly as a work around.  From the last case I saw of this, Arrest of Bradley Manning (now at Bradley Manning) I have no doubt that putting words in front of the biography name is not the best thing for BLP purposes and improperly limits the article scope, but the point is, if deletionists are just going to recite off a bunch of policies like NOTNEWS and BLP1E and UNDUE and so forth, using each one to say exactly the opposite of what it says, then people just have to look around for an unblocked name and take it, even if they have to resort to a random series of letters and numbers. Wnt (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep adding to the draft. -Wikid77 13:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any way we could create a separate article for Amanda Knox and be following Wikipedia policies. Like it or not, she has no notability at all except for the topic this article already covers. Any inadequacy with the coverage of that topic needs to be addressed here, not on a separate article. I do agree, however, with the above comments that it is not the murder that is notable but the related trials, so perhaps the article could be renamed. I do not think it needs to be, however.DreamGuy (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless it became NPOV or a content fork, there is no way that a Wikipedia article could contravene WP policies. No objection I've seen based on actual WP policy even passes the smell test.LedRush (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with DreamGuy. The article should be about the case, with a focus on the court and media. (Many documentaries, films, and books mean the case is more notable, of which she is a part. Perk10 (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Perk10
 * I also agree. So far, Amanda Knox is only notable for her involvement in this murder.  Just as Tim Masters is only notable for his involvement in the Peggy Hettrick murder case. As in that case, the redirect from the suspect's name leads readers to the right place.   --Footwarrior (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We can probably fine precedents on both sides. But to me the best precedent among recent cases is the Scott Peterson case. He was scarcely notable before his conviction and yet Wikipedia has an article on his trial. There is also a separate page on Laci Peterson. In my view, it is the highly controversial nature of the trial that warrants the separation. Were Sacco & Vanzetti "notable" in and of themselves? PietroLegno (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC).


 * Keep adding to the draft. -Wikid77 06:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Creating a detailed timeline with sources
There is concern that a condensed timeline of events be sourced to secondary-source descriptions to support notability of the details, as noted in WP page section (about needing secondary sources):
 * WP:No original research

For that reason, footnotes linked to the Massei Motivations report should also be backed by footnotes to other reliable sources of those events (and there are, indeed, many news reports which include some of the events). Note that the exact time is not critical, but rather the significance of events is the issue, as whether those events were important enough to be noted in other sources: for example, if a source reports that someone called someone else, then that event can be sourced to that report, using the Massei timestamp. If a particular time of an event is disputed, then that should be discussed on the talk-page, with a {&#123;underdiscussion-inline|Topicname}} tag (showing: ), to alert readers to the discussion at talk-page topic #Topicname. The suggested timeline is below, to be expanded for significant events, plus extra footnote sources to be added. We know many users have expressed an interest in the timeline, it just needs to meet the formatting policies about source footnotes. -Wikid77 19:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed detailed timeline
Below is the proposed timeline (explained above, under: ). Please edit the timeline, in this section, to add more source footnotes on lines where only Massei, as "[1]" or "[3]" is footnoted (do not delete the Massei numbers, just add more footnotes).


 * 20:18:12 Amanda Knox receives a text message (sms) from manager Lumumba telling her not to come to work that night
 * 20:35:48 Amanda sends text message (sms) reply to Patrick Lumumba, turns off phone a bit later.
 * 20:42:56 (221 seconds) Sollecito receives phone call from his father.
 * 20:55 Kercher friend Sophie arrives home after leaving Kercher walking along street
 * 21:00 Kercher returns to flat after seeing DVD film with friends (estimated time)
 * 22:00 Kercher UK mobile phone dials her London bank but wrong prefix code prevents call
 * 22:13 Kercher's UK mobile phone receives call (unanswered) through another mobile station
 * 22:25 Rudy Guede states that he left Meredith dying around this time and went home along backstreets
 * 22:30–23:00 Kercher dies about this time (according to pathologist at trial)
 * 06:02:59 Sollecito mobile phone receives text message (sms) sent by his father at 23:41
 * 11:38 Phone brought to Postal Police is traced to Filomena R.
 * 11:50 Postal police record that Lana B. and daughter (called) say they do not know this Filomena
 * 12:00? Postal police are called by Lana's daughter, who reports finding phone #2 (UK) in garden
 * 12:07:12 (duration 16 seconds) Amanda calls English number of Kercher
 * 12:08:44 (68 seconds) Amanda calls Filomena (about door open & blood spots)
 * 12:11:02 (3 seconds) Amanda calls Italian phone of Kercher, call forwarded to voicemail.
 * 12:11:54 (4 seconds) Amanda calls Kercher UK phone again
 * 12:12:35 (36 seconds) Filomena R. calls Amanda
 * 12:20:44 (65 seconds) Filomena R. calls Amanda again
 * 12:34:56 (48 seconds) Filomena R. calls Amanda.
 * 12:35 Two postal police arrive outside the flat (time claimed in Guede trial) [contested in court]
 * 12:40 (67 seconds) Sollecito receives call from his father.
 * 12:46 Postal police station logs receipt of mobile phone #2 (Meredith's UK phone) delivered by neighbor's daughter
 * 12:47:23 (88 seconds) Amanda calls her mother in Seattle.
 * 12:50:34 (39 seconds) Sollecito calls his sister in the Carabinieri, a different branch of the Italian police
 * 12:51:40 (169 seconds) Sollecito calls "112" to report theft
 * 12:54 (57 seconds) Sollecito calls "112" again,
 * bef.13:00 Two postal police arrive outside flat (before others), meet Knox/Sollecito who talk of broken glass and blood [time decided in court]
 * 13:00 Filomena R. and her friends arrive at the flat. Kercher's door is forced and victim's body discovered shortly afterwards.
 * Notes

The above timeline should be edited, by anyone, to add more source footnotes, if needed. Thanks. -Wikid77 19:23, 28 March 2011, revised 10:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There are some things that I don't understand about this timeline. To begin with, how did Filomena's phone get mixed up in this, at 11:38?  Or was she traced as a caller, and it's actually one of Amanda's phones?  And who called who at 11:50 - the police to Lana or vice versa?  Also (more generally) is there a plausible means by which Kercher, if she had called her bank with the right prefix, could have directed an immediate payment to someone holding her at knifepoint?  Is a British bank open at 22:00 in Italy?  Did she have lots of money in an account there? Wnt (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Both Meredith and Amanda had their national home phones (such as Meredith to UK), but both were loaned Italian phones, with 1st housemate Filomena R. providing an Italian phone to Meredith, and 2nd housemate Laura M. providing an Italian phone to Amanda. When the postal police arrived they were asking about Filomena's loaned phone, and Knox/Sollecito could have replied that she was not there and try somewhere else. Knox testified that she called Meredith's UK phone as the first call (ringing 16 sec.), because she said Meredith "always" carried that phone expecting calls about her ill mother in England, so Knox called Meredith's Italian phone later. Knox/Sollecito turned off their own phones c.8:45 the previous evening (per Knox testimony), but whoever took Meredith's phones left the phones running, and the various cell towers on the hillsides logged the activity of moving phones. Lana called the police, after the "bomb scare" thinking phone #1 could be the detonator. Meredith's bank phone# was the first number in her auto-dial list, activated just by re-pushing buttons. We could add this explanation near the timeline, because note how little text is needed to clarify all these points. Thanks for noting the confusion of phone ownership. -Wikid77 23:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there are serious errors with the timeline: 1) Meredith arrived home at about 9:00 PM--not 9:15. CF Candace Dempsey page 49. We pretty much reached consensus on this point before. It was in no way a 20 minute walk from where Sophie and Meredith parted. 2)It was conclusively proved in court using CCTV that the postal police arrived at about 1:00 PM just after Raffaele made his call. This was supported by a police log showing that the police were not even dispatced until 12:45. We had this right at one point. On at least two occasions the Massei report says that the postal police arrived at 1:00--which is accurate. 3) The timeline accepts the prosecution's theory of time of death but this is very much in dispute. In fact it is a major point of contention and cannot at this point be treated as established fact. The appeals documents use coroners reports, indications of when Meredith last ate, unusual cell phone activity, the clothes in the dryer, how Meredith was dressed when attacked, and the testimony of those who were fixing a stalled car to undermine powerfully the prosecution claims on this point. Further, in his summation Mignini moved the time of death back to 11:30 without any foundation in evidence to accommodate the fact that Curatolo's testimony (if believed) gave them an alibi. As a final point, I am concerned about using the Micheli report any more. Surely he is superseded by Massei and if you are going to balance discussion on these critical issues the appeals simply must be included.PietroLegno (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If sources disagree, please list them both and note the disagreement. Wnt (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Revised timeline from Massei updates: Yes, I had also read the definitive decision that postal police arrived c.13:00, so I have revised the timeline. The Micheli Judgment is needed for events about Guede (from his separate trial), but I think, when disputed, we could, indeed, put multiple times for some events. I have heard that Mignini replaced the first pathologist, with a 2nd doctor, who gave a different TOD, so we could have 2 (or 3) in the timeline, per each source. Also, I agree that the event timestamps from the appeal should also be included, and I don't think there would be too many conflicts of times. -Wikid77 01:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The work of the pathologists is an important subpoint. For reasons that have never been satisfactorily explained, the pathologist who first arrived on the scene was prevented from taking the victim's body temperature. Thus, the best opportunity to establish the all-important time of death was lost irretrievably. The consensus of the pathologists was that MK died between 2 and 3 hours after she last ate. That makes it 9:00 at the earliest and 10:00 PM at the latest. All the rest of the evidence suggests that the earlier time is more accurate. PietroLegno (talk) 10:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Given that what the Massei report actually says is that the police said ("claimed" if you prefer) that they arrived at the scene "a little after 12:30" (page 14), isn't it a bit rabidly pro-Knox to render this as "c.13:00", so that it appears as if it is after Sollecito called the police? According to Sollecito himself, he didn't call the police before they arrived: "She told me to call 121 but in the meantime the postal police arrived" . So why the approximateness about it?
 * Obviously, I don't expect this comment to be taken seriously, but it's worth leaving here in case the article passes back into the hands of Wikipedia editors some time soon. --FormerIP (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be awesome if you could make a comment without making a personal attack as part of it. Also, as you well know from your past conversations on this board, there is a disagreement as to whether the call was made before or after the police arrived.  Pretending you didn't know that is, at best, an extreme example of selective memory and, at worst, an extreme example of editing in bad faith.LedRush (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is to drop the detailed timeline idea. When the times of specific events are known, include them in the text. Except for the phone calls, the exact times of many of the events in this case are not really known. --Footwarrior (talk) 04:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have some sympathy for Footwarrior's suggestion. It will be impossible to construct a universally acknowledged timeline, I think. Further, many of the issues we would get into our sideline distractions. The main points of discussion ought to be motivation for the crime (or lack therof), the defendants own statements, the witness statements, and the many types of physical evidence.PietroLegno (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I also cannot leave FormerIP's inaccurate assertions and sour comments above unchallenged. It is like he is stuck in a time warp. The link he provides is to a story that appeared in November 2007. It has since been shown by hard evidence to be inaccurate on this point. At trial, the defense established that the clock on the CCTV camera was at least 10 minutes slow. When this correction is made, it is apparent that the postal police arrived just after Raffaele made his call. This was all reported by a reliable Italian source at the time and we had things right in an earlier version of the article. Massei acknowledges this on pages 25 and 27 of the translated report. He is clearly making the point that while the postal police may have claimed to have been there at 12:30 but they were clearly wrong. Further, as I mentioned before, the police log showed that the officers were not dispatched until about 12:45--perfectly consistent with the later arrival. At trial the police came up with the rather lame excuse that the official log was in error. PietroLegno (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources for this account? The pages you refer to in the Massei report don't seem to make any reference to CCTV if "At trial, the defense established.." were true you would expect the sentencing report to at least mention it, whereas it seems instead to directly contradict the supposed conclusion. Or does "At trial, the defense established" really just mean "On the Internet, it was wildly speculated that...".
 * The Italian source you refer to obviously isn't RS and doesn't say what you are claiming in any case. But it's in Italian, so who's to know? I think, in the current climate, you will definitely get away with it. --FormerIP (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's amazing how FormerIP needs to insult other editors with virtually every comment he makes on this site. Editors should address the merits of the points.LedRush (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. FormerIP's sourness wears thin. Of course the Italian source is reliable under any reasonable construction of the rules. But then he considers any source that does not agree with his pov unreliable. Frank Sfarzo--who is reliable on these matters if not all others--went over this in detail. It is in the appeals. Massei clearly accepts the defense point of view. I am tempted to say that this horse died a long time ago, except there was never really a horse at all. This is just one of those idiotic smokescreens the pro-guilt faction dreamed up. In reality, it is not in any sense probative. PietroLegno (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Frank Sfarzo is a blogger is he not? Are you able to quote the extract from the Massei report where this CCTV theory is even discussed?
 * As for my sourness, don't worry. I have many layers yet to wear through. --FormerIP (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember this being heavily debated before, but I don't remember a conclusive outcome. Pietro, can you provide the sources which indicate that that Massei accepted the defense point of view?  If we get that, I think it changes the tenor of the discussion of whether the other source is reliable or not.LedRush (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just so other people understand, the CCTV in the garage across the street picked up the arrival of both the postal police and Carabinieri. The prosecutor and police tried to claim the clock was actually fast and that the postal police arrived before Raffaele's call. However, an analysis of records established the earliest point at which the Carabinieri could have arrived. Using that sure point as reference, it was possible to demonstrate that the clock was 10-12 minutes slow--not fast. When that correction was applied it was conclusively proved that the postal police arrived after Raffaele's call, just as he had maintained all along. This was picked up and reported by reliable sources. No, Massei does not go into this issue in great detail. But he does correctly state the time that the postal police arrived (page 25 and 27 in the translation) and that was after the call. He clearly implies that the claims of the postal police were in error. After this, seeing nothing of value for the prosecution, he drops the subject. The theory that Raffaele called after the arrival of the postals was too absurd for even this hostile judge to credit. PietroLegno (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is a case of "sourness" to point out the problematic editing going on here. From the short time I have looked at these pages over the last few days, "rabidly pro-Knox" is pretty spot-on.  Concocting an WP:OR timeline of events only compounds the issue, as this article moves away from an encyclopedia treatment and into realms of she-might-be-innocent advocacy. Tarc (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm comfortable with admitting to being sour about it, though.
 * Pietro. What you are giving seems to me to be the account of a blogger. It might be wrong or it might be right, but it isn't authoritative in itself. The Massei report can't really be said to "correctly" state the time of the arrival of the police, because it isn't even very precise about that time. It's "just after 12:30" (p 12) or "shortly before 1:00 pm" (p 14) or "shortly after 12:30" (p 84) (just incidentally, the reference I think you are alluding to above is to the arrival of another flatmate at 1 pm (p 12), by which time we know that the police were already there). This would seem a weak basis for saying that the time the police arrived was 1 pm. It doesn't even appear that the jury considered the time to be very important, or the report would be more specific. Secondary sources say the police testified that they arrived at 12:35 . This is also the time indicated in the Micheli report (text search "l'orario di arrivo dell’equipaggio alle 12:35"). --FormerIP (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that if there is a quote from Sollecito's himself, as refereed to by User:FormerIP regarding when he called the police this should be referenced and considered in the string of evidence on an encyclopaedia. Just because RS then decided to stay silent while lawyers worked around technicalities - it does not diminish the significance of the statement - it lends to highlighting and understanding the very controversy of this case. As for Pietro's explanation of the CCTV camera time - it is wrong. The CCTV was claimed to have been slow by the defence and it was not the prosecution who claimed it was fast. This is significant, because at first site and per Micheli the police had evidence in form of CCTV time stamp showing the police arrived before RS's cell phone called 112. It was then claimed by the defence that the camera clock was slow and that is where we seem to be in the Massei Report. --GiselleK (talk) 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Taking the Massei Report in context, it's rather clear that the judge didn't accept that the Postal Police arrived before the call to 112. Quoting from page 15:
 * "These then are the preceding facts and the reason for the presence at the house at 7 Via della Pergola shortly before 1:00 pm on November 2, 2009 of the Postal Police team consisting of Inspector Michele Battistelli and Assistant Fabio Marzi.
 * As stated by Battistelli (page 80, hearing of February 6, 2009) they had some difficulty finding the house, as they had gone along Viale S. Antonio, which is alongside and in part hides the house. Twice, Battistelli had had to get out of the car and walk along before finding the house, where he arrived with Assistant Marzi at a little after 12:30 pm, or so it seemed to the two policemen."
 * The claim that the officers arrived around 12:30 is not supported by any documents. Nor does it fit with the other events of that day. Filomena and friends showed up close to 1 pm, while Amanda was still showing the two officers the broken window and blood in the flat. When did AK and RS have time to sneak away and make the 112 call where the officers couldn't hear it?  Even ignoring the car park video evidence, the claim that the officers arrived at 12:30 PM doesn't work. --Footwarrior (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Pietro is basically correct on this. The defense presentation in court is the postale pdf found here:  :http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/postale.pdf
 * The cameras show the arrival of the police at 12:48, the prosecution had the 10-12 minutes reversed, the clock was slow and not fast. This was proven in the same presentation through Amanda's phone records as the Cabinieri called for directions and they would have had to arrive (arrival also shown in the pdf) before they called her if the clock was fast and not slow.  The actual arrival time would have been 12:58-1:00PM of the postale police, and not the 12:35 (12:38 if clock was fast going buy the photos) claimed by the prosecution.RoseMontague (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * For the record, here is p 89 of the translated Massei report, where the report finds unequivocally, if meekly, that the Carabinieri are called before the postal police arrive.

