Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 7

Michelli judgment
Pilgrim Rose has been deleting references for the judgement from the Rudy Guede trial, apparently on the basis that it is not fair on the defendants in the Knox/Sollecito trial to include this information. This seems in no way logical to me, but, in any event, I'd point out that this is not an article about the Knox/Sillecito trial, it is about the murder of Meredith Kercher, which involves all three murderers, and so the judgment in the Guede case is logically our top RS (given that the full judgment in the Knox/Sillecito case has not yet been published).

The point at issue here is whether hypothetical arguments about physical evidence given by the defence in both trials (in my view, these are vague and specious arguments, which are only in the article because they have been promulgated by gutter journalists) should be included, whilst an official judgment of an actual court that has considered all the evidence should be excluded. I don't think so, but I would be grateful for some comment. --FormerIP (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You were including the ruling in the Guede case in response to claims made by the defense attorneys for Knox and Sollecito in their subsequent cases. This is extremely confusing. Certainly, there are citations from the prosecution in the Sollecito and Knox cases that could be found and included. Why not do that? Why go to the extreme of mixing the two trials? To mix the two trials together is confusing because the reader will think that there has already been a written ruling by the judge on the arguments presented by the lawyers in the Knox and Sollecito case, when that has not yet been published and released. You don't know what the judge will say in response to Knox and Sollecito's arguments in the most recent trial. Why not wait till he releases his statement, but use citations to the news reports of the prosecution's arguments in the meantime. These were two different trials and that should not be ignored or minimized. There would have been no reason for Knox and Sollecito's lawyers to have made their arguments in the second trial on these issues, if there already was a binding ruling that applied to them on these issues. There has been no such ruling by the judge applied to their case published to date and to imply otherwise will be very confusing to the reader. PilgrimRose (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My edits were clearly attributed to "the judge in the Rudy Guede trial", so there is no chance of confusion there. You suggest citing from the Knox/Sillectio trial, but you also acknowledge that the judgement in that case is not yet published, which gives me a bit of a problem in that regard. Yes, they are different trials, but some of the arguments were identical. If we can cite failed defence claims, then surely we can cite published judgments giving an opinion as to what is wrong with those claims. --FormerIP (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Mixing the two trials together creates a total mess of an already confusing situation. The judge's ruling in the Guede trial was an actual determination of the evidence as applied to Guede only and a determination of Guede's guilt. The text in the ruling that applies to Knox and Sollecito's issues was preliminary only. It was not an actual determination of the evidence as it applied to them. Such a determination was to be done in the second trial. So how is the reader to know all of that? The way you want it to read, the reader will be left thinking the judge has already made his findings on the arguments presented by the defense in the Knox and Sollecito trial. Certainly, it is more accurate and simpler to keep the two trials separate. PilgrimRose (talk) 03:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Preliminary yes, ignorable no. PilgrimRose, I wasn't expecting you to agree. I think it will be more worthwhile to see if other users have comments. --FormerIP (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What you are trying to do injects a great deal of illogic into the article. The judge made remarks in the Guede ruling that apply to Knox and Sollecito on a preliminary basis only. Then, the case went to trial against Knox and Guede where there was a full hearing on the evidence as it applies to Knox and Sollecito before a jury. The prosecution made certain arguments. The defense made certain arguments. The reader should be presented with both sides to undertand what happened at the trial. But instead of including the prosecution's arguments, you want to include what the judge said in a totally different trial, on a preliminary basis, and BEFORE the lawyers for Knox and Sollecito had their chance to a full hearing on the evidence. That would confuse most any reader.PilgrimRose (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I want to do, but I don't think any reader will be confused. I think they will be confused by being given every trivial, dispoven defence argument without proper legal opinion to counterbalance it. Again, I would like you to withold your comments - I already understand them - so I can find out what other users think. --FormerIP (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I have added some clarification that I think helps distinguish between the two trials. But I still think it is illogical, since you are offering a rebuttal to the Knox-Sollecito defense arguments based on a ruling made BEFORE they had their trial and their detailed arguments were presented. Any such purported rebuttal is fraught with the risk of error and confusion since it preceded the trial. So a messy, confusing article becomes messier. PilgrimRose (talk) 04:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Trying to look at this dispassionately, I think the basic problem comes from the structure of the article. The Forensic Investigation sub-section stands apart from the two trial sections and this seems logical since this investigation is an integral part of the Murder and investigation section and is common to the two trials. We have to rely on the written reasoning produced by Judge Micheli as to the specifics of the forensic investigation as a primary source because of the lack of (accepted?) English-language translations of submissions in the Sollecito/Knox trial (as well as the fact that some were produced in closed court and not part of the public record?). The forensic investigation section in the article is inadequate and unsatisfactory at the moment and should be reworked to provide only an account of that investigation and it's submitted conclusions. The paragraph about the supposed motive does not belong within the forensics section at all and should be moved to the police investigation sub-section. The rebuttal and supportive arguments about the investigation's submissions belong within a discussion of the trial and / or any appeal. So I suggest that the Forensic Investigation sub-section be rewritten to consist of a more acceptable description of the investigation and the discussion about any disputed evidence be incorporated into a Forensic Evidence sub-section of the Trial sections. rturus (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, the Michelli judgement is the only primary source statement we have got and should have precedence over all the journalistic guesses. It absolutely should be included. --Red