Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-03-26/Murder of Meredith Kercher

Where is the dispute?
Murder of Meredith Kercher

Who is involved?
Bluewave, Salvio Giuliano, The Magnificent Clean-Keeper, Wikid77, Zlykinskyja, Jonathan

What is the dispute?
This murder mystery in Italy has not yet been solved in that there has been no final determination of anyone's guilt or innocence. An American student Amanda Knox and her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito were accused of killing her roommate, Meredith Kercher. Another man, a local drifter named Rudy Guede, has also been charged. The trials and appeals are still underway.

Some of the editors write and edit consistently to paint the American student as guilty and revert, delete, modify, or object to any information that paints Amanda Knox in a positive light or as otherwise possibly not guilty of the crime. This is not consistent with BLP or NPOV policy. Other editors contend that BOTH sides of the story should be allowed into the article, both as to her possible innocence as well as to her possible guilt, to comply with NPOV and BLP.

The view that she is innocent of the crime is shared by many Americans, public officials, public figures, and a large numbers of supporters, as well as by her family and lawyers. Thus, NPOV requires that this view, as well as the view of her possible guilt, should be included in the article. Furthermore, because she may in fact be innocent of the crime, painting her as guilty of the crime at this point, before the truth is finally determined, could be defamatory and thus in violation of BLP policy.

What would you like to change about this?
There needs to be a basic understanding of what NPOV and BLP require and an agreement to try to comply with those policies.

How do you think we can help?
There needs to be some basic education about BLP and NPOV policies. There needs to be some basic guidance on how to comply with BLP and NPOV in this article. With a review and discussion of these policies and some brief supervision on how to incorporate these policies into editing decisions, some real improvements could be made.

NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF MEDIATION REQUEST
I hereby withdraw my request for mediation, which was due to begin on April 30, 2010.

When I submitted my request, I made clear what the problem was. I indicated that the majority of editors on the article edited in a manner suggesting that they did not want to see both sides of the story included. They were discouraging the defense views from being included, by constantly reverting, deleting, modifying or otherwise obstructing the efforts to try to include the defense side of the case in the story. I explained that by not allowing the defense side of the case into the story, the article would not end up NPOV and would likely violate BLP. The accusations against Amanda Knox and Rafaele Sollecito are very serious, including sexual assault, stabbing and killing her roomate. Thus, if it turns out that they are innocent of this crime, any depiction in the article of them as the killers could be viewed as defamatory. Under such circumstances, the requirements of BLP and NPOV should be taken very, very seriously. Accordingly, I sought mediation to help me get both sides of the story allowed into the article, despite being greatly outnumbered on the article by the pro-guilt editors.

Unfortunately, things have now gotten worse. The mediator Hipocrit has taken a position which is the exact opposite of what I was seeking to accomplish in this mediation. Instead of Hipocrit taking the position that BOTH sides of the case should be allowed into the article, Hipocrit has taken the view that the statements of the defense attorneys should NOT be allowed into the article. He adopts this view on the basis of his personal opinion that lawyers are untruthful, and when they speak to express their opinions or views they are likely not to be telling the truth. According to Hipocrit, lawyers cannot be trusted to honestly express their views so any quotes from the lawyers should not be included in the article. Since the primary way that the defense side of the case can be included in the article is by stating the lawyers views and opinions on the case and evidence, not allowing their opinions in the article on the basis of their alleged untruthfulness essentially blocks the defense side of the case almost entirely. Thus, by Hipocrit adopting such a position, my efforts to include the defense side of the case via mediation have been substantially thwarted.