‘And then, a change of version takes place and he tells the Postal Police (who it can be held that, according [81] to what is maintained by the defendants' defence, arrived after Raffaele Sollecito's telephone call to 112, and this by nothing other than the fact that regarding these calls to 112, the Postal Police say nothing; in the same way that they said nothing about those that preceded them, at 12:40 pm and at 12:50 pm; each of these phone calls being of a not brief duration that, therefore, would not have escaped the attention of the two police officers) that there has been a burglary. Fabio Marsi in fact testified that they two young people told him "they were awaiting the arrival of the Carabinieri because there had been a burglary inside the house" ‘

Yes, it’s begrudged, but it’s there: “the Postal Police (who ***it can be held*** …[derived from arguments of the defense], arrived after Raffaele Sollecito's telephone call to 112  … by … the fact that regarding these calls to 112, the Postal Police say nothing [and] .. they said nothing about those that preceded them … each call being of a not brief duration … [and] therefore, would not have escaped the attention of the two police officers. “

There is no controversy. The call to the Carabinieri came first, the postal police arrived after Sollecito’s second call to the Carabinieri, no earlier than 12:55.Moodstream (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate use of primary sources. If secondary sources have discussed in what order the police arrived (Who cares? Why does this matter at all?) then please provide them. Hipocrite (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don’t follow. In a prior version of the talk page, in the ‘Events Surrounding the Murder Section’, you argue “Secondary sources are sources that are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.” The translation of the Massei report is such a second hand account. The translators analyzed the primary source, the Italian version, and reported it. The focus should be the reliability of the translation. Your sources simply report, far less reliably, from the same material reviewed by the translators.Moodstream (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The report of a prosecutor, or the ruling of a judge is a primary source. A translation without commentary of a primary source is still a primary source. If you doubt my accuracy, please seek clarification at WP:RSN. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not that I think it's enormously important, I do think that we should be citing the Italian original rather than the translation, because the translation is self-published. The translation is obviously useful to editors for the purposes of discussion, though. --FormerIP (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Moodstream and Footwarrior: Whether it fits the defence version of events or not isn't the point. The point is that if you want to create a timeline of events you need to use the times in the sources, not make times up based on what you suppose must have been the case. Massei mentions the time on three occasions. Twice he says shortly after 12:30, once he says shortly before 1 pm. From this we can only conclude that it must be somewhere between the two. Other primary and secondary sources say 12:35. No sources have been presented for any other time.
 * If the times in the sources don't support your side of the story, don't make a timeline. --FormerIP (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally, I am not sure that the entire detailed timeline is completely necessary. However, I do believe that certain aspects can be: certain calls, and certainly whether the police came before or after Sollecito's call to them.  However, FormerIP is right, we need reliable, secondary sources.  Even with those, though, we need to recognize that at least some (and perhaps all) secondary sources go with the earlier timeline.  We can't change/delete it because we don't like it.LedRush (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to respond in depth. However, a quick review of the '12:30' times I found show that Massei is reporting from the Postal Police's memory. The report is not ruling or judging, just reporting the Postal Polices frame of mind. Even p. 94 of the translation. There, earlier testimony is being referred to and reported, it seems to me. Am I wrong?Moodstream (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Fine. I have put both arrivals as 2 entries, 12:35 & c.13:00, with note "[time decided in court]" which can be changed to link a short section about the disputed time, since extensive text is unlikely to reverse the Massei time decision. However, this seems like the type of controversial topic to be mentioned (briefly) in the article, which is expected to have NPOV coverage, including major controversies. By formerly omitting 10 controversies, it seemed as though the article had been slanted to omit topics which favored one view or another, and left issues appearing to be undecided when, in fact, they had been settled in court. -Wikid77 22:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no source for "c. 13:00". That's all there is to it. --FormerIP (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * While it appears that the Massei report concluded that the police came after the second call, it is OR to say they came "c. 13:00". We need a source for such a statement.LedRush (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Massei Report page 15. Didn't you read the quote I posted earlier?  --Footwarrior (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Why are you looking at only one quote (BTW I don't think you actually mean p 15)? Massei refers to the time on three occasions. Twice he says shortly after 12:30, once he says shortly before 1 pm. So all we can say is it must have been somewhere between the two. Interpreting it as "c. 13:00" is obviously not okay unless we intend the page to be a distorted representation of the sources. --FormerIP (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Footwarrior that it appears the Massei report has agreed that the police came after the second call. And because we know when the second call was, it logically stands to reason that that is the earliest they could have arrived.  But we cannot synthesize these facts to make the claim as if the Massei report says about 1:00, when it is clear that the Massei report cites different times.  If there isn't a secondary source on this, we shouldn't include it.  Either that, or we deal with the controversy in the text and cite 12:30-13:00 in the timeline.LedRush (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I want to apologize for this post. Every word is already known by every likely reader. I hate to waste your time. But I have more concern that this article might end up promoting  the fallacy  that  Massei reports two different times for the arrival of the postal police  or ‘twice he says shortly after 12:30, once he says shortly before 1 pm’.  There is no controversy in Massei over the arrival time of the postal police.

Where does Massei cite two different times? Where does Massei say the call came after the arrival of the postal police? Not on page 27 (all pages pmf translation): “Twice, Battistelli had had to get out of the car and walk along before finding the house, where he arrived with Assistant Marzi at a little after 12:30 pm, or so it seemed to the two policemen. Not on p 92-93 : Inspector Battistelli recalls…"they told us they were waiting for the police" (Hearing on February 6, 2009, page 64, pages 86, 87). … Battistelli has also stated in the same hearing that it was Romanelli who noticed that Meredith's door was locked (page 118). On this point, it is possible that Battistelli's memory is not precise. It does indicate how no importance was given to the locked door by Amanda and Raffaele when Battistelli arrived with Marzi shortly after 12:30 pm,” It = the report of the hearing, where Battistelli recalls – recalls that he arrived shortly after 12:30. Page 92-93 is simply a retelling of p 27.

Thus Massei does not support a 12:30 arrival time for the postal police. Massei only relays the Postal Police’s unsupported perception of their own arrival time.

“the Postal Police (who it can be held …, arrived after Raffaele Sollecito's telephone call to 112, and this by nothing other than the fact that regarding these calls to 112, the Postal Police say nothing; in the same way that they said nothing about those that preceded them.” Here is the list of calls about which they said nothing over that short 30 minute period: 12:34:56 -  12:35:44  Filomena calls Amanda 12:35: Raffaele contacted a service centre for a phone credit recharge 12:38: Vodafone sent a message of confirmation of phone credit recharge 12:40 – 12:41:07: incoming call from the father's mobile phone 12:47:23 – 12:48:51 Amanda calls her mother 12:50:34- 12:51:15 Raffaele calls Vanessa Sollecito, sister 12:51:40 12:54:29Raffaele Sollecito calls "112" 12:54:30? – 12:55:27?  second call by Raffaele

'''The longest break between calls? Six minutes. Total talk time, eight minutes. The conclusion is incontrovertible, and Massei endorses the conclusion again at p P387-388 by writing: “and Raffaele called the Carabinieri to whom he describes the situation and specifies that there had been no theft, and we have already pointed out the … inconsistencies in Amanda's and Raffaele's ***subsequent*** behaviour on the arrival of the agents from the Postal Police'''."

There is no controversy regarding the relative arrival time of the postal police. The only controversy is if the postal police were mistaken or if they lied.Moodstream (talk) 06:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Such a section would violate WP:SUMMARY and also WP:NOR. --John (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The detailed timeline is being prepared for re-inclusion per Wikipedia policy (see: WP:Editing_policy). Timelines, in general, do not violate WP:NOR, as otherwise, Wikipedia would not contain hundreds of timelines in articles, such as in hundreds of year articles (see: "1964"). Correlating information based on sourced times is not considered improper synthesis. -Wikid77 23:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, without referring to items in other articles which may be equally problematic, justify your assertion that "Timelines, in general, do not violate WP:NOR". Even if this was established, which it has not been, my concern about WP:SUMMARY still stands. --John (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is a timeline assumed to be OR until proven otherwise? Why should Wikid77 have to prove a negative instead of you proving your point?  And why can't he use examples...the fact that other stuff exists is not dispositive, but it is helpful.LedRush (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking Wikid77 to prove a negative but a positive. The onus is on any editor wishing to add material to demonstrate why its inclusion would be a net positive for the article. This is what I am trying to see here. At the moment I am not seeing it. --John (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You said "Please, without referring to items in other articles which may be equally problematic, justify your assertion that "Timelines, in general, do not violate WP:NOR"." You are asking him to prove that it's not OR, without any evidence that it is OR.  Shouldn't someone have to prove that it is OR, or at least make some good argument that it is?  If this were written as prose, it would be just like any other WP article, with each sentence supported by a RS.  I don't see the difference here.  If you think there is one, I would like to see a pursuasive argument to that effect.LedRush (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think a time line is a great idea if it includes all the contradictions in Massei's report. For example Massei's report has the family that found the phone reporting the second phone found to the police before the second phone was in fact found.

The time line should have the police saying that the cam timer was 10 minutes slow (Oggi article) and 10 minutes fast. The time line should show that Amanda is both in the apartment and outside the apartment at the same time as indicated in Massei's report.--Truth Mom (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Time to add the major missing details
Over the years, readers have asked, again, why this case is notable, with so many other questionable murders (a Google Search: "murder or suicide" gave 219,000 results), so we continually tried to note, per WP:LEDE, how Knox & Sollecito have limited-evidence issues, and the head prosecutor is also convicted but not yet in jail, while prosecuting other convicted people (now, tell me that is unnecessary information?). However, try a Google search for the 3 words: murder Italy students– currently Kercher ranks high in Google's vast database of webpages: this concerns young college students. Also, we know, from pageview stats, that this case has been among the Top 1000 most-viewed articles, for years. When so many readers want information, then it is bizarre to find excuses to keep removing hundreds of words of sourced text, every week. However, the article does not even mention the one large item found in Meredith's room which belonged to Knox, nor is there an explanation of why the monetary theft was considered 300 euros (~$420) nor what became of the 2 credit cards (etc.). The article seems far too hollow. -Wikid77 10:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The goal of those who have been editing the article is to remove any suggestion of controversy. To that end they prefer to have a skeleton of an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 10:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That is totally lacking in respect to Meredith. It is sad to see her death and an article that is to be concerning that death, in the frame that it is. Shame is the word that comes to mind.--Truth Mom (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Guede’s trial as Reliable Source?
I notice that the 12:35pm arrival of the postal police has found it’s way into the proposed timeline: “• 12:35 Two postal police arrive outside the flat (time claimed in Guede trial)[6][7][contested in court]” Of course we *know* they did not, from Massei ( please see my comments in Proposed detailed timeline 06:53, 30 March 2011), from Jimbo Wales comments in 'Possible change of source?' (“We say "Before the Carabinieri arrived in response to these calls, two officers of the Italian Post and Communications Police, came to investigate the discovery of Kercher's mobile phones near another house." This is, as far as I can tell, uncontroversial.), and from the devastating video presentation made by the defense in the Massei trial (Comments of RoseMontague (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2011  and :http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/postale.pdf ).