King (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There is an English language summary at http://www.truejustice.org. Is this what people are using? Bluewave (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, be careful not to over-use the Michelli Guede trial-recap ("motivation"), because the judge often refers to "K(nox). and S." with "assuming what they said is true". The Michelli recap should be used, mainly, to describe general evidence, Guede's past, and details about the Guede trial. It says there were 14 fingerprints that did not match anyone known, so the scene was not totally cleaned before K. and S. walked into halls, rooms and baths. I cited the recap to note that Guede (G. or GRH) said he did not wear "Adidas" but rather "Nike" shoes that evening, which he claimed he dropped in a dumpster in Germany (but might be in town where he doesn't want them found). Anyway, the judge indicated that the shoeprints in Kercher's room didn't fit Sollecito, so the analysis was resolved with the match to Guede's Nike shoes. Hence, that recap helps the article, with details about general evidence, Guede's remarks and police viewpoints, before they all change their stories again. It helps to clarify what they said then to contrast what they say later. In terms of coherence, the report notes multiple footprints of K./S. in Romanelli's room (where they inspected the broken glass), so that indicates if someone was in a room, the forensics could find multiple footprints of them (not just a single partial print). That could be used to counter-balance media claims that police were inept at finding evidence at a crime scene. I think the report confirms there were no other evidence samples in Kercher's room, rather than they only convict by internet-insults. When there was evidence, they found it. It also implies that perhaps a smaller person helped homeboy Guede (returned to town Feb. 2007), who might match the 14 fingerprints or other DNA found. Those are reasons connected to the article. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikid77, the findings of Judge Micheli form part of the indictment on Sollecito and Knox, his judgement that they should be sent for trial. It is disingenuous would be wrong to suggest that there is no connection between the Micheli judgement and the Sollecito and Knox trial since it is an integral part of the process.   rturus (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC) <Edit: I think I was a bit imprecise in my wording so I have struck out disingenuous and replaced with more moderate wording.  I think I must have had a bad kebab or something, sorry about that. rturus (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Further edit: I just removed my supplementary comments also, sorry. rturus (talk) 01:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Diagram of Kercher/Knox upstairs flat
12-Dec-2009: Okay, I made a diagram (crude) based on a crime-scene map at a BBC page, URL: http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46857000/jpg/_46857947_knox_house466x600.jpg. The diagram shows the 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms and kitchen, but I can't decide where, at what spot, the house entrance (into the kitchen) should be added to the diagram (compare to BBC quick image URL). Note that each bathroom also contains a bidet (as noted in the Judge's 1st trial-recap). The blue square is a corner-shower outside Kercher's room (right side of diagram). More later. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the house entrance is the door that you've drawn near the top left corner. This leads into a small lobby (which you've drawn). A doorway in the right hand wall of this lobby leads into the living room. At least that how it looks in the plan from last week's Sunday Times and an accompanying photo. Bluewave (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've added a dotted line (for now) and the broken glass. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I hate to be a spoilsport, Wikid, but I think you would need to create the diagram from scratch in order for it to be usable without infringing copyright. It looks very much like what you have done here is add labels to the diagram off the BBC website. --FormerIP (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm also amazed at the similarity, but the 2 diagrams are of different dimensions, and not one pixel is the same between the wiki-image and the BBC diagram. In general, rectangular shapes cannot be defended by copyright, and even if the diagrams had the same length/width, that is somewhat expected when describing a floorplan. The width, walls, windows, interiors & labels differ from the BBC image. -Wikid77 02:06, 13 December 2009
 * I don't see why you'd be amazed. It's pretty obvious how you created the image. You need to recreate it from scratch, or it's a copyvio. --FormerIP (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you actually saw the 2 images side-by-side, you'd realize the BBC diagram was a tiny postage stamp, 5 times smaller. However, it was ruled a copyvio as being not a diagram, but rather a "map" (even with no compass-points, no scale, no ruler) which must be based on public-domain measurements. Of course, I made a map here of the North Atlantic Ocean: "America {__wet__} Europe" but that "detailed ocean map" is based on PD data. -Wikid77 12:16, 23 December 2009
 * The entrance to the bathroom on the left needs a thin line across the doorway, rather than a thick line that suggests a solid unbroken wall there (compare to the other rooms). Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

In the version in the Sunday Times, it looks as though the middle of the 3 small rooms on the extreme left has a wash basin in it. It looks as though that is an extra bit of bathroom. Bluewave (talk) 12:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The diagram does not show any doors leading from the house to the balcony. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Does this diagram fall into the "original research" category? While it is evident that much work went into creating it, that in and of itself would appear to suggest "original research." Christaltips (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The relevant policy is at WP:OI. LeadSongDog come howl  14:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Very helpful LeadSongDog. Then those familiar with the underlying source documents should be able to sort it. Christaltips (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Typically, diagrams are not a violation of WP:NOR; read the section "Original images": Original images created by a Wikipedia editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. So, as long as the published photos or descriptions match the contents of the diagram.... -Wikid77 12:16, 23 December 2009

Downstairs neighbours
There is very little about them. How long had they lived there? When did they first become acquainted with Guede? Did they see or hear anything regarding the murder, or see the victim or any of the three convicted on that night? Did any of them appear in court? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, they appeared as witnesses. One of them was actually Meredith Kercher's boyfriend, Giacomo Silenzi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.27.216.244 (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This page is about the event not the person ...