I also disagree with Hipocrit's view that lawyers are essentially dishonest and untrustworthy. I find such statements personally insulting. As I see no possibility that I can agree with this position taken by Hipocrit, I have no choice but to cancel my request for mediation. Furthermore, I respectfully request that all pro-innocence editors withdraw from this mediation, given the bias demonstrated by the proposed moderator. Instead, I will refer this matter to the attorneys at the Wikipedia Foundation. Thank you.Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you haven't even tried to join this mediation. I also think you've misread my remarks regarding taking caution in using statements by lawyers for assertions of fact. Would you please reconsider? Hipocrite (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediator notes
Baring any objection from the parties, I will take this. Hipocrite (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyone here? Hipocrite (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite: Thank you so much for expressing an interest in my request for mediation and being so generous as to offer your valuable time. I am wondering if I can get a sense of how your mediations proceed by reviewing one or two of your prior mediation cases. Would you kindly direct me to one or two or provide the links when you have a chance? Thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Haven't done any. I have 5+ years of time on Wikipedia, however. Hipocrite (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hipocrite: I think you would be a fine mediator even with your lack of prior mediation experience because you seem to have a passion for accuracy and avoiding POV pushing, which issues are central to this dispute. Could we start sometime after April 29th? I will be tied up until that day. But I should have adequate free time after April 29. Thank you for so much for your help with this article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As Zlykinskyja has rejected me as mediator now, I've returned this case to the pool. Hipocrite (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I will take this over if it's still active, taking a look. --Wgfinley (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * After reviewing the article this request is quite old and I'm going to shut it down. This is a highly controversial topic that's being watched by a number of administrators and editors come and go from editing.  I don't see this as a case Medcab should be wading into at this time.  If, in the future, a group of editors working on this page would want to bring it I would consider it then.  --Wgfinley (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Administrative notes

 * Wikid77 blocked for unnecessary personal attack here for 24 hours. Please everyone stick, strictly, to commenting on content. MLauba (Talk) 10:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Hypocrite, I'm pleased and appreciated that you took on this task. I'm in (and will inform editors on the article's talkpage).The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded. It will be good to get an independent view. Thanks for taking an interest in this article. (Thanks, too, to the Magnificent Clean-keeper for keeping other editors informed.) Bluewave (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thirded... Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 21:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Even though I am not one of the mentioned parties above, I do support Hipocrite in his task of mediation for this dispute. Akuram (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am joining (just noticed Mediation article tag). -Wikid77 20:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Opening Statements
I'm not going to entertain substantial dialogue till April 29 per the above request. It would be nice, however, if the parties could write brief opening statements. In the statement it would be nice if the parties could link (or create in their user-space and then link) their preferred version of the article, and also what the specific problems between their preferred version of the article and the reference version of the article are. Please try to avoid acrimonous debate.

If parties have specific requests for me to explain my understanding of specific wikipedia policies, I'll hapily do so, but I should be clear that I'm here to educate and to assist the parties in discussing and reaching agreement - I will not be creating rules for behavior off of this talk page, or on the article. Given that, it would be nice if everyone could lay out what they want things to look like and what needs to be changed to get there. After we have that, I'll try to seperate the changes into multiple issues, and we can go from there.

PS - I strongly suggest not edit-warring on the article (not accusing anyone). If there's a real serious BLP problem, direct it to me on my talk page and I'll find someone (not me) with BLP experience to deal with that. Hipocrite (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