The Guede trial was a ‘fastrack trial’. To my understanding, this style of trial stipulates the arguments of the prosecution from the outset. The evidence is not on trial. Also, the arrival time of the postal police is irrelevant to Guede’s trial, and so may not have been subject to scrutiny. I question the use of the Guede trial as a Reliable Source. It may be useful in limited ways, such as to carry through a quote given in a hearing.

However, in the case of the proposed timeline, it is not sufficient. The line could be changed to read “12:35 Two postal police claimed to have arrived outside the flat[6][7][contested in court]”.Moodstream (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We would need a strong source for "contested in court" and the importance of this detail (although it may well have been, I'm not personally aware of a source that even says the time was contested). Obviously, we could put "contested in court" on pretty much every other sentence the whole article. 12.35 is the time not only in the Micheli report but in multiple other RS. No-one has so far provided a source that states any alternative time. --FormerIP (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The presentation in the postale pdf is very clear and Massei accepts an arrival around 1pm. What the presentation shows is the arrival of the postale police at 12:48.  The prosecution stated the clock was 10 minutes fast so the arrival time would have been 12:38.  The defence proved that the clock was actually 10 minutes slow, meaning the arrival time was in reality 12:58.  The way they prove this is simple.  The Carabanieri called Amanda's phone for directions and the time on the phone records is not contested.  If the clock was actually fast as the prosecution claims they would have called Amanda for directions roughly 15 minutes after they arrived at Meredith's flat.RoseMontague (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The presentation on the Friends of Amanda website isn't a reliable source and it doesn't, in any case, show anything very clear. Massei does not "accept an arrival around 1 pm". He says "shortly before 1 pm" on on occasion and "shortly after 12.30" on two occasions. Obviously, that is consistent with 12:35, as reported in all reliable sources that have been presented. If you want to argue for a different time, you need a reliable source, not speculation. --FormerIP (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * While FormerIP is right that we need a RS, he is wrong regarding the time. It has been proven to him several times that the Massei Report accepts that the police arrived after the call.LedRush (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this is absolutely clear, but in any case it is missing the point. Certain editors want to produce a timeline for inclusion in the article. Personally, I think this is misguided. However, if there is to be a timline, then it needs to use the specific times used in reliable sources, not calculations of what times must have been according to comparisons of different sources and information about what preceded what. That would be original research. --FormerIP (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On that point, we agree.LedRush (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: “I'm not personally aware of a source that even says the time was contested”. Murder in Italy p 62: “Neither officer saw Raffaele make a call. Later they would insist that they’d actually arrived at 12:35pm, shaving ten minutes off the previous claim, which only added to the confusion. This point would be debated and debated until at the end, the two accounts would differ only by five minutes.”’Moodstream (talk) 06:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Amanda Knox Movie Flunks Truthiness Test"20. That same day, Raffaele sneaks into a bedroom to call the carabinieri, after the postal cops arrive with Meredith’s stolen cell phones. Another whopper. As Rafafele’s defense team proved in court, he called 112 before the postals arrived."Moodstream (talk) 07:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The timeline on this point should not be in dispute. I have introduced a new section to demonstrate that there is a reliable source detailing defense claims on the time the Postal Police arrived. Any fair minded person looking at the long newspaper article on this subject, the actual defense presentation, the police logs, Raffaele's appeal, and what Massei says on the subject would conclude that it has been conclusively established that the Postal Police arrived just after Raffaele's call--just as Raffaele always maintained. This issue is the reddest of red herrings. PietroLegno (talk) 10:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No, any fair minded Wikipedia editor who looked at the PDF on the Friends of Amanda site, the police logs, the sentencing report, Candace Dempsy's blog etc and used those to calculate a time that is different from what is contained in reliable sources would realise that this is original research.
 * The issue may be a bit if a red herring in that it is clearly not something that was considered important in the sentencing report, which doesn't even specify the exact time. There's a strong case, I think, for saying that something that is of interest to bloggers but wasn't of interest to the jury should just not be covered in the article at all. However, it is still the case that, if you want to include a time in the article, you're obliged to include the time that is contained in the sources. --FormerIP (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I feel that it is 100% clear that the police arrived after the call, but it is equally clear that it is original research to assign a time to their arrival that is not contained in reliable sources.LedRush (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Translating Italian sources
Sources in Italian language can be partially translated using Google Translate. Most of the words are translated, but unfortunately, many prepositions or the word "non" (for "not") are often omitted which causes awkward, misleading phrases. In those cases, extract just 1 phrase from the Italian version, and re-translate the partial phrase separately, perhaps even translating 1 word at a time, then adjust the original translation to correct for the partial phrase.

Note that the name "Sollecito" is also the Italian word "sollecito" which means a "momento" (reminder) or a "request" (an urge). So, in sentences containing the name "Sollecito" (or other names) prefix with "x" (or such) as "xSollecito" to retain the name in the translated form.

Example: Consider the following phrase as typically translated by Google Translate:
 * &bull; Italian: "Su Sollecito, quindi gli orari predetti vanno corretti, aggiungendo almeno 10 minuti e non sottraendo 10 minuti: la Polizia Postale arriva effettivamente sul posto non prima delle ore 12,58."
 * &bull; English: "Urge on, then these times should be corrected by adding at least 10 minutes and subtracting 10 minutes and the Postal Police arrived on the spot actually no earlier than 12.58".

However, by separately translating the word "non" as meaning "not" and prefixing the name (as spelled "xSollecito") then the translation becomes:
 * &bull; Corrected: About xSollecito, then these times should be corrected by adding at least 10 minutes and NOT subtracting 10 minutes: the Postal Police arrived on the spot actually no earlier than 12.58".

In general, search the original Italian text for the word "non" (not) and be sure that the English translation also indicates the meaning as "not" for the equivalent text. Also, try to use other translation websites, such as a dictionary-lookup website. -Wikid77 12:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I definitely wouldn't trust a machine translation on an article about an ongoing murder trial. Use English sources would be the easiest solution. There seem to be plenty of them. --John (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Use editors on the WP:Translators available page. Google translate is not perfect, and this is a BLP.  The urge to get any and all material needs to be tempered with getting it right the first time.  On a non-BLP article, I wouldn't really care.  As I said above, the odds are that if the material is truly notable and useful, it will be translated and/or commented on by an English source.  Using material from an RS that comments on information in another language is acceptable.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 22:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Asking editors at WP:Translators available, to help with Italian wording, is a good idea, or if someone has found a source in English then that would be good, as well. Also, consider asking other editors here to revise the translation. Many of us speak other languages and would help revise a partial translation. -Wikid77 05:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The trial of Amanda Knox
I'm new, but I am just wondering if there could be any consideration to a different Wikipedia page titled "The trial of Amanda Knox"? It's still ongoing and could continue to be added to. This could eliminate any feud over trying to have the name, "The Murder of Meredith Kercher" page changed. I know of no other trial like this which which has had so much media attention. Anyone would be able to weigh in as long as their edits and comments are factual and adhere to the guidelines. On a side note, perhaps it could entail less arguing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michellesings (talk • contribs) 06:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that a major rationale for "Murder of Meredith Kercher" as opposed to "Trial of Amanda Knox and/or Raffaele Sollecito" is one of cause and effect: since the murder preceded the trials, it makes sense that the title should focus on the idea of "murder", not "trial". However, since the article offers a more or less comprehensive treatment of trials and appeals nevertheless, I doubt that a separate page is really called for. Meanwhile, opinion is divided on whether Knox should be given an article of her own.  Super Mario  Man  06:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: It would be more accurate to state that a split is not merited as yet. Depending on the amount of new material that is added to the article in the course of the next few weeks or months, subarticles (as Berean Hunter notes) may become more necessary.  Super Mario  Man  16:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe it is Wikipedia policy to award encyclopedia pages to common criminals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.229.93 (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If the article content grows to a very large amount then it may make sense to split out a sub-article containing the trial. This is standard Wiki practice. An example would be the Murder of Laci Peterson but there is also an article for Scott Peterson. (to the IP) She isn't fully convicted yet under Italian law unless she has exhausted all of her appeals. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 21:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is very small -- the dispute is big. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.229.93 (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Causation is one aspect but so is notability. That the murder occurred first is causation.  Notability, however, is due to the case trial and media coverage and involvement.  Really the article is about an event - the trial - that occurred as a result of a crime - the murder of Meredith Kercher.  The case has always been notable due to the strange allegations by the prosecution. Perk10 (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Perk10

Has Jimmy Wales been sold a line?
The only reason the discussion of this article has reached such unwieldly proportions is because Jimmy Wales has been sold on the case of the "innocenti". Wikipedia is open to abuse by propagandists. The only side allied to a cause is the opposition to the fact of Amanda Knox guilt. All other parties are relatively disinterested. Wikipedia has been hijacked by these frauds and Wales has been sold on it. The article remains extremely biased. Italy is not a third world nation and it's faculty of law is ancient and trustworthy. Just because they do things differently over there doesn't mean they are wrong. 217.35.229.93 (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Instead, readers have actually complained that the article lacked information on either side: for either pro-guilt or anti-guilt . -Wikid77 07:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith here. Jimmy hasn't advocated either side and it was apparent by his comments that he is in the process of fact-finding and investigating. The ones claiming article bias are the ones advocating Knox & Sollecito's innocence who claim the article is slanted towards their guilt. Your not making sense and your allegations are unfounded. This is not a forum. Do you have any reliable sources or changes you'd like to recommend to improve the article? <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 01:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit astounded that the poster above wrote this. Especially when it is clear that there are members of PMF and TJMK working as editors on this article.  Are you saying these "colpevolisti" members are disinterested neutral parties and not allied to a site?  Why are they members of these sites then? You also have it backwards in that the innocent side is the one that had editors purposefully blocked, still blocked now, so the other side could retain control of the article.  I hope that will change.  All I want is a fair wiki article, that should be attainable. All it will take is admitting that there is controversy where there is controversy.  It doesn't have to say who is right or wrong. Issymo (talk) 02:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Controversy from fringe advocates is not a legitimate addition to the article. Tarc (talk) 03:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Tarc, I don't know of the fringe advocates you are talking about. Perhaps you could explain who and where fringe advocates are being added to the MOMK article and why you consider them fringe. Issymo (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You can look over this entire talk page and look at user-created floor plans, demands that detailed forensic evidence supposedly exonerating certain criminal convicts be added, step-by-step "here are things that need to be addressed by this article", and so on. As I said above, there is a movement here to make this into more of a Conspiracy theories regarding the Amanda Knox imprisonment article. Tarc (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not inappropriate for Jimbo Wales to look into the neutrality of an article when lots of people say it's biased. This is not about impugning the integrity of Italian justice -- it is up to the media, activist organizations, and other "sources" to do that.  The task here for whoever is willing to wade into all those books and other sources is to ensure that all of the stuff out there is summarized accurately here - no matter whether it favors guilt or innocence. Wnt (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia cannot selectively exclude listing detailed forensic evidence which might make a suspect seem "exonerated" (free of guilt). Also, there seems to be no basis for claiming editors are pushing "conspiracy theories" about the Amanda Knox imprisonment. I don't follow the idea of how a floor-plan diagram would exonerate a suspect in this case. Unless someone can quote a reliable source proving a floor plan exonerates a suspect, then this line of reasoning should be dropped. -Wikid77 07:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * TARC, How do you feel about controversy from centrist advocates, like the Times Online ("Whatever the truth of the tragic events on the night of November 2, 2007, the evidence against Knox was flimsy at best, inchoate at worst.”), the Wall Street Journal (“What the prosecution succeeded in passing off as DNA evidence is itself enough to raise plenty of doubts about its case”) or famed ‘Mind Hunter’ criminologist John Douglas(“Amanda is innocent—I’m convinced of it.” )

Just because this is a murder case, the court is not infallible. (TARC, you’re not OJ Simpson are you?) This trial leaves many questions unanswered. Knox is not going to disappear from the public eye for some time. All major media cover the appeal. If she is reconvicted, the claims of injustice will keep the matter in the public eye, and if she is freed she will be on the cover of every newspaper and will appear on every talk show the world over, not to mention the movies, books and public appearances. Plus, Knox’s arrest and trial will be the subject of many a college paper for years to come.