... so I have reworked the lead to make the purpose of the page clear. I also think that the bio infobox should be removed, for this reason. TerriersFan (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes are often used in Murder of ... articles, including: Murder of Tom ap Rhys Pryce, Murder of Adam Walsh, Murder of Laci Peterson. Each of the three convicted killers in this article also have infoboxes. Information about the victim, beyond merely their murder, is standard on Wikipedia and elsewhere. The reader needs to have an outline of who the victim was, and events leading up to the murder, even if they were otherwise completely non-notable; the same goes for killers. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK but I have moved the Kercher infobox to her bio section which is consistent with the infoboxes for the other players. TerriersFan (talk)
 * I disagree with the move of the infobox. Moving because it is "consistent with the infoboxes for the other players" totally ignores and further disrespects the fact that one of them was murdered, and the other three have been found guilty of murder. They are hence hardly equal. It is for this reason why the infoboxes for the victims when we write such an article appear at the top and not half way down the page. I intend to revert these edits. Rgds,--Trident13 (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not equating the four; those found guilty are in a separate section and Kercher's section has significantly more prominence. The key point is that this is not a bio article hence the original position of the infobox was inappropriate. Arbitrarily reverting the move will not help; the way forward is to get consensus support n here. TerriersFan (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally I wonder why anyone finds it necessary to include Meredith Kercher's ethnicity in her info box but not the culprit's in theirs - why should that be relevant? I too think that Meredith's info box should be at the top of the page and the contents box moved to be underneath the introductory paragraph - that is the standard layout.  rturus (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ethnicity and nationality of everyone involved is relevant, it is biographical info. Kercher has a Person infobox, which has an ethnicity parameter; the three convicts have Criminal infoboxes, which do not contain that parameter, hence it cannot be added to theirs. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The position of the Kercher info box is correct because it is located by her section and makes it easier to cross-read. If the page had been about the person then placing a bio infobox at the top would be correct but it is out of place in an event article. TerriersFan (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Lkjhgfdsa 0 rturus (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that people have repeatedly been inserting an ethnicity that she does not have. Yes, she has one English parent and one Indian parent, but that does not make her ethnicity either Anglo-Indian or Eurasian.  Just the same as Barack Obama is not African-American, even though he has one African parent and one American parent.  He does not come from the African-American ethnic group. --Red King (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Barack Obama's article states he is African-American, despite the fact his father was not American and his mother did not have African ancestry. He is assigned to that group. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Stop forcing people into silly boxes. Scientifically, the ethnicity is nothing that could be "OBJECTIVELY" assigned. A person which would be considered white in Dominican Republic would be considered black in the USA etc. In coninental Europe, you officially do not have any of these official ethnicity classifications and people leave and interbreed happily. Meredith Kercher was a British girl. Get used to the diversity and mixing of the world's population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.157.108 (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Messy muddle will soon become a broader article
Hey, this article is so typical of what has happened, for years in Wikipedia, when some people try to expand the text in an effort to illuminate details of the wider picture, while others desperately delete text that they don't like, despite violating all types of Wikipedia policies that require consensus before deletion. So have no fear, problems with this article (and its "dangerous" broader subarticle) will not "ruin Wikipedia for generations to come". Meanwhile, the truth will out, so we will, someday, have a fuller article that describes the charges of theft, obstruction of justice, and whatever else has been omitted in the current flurry of censorship. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Censorship has made forensics seem poor/corrupt
The continual removal of text from the article has made the Italian forensic work appear to be less than world-standard. Of course, from Perugia, the office in Rome was called to come and investigate, and samples were sent to Rome for analysis. However, in the 17-Dec-2009 version of the article (of about 8,150 words), the word "Rome" appeared only once(!). Hence, consider the Rome forensics to be, essentially, only 1 ten-thousandth of the article. I was hoping (too optimistically) that as the text was expanded, people would read about all the general, major details of the crime scene, the forensic analysis, and such. (In the U.S., the top 5 TV shows have been mostly forensic, like NCIS (TV series), NCIS Los Angeles, CSI ~Las Vegas, etc.) I tried to add text about how the forensic analysts were puzzled that shoeprints in Kercher's room did not match Sollecito, so it was great when Guede said his shoes were "not Adidas" but rather "Nike" (in the Micheli Judgment), and so his shoe-pattern finally fit the mysterious shoeprints in the room: what an excellent statement to add to the article to show the careful, unbiased analysis by the Italian forensic team, combined with reporting from interrogators who held Guede. Unfortunately, that sourced-text was quickly removed from the article, perhaps because it sounded like evidence that Sollecito was "less guilty" because Guede was more guilty. Whatever. The total effect of removing details of the forensic analysis makes it seem hollow and juvenile, while actually Rome's details about each room in the house were amazingly world-class. Ironically, if the forensic details were being censored to make Knox & Sollecito seem "more guilty" (by omission of opposing detail), then the ultimate effect backfired. It was like a total "cosmic joke" (when results become ironically the complete opposite, as though the cosmos were laughing at the backward results.) Instead of making Knox/Sollecito seem more guilty, the lack of detailed evidence in the article made readers conclude that there was no actual evidence, and that the forensic team was "incompetent" or corrupt, and thus had to insult or vilify the American girl, because they seemed dysfunctionally "unable" to actually conduct a forensic investigation to really convict them. I don't think anyone, who censored details, had really imagined the resulting article would give that unfair-trial impression. Anyway, there's been too much fun in the article: the cosmos has laughed, long enough, at the continual censorship which made the text unable to deny that "Amanda was railroaded" by a bogus trial with no evidence. Hopefully, everyone realizes, now, that adding the general, major forensic details & analysis will make the forensic team seem competent and fair. Plus, adding the basics can reveal the other evidence used to contest the alibi claims of Knox/Sollecito. I regret that the article has seemed so biased to appear there was no specific evidence in the case, but sometimes, censors get the results that they, perhaps, deserve, rather than the opposite viewpoint that they tried to force upon readers. Let's try to put "Rome" in the text more than once after today, by god. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Merging subarticle back to main
I have begun merging text from the subarticle back to the main article, after the WP:AfD was closed as "Merge" (not Keep). Of course, the main article will become huge, but perhaps edit using a separate browser session (with fewer other tabs/windows open) for faster display. After a while, we can re-split the article (few judgments are permanent decisions in Wikipedia): perhaps we could split as "Trials of Guede, Knox and Sollecito" so that the section about Guede's trial would have more that 3 sentences about the guy whose bloody fingerprints were there, with DNA on her handbag zipper, before he was seen nightclubbing afterward. As I mentioned above, I have been noting the cosmic irony, for days, at how Guede's trial (with vast forensic evidence) became 3 small sentences in the text, while that section contained much more about the "other suspects". Anyway, feel free to create a gigantic, detailed article, and then we can split it again in a few weeks. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think there will be any need to make the article gigantic. Much of the material merged over is just duplication of what is already in the article (in many cases, just whole paragraphs of identical or near-identical text). I've been through and deleted all this, plus a couple of other things (notably accusations against the prosecutor, which are currently the subject of legal proceedings and should not be in the article, per WP:BLP). --FormerIP (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Partiality
This article, which I have been reading a couple of times during the last year, is now partial and does not seem a good reflection of the "true case". Significantly, the section about Amanda Knox is the longest one, apart from the false accusation of Lumumba, it leans more towards a positive portrayal of her actions. This way, noone can understand why Knox and Sollecito have been convicted, indeed. Missing is for example the description of the fact that the house was cleaned with bleach the morning after the murder took place. Instead, the article just states: not a trace of Knox's DNA, hair or fibre in the bedroom." Further evidence against Knox and Sollecito is also not always referred to.