For purposes of discussion only (IE, there's nothing special about this version except it's current) this is the "reference version" of the article. Hipocrite (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Hipocrit: I am assuming it is okay to make edits until mediation gets started as long as they are not major and do not involve re-structuring, is that correct? Also, I would just like to clarify that I will not be available at all on April 29 itself, so can you change the "opening day" to April 30? Thanks so much for your help. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is ok to edit the article at any point however you want. I'm not police, I'm someone to help you all find a solution everyone likes. If someone's editing becomes problematic, we can disuss here how best to deal with it - my suggestion is tag the article and ignore it. I subscribe to WP:BRD, so I suggest that everyone limit themselves to merely making bold edits, reverting the bold edits of others, and discussing bold edits to reach consensus. Hipocrite (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hipocrite: I just want to clarify how you define "consensus" in the mediation context. In this mediation, all of the other editors who have agreed to participate hold pro-guilt views (meaning they believe Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are guilty, although the judicial process is still underway and far from complete). I am the only one in this mediation so far with pro-innocence views (although this is a dominant view in the US media, but a minority view in foreign media, and the preumption of innocence still applies to both Amanda and Raffaele). I assume that "consensus" in mediation is not reached just by majority vote, but by the view that NPOV requires BOTH sides of the story be included in the article. Is that correct? If consensus in mediation means just majority view, then this article will not end up NPOV. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus, in my mind, requires that everyone either agrees with the result or allows the result to go forward over their objection ("Stand aside"). If you are not more-satisified with the result than the status-quo of where-ever we are today, you will not be forced to pretend to be satisifed. Hipocrite (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * See Consensus decision-making. I have experience with this. Hipocrite (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please could all the editors involved be allowed to state their own views, rather than being labelled as "pro-guilty", as in Zlykinskyja's posting above. Perhaps we could also all begin with an assumption of good faith—that, whatever our views, we are all trying to use the process of mediation to improve the article, not to promote a particular point of view. I'll state my own views (which I would not describe as "pro-guilty") in my opening statement, but I was intending to let Zlykinskyja go first with her statement, as she has initiated the mediation. Bluewave (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd try to let that go - while it's not the best use of anyone's time to label people, I suggest taking the high road and ignoring it would work better. Hipocrite (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My opinion on the article is that is rather POV: it throws all but the kitchen sink at Guede, to cast him in as bad a light as possible, so that he will appear as the only culprit. On the contrary, when dealing with Amanda, the article seems written by one of her lawyers (it's not an attack, I do not mean to say that anyone concerned with this article is actually her lawyer): she is innocent. Period. And the article goes to great length to try and prove it. The prosecutor is offended and presented as an incompetent idiot. And there is a section that should simply be erased and replaced with a more balanced one: as it stands, it is the exact contrary of NPOV, and I'm referring to this. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 12:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Already we seem to have some confusion... Initially, I only offered rather cautious support to the idea of mediation but, now we've started it, I'm very happy to give commitment to it and try to get a better article as a result. But it's only going to work if other editors take it seriously. Bluewave (talk) 09:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone (mischievously?) has added a set of previous quotes by Zlykinskyja, below. I don't think Zlykinskyja herself added these to this page but I could be wrong.
 * Someone else (mistakenly?) has titled them as Zlykinskyja's opening statement.
 * I (naively?) have been waiting for Zlykinskyja to make her opening statement before making mine.
 * Zlykinskyja (inexplicably?) hasn't yet made her opening statement but has found the time to make over 30 edits to the Murder of Meredith Kercher article.