So, it’s important that Wikipedia get it right. Any right thinking person can see that it is possible to reasonably conclude that Knox could be innocent, and, apparently, it is also possible for a reasonable person to believe in her guilt. Therefore, imho, Wikepedia should write an article that allows the reader to understand the legitimacy of the controversies. It will take a little bit of exposition and elucidation to get the details of the arguments right. I think that is okay. It’s not like we have to worry about running out of ink.Moodstream (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I would only add a friendly correction to what user Berean Hunter said above. Knox-Sollecito supporters are not the only ones who thought the original article was slanted and lacked neutrality. Jimbo Wales thought that too and pointed to a number of specific problems, many having to do with the rather odd behavior of previous administrators. Truly neutral editors concluded the same thing and have started a very healthy process of examination and correction. It is not Wikipedia's job to take sides in the controversy. It IS Wikipedia's job to make sure readers know there is a controversy. Part of that means including the views of reliable sources who have taken issue with the verdict. Readers should also understand in very general terms what evidence led to conviction and the way the defense attacked that evidence on a point by point basis. PietroLegno (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

To respond to some comments above, the idea that Sollecito and Knox may be innocent is not fringe in any meaning of the word, and definitely not by the definition of WP:FRINGE used by Wikipedia. To even raise that argument shows a colossal amount of bias or lack of understanding. There is an unresolved court case right now, and the appeal is open to questioning everything about the original trial. If you look at outside expert opinion on the topic, it does not in any way support the idea that the people who support the Sollecito and Knox are fringe in the slightest. The concept that this article only recently was allowed to even mention controversy in the lead at all shows extreme bias. Frankly, there are a good number of editors whose comments and actions here are extreme violations of Wikipedia policy. Now I certainly do not advocate slanting the article the other way either, but for crying out loud, the state of this article for the past many months has been a disgrace. There are tons of reliable sources showing experts questioning this case, but the content still is overwhelmingly slanted to hide or minimize this information. Any time any small progress is made making the article come closer to meeting WP:NPOV standards there are countless attacks made here and on individual users' talk page by very partisan editors trying to shout them down. That must stop. DreamGuy (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with DreamGuy. Per my comments at ANI yesterday, this is not a fringe issue. Too much energy on this page seems devoted at taking shots at editors or Wikipedia in general. There needs to be focus on the article. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 19:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree there is a bunch of highly involved editors here in two camps. I would ask anyone who cares whether Knox did it or didn't do it to stop edit warring over that here. I can name names (but you know who you are anyways) if users would be prepared to take a self imposed break that would benefit the article a lot. Off2riorob (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that even a final court verdict (even an execution, in some countries) does not make claims of innocence a "fringe theory". What might make them a "fringe theory" would be if you can't find very many sources that support innocence, and those that do are obscure, highly partisan, etc., and meanwhile you have lots of good sources concluding guilt.  However, if you can call a court case "controversial", this is prima facie evidence that neither side is "fringe". Wnt (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This gets to the nub of the problem. The word "fringe" isn't all that helpful, because of its specific meaning within WP. There is clearly some sort of "controversy" over the case. This means that Wikipedia should report the controversy. But it does not mean that the article should be treated as if it is about a controversy, as opposed to a murder. The fact that a campaign group exists in relation to the case is not, in itself, an excuse for trying to make the article a platform for the campaign group. What would be helpful would be to think about what the most significant points of controversy are (as reported in reliable secondary sources). Those, we report. But the existence of controversy does not justify pouring through sources in order to report (and invent) every and any ill-founded objection to the verdict in the case. --FormerIP (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's nicely said, FormerIP. Off2riorob makes a good point too. Those with a "view" on the guilt or otherwise of those involved, should stay away from editing this lest it become any more of a repository for latest rumors, campaigning, and speculation. NPOV dictates that we follow the sources, with due regard for the weight that they carry. The exact mix of sources should be conservative, should follow the news wave and not try to keep up with it. In the debate about what exact shape the article should take, we would do better to look to experienced editors; though the views of all are welcome, even those who only or mainly edit this one topic, only those with wide experience are likely to find the consensus to make this article better than it is. In its current shape it looks fanboyish; the room diagram is particularly regrettable, in my opinion. This is a serious article about a murder. It should look like that, and not a Facebook page. We should err on the side of saying less, not more. Finally, I'd like all name-calling to stop; even the heading of this article makes me a little uneasy. I am obviously an editor rather than an administrator on this article at this point, but I would be sorry to have to visit WP:WQA or WP:ANI for any further attempts to criticize individual editors here. That's all for now. --John (talk) 07:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Respectfully John, I would have to disagree with FormerIP's assessments here in relation to this article. First, yes, this article is about a murder, but also it is a murder that has brought about a lot controversy.   Under FormerIP's principle, we are simply to accept that a large part of this article cannot be "about a controversy".  Two questions I have.  The first is, why not?  If that is a large part of the story, then why are we precluding ourselves from documenting it based on some unknown principle that FormerIP seems to have created out of thin air.  Secondly, what "ill-foul founded" and "invented" objections to the verdict is FormerIP talking about?  It's phrases like these that indicate that editors are subjectively assessing sources based on their already preconceived notions.  Additionally, there is more than one "campaign group" here, and that is very obvious. Lastly, if FormerIP is worried about campaign groups, he would have done well to not post on the website of  a "campaign group" which he admitted to doing just the other day.  If appearances mean anything, that looks pretty bad.  The room diagram you may have a point about.  (GeniusApprentice (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC))
 * I respectfully take issue with several of John's points: 1) The idea that we should follow credible resources is unimpeachable; the problem is that the application of this principle in the past went badly awry and led to the rejection of very credible sources. 2)My impression is that the article is currently being edited in the main by editors who are highly experienced and who are definitely moving things in a direction that conforms to Wikipedia's stated ideals. 3)The disparagement of so called SPA accounts is mystifying. Why should people be disparaged for focusing on an area about which they know a great deal? 4) I disagree strongly with the suggestion that there is anything wrong with the room diagram; if there is anything wrong with the look of the article it is that there is a photograph of only one of the principles. We should be able to get pics of Sollecito, Knox, and Guede too. 5)I find the idea that we should pare down this article or be briefer to be simply wrongheaded. We have plenty of room to expand the article and if I am not mistaken highly experienced editors and the founder have said just that. 6) We should all strive to be civil, but part of this surely involves avoiding accusations of name calling in cases where others might see just robust discussion and fair commentary.PietroLegno (talk) 10:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I happen to think Mr. Wales is a pretty smart apple.The thought of this being started and the time wasted being controversial upon this, is flabbergasting. Is there really such a need? This same time could be spent on the article at hand, that is actually a controversy within a Middle School classroom at this time where children of the age of 14 are actually studying this case, and looking at all of this and saying ... REALLY? Are these editors to be of intelligent adults here? This is to be a neutral fact article. Why the continued issues here? Why attempt to discredit Mr. Wales at all? He has stated his agenda for this.It is clear to be a neutral article, what is so hard to figure out there? Secondly, did we all skip those top little boxes that speak of conduct and appropriate ways to act here? Thank you kindly.....--Truth Mom (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Move to delete this entire section from the page. This is not discussion of a proposed edit or addition but rather simply bickering that tends to polarize the editors until they appear to be two factions in an edit war. "Has Jimbo Wales been sold a line?" is not even a proper topic of discussion here as it has nothing to do with the substance of the article and serves only to distract from the real issues. We need to get back on task here.Tjholme (talk) 02:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop adding comments and this section will be archived and largely forgotten in a few days. (Unfortunately, you just reset the clock). --Footwarrior (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is not about the murder, which was deemed not to be notable. What makes the article notable is the reason the article exists (and hence what it is about), which is the trial and media aspect, the coverage and involvement.  Also, DreamGuy couldn't be more correct.  Sooner or later it will not be pretended that pointing out the bias in the article is advocating a point of view.  There is a serious offense of censorship that has been going on.  Perk10 (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Perk10
 * "The article is not about the murder". Therefore we should rename "Murder of Meredith Kercher" to.............? Moriori (talk) 06:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the title needs to change. It can still be about the case with the current title.  I'm not opposed to a title change though.  "Meredith Kercher Murder Trial"...  Not sure.  "The Trial for the Murder of Meredith Kercher"...  Regardless, on the topic of what makes the event notable, it is the case itself.  Perk10 (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Perk10

Defense Case: Reliable Source for Postal Police Arrival
There is and always has been a reliable source for the defense claims that Raffaele actually made his call to the Carabinieri BEFORE the Postal Police arrived. His call was at 12:57. Careful analysis of the CCTV images revealed that the Postal Police arrived at the scene at 12:58 at the EARLIEST. This showed that Raffaele told the truth on this point. This was accepted at one point in the history of the article but then a number of users were summarily banned and the defense claim here was excised as part of an effort to introduce a non-neutral point of view. Here is the key passage, in Italian first followed by a rough Google translation:

Ancora ombre e sospetti su Raffaele: l'arrivo della Polizia Postale Raffaele dichiara di aver gia allertato con due telefonate i Carabinieri prima dell'arrivo della Postale (ore 12,51 e ore 12,53 come si evince dai suoi tabulati telefonici). L'Accusa da del bugiardo a Raffaele poiche, su dichiarazione degli stessi agenti, la Postale sarebbe arrivata sul posto alle 12,25 quindi prima della telefonata di Raffaele ai Carabinieri. Si tratta di un'affermazione per nulla veritiera alla luce de tutte le altre prove ricavate da una attenta analisi delle immagini di una video-camera di sorveglianza del parcheggio Sant'Antonio situata di fronte all'ingresso della casa di Meredith. In base alle immagini la Punto nera della Polizia Postale sarebbe arrivata nei pressi della casa alle ore 12,38; e lo stesso Pubblico Ministero a mostrare in udienza una foto con orario (ore 12,38) che riprenderebbe l'arrivo dell'auto. Ma l'autovettura prosegue, non avendo gli agenti indivuato il civico 7, come da loro stessi dichiarato in udienza. Il loro reale arrivo viene ripreso dalla videocamera alle ore 12,48, momento in cui si accingono a varcare a piedi il cancello del casolare. Per quale motivo due differenti versioni di orario? Semplice: algi agenti della Postale, e non solo a loro, viene riferito che l'orologio delle telecamere registra un errato orario: andrebbe 10 minuti avanti. Solo durante il processo in corso la difesa di Raffaele riesce a dimostrare inequivocabilmente che quell'orologio registra, si, un orario sbagliato, ma di piu di 10 minuti indietro e non avanti, quindi gli orari predetti vanno corretti, aggiungendo almeno 10 minuti e non sottraendo 10 minuti: la Polizia Postale arriva effettivamente sul posto non prima delle ore 12,58. Ecco svelato l'arcano grazie a controlli incrociati sull'arrivo dei Carabinieri, anch'esso ripreso dalle telecamere Sono proprio le telefonate dei Carabinieri (confermate dai tabulati) ed il loro arrivo la dimostrazione dell'ulteriore "svista" della Procura e della sincerita di Raffaele.

Even shadows and suspicions Raffaele: the arrival of the Postal Police Raffaele says he had already alerted the Carabinieri with two phone calls before the Post (at 12.51 and 12.53 hours as evidenced by his phone records). The Prosecutor Raffaele be a liar because, upon declaration of the same agents, the Post would arrive at 12.25 and then at the first call of the Carabinieri Raffaele. This viewpoint is not at all true in light of all other evidence from a careful analysis of images of a video-camera surveillance Anthony parking located in front of the house of Meredith. According to the images of Black Point Postal Police would come near the house at 12.38, and the prosecutor at the hearing to show a picture with time (12.38 hours) which repeats the arrival of the car. But the car continues failing agents indivuato the number 7, as they themselves said at the hearing. Their actual arrival is taken by the camera at 12.48, when are going to cross on foot the gate of the house. Why two different versions of time? Simple: regulated and agents of the Post, not only to them, it is reported that the watch of television cameras recorded the wrong time: 10 minutes would go forward. Only during the ongoing process of Raffaele defense can prove unequivocally that watch that record, a wrong time, but more than 10 minutes back and forward, then these times should be corrected by adding at least 10 minutes and not subtracting 10 minutes: the Postal Police arrived on the spot actually not before 12.58 hours. That's the mystery revealed through cross-checks on the arrival of the Carabinieri, also recorded by the cameras are just calls Carabinieri (confirmed by printouts) and the arrival of further demonstration "oversight" of the prosecutor and the sincerity of Raffaele.

I retrieved the above from the article history. The link is here:

http://issuu.com/sergiopisani/docs/la_piazza_di_giovinazzo_dicembre_2009

The link still works but it appears that, unlike last August, you now have to register with the publisher to access the full article. I was afraid to do this, or otherwise obtain a copy of the article, for fear someone would accuse me of violating some obscure rule.

Please note as well that:

1)	The 100+ slide defense PowerPoint presentation on this issue is available 2)	Massei concedes on at least two occasions that the Postal Police arrived at 1:00 PM 3)	The matter is also a point of emphasis in Raffaele’s appeal. 4)	The official police log supported the later arrival time (this was in the article at one point too.