See: From Times Online November 19, 2007 Suspect ‘bought bleach to clean murder weapon after Meredith Kercher’s death’ Daily Telegraph, 21/03/09, Meredith Kercher murder: A new hole appears in Amanda Knox's alibi Amanda Knox was seen in a supermarket early on the morning British student Meredith Kercher was found murdered, despite claiming she was in bed, a court has heard. (...) Detectives believe bleach and cloths found under the sink at Mr Sollecito's house were used to clean up the murder weapon - a knife - and the murder scene itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Setern (talk • contribs) 22:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How is it possible that a great deal of DNA evidence, hair evidence, blood and other forensic evidence was found in Meredith's bedroom if it had already been cleaned with bleach? Guede's and Kercher's DNA was all over the bedroom. It is not believable to say that Knox somehow knew how to remove her specific DNA from the bedroom, and the DNA of her boyfriend, while leaving untouched the DNA of Guede and Kercher. It would take a DNA specialist to achieve that feat, which Knox was not. PilgrimRose (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So Knox just happened to be, by total coincidence (yeah right!), in the store buying bleach the following morning and swaring blind that she was in bed. Such a coincidence.. the sort of thing you do when you have a housemate lying buthcered in the adjacent rooms. Not buying fresch bread for the day or evryday groceries, but bleach.   Come on... give us a break!  66.54.123.19 (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There isn't DNA evidence everywhere a person has been recently. It would be useful if we could find out in what form the DNA was found and exactly where. Guede raped and killed Kercher, so it would make sense that a lot of his DNA was there. Knox and Sollecito had an interest in helping each other avoid being convicted, so Knox could have cleaned only where she and Sollecito had been in Kercher's room, rather than cleaning the whole room. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the scene was an extremely brutal and violent one. Meredith had 43 bruises and knife wounds on her body. According to the prosecution, Knox assaulted her, pulled her hair, smashed her head against something, cut her with a knife, beat her. How is it possible to somehow clean up such a violent crime scene so perfectly that not one cell of Knox's DNA or hair or fibre was found at the scene while Guede's and Kercher's DNA and hair are left intact? How could Knox "see" where her DNA was? DNA is invisible. How could Knox have been able to see and find each and every cell of her DNA so completely? Also, how could a girl with long hair like Knox be in such a violent battle, with not a single strand of her hair being left in the room? To me the obvious explanation is that Knox was never in Meredith's bedroom at the time of the crime or otherwise.PilgrimRose (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Now even her false allegation against Patrick Lumumba has been moved away and is relegated to a later section about Mignini. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.210.166 (talk) 12:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Subpage Trial of Knox and Sollecito POV issues
I think we are failing to monitor also the subpage of this article. I flag for your consideration in particular this section, Trial_of_Knox_and_Sollecito. That is a raw list of POV critics to the trial and to the Italian media. Please take a look at the discussion ongoing at Talk:Trial_of_Knox_and_Sollecito.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have created an AfD page for the subarticle. Articles_for_deletion/Trial_of_Knox_and_Sollecito --FormerIP (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There is nothing unusual about including various POV (point-of-view) aspects in an article. In fact, at Wikipedia, we prefer to have an obvious cross-section of major viewpoints expressed together within one article, rather than slant to a POV-bias such as reporting only the claims of the prosecution during a trial. As for having 2 pages about a subject, please understand that back in 2006, there were 12 major articles about the film/book "The Da Vinci Code" which involved sites in Italy. So, having 2 pages about a subject in Italy is not a problem. As for the scope of opinions, I have many sources contesting the events of the trial, but none advocate the "hanging and burning" of Amanda Knox, as occurred in Italian city states in the 1400s (search Google for: "hanging and burning" Knox). However, if you find reliable sources that intend to hang/burn Amanda as a warning message to other 20-year-old girls attending college in Italy, please feel free to add them to that article. Also, I have no bias against your viewpoint. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right that Wikipedia represents various points of view. However...
 * It should represent the points of view of its sources, not the points of view of editors.
 * It doesn't necessarily include points of view that are grossly ignorant (eg flat earth opinions).
 * It has to try to get a balance that avoids undue emphasis.
 * Where points of view are included, we must ensures that they are attributed. So, for example, it can be stated as fact that Knox's DNA was found on a particular knife but it is the opinion of the prosecutor that the knife was the murder weapon and it is the opinion of the defence that it could not have caused the wounds. It is the opinion of some commentator that the knife might have been contaminated.