 * I removed the IP's edit, as it wasn't written by the user in question. Hipocrite (talk) 10:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * And I've decided, despite what I said above, to get on and write my opening statement. Bluewave (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment only. Opening statement from Zlykinskyja Deferred.
I did not see the text that someone typed in as my opening statement, but I can tell you it was not mine. As I have stated, I am tied up with a real world major project (totally unrelated) till April 30. I have made some edits to the article since I can jump in here and there even though I should not do that and should be working on that major project because I get tempted!!! But in terms of commiting to mediation and sitting down to really get this started I cannot get started till April 30. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with the approach of a total re-write of the article. I think we should clarify what the goals are and what the methology will be before this mediation proceeds. Thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not suggesting a total rewrite. I'm looking for ideal versions from the participants so I can find areas of disagreement and areas of agreement. Right now, it's not clear to anyone what the real issues are except you can't reach agreement. Hipocrite (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, the disagreement is that some sincerely believe that Amanda Knox is a violent person who brutally sexually assaulted and sliced the throat of her roomate and was justly convicted in a first trial, and others sincerely believe that Amanda Knox was unjustly accused, has been horribly defamed and is totally innocent--yet in reality her guilt or innocence has not yet been finally resolved since her second trial has not yet started. Guilt or innocence is still up in the air. Despite claims to the contrary, there is no one in this mediation who has edited in a neutral manner. It has been all clearly on one side or the other. I have seen no neutrality demonstrated in the editing. All I am looking for is a recognition that BOTH sides can EQUALLY participate in the article, and that substantial deletions and obstructions of one side of the case should not keep happening. I think we need to all agree on what NPOV means in this context. I don't want to see one side re-write the article to its satisfaction resulting in even more feuding and wasted time. This is especially wasteful since the case keeps changing and evolving and might continue to do so for a couple of years. IMHO, what we need is a general framework on policies and what we will allow and not allow, and then try to live with that framework as the situation in the court case evolves. I will let others think about this and allow time for anyone who wants to comment to do so and I will check back in a day or two. Thanks for listening. Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Opening statement from User:Wikid77
I want the intro lede section, of the MK murder article, to emphasize that although the 3 suspects were named as "guilty", they are still officially "presumed innocent" in the Italian courts, while the appeals are pending. Also, state (briefly) that some U.S. private investigators, and forensic experts do not believe the evidence is sufficient to convict Amanda Knox, and hence, the case is extremely controversial as accusing the victim's college roommate who perhaps didn't do it. Readers on the talk-page asked, "Could someone add why this murder case is so notable?" But, notability remarks in the intro were deleted 4x, which summarized the infamous controversies, charged as a murder by 3 people who barely knew each other, and we could not state it is called "The Trial of the Century". I realize the focus is on future wording, so I won't try to prove all the deletions, just note that they have been happening (as typical edit-wars) for 4 months, by 7+ people. I have spent many hours to get the article to retain the text it has contained (and might still contain): massive amounts of text had been removed, and the House-diagram was AfD-deleted 2x, before I re-inserted text and re-created the House-diagram (for the 3rd time) as a "conceptual diagram" (not a map). Currently, even now 3 fair-use photos are in their 3rd rounds of IMAGE-for-deletion debates. I have added some forensic details to the article (location of blood pools in room, DNA areas, list of phone calls), but some were deleted 3 or 7 times, and I'm never sure if they are still there. Sources report 61 fingerprints (only 1 in MK room as Guede's handprint on pillow under body), 1 print of Knox on glass in kitchen sink, 2 fingerprints of Sollecito outside MK door, plus 13/14 prints did not match anyone. People delete those details, claiming they are used to prove someone "didn't do it" or similar excuses.

I am not trying to "Right a Great Wrong" but rather, trying to protect WP:BLP reputations and expand a greatly-requested article, which jumps into the Top 400 articles read on Wikipedia: whenever a news report appears in major media, the pageviews jump 10x-15x times higher each day. Any unsourced slurs are definitely a risk, because of the readership spikes (jumps 800-12,000 per day) & due to the high Google rank (#1 for those names, #5 for: Italy murder). However, the article has been edit-protected for months. As a recap:
 * Need intro to emphasize suspects "presumed innocent" (during 2010 & 2011 appeals).
 * Need intro to note experts say victim's college roommate perhaps didn't do it.
 * Need images rescued, or protected, from IMAGE-for-deletions.

Those are some initial comments. Talk if you need more. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Opening statement from Salvio giuliano
An example of what I meant earlier, can be found here. This section of the article repeats the same stuff about why Amanda is innocent, but my point is another. Z. wrote this statement: Contending that prosecutor Giuliano Mignini and deputy prosecutor Manuela Comodi "completely botched the case" the lawyers for Knox filed an over 300 page appeal on April 17, 2010, seeking to overturn her conviction on the basis of her innocence. I know that it is sourced and, in fact, I do not dispute that. It is just that I think we don't have to be that picturesque and sensationalistic. It is not weird for a lawyer to say something like that (hell, attorneys are paid to believe and convince their clients are innocent) and for a journal to report it, but this is an encyclopaedia, we should employ a very different style. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 11:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Opening statement from Bluewave