Bottom line: No NEUTRAL article would contend for even a second that the defense did not offer a vigorous and highly effective rebuttal of the prosecution case on this issue. Indeed, a judicious researcher, weighing all the evidence, might well conclude that this was complete prosecutorial red herring. I would only add that this matter highlights one of the chief problems with sources. The coverage of the trial by large segments of the press was atrocious. Many reporters did not even stick around for the defense presentation. PietroLegno (talk) 10:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We would need a source for the assertion that "the defense did ... offer a vigorous and highly effective rebuttal of the prosecution case on this issue". If that can be found, then fine. You're opinion that they must have because of a powerpoint presentation etc is original research.
 * La piazza di Giovinazzo is almost certainly not a reliable source because it is a tiny circulation freesheet. It also serves Sollecito's home town and he used to write a column for it (see page 9 ), so it cannot be expected to be neutral.
 * However, even if we pretend it is reliable, it doesn't actually say that this argument was offered in court, whether it was successful or what the details of the argument may have been. What it says is "Only during the Raffaele's ongoing trial can the defence prove unequivocally that clock was wrong, but it was 10 minutes slow, not fast, and so that time should be corrected by adding at least 10 minutes and not by subtracting 10 minutes". All this is is the assertion of a tiny freesheet connect to the defendant. It doesn't tell us anything we can include in the article. --FormerIP (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can some of these issues start being actually discussed? Thus giving the true respect for Meredith. I am just curious, why each thing is instantly a battle. This ia representation of Wiki, I accept the rules and those things, but each day it seems a new attack. God rest your soul Dear Meredith. This will get handled, I hope. --Truth Mom (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As Jimbo Wales reminded us the idea is to get things right and he reproved another editors for arbitrarily dismissing a source as you have done here. We should not be inventing reasons to keep good sources out. The newspaper in question is reliable. It does not become unreliable just because it is friendly to Raffaele anymore than certain British publications become unreliable because they are frequently unfriendly. This is a major article on this subject--maybe a dozen pages and very detailed. This newspaper did not invent all of this out of whole cloth. They reported accurately what was actually said in court. This was the whole point of the article. It filled an important gap because the coverage by large papers on this subject was often unspeakably bad. Further, we have other reliable sources of information. The actual PowerPoint used by the defense is available online. So is Raffaele's appeal. The official police log, as discussed by Candace Dempsey, is further evidence that the police must have arrived much later than they said. On pages 25 and 27 of the Massei report he indicates that they arrived at 1:00 PM. Again, the bottom line is this: no NEUTRAL article would pretend for a second that this point was uncontested. We had the language on this in pretty good shape at one point and it was mercifully brief.PietroLegno (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * FormerIP, it would not be shocking to find that Raffaele wrote for his home town paper, but can you supply a reliable source for your assertion that he did? PietroLegno (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You just ran full speed against it.TMCk (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue that describes the evidence used to prove the Postal Police arrived after the 112 call also included an article where Raffaele tells his side of the story. If we use that to declare a source unreliable, the same rule would preclude using any publication that published an interview with the prosecutor as being hopelessly biased for the prosecution. --Footwarrior (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, in general, run Google Search for a key phrase to confirm a source contains the text, even if the original webpage requires an access license. For example, search for: "la Polizia Postale arriva effettivamente sul posto non prima delle ore 12,58". That search will confirm that the source is, in fact, the website as noted. -Wikid77 12:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, please find at least 2, provably totally independent reliable sources, which state how that webpage is not a reliable source (webpage: issuu.com/sergiopisani/docs/la_piazza_di_giovinazzo_dicembre_2009 ). Wikipedia does not allow original-research arguments, such as, "One suspect might have written for the newspaper, so everything it publishes is a lie" (no way). That would be a severe violation of WP:NOR.


 * Pietro. If what you were saying were contained in reliable secondary sources then that would be one thing. The fact that you are having to scrape the bottom of the barrel by using a cocktail of unreliable sources, suppositions and Google Translate, for me, means that what you are supposing is either wrong or simply unimportant. Particularly since even your unreliable sources don't directly say what you want them to.
 * La piazza di Giovinazzo obviously isn't a reliable source. It a tiny publication, Sollecito wrote for it (here's the link again - see page 9 ) and the editors trying to shoehorn it into the article don't even understand the language it is written in (or else they would realise that it doesn't actually say what they would like to believe it does). Those are not "arbitrary" objections. --FormerIP (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikid77, the onus is always on those wanting to add information from a source that it is reliable. It's not up to someone challenging the source to prove that it's unreliable, but they should say why they are concerned.  It's up to the editors adding the information to show how that source meets the requirements of WP:RS.  Using Google Translate as the sole source of translated information is problematic at best, especially given this is a BLP article.  You might want to see if an English source has commented on the information.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 14:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Including false information that smears the defendants is also a violation of the rules on BLP.  --Footwarrior (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * For Wikipedia, who defines if information is true or false? Verifiable, reliable sources.  And that's it.  If something is sourced, and you KNOW it's wrong, but can't find a source to back up your belief, it needs to stay in the article.  If sources disagree about something, then note that disagreement (just like is done many times in this article).  Smearing isn't good, but if it's notable and reliably sourced, then it should stay in the article.  See any article about fraudsters - I suspect most of them would argue that their name is being smeared, but if that's how the sources describe them, go with it.  If the label is controverial but notable, mention both.
 * Ultimately, it's all about the source. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 22:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We don’t want to report information that is untrue, even if reliable sources once reported it. And, we don’t want to reach our own conclusions and report them as fact, or report a conclusion made by someone else as fact, even if the conclusion is obvious. Here, the notion that the postal police arrived before Sollecito called the Carabinieri is certainly untrue, and yet also a conclusion.

Regardless of how well founded, documented and reasonable, it will always be a conclusion as long as the postal police claim they arrived at 12:35. How do you counter a dubious claim without reporting a conclusion? Candace Dempsey, in her book, which is a RS, says on p 62: “Neither officer saw Raffaele make a call. Later they would insist that they’d actually arrived at 12:35pm, shaving ten minutes off the previous claim, which only added to the confusion. This point would be debated and debated until at the end, the two accounts would differ only by five minutes.”

So, it's RS to report the claimed arrival time, and the fact that it was debated in court. The question I have is why can’t we use the Massei sentencing document as a reporter to give us the elements of that debate, and a report of the conclusion that the court reached? Moodstream (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to reiterate: the source I quoted above is eminently reliable and has been totally mis-characterized; it a long, detailed report describing the argument Raffaele's lawyer Giulia Buongiorno made in court; 2) The presentation she made is also available online; 3) The officer who claimed he had arrived earlier is a very dubious witness in as much as he was directly contradicted on other key points by a reliable, neutral witness; 4)the police log shows that the officers were dispatched after they claim to have arrived; Massei never says the police were wrong in so many words--he just quietly accepts the defense arrival time on page 25 and again on page 27; Raffaele's notes that Massei endorses the defense view and uses it as a platform to argue other issues. I believe Wikipedia would be amply justified in concluding that Raffaele called the Carabinieri just before the Postal Police arrived. To pretend that the defense had not put up a powerful counter argument would be outrageous. One of the reasons this article was in such poor shape until recently is that it was locked in a time warp. Earlier, flawed accounts were privileged and new information was excluded. That is what happened here. PietroLegno (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You seem to be implying that there is a later, perfect account which ought to be included. That's almost good enough, but what's lacking is a reliable source. --FormerIP (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Short full protection
I took the liberty to put a short (2 days) full protection on the article, par request by both The Magnificent Clean-keeper and ErrantX. I agree with ErrantX's concern that the article is slowly moving towards an edit war, so to prevent this i am placing a short timeout to allow for this to be settled on the talk page, instead of trough reverts. Of course any admin may remove the protection once this has been settled - do please restore the semi protection i had to remove. Please do so as well in case the two days just expire. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Excirial --Errant (chat!) 20:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

New "Oggi" Article
There is a new Oggi article out. Here is the title and lead paragraph:


 * The ‘collapse’ of the charges at the appeal court.

By Giangavino Sulas April 2011, Perugia. The scientific proof, finally entrusted to experts nominated by the appeals court and not just to the police, is deteriorating and opens up disturbing questions about the procedures used. The witnesses, who when they were not drug addicts (like Hekuran K. and Antonio C.), have problems of deafness, of physical as well as mental health serious enough to be hospitalized in the psychiatric department. (That is the case with Nara C.).

You can read a translation at Candace Dempsey's blog, or, if you prefer, go to the Oggi web site and translate by some other means. It is useful as a summary of what has been happening in the appeal and an indication of why we need to be careful to present both sides in the article. PietroLegno (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * links?LedRush (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/04/03/new-revelations-no-evidence-against-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/ Issymo (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, I have changed last names to just the initial ("K." or "C.") - please remember WP:BLP restrictions also applies to talk-pages. If the people are no longer living, then full names can be used on talk-pages. -Wikid77 20:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wiki, can you please explain the last name thing? Both the people whose last names you changed have been reported on using their last names in the press for years.  They are both public figures.  Just curious what the policy is behind this?  Not saying I have a problem with it or anything, but being that you are a pretty experienced editor, could you perhaps clarify? (GeniusApprentice (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC))


 * See: WP:Biographies of living persons, and consider what can be said about drug use, etc. -Wikid77 21:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This does look like something everyone should immediately sit up and take note of, although I have to admit I haven't read it because I am still pondering the enormous ramifications of Oggi's cover story . --FormerIP (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody please add the information to the article that ear witness Nara C. has spent time in mental hospital and is near deaf according to Oggi magazine, thanks. Her many false claims about reading about the murder in the newspaper next morning and seeing Knox and Sollecito near the parking gagrage when they were documented to be somewhere else should also be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 07:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, stop using Nara's family name and please stop repeating these statements that are rather clearly in breach of WP:BLP as Wikid77 as shown you above. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 14:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to say to handle with care the "Oggi" popular weekly magazine revelations. Oggi is an entertainment magazine, comparable to the most scandalistic English tabloids or American TV shows. IMHO any addition to the article should be backed by other more reliable sources.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree with Grifomaniacs's warning, here. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 14:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Nara C's full name is already in the article. What are you talking about when you say don't use the family name? It's already there. The information from Oggi needs to go in the article. Oggi is not going to claim something like a stay in a mental hospital without proof. Anyone attempting to exclude this information is applying censorship to the article to suit their own agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 15:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have two questions:
 * 1. Is Oggi considered a RS on wikipedia?
 * 2. Is the SeattlePI article considered a RS on this topic (seeing as it seems to be based on the Oggi article)?


 * If the statements in the article are true, I believe they must be included in the article. I will take a look for some other news sources.LedRush (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I suppose that the Oggi article is an anticipation of some information emerging from the proceedings. Unless more reliable sources will back these allegations, I think we should handle with care either the Oggi article, either the dedicated blog post. Finally, I invite CodyHoeBibby to moderate his tones, the matter here is not the information, but the source. BLP is a very important issue as well because this information could put at a stake the reputation of Ms Nara C.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't object to handling the article with care. I introduced it as a point of information and to demonstrate that certain defense claims were apparently being taken very seriously. We need to be sure in this entire article that defense claims are explicated fully. But events are unfolding rapidly and there is no need to get ahead of ourselves. In about a month, the experts will file their DNA report and we will know a good deal more then. I spent a good deal of time looking over OGGI the other day. It is a very reliable source--not only because of the articles it has written on this case but because it published Maria D'Elia's book and it's critique. OGGI is infinitely more reliable than, say, the Daily Mail.PietroLegno (talk) 10:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Some people believe if THEY write or claim something it makes it so. Claiming Oggi is not reliable is like claiming Tina Browns, Newsweek is not reliable. Daily Mail is CLEARLY a tabloid & I think meant to be? Idk, maybe Tina Brown thought she could make Daily Mail be = to Huff Post, a liberal honest rag-zine that unfortunately was bought by AOL & allows anyone to write an article if they sign up (I think).--Truth Mom (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oggi is a widely read Italian weekly magazine with an editorial board. It's the Italian equivalent to Time or Newsweek and meets the definition of WP:RS. --Footwarrior (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The consensus is that Oggi is a reliable source. Let's get their information about Nara C added to the article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 14:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't look very much like a consensus. Either, way, I don't think anyone would dispute that a translation of the article on a blog isn't a reliable source. --FormerIP (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The reference can be directly to the Italian source like several other references in this article. I understand why you would want to exclude the information from the article, given your agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 15:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I would want to know what the source said in Italian, rather that trusting that a translation on a blog is accurate. But you're missing my main point. There isn't a consensus for using the source in any language. --FormerIP (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. As other posters have stated Oggi is a reliable source within Wikipedia rules. Your attempt to exclude a reliable source is driven by your well-known personal agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 15:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Oggi magazine is at least as reliable a source as the Daily Beast; it is not the sign of an instructed sense of modern media to believe otherwise and it is more than a little disappointing, if not entirely daunting and defeating of the purpose of those gathered here, to find "editors", albeit some wet-behind-the-ears but some not-so, as unreliably instinctive as they seem to wish us to believe they are when it comes to determining what an "entertainment" magazine that is "comparable to the most scandalistic (sic) English tabloids or American TV shows" is and what it is not.Fancourt (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

At what point do we consider the biased 'Former IP' overruled and include the mainstream Italian news Magazine Oggi's statements in the article? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 19:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know enough about Oggi to form an opinion. Why don't we post this question on the reliable sources noticeboard?LedRush (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd support that. Oggi doesn't seem to have been discussed at WP:RSN previously, if a search of the archives is accurate. This is a sensitive subject, and I agree with the users above who rightly point to concerns with regard to WP:BLP. I would also repeat Grifomaniacs' request that CodyJoeBibby moderate the tone of his comments.  Super Mario  Man  19:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Oggi magazine sells 521,000 copies per week and is estimated to reach 3,460,000 readers per week. It's the number one selling news magazine in Italy. Source: http://www.rcspubblicita.it/mezzien/index.jsp;jsessionid=6E82808E57976D0D9CC1BA50B4DB26F9?page=/mezzien/master/descrizione.jsp?id=88*doc=t