 * ...and I've no idea what is the relevance of hanging and burning. Thankfully, Italy does not have a death penalty. Bluewave (talk) 12:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikid77, the matter is not having 2 pages about this case, it is having good content verified across reliable sources and not to fall in the original research you seem to embrace largely in your contributions and discussions. And please avoid that foolish sarchasm.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To User:Grifomaniacs, every sentence in the subarticle was not "unverifiable" but rather, every sentence was being linked to reliable sources (RS), as text far more detailed than Wikipedia policies require. Beware your unfounded claims against me of "original research" as being a violation of "WP:No personal attacks". Just a reminder: policy WP:NOR does not ban users from having "original" opinions on a talk-page about text in an article, but, rather, it bans the addition of text to the article per se, that cannot be verified, by the readers, from reliable sources. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Micheli Italian text on knife & clasp
The full Micheli Judgment (recap of Guede trial), in Italian, is very detailed and likely to take hours to read completely, for use in verifying article footnotes. However, I have found (at the middle of the report), a paragraph about the kitchen knife (coltello da cucina) from Sollecito's house, and clasp from a limb of the bra (lembo di reggiseno). The paragraph (below) ends by stating the clasp of the bra (reggiseno) was recovered on 18-Dec-2007 (18 dicembre 2007 ), which was 46 days after the initial scene (2 novembre):


 * Italian text (English below): "Già da qualche tempo, peraltro, era stato accertato che sulla lama di un coltello da cucina sequestrato nell'abitazione del S. vi era una traccia di materiale biologico ascrivibile alla K., mentre sul manico dello stesso coltello, in prossimità dell'attaccatura della lama e dunque nel punto in cui chi lo impugnasse avrebbe dovuto esercitare in teoria maggior pressione, vi era una distinta traccia, da cui era stato possibile ricavare DNA della K.. D'altro canto, sui gancetti di chiusura del reggiseno, adesi al lembo di stoffa strappato dall'indumento e rinvenuto solo dopo aver rimosso il cadavere (come indicato nel primo verbale di sopralluogo), si riscontravano altre tracce, recanti mistura di DNA della vittima e del S.: risultati, questi, ritenuti dalle rispettive difese particolarmente controversi vuoi per la possibile inattendibilità della ricerca a causa dell'esiguo materiale biologico a disposizione, vuoi per lamentati rischi di contaminazione dei reperti (doglianza riferita soprattutto al lembo di reggiseno, individuato dalla Polizia Scientifica già nella notte fra il 2 e il 3 novembre ma concretamente prelevato ed esaminato solo dopo un secondo sopralluogo del 18 dicembre 2007)."


 * English translation (Italian above): "Some time ago, however, it was found that the blade of a kitchen knife seized at the house of S. (Sollecito), there was a trace of organic material from K, while the handle of that knife, close to where it joins the blade and thus at the point which, in theory, would have been gripped with the most pressure, there was a separate trace from which it was possible to extract DNA from K. On the other hand, the bra-clasp, attached to the strip of cloth torn from the garment and recovered only after the body had been moved (as indicated in the first note of investigation), when compared with othetraces, those of DNA belonging to the victim and S, the results were deemed by the defence particularly controversial, because of the possible unreliability of examination, owing to the small amount of biological material available and to the risk of contamination of the exhibits (this complaint relates primarily to the strip of bra, already identified by the forensic team during the night of 2 and 3 November, but actually collected and examined only after a second visit on 18 December 2007). [rough translation - improved a bit, but please feel free to amend further --FormerIP (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC) ]

Note how the last-name abbreviations (such as "S." for Sollecito) have left "K." as for both Kercher and Knox, in the above paragraphs. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * God help me, but I've got to the trouble of translating some extracts here: User:FormerIP/Michelli. My Italian is fairly weak, but I am very experienced in translating French, and I think what is there will be generally accurate.


 * Included is Michelli's assessment of the defence claims regarding the bra-clasp. To summarise, he rejects the claim because, although he considers the failure to retrieve the clasp on the initial visit to be serious, the risk he sees is that the DNA may have deterioriated. Since there was no other DNA from Sollecito in the room during the intervening period (the defence were also adamant that Sollecito had never been in the room), there is no risk that it could have come into contact with Sollecito's DNA, and his DNA could not suddenly have appeared there. --FormerIP (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a thought about that. In some of the material I have read it has been noted that Sollecito had often been inside the Kercher house. He stated that he had tried to break down the Kercher bedroom door on the day her body was discovered. Thus, it is possible that his DNA could have been tracked into the bedroom from outside the room after the day of the initial forensic investigation--such as from the doorhandle or from other areas in the house where he had been in the ordinary course as an invited guest. There was also the DNA of three other unidentified people on the bra clasp, which suggests contamination. I have seen photos of Kercher's room after the forensic team did their investigation, and the room was a total mess, like it had been ransacked. Given the long delay and the risk of contamination coming into the room from the outside, Michelli's analysis in the Knox-Sollecito trial will have to be much more complete than it was in the Guede trial to be persuasive, in my opinion. As for the knife, the Kercher DNA sample was of such a low level that it would would not have been admissible in a U.S. court, according to some sources. These two items are the core of what Michelli has to hang his hat on in terms of the forensics in the Knox-Sollecito findings that he must now publish. I hope that we will be able to get a reliable English version of this all important document when it is released. PilgrimRose (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are very good points about the spread of DNA (such as from saliva, sneezing, coughing). The path from Knox's bedroom to the bathroom crosses Kercher's doorway, so if Sollecito walked to the bath a few times, barefoot or coughed...(enough said). There is also Sollecito's contamination outside Kercher's door: his fingerprints were found all over the outer doorknob (see: Micheli Judgment), but none inside (or that would have been front-page headlines). Testing can reveal if the 3 unknown DNA were male/female (see: Micheli on "Y haploid"), plus the 14 fingerprints matching none of them. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, I don't mean to start a flame, but do you realise that you are trying something that does not exist yet? Italian Judges must publish a motivazione (explanation) where they must justify why they convicted or acquitted; a U.S. jury does not have to do this. I think that it is a great way to check if the defendant's rights were respected.