 * The article is quite disorganized and repetitive (just one example—the allegation that the police struck Knox on the head is discussed in three different places). I think one reason for the repetitive nature is that there have been cases where editors have agreed neutral versions of particular sections, only to have less neutral descriptions of the same thing reappear somewhere else. Another example: there is a current discussion on the talk page about whether information about the prosecutor, Mignini's, conviction should be included in the appeals section as well as in the section about the prosecutor.
 * The very negative portrayal of Guede (particularly compared with the other defendants). Quite a lot of the Guede section is taken from a few extremely negative media portrayals. Such negative portrayals of Knox also exist (eg the Fantasy world fuelled by sex, drink and drugs story from The Times), but we have (correctly in my view) avoided reproducing them in the article. Even the description of Guede as a "drifter" is more journalistic than encyclopaedic. It's the kind of description that a newspaper can use to convey a negative portrayal without actually risking a libel action.
 * A lot of the article is more "journalistic" than "encyclopaedic". I agree with Salvio's point above.
 * There is too much detail about timelines and forensic details. The purpose of the article is not to encourage readers to be "armchair CSI investigators" but parts of it read like it is.
 * In the controversies section, I believe some are purely invented by newspapers to liven up the story on a dull day. For instance, there is stuff about "satanic rites", despite that theory never having been aired in open court and never mentioned at the main trials of any of the suspects. It is rather stretching credulity to suggest that it is a major controversy concerning the murder.
 * The pretrial publicity section is an issue that has been raised in the NPOV noticeboard but remains unresolved. I have suggested that we add a short section to the "civil actions" section, about Knox's successful civil action, and then develop the press coverage section to focus more on the unusual aspects of the coverage: the potentially prejudicial pretrial publicity; the manipulation of the media by the Knox family and the personal attacks on the prosecutor, Mignini, are all notable features of the case and only the first is currently addressed.
 * There are a lot of opinions of journalists quoted. Such things as: Simon Hattenstone of the Guardian newspaper described the situation as: "This is not simply trial by media, it is trial by Facebook and blog." I think we should remove all journalistic opinion as being unencyclopaedic and non-notable. The exception would be the specific section on press reactions, where we should summarise the range of journalistic opinion, with examples.
 * There are a lot of quotes from the Knox family and their lawyers (disproportionately from those from either the prosecution or the other defendants). This makes parts of the article read like they are soapboxing the Knox family's views.
 * I think, from her comments (I'm sure she'll correct me if I'm wrong) that Zlykinskyja believes she needs to insert "pro- defence" POV opinions into the article in order to counter what she perceives as "pro guilt" opinions expressed in it. I disagree with this approach and would prefer to remove all opinions, as far as possible, except for sections particularly focused on things like "reactions to the verdicts", etc. To be clear, I would like the article to concentrate on events and facts, rather than opinion.

And, just for the record, to state my own point of view....I am not part of some "pro guilt" faction. I have no idea whether Knox and Sollecito actually committed the murder. I do, however, believe that the Italian court reached its decision on the basis of the evidence that was presented, and not on some prejudice against the defendants or against the U.S.A. (but this is my POV and is totally irrelevant to the article).

I am quite happy to have a go at a "my preferred version of the article" in my user space. I'll give a link when I've had time to do a draft. Bluewave (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite asked for a "preferred version of the article". I have had a go at drafting this in my user space at User:Bluewave/MOMK. It is only a draft and I may do some more work on it before we begin the mediation...or I may decide that more work would make me too emotionally attached to my work, which would be bad for the mediation! What I've tried to do is to do some slight restructuring; be as ruthless as I can about moving stuff into the right part of the structure; being equally ruthless about pruning the text (especially duplication and journalistic opinion); and I've added a few bits. Cheers. Bluewave (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Opening statement from Jonathan
I am a relatively infrequent editor to the article, but I try to edit from the point of view of a member of the jury. I have served as a jury foreman in the US and as US Citizen I would like to discount the notion that everyone in the USA is paled into "pro-Knox" ... or "anti-Knox" camps.

The direction I would prefer to see this article take is that decisions and verdicts as rendered by the Italian Judicial System trump all other opinions. Any "experts" in the US (or elsewhere) can make any statement; observations; opinions or opine on the validity of DNA evidence; witness testimony; judicial process or any other aspect of the case they choose.