Let's get a second opinion on whether that's a mainstream magazine in Italy. Yes sir, that makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 19:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Popularity does not equal reliability. I'm not a reader of the Daily Mail, but I do know that it is one of Britain's most popular newspapers. On the basis of popularity alone, therefore, would you be inclined to disagree with comments above asserting that Oggi is superior to the Daily Mail? Numbers of readers and issues sold have no guaranteed bearing on quality of content - sorry.  Super Mario  Man  20:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not here to argue with you. Oggi magazine is the highest circulation news magazine in Italy and is therefore a reliable source according to Wikipedia rules. Oggi is very much a mainstream media source. You personally do not make or police the rules, nor is it in any way your right to tell anyone else to 'moderate their tone' when they say something you disagree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 20:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Being highly circulated helps its case that it is a RS, but it is definitely not dispositive.LedRush (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)@CodyJoeBibby. You still haven't read the rules, have you!?TMCk (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I just have read the rules on reliable sources. For anyone to claim that the leading Italian weekly news magazine Oggi with a circulation of over 500,000 is not a reliable source is bizarre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 20:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not claiming it is not a reliable source. I am saying I don't know enough about it.  Could you provide something other than declarative statements and circulation figures in support of your position?LedRush (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Oggi magazine is the highest circulation news magazine in Italy and is therefore a reliable source according to Wikipedia rules." Where do Wikipedia's rules state that there is a neat, positive correlation between circulation and reliability? I was unaware that such a guideline existed, and I don't recall "making" or "policing" rules to the contrary. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT arguments hold little merit. If the number of readers is a measure of the reliability of a publication, then it would seem that phrases such as "trash tabloid" have been coined illogically.  Super Mario  Man  20:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Oggi magazine is the primary news magazine in Italy with a very significant circulation. Your question appears to be highly subjective. What exactly are you asking me to provide apart from circulation figures and self-evident declarations that the magazine is mainstream? Why don't you go and ask the publishers of Newsweek or Time Magazine the same questions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 20:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't OGGI be a reliable source? It is the Italian version of Newsweek --Truth Mom (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently no matter the huge circulation or good reputation of a news magazine, that means nothing, Truth Mom. What we're dealing with here is a blatant attempt to censor a Wikipedia article. Absolutely brazen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 21:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Oggi is not the primary news magazine in Italy, it is rather amongst the top selled popular weekly magazines in Italy, with fellows Panorama, Gente, Novella 2000, TV Sorrisi e Canzoni, Donna Moderna, Famiglia Cristiana, L'Espresso (source: Prima Comunicazione, data here http://www.primaonline.it/2011/03/25/90578/settimanali-dicembreanno-2010/). It is the typical mag you may read at the hairdresser... I am not saying that Oggi couldnt be used as a source, I only suggest to handle with care its revelations. I am sure that if this scoop will be confirmed, then other mayor news agencies will broadcast it. I would wait other sources backing Oggi revelations before adding them into this article.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly for explaining this. --Truth Mom (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

This article quotes Paul Ciolino who spoke to Nara C's niece and nephew who live in the same building. They are quoted as stating that Nara has spent time in mental hospital and has not left the house in 10 years. http://www.groundreport.com/Business/Head-of-Rome-Police-in-Amanda-Knox-Case-I-knew-she/2937867 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 07:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

This video hosted by the West Seattle Herald shows Paul Ciolino stating that he spoke to Nara C's niece and nephew who live in her apartment building and confirmed that she has a history of mental illness and has spent time in mental hospital. http://www.westseattleherald.com/2011/04/04/news/slideshow-amanda-knox-panel-makes-case-her-innoce CodyJoeBibby (talk) 07:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I posted on the Reliable Sources Admin noticeboard to get a decision as to whether Oggi is a reliable source for the information about Nara C. They responded that for this information Oggi is a reliable source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_the_Italian_news_magazine_.27Oggi.27_a_reliable_source_within_Wikipedia_rules.3F Could someone please add the information concerning Nara's stay in mental hospital and her near deafness to the article, thank you. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You've only had one commenter over there, which isn't really a pass yet. What is the relevant quote from the source? --FormerIP (talk) 11:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a pass because I notice other posts on the noticeboard which are answered by one commenter. You do not make the rules here. I have followed Wikipedia procedure in establishing that Oggi is a reliable source. I don't think I am able to edit the MoMK article myself so i have notified the original poster Pietro Legno of the favourable decision. It's up to him if he wants to add the info, but hopefully he will do. All we need is a few words detailing the alleged issues with the witness and a link to the Oggi article. Let the reader decide for themselves whether the witness is reliable. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me how to do one of those footnotes which go to a link at the bottom of the page? Cheers, CodyJoeBibby (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am bad at these, but I usually just copy and paste from another reference in the section (in this case, use one from a website and not a book). Copy from the " " to the " " and fill in the appropriate info (ref name, article name, url, access date, etc.).  Give it a shot and I will try and clean up what you do, if necessary.  Then, someone else will clean up my mistakes :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LedRush (talk • contribs) 09:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Berean. I'm trying but this is far from straightforward. It doesn't help when people are itching to delete what you add within seconds of posting it! CodyJoeBibby (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, that was LedRush but my signature got out there when I repaired his post which was breaking the page. Slow down a little first. The BLP issue needs a little discussion below. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 14:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

BLP issues
The mental health aspect is a BLP problem as well as not necessarily being as relevant to the case as you may think. People with mental health issues may still serve as witnesses just as children may serve as witnesses. That fact may not be particularly relevant to the case unless it can be proven to be correlated with making false statements directly and not just alluded to. The partial deafness, on the other hand, is a pertinent fact and not a BLP issue. I would suggest that the statement is moderated to reflect the deafness aspect and leave the mental health issue out. This would seem to be a good compromise and still within bounds of policy. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 14:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Negative. I have spent considerable time today overcoming the blatant obstructionism of some of the people associated with this article, to the extent that as a brand new user I have had to jump through Wikipedia hoops just to get some basic, relevant and reliably sourced recent information included in the article. The information regarding Nara C's mental health issues is reliably sourced and relevant, and it stays in. If it is removed I will interpret this as vandalism and will go to Jimbo Wales if necessary. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * First, notice the semi-colon that I've introduced into your previous statement...that helps you format your responses. I realize that you are a new user and trying to help you. I'm not trying to obstruct you. I'm pointing out aspects of policy that really do apply here that need discussed. I think you just missed one of my points which is that the mental health issues really don't come into play here unless an attorney makes more of it and demonstrates its relevance to the previously tendered testimony. I'm sorry that you are frustrated but you won't get very far in trying to push things here and it will probably only make you more frustrated. You can ask for guidance at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. You are no judge of what construes vandalism yet and throwing that term around will only backfire on you...and you are free to appeal to Jimbo; I don't think the substance of your previous statement would prevail. Try discussing things here calmly; we're not fighting a fire here. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 15:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Having read the material... that seems mostly to be something being used to undermine the witness in the media (and I guess at the trial). Generally we do not deal with such material unless it becomes very pertinent; i.e. the court rejects their evidence because of it. I don't see that as having happened (yet?) so I see no reason to include issues of mental health. It's just more POV pushing. Oggi is probably not the greatest of sources here, it is tabloid (someone likened it to Time above... not by half, I am afraid). They have editorial oversight, but tend to be more gossipy than anything else. I'd treat it about the same as the Daily Mail (perhaps a bit worse). --Errant (chat!) 15:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

2 other witnesses in this case, Kokomani and Curatolo, have been discredited due for the most part to mental health issues. What is different about this witness? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't find the names Kokomani and Curatolo in the article itself, but continually re-inserting a single sentence that discredits a witness, sourced to a questionable blog translation, is a disruptive exercise. As Berean Hunter has said, there must be a properly sourced connection between the mental health question and witness credibility.  Super Mario  Man  15:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that deleting sourced content from proven reliable resources is disruptive. What is the BLP issue?  Poor hearing or mental health are relevant for witnesses at any trial.LedRush (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I dispute that this is a reliable source for a BLP. Is there a better source for this material? If not I do not think we can use it. --John (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * LedRush, please read through ErrantX's comment. Mere mentions of deafness and mental problems are side issues unless a source has confirmed a connection to the reliability of the witness - note the words "very pertinent". One must also be cautious about reliance on a blog translation, as opposed to the text of the original Italian publication, as the immediate source cited in the article.  Super Mario  Man  15:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have read it. The mental health and hearing capacity of an ear-witness to an event is extremely notable and important. Also, no one is relying on a blog translation of anything. We are relying on what a reporter for the SeattlePI (one who is an expert in this field) has reported that Oggi has written. I really don't see the issues here.
 * One of the issues that makes this board so difficult is with regards to process. If a citation is broken, and one knows how to fix it, one shouldn't delete the cite and the statement. They should fix it. If only the mental health issue is a BLP concern, don't delete the citation and the statement, delete the relevant section. It's edits like these which prove certain editors aren't acting collaboratively to make the article better, but are instead using pretexts to continue a content dispute to push a specific POV. This statement is made generally, not specifically about what happened today, nor is it directed at any one editor.LedRush (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Oggi article makes the insinuation that because Nara has spent time in a mental hospital she is unreliable. It doesn't say why she was in the hospital, when she was in the hospital or offer any explanation for how that might affect her ability to testify, just that because she was in a hospital she surely can't be reliable. If you're willing to accept a blanket statement that ANY reason someone would be in a mental hospital makes them unreliable and that ANY time they have been in the hospital counts (since, say, 20 years ago makes a difference today), go for it. I think it's a pretty low shot, but if that's the standard wanted for this article - that any insinuation in a reliable source goes, no matter how shady or poorly defined, then go for it. I think it lowers the overall quality of the article to stoop to such additions. If it materially affects the case then it's going to be made by the defense and at some point that will be in a solid source. Until then, I think such material shouldn't be in the article. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 15:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