 * Wait for the Giudice estensore (he who writes the explanation) to publish this document and then we will see if your doubts are founded.
 * Sincerely, this behaviour (and I am not directly referring to you, but to the general fuss that's been kicked up by newspapers, by the friends of Amanda and even by a Senator!) seems to me like you're trying to bully the Corte d'Assise d'Appello (the Appellate Court in this case) into acquitting Amanda. Salvio giuliano (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Man, you have missed the point totally: perhaps the headlines in the U.S. say "Free Amanda", but we've been adding text to the article that indicates "Free Sollecito" (ya, that Italian guy, not a U.S. citizen). There is no forensic evidence linking him inside Kercher's room: the result is proof that Knox/Sollecito are levitating alien beings who travel through rooms without leaving DNA, hair, fibre, or fingerprints (except when people see them try to open a doorknob), and they can torture, kill, move a body in blood pools, and leave other people's DNA on everything while levitating. You see friends-of-Amanda, but what about the conspiracy to hide these levitating aliens so their powers can be copied by Italian spaceships that move in rooms but leave no DNA? This might be a military cover-up of the highest magnitude, and all you can think about is the life of a young American girl. If Amanda is acquitted, the U.S. Govt might nab her to help with their spaceships, another reason to bully the Corte d'Assise d'Appello, as you mentioned, sincerely. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This is just a wild guess, but maybe I might have missed your point entirely, because, when I wrote my reply to PilgrimRose, you had not written anything yet. Salvio giuliano (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In fairness, much of the discussion is about whether evidence, testimony and media reports are being presented selectively or in a way that might be considered biased. This goes both ways. There appears to be a great deal of debate in this discussion page over the merits of evidence, which is not appropriate. It should be sufficient to note that evidence is disputed, if that is the case. Salvio giuliano makes a very good point about waiting for the official explanation, but I wonder if this will resolve the underlying issue here, which is the tendency to provide greater weight to some evidence, as well as discussion about that evidence, in the article and subarticle. The article(s) cannot be read without skepticism in their current state for a host of reasons but the back and forth over disputed evidence is top of the list. Christaltips (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with Salvio, most of the content of this talk page, some of the editing on the article and just about everything on the trial POV-fork page and it's talk page smack more than a little of campaigning and I for one am very disillusioned with the whole thing. The whole thing has become a messy muddle and a dreadful eyesore, not at all like an encyclopaedia article. rturus (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Malfunction of this article on Wikipedia processor
There is a problem with this article. It is malfunctioning. My computer shows only edits through Dec. 16 in the edit history of the main article. I have made edits to the main article, some of which show up in the text but DO NOT SHOW UP IN THE HISTORY. Some other of my edits do not show up anywhere. Clearly, there is a problem with the way the Wikipedia processor is handling this article. Is anyone else having similar problems on this or other articles? I can see none of the edits that Wikid supposedly made to this main article to incorporate text from the subarticle. Can someone please respond so that I will at least know that this post can be read by others???


 * Will post at AN. I think you have you forgotten to log in, PilgrimRose. --FormerIP (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It shows up-to-date on my old PC. Maybe the IP is looking at his own contribs list instead of the article history? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The history is working fine for me. This doesn't appear to be a general problem. Averell (talk) 08:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It all looks OK to me, too. I've tried my 4-year-old laptop (Windows XP and both IE and Chrome) and my slightly older desktop (Ubuntu and Firefox). If there was a discrepancy between the page and the history, it would suggest that the wiki database was corrupted but, if it looks OK to most people, it sounds more like a browser problem for the individual concerned. Bluewave (talk) 11:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The IP may need to read wp:Clear your cache. If using an older browser or thin client other technical issues may be involved. If clearing cache doesn't fix it, try asking at WP:HD LeadSongDog come howl  05:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Photos of the defendants
Should photos be included of each of the defendants in their info boxes to make the story more interesting? Also, there are better photos of Meredith than the one included in her info box, but I don't know how to deal with any of the info box photos. The site True Justice for Meredith has many better photos of Meredith. That site can be found in the External Links, photos of Perugia link. PilgrimRose (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Think copyright will be the issue there. The MK photo was nominated for deletion but survived. It is normally easier to give a fair-use rationale which will be accepted in cases where the person pictured is dead. If PD or CC photos of the perpetrators can be found (published by the Italian Police, perhaps - although I have no idea whether this would make them PD), then I think it would be appropriate to add those. --FormerIP (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * However, the 3 convicted are, practically speaking, "as good as dead" to the public eye, so that would help deny claims of "hey someone could take their photos on the street and upload a copy" (not likely now). In the case of Guede, the judge had a 90-day limit to submit his Micheli Judgment, and he posted it on day 90: expect long delays before these people are ever seen again. I'm not sure about Guede photos, but I would prefer the iconic photo of Knox & Sollecito waiting outside, on the first day of interrogation (when she was 20 years old), before the prison conditions & stress changed her appearance. We could thin or blur that photo so that her clean frizzy hair wouldn't upset those wanting to censor the photo because it supports her testimony that she washed her hair before midday (and used a blowdryer, hence the frizzy hair). Of course, there are also those who would claim that the she-devil doesn't deserve a photo in a "Kercher article" but if you keep adding it enough times, it usually remains (because more people insert, than censor: there are over 3 million articles & growing, not shrinking, for the next 25 years?). In general, many readers want illustrated articles. Only a few people actively delete images, some preferring to have a "Word-ipedia" that favors words over those "worthless" images, roadmaps & diagrams that show 2 bathrooms in the Perugia house (the active deletions are all true I promise you, have been for years). So, yes, more photos and maps would be great to have. Also, add some extra images