However, without having such opinions, analyses or statements presented in open court; allowed to be cross-examined; or refuted, they should not be presented or stated as fact, if allowed in the article at all.

There are several instances where Attorney Theodore Simon is presented as being on "Knox's defence team", where in fact, he is not part of the Italian counsel at all and has no jurisdiction in an Italian Court of Appeals.

Lastly, I would like to stress that the US State Department has the final say as the official US Government position and does not support the notion that there is an unfair trial; which should be emphasized higher than Senator Cantwell's unsolicited open letter in which she claims an unfair trial. Jonathan (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Opening statement from 113.73.74.140
The obvious solution is to cut the article down drastically. It's way, way too detailed for what is after all little more than a transient news story, from the encyclopaedic point of view. A bare statement of the facts in two or three paragraphs is more than is necessary.113.73.74.140 (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Opening statement from averell
I applaud the attempt at mediation. I've been contributing little to this page, but have popped up on the talk page from while to while. I'm fairly neutral on the case itself, and have tried to lend a hand on the talk page from time to time.

To me it appear that some users have strong opinions and spend a lot of energy on it. Unfortunately, the article has suffered in the process. Before the verdict against Knox and Sollecito was announced the article was |actually half-decent. Not perfect, and there was some quibbling over many parts, but it was at least readable and comprehensive.

By now it has become quite a mess, overflowing with needless details and with users trying to "qualify" each and every statement of the "other side". The article should undergo a major overhaul and shortening, but the current discussion makes this a somewhat futile task.

Mediation will only succeed if everyone realizes that they have to give ground. I have my doubts on that, but it won't hurt to try. A way has to be found that substantial modifications can be made without ending up in a world of pain.

Averell (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Opening statement from KTo288
Today was the first time I edited the article and I am dissapointed with the article and the two camps which have developed. Just as a jury can only make their decision based on the evidence presented to them, this article should be written based only on the facts available, and those facts should be presented in the NPOV manner which is the bedrock of wikipedia, not spun one way or another to reflect what individuals believe the truth to be. One difficulty is that third party sources such as newspapers do not have a NPOV policy, and they will write stories in such a way to appeal to their readership. When this source or that is used editors here must bear in mind that sources may be POV.KTo288 (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Opening statement from PhanuelB
Comes now PhanuelB, a supporter of Amanda Knox's innocence, and submits the following opening statement:

Last fall Larry King interviewed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and asked him point blank "yes or no did the Holocaust happen?" The Iranian president could not bring himself to say it did. The correct answer is that it did happen, period. The moral of the story is that NPOV does not have to be half way between what two people are saying.

The Wikipedia coverage of the Amanda Knox trial has generally been excellent. It should if anything be greatly expanded. The case is historically important and of great interest to legal scholars. Commentators from the New York Times, CNN, and CBS have condemned this tribunal in the strongest terms.

Some crimes are known for the victim (Polly Klaas, JeanBenet Ramsey), some are known for the criminal (Son of Sam, Ted Bundy), and rarely some are known for a falsely accused defendant( Hurricane Carter.) There is no question that this trial is best known because of the debate over the innocence of Amanda Knox. The title of the article should be changed to reflect this historical reality.

The portrayal of Guede is negative and should be more so. The evidence against him is vast and overwhelming. The evidence against Amanda and Raffaele is weak at best. In recent weeks these sentiments have been echoed by a retired longtime FBI agent named Steve Moore. Use of the term “the three suspects” to refer to Guede, Knox, and Sollecito is a violation of NPOV.

Let me end with an analogy. Suppose Wikipedia had been around to cover the following events: 1) Salem Witch trials in 1692; 2) Army McCarthy hearings of 1952; 3) the various European Inquisitions (1200-1800 roughly); 4)the Wenatchee, Washington sexual abuse trials of the 1980s. Sometimes you don’t just take a vote. You follow the truth whether anyone likes it or not. That is what is called for in the Amanda Knox trial. PhanuelB (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)