ErrantX - I don't care what you personally think about OGGI. The administrators' noticeboard on reliable sources has ruled today that OGGI is a reliable source. Your opinion is therefore irrelevant. In my view, I don't see how poor hearing or mental health issues are not relevant to the credibility of a witness whose testimony can destroy someone's life. Why are people attempting to censor this article? It's not me who claims these things. It's OGGI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 15:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, one editor at the board has said as much. Furthermore, WP:RSN isn't staffed solely by administrators.  Super Mario  Man  15:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * CodyJoeBiddy - you are essentially saying that you will accept any additions to the article that serve to negatively portray someone connected to this case, regardless of how vague and undefined those portrayals are, as long as a source says them about the person. Is that a correct statement of your view?  So, completely made up scenario, if a source said that Amanda always wore mismatched socks, indicating that he had no fashion sense and thus obviously a bad person, you'd accept and support that addition. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 16:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would hope that you (Ravensfire) would redact your personal attacks above.LedRush (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Asking an editor confirmation of his view about an editorial matter is not a personal attack in any way. It's a WP:POINTY request, but far short of an PA. Indeed, compared to many other statements made on this talk page that have not generated a warning from you, it is almost pleasant. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 16:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The question has been asked, and it has been answered. OGGI is a reliable source for this information. What authority do you have to overrule a decision made by the WP:RSN noticeboard? Your multi-coloured username gives the impression you are someone important. What exactly is your status on Wikipedia? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He's an Italian plumber. --FormerIP (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha-ha - not really! The red, orange and yellow look nice, and also provide a vivid contrast against the blue of standard signatures, making it easier for me to find my posts on talk pages. Any user can make their own special signature - it does not indicate particular status. Back to the actual subject of the discussion: the noticeboards themselves do not hold some sort of supreme authority - instead, they serve to give a recommendation. Many other editors here have raised concerns about the use of the source in question.  Super Mario  Man  16:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about Ravensfire, but I'm sure that your attempt to put words nothing like anything i have actually said into my mouth is a breach of several Wikipedia policies. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope - I'm trying to understand your editorial view. Is your view that any opinion about a person connected with this case expressed by a source is acceptable for addition to this article and that you would support that addition? That's what I'm looking for. Yes, I strongly disagree with the addition as I've stated, but I want to make sure I absolutely understand your view on this. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 16:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not monitor everyone on the article, but I do warn people as if I'm passing out candy, so I'm very surprised you haven't noticed until now. Regardless, it is best for everyone to remain civil on an article that generates this much passion.LedRush (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We are talking about people who testified in court to the detriment of two young people. Of course their reliability can be scrutinized and examined. Of course OGGI is a reliable source and the reporter, Sulas, has been covering this case a long time. I am reminded again of Jimbo Wales telling us that it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to be gratuitously inventing reasons for declaring perfectly good sources out. If a reputable reporter writing for a reputable news outlet covers something, of course it is reliable. It would should take the most extraordinary proof to convince us otherwise. I also think Candace Dempsey's translation is fine--it comports closely to the other translation out there. If the translation of the Massei report by a bunch of anonymous people on a pro-guilt blog can be considered acceptable, it is hard to imagine how we could fail to accept the translation of a person whose bona fides are known. PietroLegno (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't even need to rely on Dempsey's translation: We merely say that she has reported that Oggi has said something, which she did. The translation comes at the end of her report.LedRush (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's my view on this - if we get something that says that this caused the court to discount her testimony, I think it's completely relevant and absolutely should be included. Until then, we don't know if it's notable to the people that matter - the appeals court.  I don't think Dempsey's view is enough to meet that criteria.  From an RSN view, either Oggi or Dempsey is going to be enough to source the statement.  I don't discount that.  It's from a notability and BLP view that I have concerns.  If it turns out that the court did not think this undefined mental health condition impacted her testimony, then we've needlessly put harmful information about a living person into an article.  BLP says to be conservative, and to that view I think we should not add the information until we have something that says it did impact the case.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 16:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean with regarding to the mental health, not the hearing. The hearing of an ear-witness is of the absolute utmost importance.  I hope we can all agree on that.LedRush (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Mostly the mental health stuff, yes. I think most people would react negatively to something like that being said about them.  I've having insanely long times loading the page and saving edits, so I actually rephrased my post above slightly, thinking the first edit didn't save, and then got the lovely edit conflict.  A point that I added is if we even know if this was something the defense raised as an issue?  That's not in the Oggi article or Dempsey article, and I'd be comfortable including it under that basis.  And really, that's true for for both mental health and deafness.  If they were raised as issues by the defense or considered by the court, I think they are fair game to include in the article.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 16:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd come down vaguely in favour of the deafness being mentioned; although a better source would be nice. And I would like to see it raised at the appeal (i.e. shown as relevant). If it is never raised at the appeal it loses some relevance for me. That we only have one (fairly tabloidy) source is concerning for now. --Errant (chat!) 17:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ravensfire and ErrantX are correct. This subsection is not about whether Oggi, Dempsey, or Fisher are reliable sources. The RS noticeboard has nothing to do with the issue I've raised. This thread is about BLP issues. If Oggi states that the hearing problems were brought up at trial then it would be pertinent in this article without a doubt but until the defense attorney raises this issue, it isn't. The mental health issue runs a deeper problem because unlike the claims of deafness, it can be construed as part of a character assassination by either the press or a defense attorney. Even if an attorney raises this latter issue at trial, it would not be worthy to add here on Wikipedia unless it had an impact on the case through a judge's ruling. This is not censorship but is rather protection of individuals from being disparaged unnecessarily. We are not allowing Trial by media here, we are not the news and we can wait for these issues to have their day in court before reporting such things. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 17:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Facts are facts regardless of whether somebody wearing a wig in Perugia adjudicates them. Reliable sources are reliable sources and what they say can be reported. Nara claimed to hear something. A reliable source says she is almost deaf. This might indicate she did not in fact hear anything. The reader needs to decide for themselves. You cannot continue to censor the article with a view to witholding pertinent information in the light of Jimbo Wales' recent intervention in this article on exactly this issue. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My thinking on that is "meh"; just because it is reported in a RS (and this is not a good source for BLP material on its own) doesn't make it pertinent or relevant. The bottom line is; I would much prefer to see more sources identifying the relevance, and for it to be used in the appeal. If it isn't, and this remains the only source, well, that puts it in UNDUE territory for me. --Errant (chat!) 17:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Not to worry. One of your friends has already deleted the OGGI reference to Nara's alleged deafness. Ultimately this censorship won't succeed. The truth always comes out in the end. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I moved it to a more appropriate place in the article...in the appeals section. You should understand that I came to this page after seeing this on Jimbo's talkpage with concerns that something might be wrong here. I'm not from either the 'guilty' or the 'innocent' advocacy camps. If anything, I'm an advocate for Wikipedia and remaining neutral. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 18:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the near-deafness can be considered not relevant. If an ear witness is near-deaf, it is relevant whether or not raised by trial.  Res ipsa loquitor.
 * Regarding placement: I think this belongs where it originally was. If this is raised on appeal, it can go there too.  But the near-deafness is something about the actual witness that exists regardless of whether or not there was a trial.LedRush (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No writer in their right mind will begin placing rebuttal material before a layout of events. Remember that the article is being written for the uninitiated and should be in chronological order. And the correct legal assertion here is Ipse dixit. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 18:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not about rebuttal info: it's a descriptive fact about the witness. Also, my Latin is rusty, but "the thing speaks for itself" seems relevant when saying why an argument need not be explicitly proven, while "he said it himself" doesn't seem to make sense at all in this context. I did not mean this as a legal premise, but whether used colloquially or in law, "res ipsa loquitor" is the correct phrase.LedRush (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * At the present, we have but one source stating an assertion...which hardly makes it a fact. Ipse dixit in this case means Oggi has said it, therefore it must be which doesn't hold water. We need more than Oggi to substantiate something into becoming a fact. Other writers repeating it because they saw it in Oggi doesn't count, either. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 18:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that latin phrase has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. I am talking about the relevance of information regarding the hearing ability of an ear-witness.  Res ipsa loquitor is the correct colloquial and legal phrase for my ideas and arguments.LedRush (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, my only concern is that this is one not very good source. I would like to see more; otherwise it strikes me as suspicious (we shouldn't put in these things, which are basically meant to undermine the witness, if no one reliably able to comment on the relevance.. uh... comments). In terms of placement it makes more sense chronologically in the appeals segment. --Errant (chat!) 18:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoever wants to include this needs to find the original article or a RS reporting on it.TMCk (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've also got some problems about the deafness claim for the same reasons as I have for mental health. Dempsey is the only source for "near-deafness", and appears to be an embellishment by her.  Her translation of Oggi only says that the witness "... have problems of deafness ...".  No indication of what degree of deafness.  No indication if it was enough to prevent her from hearing something.  No indication if it was something raised by the defense.  What if the "problems of deafness" is a 10% hearing loss?  Or she wears a hearing aid?  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 18:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My resident Italian translator (who is currently making dinner :D) says that you're correct, "near-deafness" isn't a good translation or interpretation. "hearing problems" would be a better way to put it in her opinion. But we do not have a reliable source on that; is translation by ourselves considered OR? I don't know --Errant (chat!) 18:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hopefully an Italian dinner! (Mmm, getting hungry, might have to do something Italian myself!)  That's fuzzy about the translations - usually something translated by a human is considered good unless/until someone objects.  Machine translations are harder.  Where a human would put something to indicate areas they aren't sure about, machine's don't.  The phrasing tends to be awkward, and meanings can shift - see "hearing problems" vs "problems with deafness".  Here, we have the words Dempsey used "near-deafness" and the translation she based that on "problems with deafness".  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 21:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a PDF file of the article. It's not yet available online. Candace Dempsey has translated the article. That's why I linked to her English translation. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * More importantly, Dempsey has reported on it in the SeattlePI.LedRush (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a BLP concern for the defendants that we are saying in the events surrounding the murder that an ear witness heard a scream at a certain time, but we aren't reporting on RSs which report that she is near-deaf. If we can't report on the ability of the witness to testify to what she heard, we should remove any mention of the testimony.LedRush (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? It was entered as evidence in the trial was it not? Seems relevant; you're stretching the definition of a BLP problem by a long way for that one I am afraid. It's not really helpful to go down that road. --Errant (chat!) 19:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * To clarify one thing: Dempsey's blog is NOT a RS and cannot be used. "'Editor's note: This is a seattlepi.com reader blog. It is not written or edited by the P-I. The authors are solely responsible for content.''"TMCk (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ouch, that introduces the problem... in light of creative translation and TMCk's comment... do we have another source? this one is rapidly falling apart :S --Errant (chat!) 18:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been accepted for a long time that Dempsey's articles on SeattlePI are RSs. I see no reason to change that policy now because TMCK doesn't want us to put certain info into the article.LedRush (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No it hasn't. They are definitely not RS. If there is anything currently sourced to them in the article, it should be removed. --FormerIP (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I give a damn about the info and who established that her blog is a RS? Certainly not the RS noticeboard. Cheers TMCk (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The combination of an unreliable and partisan blog, no editorial review (as highlighted by TMCk above) and unreliable "translation" means that arguments for re-inclusion of such questionable content hold little water. In full agreement with many of users above.  Super Mario  Man  19:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We have long considered Dempsey's articles on the SeattlePI as reliable and there is editorial oversight. Furthermore, if you take out the mental health statement, there is no questionable content (even with it I think it's not questionable, but without it, no one seems to be arguing that the ability of an ear-witness to actually hear is not relevant or brings up any BLP concerns).  I must say, I am flabbergasted by this latest turn of events.LedRush (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How does the supposed existence of editorial review reconcile agree with TMCk's observation that "authors are solely responsible for content" (a statement from the site itself)? I don't really understand.  Super Mario  Man  19:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no way that a blog "not subject to editorial control" is a reliable source for anything but the opinions of the blogger. Hipocrite (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Who defines it as unreliable or questionable? Those are unsubstantiated claims. All she is doing is translating an existing article in Oggi. Oggi itself is a reliable source. If you don't like Dempsey's translation, in a few days the original article will be available online. Then the reference is going in the Wikipedia article to allow readers to decide for themselves. You can delay this process, but i don't think you'll stop it. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