so the drive-by deletionists will have something to happily delete, and everyone will become happier then: "All Creatures Great and Small". -Wikid77 (talk) 04:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikid77, please calm down. It starts to seem to me as if you're seeing some kind of conspiracy behind every corner. Assume some good faith in the other editors - we may disagree with you, but it doesn't mean that we mean you evil. For the images themselves: The problem is not who they show, but that they are copyrighted. To use a copyrighted image here, you must show that it falls under fair use and that it's indispensable for the article and it must be impossible to ge a free alternative. These are hard rules to make sure that Wikipedia is as free as possible, and it has nothing to do with censorship. Personally I don't even think that the Kercher photo fits into that category - it's possible to understand the whole case without knowing what the people look like. The photos are interesting, but they don't explain anything that you couldn't get from the text. Also, for everyone except for Kercher the "biography of living persons" rules still apply - if I remember correctly that was the main concern at the time the images were removed. Averell (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Averell23, please lighten up. I said "maps & diagrams" not just photos. Plus, fair-use rationale for the photos would be trivial. Remember all the mugshots of (living people) in articles? Wikid77 17:05, 18 December 2009
 * Regardless of her (perceived) guilt or innocence, Knox's attractiveness has, for over two years, been a major aspect of the media coverage connected to this case, and is a major part of why the case has received such a huge amount of coverage. The level of sympathy for Knox, belief in her innocence and one of the major reasons she has so much support is because of her looks. If she were fat and ugly, few people would support her or even care about her. Hence a picture of her is a necessary part of the article to answer the readers' question: "just how pretty is she?". Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 14:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So why don't you find some photos that can be used? If they are freely licensed, everyone will be delighted. If they are not free, you will have to make a very a good case for "fair use" or Wikipedia would be breaking the law. Either way, I don't see why anyone would object to them, whatever people's personal opinions might be, about the guilt or innocence of the individuals. Bluewave (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC) PS I wouldn't advise making a case for fair use based on the arguments that the individual's are "as good as dead"! Bluewave (talk) 14:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there anything in the fair use policy about people who are serving long prison sentences? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that her reported appearance (age 20, at the time of arrest) is justification for a fair-use image. I have added numerous fair-use images, for similar reasons. So, I think we can grab one, then crop it smaller to upload (on WP not Wikimedia Commons) with a fair-use rationale, then face a likely 7-day WP:AfD (from those "mildly opposed" to the image). Bear in mind that some AfDs are currently decided by peer-pressure to delete (but don't tell anyone I revealed that), because AfDs are intended to be judged on acceptance within WP guidelines, not by counting the "non-votes" (!vote) of each stated opinion about the proposed deletion. Hence, I think we should wait a while longer (for anger to abate), and also, imagine if you were the poor admin "selected" to close the AfD and had to say "Keep" when 99 vicious users said, "Delete before she was born". That was not intended to sound mean, it is just the brutal truth. Controversial articles & images have been fought, for years, by mobocracy, of constant fighting over details & AfDs. Consider WP as "trial by jury of the mob in the townsquare", so that's the reason to wait until the mob thins out a bit. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, her appearance is important to the case. But this is not a fair-use rationale in itself: The fact can be easily explained in the text. Please have a look at the WP:Fair Use guidelines, especially this: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. (That's why I also think that the Kercher image doesn't really belong). Furthermore, living persons are separately listed on the "don't-use" category. And while I applaud any suggetion to let things cool down, the comment above is a bit besides the points: There are always editors who will come after all images with weak fair-use rationales. To these it doesn't matter what's on them. Averell (talk) 08:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There are lots of people whose main contribution to Wikipedia seems to be to delete photos that they believe not to be fair use. (Personally, I'd rather see them devoting their energy to improving fair use rationales and locating alternative free images.) I've got so fed up with having pictures deleted that I now only add pictures that I actually own. However, I wouldn't want my own grumpiness to deter anyone else from adding pictures.... Bluewave (talk) 11:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Friends of Amanda
Friends of Amanda is mentioned in the article and we probably ought to say a bit more about them. I had a look at their site but couldn't find any info on who they are, what they are, how they are constituted, how they are funded, or anything. Of course, maybe I just didn't find the right bit of the site, but I expected that there would be some sort of list of names, a note of who was in charge, whether it is a charity and so on. Has anyone found a good source that would provide us with a few sentences about who and what they are? Bluewave (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that would be good to include. Some blogs have indicated that the Friends of Amanda is not connected with her family, and there might be some friction between the family's lawyers/advisors and the Friends of Amanda, but I don't have a reliable source (RS) about them. Perhaps start with the CNN interviews. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's weird but I can find very little about them except for some very vague statements such as that they are "an ad hoc group of supporters which include Amanda's friends, legal activists, community supporters, and other members of the legal community". The only named person that I've found is Anne Bremner, a Seattle lawyer, who's been engaged to act as their spokesperson. Even their domain name is registered through Proxy, Inc, a company whose main sales pitch seems to be that you can register a domain name without giving away your identity. I know nothing about US law but, surely, if someone sets up an organisation, it has to be formally constituted and have terms of reference, appointed officers, audited accounts, and so on.  From my own experience in the UK, even a handful of friends organising a village fete had to do that! I can't understand why these people want to maintain such secrecy or how they manage to do it (by contrast, you could very easily find all the details of my village fete committee!) Or have I just missed the blindingly ovious somewhere? Bluewave (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In the U.S. you can have a corporate entity which must provide a lot of information, such as you list above. But you can also have an unincorporated association, which need not register anywhere. The lack of registration leaves the details non-public. That appears to be the case with the Friends of Amanda--an unincorporated association. PilgrimRose (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Correction to house diagram
There was a massive oversight in the source-reference diagrams for the house: the upstairs flat is actually divided into 2 parts, so I added the missing door (by the sofa) that separates the central living room/kitchen area (left-side) from the bedrooms of Knox & Kercher plus the smaller bath (right-side). Thus, Kercher's bedroom was separated by 3 doors from the outer rooms of the house. As you might know, when 2 doors are closed through a house, it is very difficult to hear conversations or stereo/CD music played at moderate volume, and 3-door separation muffles sounds even more. I spotted the missing hallway door, omitted from the BBC diagram, when comparing an inset photo showing the sofa near the wooden hallway door, toward those 2 back bedrooms. I don't think the BBC (or other maps) had intended to, somehow, bias/slant the house diagram. Instead, the missing door is most likely a mere oversight, because in many homes, the kitchen/living room often does not have a wooden door that blocks a hallway leading to the bedrooms. Anyway, consider the possibility that the hallway door was intentionally closed during some of the various events, and might alter what people could hear nearby. Remember: the upstairs flat is divided into 2 parts. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Also the diagram shows two taps but there was only one. Also in the corner of the Amanda/Meredith bathroom is a set of drawers. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-508528/Chilling-pictures-Meredith-murder-scene-reveal-apartment-bloodbath-horror.html —82.26.210.166 (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge
Wikid77 has helpfully been through and added content from Trial of Knox and Sollecito to this article. This appears to have been quite thorough - I can't see any outstanding material not already contained in this article that was not moved over. Are there any objections to deleting the other article now? --FormerIP (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I object on the basis that the article is malfunctioning on the Wikipedia processor. Please see my comment above. 172.129.55.86 (talk) 03:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do delete the page FormerIP, the sooner the better. rturus (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

How to merge material
Please note when merging: a lot of the material in Trial of Knox and Sollecito was originally taken from this page and re-arranged. We do not need to merge this material back, because it is just word-for-word duplication. Please do merge any worthwhile material that is not already included in the article. --FormerIP (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is quite incorrect. As the creator and primary author of that page, let me emphasize that much of the text in the subarticle was moved there (and deleted from the main article, to reduce its size), so during the merge, expect massive amounts of text to re-appear in the main article, which should increase by perhaps over 15kb. So yes, the subarticle had, in fact, been created to reduce the size of the main article and allow for expanded details (which is what occurred with that page), rather than as some "POV-fork" as falsely claimed. The merge will make the main article much, much larger. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Theft
What was stolen from Kercher, and when? Was it ever recovered? Who was convicted of theft? The infobox for those who were should have theft added to the convictions line. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly sure none of them were convicted of the theft, which caused some blogger to quip, "Well who did steal the 300 from Kercher's room". Some rumors suggest $300 300 euros was missing from her bedroom (a reason for her to lock her door when gone), but Guede's DNA on the handbag zipper prompts the question, "Was any money left in Kercher's purse?" Others claim Kercher hid money in a cabinet-drawer (or desk drawer) and that she caught the thieves searching her room so they had to silence her. If Guede, in an effort to build his nightclub-alibi asked/paid someone (in drugs?) to stage a break-in while he was clearly seen nightclubbing, they might have stolen money (perhaps he said where to search). The Italian Micheli Judgment seems to report the Romanelli window was broken, from inside, with a stone-wrapped-in-cloth in a bag & a smaller stone nearby (perhaps with the outside shutters closed to avoid noise/witnesses). That would allow an upper window-entry, climbing from the only window below (to allow re-locking the front door) so that a culprit could be sent to cleanup the scene: Guede's blood-handprint was found on a pillow under the body, not easily seen during a quick wipe-down of the room. As far as prosecution, lesser crime charges are often dropped when time is limited and higher crimes are likely for conviction. The Perugia civil liability awards, of $millions of euros, give a huge monetary incentive to find wealthy middle-class people guilty, rather than just an unemployed drifter guy, so the big-money issue was the court liability awards, not the theft. Many things to ponder. -Wikid77 14:35, 22 December 2009
 * During the trial of Guede, his version of events claimed that after Meredith met him at her flat and they talked in the kitchen, she went to her room and moaned that her money-drawer had been emptied (see: Micheli Judgment). Guede claims that he calmed her and convinced her to become intimate with him at that moment. So, she didn't even call her roommates or parents about her missing (major) money. The typical psychological reaction would be to end the date with a new friend, and privately call other people about the theft. Meanwhile, 5 days earlier (on 27 October 2009), Guede had been caught (by Milan police) breaking into a Milan nursery school (kindergarten), where he was in possession of a stolen laptop PC & cellphone (with a knife), reported to Perugia police as stolen through an upstairs window, broken with a large rock, at a lawoffice near the Kercher/Knox house in Perugia. These 2 burglaries were presented (on 26 June) during the Knox/Sollecito trial (see ABC News "Knox Trial Witness Points Finger at Guede" 26-June-09). So, there were 2 break-in events concerning Guede, with the Milan police on 27 Oct 2007 and the Perugia police on 14/27 Oct 2007, within weeks of the Kercher murder. This leads to the typical controversy: wondering why did 2 law-enforcement groups (in Italy) release the burglar, theft-suspect Guede quickly into the public, just 5 days before Kercher's murder. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2009
 * Guede's 2008 claim that Kercher's money-drawer had been emptied before he arrived, and his connections to the burglaries in Milan and the Perugia law office (14Oct07) have been added to the article, for the first time (since at least July 2009). -Wikid77 18:07, 29 December 2009
 * From several sources, the theft was: 2 credit cards, 300 euros (~US$440) plus 2 cell phones, and that text has been added to the article. -Wikid77 14:54, 31 December 2009