BLP issue proposal
Can't we just take out the witness' name and report what the SeattlePI reported? There's not BLP issue if we are talking about a nameless witness, right?LedRush (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No. See above.TMCk (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What above?LedRush (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The source is no good.TMCk (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Even if it were, we don't get around BLP by omitting names. She's still identifiable. I think BLP would be satisfied just by finding a more solid source, but leaving out the name doesn't make it okay to use poor sourcing. --FormerIP (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Did you miss the part where the admin noticeboard on reliable sources stated categorically that OGGI is a reliable source for the information I added to the article? It's been a busy day, so I understand if you did. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There never was an admin.TMCk (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * One ten-word affirmation from one uninvolved editor (as of the time of writing) does not mean that Oggi is "categorically" a reliable source - there have been additional replies since. At any rate, that the actual cited source is a blog quoting Oggi seems to be the larger point of contention at this moment in time.  Super Mario  Man  20:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The comments by Errant and John would seem to be completely irrelevant to the question as to whether OGGI is a reliable source, since they are both actively engaged in editing the MoMK article. Am i missing something there? does the phrase 'Nemo Iudex in Causa Sua' ring any bells? The only comment from a neutral party said unequivocally that OGGI is a reliable source in this context. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The wording "seems to be a reliable source" does not suggest much of an "unequivocal" statement. Coincidentally, this addition would appear to put quite a dent in the fragile, alleged "consensus" that has been the primary cause of the recent edit war.  Super  Mario  Man  21:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been a busy day so you probably missed the fact that i removed any reference to mental health issues about 7 hours ago. Of course, if somebody is alleged to have spent time in mental hospital, then surely this can be verified through hospital records etc. How did OGGI get the information? We'll have to see. Do you think they just made it up? Pretty dangerous for them to do that, given Italy's Calunnia laws. But keep on Wikilawyering. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, considering that Biographies of Living Persons is very much a relevant policy to bear in mind when one edits at this topic, it is very much necessary to ensure that anything and everything that goes into the article is properly sourced. BLP makes no compromises, and self-published translations of material drawn from a tabloid-ish magazine, appearing on a less-than-impartial blog site, would not prima facie appear to merit the function of citation in this instance. You have also failed to prove that any reliable source has yet linked the hearing and mental problems with witness credibility - until and unless this occurs, the text in question remains objectionable. BLPs are not intended to serve as repositories for innuendo and unspoken conclusions. Sorry for all this excessive "WikiLawyering", but since the BLP point has now been made clear, I trust that you understand how vital it is to edit in a conservative manner. Avoidance of POV-pushing and refusals to get the point are also conducive to helping BLP talk page discussions progress more smoothly.  Super Mario  Man  23:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been digging for a better source and am yet to find one. I am slowly coming to the view that this is just scurrilous gossip as part of a "hit piece", the same sort of stuff that regularly throws up BLP issues. The original piece appears to be intentionally quite vague about the detail.. I suppose at some point we could address this as an opinion piece, but it makes me uncomfortable. --Errant (chat!) 19:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cody, the old source was to a Dempsey article on the Oggi one. You can source directly to Oggi, but it is frowned upon to use foreign language references because they are hard to verify (though you can do this).  I'm not sure why the idea of a witness being hard of hearing raises this many hackles (though I do understand BLP concerns for mental health info), but I don't see how we can leave in the witness statements if we can't describe her ability to hear.LedRush (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, as I said, that was evidence used at the trial. If that is invalidated or argued against then this material certainly becomes relevant. But the more I read the original piece the more it just looks like advocacy disguised as jorunalism, I'm not sure it is sufficient to identify it as significant without further sourcing. As I said; it is vague. I'm not sure how that can be a basis for removing the other material (straw man?). BTW the implication was made above that Seattle PI was a RS, but I am concerned with the fact that Dempsey's work is basically a blog and can't be considered part of the papers editorial scope... so I opened a discussion here to clarify the extent we can consider it reliable. But my gut feeling is that mostly it is not reliable for anything other than Dempsey's opinion. --Errant (chat!) 20:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How exactly is a translation of an existing Italian article an 'opinion'? Are you suggesting Candace Dempsey has intentionally lied about the content of the article? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * At a minimum, she exaggerated a fair amount on at least one claim. Her translation of Oggi is "problems with deafness".  An editor above said that a better translation might be "hard of hearing".  How do you go from that to "near-deafness"?  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 20:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So just to be clear, without any of us seeing the original Italian text, you're stating that an unspecified Wikipedia editor's opinion about the correct translation of Italian text which we haven't seen is better than Candace Dempsey's? This is what you're saying? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if Dempsey said "problems with deafness" your statement of "near-deafness" is pushing the limit. Dempsey is a reporter, but she also has a clear POV on this case.  It seems better to get transations from people with a less distinct POV on this issue, no?LedRush (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there's any cast-iron distinction between 'near-deaf' and 'problems with deafness' to be honest. How big are the 'problems with deafness'? It's not specified. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is that you were using the most extreme example. If anything, if there are BLP issues, we should take the least extreme (yet reasonable) example.LedRush (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No. I'm saying Dempsey said "near-deafness".  Her translation, the one she used to write the article, says "problems with deafness".  That's just a slight exaggeration on her part (sarcasm alert).  I'm reinforcing my point by noting that we have some confirmation that the original Italian is not saying "near-deafness".  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 21:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure who you're replying to, Raven, but my post above was intended to agree with you.LedRush (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I was replying to Cody. Indents are a pain at times.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 00:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a ludicrous point to make, 'Ravensfire'. Do you not understand that Candace Dempsey speaks Italian? She herself translated the Italian article. 'Problems with deafness'/'Near-deaf' - could be interchangeable in idiomatic Italian. Might be no big deal at all. I don't really know, and neither do you or your imaginary friend. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ludicrous - sorry, I prefer plaid!  And my imaginary friend is doing quite well, but they didn't say anything about this article. They keep mumbling about Struts, Ajax and other things I'm supposed to be doing. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 22:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to go to bed now. I've spent all day on Wikipedia typing, reading and researching, and the sum total of my efforts is a one-sentence addition to an article which was rapidly deleted. Good night. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't view the information placed here  Others have claimed that the video talks about the mental health issues the witness had. Does it address her hearing?LedRush (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like it's a YouTube video of a presentation organized by FOA. It's about 2 hours long, so if they could at least say about when, that would help.  As a source, I don't know.  I'm leery because it is a presentation organized by a strident advocacy group (to say the least).  Same concerns about notability of the claim, and really iffy about it as a source (not because of YouTube - it's on an official channel).  Who makes the claim, basis, everything else said, put forth by an advocacy group, etc.  If there's something that might be useful, I'd put it up on BLPN and maybe also RSN.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 00:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit War
Please do not edit war over it. Technically it shouldn't be in there as it is disputed BLP material. But I'm not overly bothered myself; just stop the reverts please --Errant (chat!) 18:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the BLP issue raised was in relation to mental health. I just don't see a BLP issue around near-deafness.  It is obviously of the utmost relevance, and it seems like an odd thing to worry about with respect to BLP guidelines.LedRush (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want a 'layout of events' Berean Hunter, you can't put anything about Nara reporting hearing a scream in the section 'events surrounding the murder'. Because she didn't report hearing anything for months after the murder. And even then she didn't report it to police. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 18:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source that says the witness did not come forward until months after the incident? If true, this whole sentence should be removed from the "events surrounding murder" section and moved to the "prosecuting and defense arguments" section.LedRush (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (amused that this is posted in the wrong subsection) I would probably agree with you on that since it arises during the investigation and/or trial...but let's not move it just yet. We're having article stability problems. (re to Cody) In case you didn't understand why I moved it, it was a compromise to keep your newly revised edit in the article even though I share some of the same concerns voiced by others. I noted that you compromised earlier in removing the mental health bit. I was trying to accept your revised version by moving it. Your compromise was good...you're learning. :) <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 18:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right about the location of this discussion...but Cody put his comments here, so I had to address them here.LedRush (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for appreciating my ability to compromise, Berean Hunter. Although I felt the mental health issues were highly relevant to the credibility of the witness I removed the reference in the interests of consensus. Unfortunately my flexibility has not helped me. Somebody quickly deleted my reliably sourced statement questioning Nara C's hearing abilities. What am I supposed to do now? I can't put it back as i have been threatened by user TheMagnificentCleanKeeper that i will be blocked if i do. Any ideas? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't put it back in until there's a concensus on the talk page to add it and how to add the information. At a minimum, toss the Dempsey piece out as a reference.  As others have pointed out, it looks like that is a self-published source (SPS), which you can't use to source information about living people unless the subject is the author.  There's a discusssion going about the hearing thing, keep participating and wait out the result.  Remember, there is no deadline! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravensfire (talk • contribs) 18:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I won't put it back. It's pretty clear now what's going on with this article. It's a shame, because i always trusted Wikipedia. Now i see how it really operates. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What will be significant here is whether any of this comes into play during the appellate process...not whether a single source has published this. If there is no impact in the trial then there will be nothing missed here. We don't decide their fates. If multiple reliable sources publish this and it has an effect on the trial then we will have something worthy of inclusion. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 04:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cody; I generally support the idea that hearing problems are pertinent. The issues for me are as follows (and I think they are reasonable)
 * Dempsey is a pro-innocent advocate, which means there is a certain slant in her work, so we must take care with using it as a source
 * I have concern over the translation; we have been read a copy of the article and my gf's comment was "sort of right but she has translated those parts very liberally".
 * Even then we have the issue that you presented "problems of deafness" as "near deaf"; I don't see how you could defend that interpretation as accurate
 * Oggi is "tabloid"; which isn't immediately a problem. But the article itself is vague on detail and comes across mostly as a "hit piece" (the opening part anyway). We generally avoid sourcing BLP material to such sources
 * I argue that if this is relevant, and if he hearing has a bearing on the evidence she gave other more reliable sources will pick it up. I'd like to see more sourcing, particularly from non-partisan sources. I'm not sure that is too much to ask :S Do you have another source? --Errant (chat!) 08:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I already gave the West Seattle Herald as another source but it doesn't matter. I'm done here. I can't beat this cabal. The bullying and threats are too much. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 10:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for trying to sort this out fairly Berean. I do have a few comments. First, I think it is tad unfair to call OGGI a tabloid. I have spent a good deal of time looking at the magazine. It clearly has some tabloid-like features but it also does serious new analysis and it is notable in Italy for its skepticism about some of the prosecution claims in this case. Sulas, who wrote this piece, is a respected journalist. OGGI also published Maria D'Elia's book on the subject. With regard to Nara, I think we must remember that she is not just some anonymous citizen. She was a formal witness in a murder trial. It is fair to put her a bit under the microscope. The police did not identify her right away. She was giving interviews to the press long before the police found her. Paul Ciolino, the investigator who consults for CBS, visited her and in the process talked to the woman's niece who admitted that her aunt was deaf and more than a little batty. Everything she has said is open to some question. The defense does not believe she could have heard what she says she heard and has asked for audiometric testing. This involves the witness's powers of hearing. Questions about her mental health have to do with her motive for getting involved at all. Finally, there is the issue of the Dempsey translation. I just don't want to see a double standard. We seem to have accepted the idea that a translation of the Massei report put out by a bunch of anonymous participants at a virulently pro-guilt blog is acceptable. But when the known author of a major book ventures to translate a brief article we suddenly worry about bias. This does not compute to me. For what it is worth, Bruce Fisher has posted another translation on his website. It would seem a shame if we had to go with one of those awful Google translations. PietroLegno (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The defense does not believe she could have heard what she says she heard and has asked for audiometric testing. ; cool. Source for that/ if we can source it I feel that is much better content than currently presented here. r.e. the translation - other translations do not matter. Although I'd be quite happy to look at the one you raise as problematic if you like - fresh eyes and all that. But as I mention above I think the concern over translation and then the twist on the wording added to the content here is enough to reject that specific wording regardless. FWIW the RS/N discussion has come down quite clearly in identifying Dempsey's blog as a self-published source, so we can only really treat it as opinion/commentary. --Errant (chat!) 10:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The source that the defence requested audiometric tests is the Massei Report, translated by anonymous participants at a virulently pro-guilt self published blog. I've decided I'm not done here. The bias in this article needs to be corrected. I don't see any way to get any sort of fairness or consistency here other than to take the matter to Jimbo Wales again. It should not be a matter of controversy to include a reference to an article in a major newspaper by a named journalist which questions the reliability of a witness. The reader needs to make up his or her own mind about the witness. To withold this information from the reader is to wilfully censor the article in direct contradiction of everything Jimbo Wales said in his intervention in this hijacked article. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It should not be a matter of controversy to include a reference to an article in a major newspaper by a named journalist which questions the reliability of a witness; it's a problem because the article is an opinion hit piece, we should not be writing an article from it. The audiometric tests, though, are factual and of relevance and should be added. I'll look into that one. It is much better to stick to the factual elements than recite opinion etc. You ask for it to be presented so that readers can make up their own mind; do you really believe that "near-deaf" is a neutral way to present the facts? Simple answer is no, the wording undermines the witness and presents a point of view. As to your last sentence, it is worth pointing out that Jimbo has a conservative attitude to BLP material, I can't put words in his mouth, but I suspect he would be in agreement with a lot of what I have said on this subject. It's probably not a good idea to keep dragging his participation up as a token to call the article biased, it has problems, but that is mostly due to advocacy from both sides making a mess of it. Practically speaking this article will continue to be a mess for many years. --Errant (chat!) 11:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Who says it's a 'hit piece'? Who makes that decision? Who says it's an opinion piece? The Oggi article deals with facts not opinion. Nara either does or does not have hearing problems. Nara either has or has not spent time in mental hospital. Interesting that you completely skate over the issue that the guilter's translation of the Massei Report is a reliable source but Candace Dempsey's translation of an OGGI article is not. Your decision not to include any kind of reference to the OGGI article is a violation of Wikipedia policy in my view. You and your friends haven't heard the last of this, I promise you that much at least. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And you're avoiding explaining how "near-deaf" is a) so important to get in and b) even slightly accurate to the material you cited.. As I said above, not come across the Massei issue before, but am happy to look into it if someone wants to provide a pointer.... In terms of the Oggi material; the tabloid nature of the medium, the advocacy/POV in the writing and the vagueness in the line being referenced is enough to make it troublesome for me. The audio-metric stuff seems a lot more relevant and factual. You and your friends haven't heard the last of this, I promise you that much at least.; in light of making threats, I am no longer interested in interacting with you on this article. Please re-consider your attitude. --Errant (chat!) 11:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't threatening anyone, I'm just saying that I won't accept censorship of this article by what i consider to be an organised partisan group of which you are a part and i intend to take this matter to whatever Wikipedia authorities i need to to try to get some kind of fairness. As such, you haven't heard the last of this issue. I'm sorry you misinterpreted that as a threat. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * what i consider to be an organised partisan group of which you are a part; please read this. If you still feel there is a problem the relevant places to raise it are probably WP:BLP/N, WP:NPOV/N or by using the WP:RFC process. And, with respect, labelling me partisan... you are the one pushing a pro-innocence blog and "near-deaf". I've always maintained a staunch neutrality over material, and you can check my edits to other BLP articles if you like, there is no partisanship here. --Errant (chat!) 12:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your accusation that I am a conspiracy theorist. That's very constructive. I would assume you also think Jimbo Wales is a conspiracy theorist, since he raised exactly the same kind of issues with this article as I have done. Your glib dismissal and wilful misinterpretation of my points has not gone unremarked. Nor has the fact that you blatantly skated over the clear issues of bias i raised. But thank you for the links to places where i can raise complaints about your behaviour. I have only been on Wikipedia 24 hours or so, and there's a lot to learn when you're up against people who can game the system like you and your friends. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems that Oggi is beneath our standards as an article source. But if you look closely, it's just like almost every other source used for this article. Articles from the Guardian, Daily Mail, the Daily Beast Blog, Sky News and others with screaming tabloid headlines and full of facts that didn't turn out to be true. Like it or not, most of the coverage of this investigation and trail was done by the tabloid press. But how about a compromise? We don't bring up Nara's hearing problems or her alleged mental illness. We just point out that at 11 pm when she claims to have heard the scream, other witnesses in a disabled car across the street from the cottage saw and heard nothing. Let's also leave Oggi on the list of permissible sources. Unlike most of the other newspapers, they have done some investigatory journalism on this case. --Footwarrior (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW I'd be happy to see a determined effort to replace those sources with better ones, there is a lot of material in the article that could be switched from opinion/interpretation to pure factual stuff (with attributed opinions in the relevant places). That so much of this article is dragged from the "gutter press" just concerns me full stop, that is not the sort of material we should be interested in.
 * I agree that outright rejecting Oggi is a bad move, there may be something of relevance they can add. But in this case basing quite a strong piece of text off of one vague line in an opinion piece is something that concerns me (I am still looking for a better source for this whole thing :S).
 * Regarding the car; is there a source for this claim/evidence? It seems germane (regardless of the rest of this discussion) and should probably be included if properly sourced.
 * At the moment my suggestion is this;

Thoughts? Anyone able to scrape together the sources for that content? --Errant (chat!) 14:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * restore the content about her evidence and the crticism
 * add sourced info about the car per foot warrior's comment
 * add sourced info (to the appeals section) about the audio-metric test, and if more reliable sources pick up the hearing issues mention it explictly at some point in the future
 * Quoting Demsey page 49 "... a car driven by Pasqualino Colleta broke down right in front of the parking garage. He waited for a tow truck between 10:30 pm and 11 pm. He saw nothing strange, nor did he hear any screams."  I believe this witness and the tow truck driver are also mentioned in Massei, where they describe the house as dark.  But that might take a while to find.  It may be better to put Nara hearing the scream and the disabled car in the trial section.  We need to avoid giving the impression that she called the police after hearing the scream.  She just went back to bed and doesn't seem to have mentioned it to anyone else for weeks. --Footwarrior (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how we can allow any mention of an ear-witness' testimony when there are reports that she has hearing issues that are not mentioned in the article. I think it is a BLP violation against the defendants to include only one side of disputed testimony...especially when dealing with facts which can be objectively verified.LedRush (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding (from what I am picking up) that the Oggi reference to hearing difficulties is due to the audio-metric test being requested. So why is that not an acceptable alternative piece of info? Can you explain what you mean by "objectively verified", which fact specifically? and what are you using to verify it? --Errant (chat!) 14:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I want to try and present it this way... that she has testified something at trial, and that this has been disputed by an observer is relevant. It is not a BLP issue (particularly as her evidence doesn't even accuse anyone!). Saying she has hearing trouble (or, "near-deaf"...) is certainly something that is germane, but currently there is only one, pretty poor, source. It so dramatically undermines a witness that saying "the ear-witness was near-deaf" is a statement that needs immaculate sourcing. --Errant (chat!) 15:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * [EC)We have the Oggi source, and the West Seattle Herald reporting on that source (not to mention the newly not allowed Dempsey articles on SeattlePI). For the issue of whether someone has hearing difficulties, this seems like more than enough.
 * If you are correct that Oggi is reporting based on the request of an audio-metric test, then your proposal would be fine. However, the translations I've read have been clear that Oggi reports of actual hearing difficulties. Of course, the audio-metric test is one way this info can be objectively verified.LedRush (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The information about Nara's hearing problems most likely came from her niece and nephew who live in the same apartment building and look after her due to her mental health issues. Paul Ciolino interviewed them and he is on video at the West Seattle Herald's website stating this. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight...the guy who interviewed the relevant parties is on the West Seattle Herald saying that the ear-witness had hearing difficulties?LedRush (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcGYrufLupA from 1:42 onwards Paul Ciolino states that Nara's relatives told him she is crazy. He doesn't say anything about deafness, however the woman is almost 70 years old, how on Earth could she not have hearing problems? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the BLP concerns around calling someone crazy are legitimate, I believe. We would need rock solid support.  Regarding hearing, if it isn't said on the West Seattle Herald site, than we can't just say "she's old so it's probably right".LedRush (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Paul Ciolino states that her relatives told him she was 'nuts' and had been hospitalised for mental health issues several times. Did they tell him that or didn't they? ICodyJoeBibby (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite honestly, "libel" would also seem to be something to watch out for with regard to witnesses. Furthermore, quasi-legal threats (e.g. suggesting that someone's lawyers will be "very interested" in possible libel) are unhelpful here - please discontinue them.  Super Mario  Man  16:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (In response to LedRush's post above): Precisely - that's mere assumption. The article content should be an accurate reflection of the statements of reliable sources. Second-guessing people's statements in a bid to uncover what they are really suggesting (exemplified in this confusion between simple hearing difficulties and near-total deafness) goes against all that WP:BLP stands for.  Super Mario  Man  15:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)