Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

When did Knox meet Sollecito?

The article says two weeks before the murder, [1] says they met in early October 2007, [2] says they met a week before the murder. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidence?

It's hard to get a sense from this article what actual evidence there was against Amanda Knox. Ideally, I'd want to be able to understand both points of view from this article, but I'm not sure that either is all that well explained. Blowfish (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

the article is incorrect. There is physical evidence against her. See: http:/ the murder victim on it. The article is wrong on two counts because this is considered the murder weapon. The article has some obvious bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.112.2 (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The knife is the only physical evidence against her. It contained not only Amanda's DNA and Kercher's DNA, but also Sollecito's DNA. This is not surprising since the three of them were together at times. The fact that DNA from all three people are present on the knife indicated the knife wasn't cleaned. Hence, luminol could easily identify blood on the knife (as it would even if the knife had been cleaned). But no blood was found. Hence it's not the murder weapon. This is further corroborated by the fact that the knife didn't match Kercher's wounds or the outline of the murder weapon found at crime scene. All other evidence against Knox involved Sollecito's DNA or boot print at crime scene, as if she's guilty by association. Kercher was raped, and then silenced by her rapist. Guede's semen was found in Kercher. Three people can't rape and kill someone unless the victim keeps coming back to life to be raped and killed again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.133.151 (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

No semen found, get your facts correct.

There's still things in the article that are left unsaid - though I don't know if this is to do with the editors or the Italian judicial system. For example, the print found in blood was described as matching Sollecito's shoe, but that this was then contested by the defence. The article then just leaves it at that. Was it then conclusively proven to belong to his shoe? The outcome? The prosecution wouldn't have just left it there. ArdClose (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there is much more evidence that was presented during the trial. For example: When did Sollecito and Knox arrive at the house where the murder had taken place, and when did they call the police, and did they call the police at all, or only after the postal police had arrived? I remember that this and other questions were discussed on Italian TV, such as in Bruno Vespa's political talk show Porta a porta on RaiUno. Unfortunately, this is not just a murder case, but also an example for bad journalism. Lots of journalists reported about all kinds of things, such as the presumably medieval Italian justice system, or about Knox' parents, but hardly anyone took the time to actually concentrate on and examine the facts and the evidence (or lack of). Even yesterday, on Larry King Live, the case was "discussed" for one hour, without ever mentioning the facts leading to the arrest and conviction of Guede, Sollecito, and Knox. But of course there was time enough to have a friend of Knox tell the world for several minutes about how nice and sweet a girl Amanda is. At least then the host (it wasn't King, but someone sitting in for him) could have asked the friend whether incriminating a completely unrelated person (Lumumba) would also be part of that sweetness. We obviously have to wait and see whether at least after the trial there might be a chance for serious reporting on the case. I'm going to check Italian media for more material and possible sources. --Catgut (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

i agree it is a bad story, personally i think the italian justice had some clues, like when the article says knox implicated herself for being at the crime scene(having apparently otherwise denied that and not informed the police). also it is quite impossible to forget what you have done a whole evening from smoking marihuana, that is pretty hard even on alcohol. so alcohol is either used or remained unmentioned, a problem i have with this is the conviction of guede, an apparently traumatised kid, the problem i have is that if two other people get convicted for supposed accomplicy and incite, he just has the more credible excuse for clearing the ground. and also when he gets a heavier punishment. my personal suspicion is the italian justice does not usually convict 3 people to such long terms over 1 murder, so here is where the element of xenophobism shines through wich clouds our view on what really happened. next i think the blackmailing option her family allows raises suspicions about how they usually deal with legal issues.24.132.171.225 (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you ever smoked a joint before, but if you are a serious stoner remembering what happened even a day ago is difficult, even if it's important. Your responses to stressful situations will also be questionable, but in a wierd stoner way..logical. Like covering your ears when you hear your flatmate screaming. I think the level of her smoking should be mentioned in this article if there's any information about it.. seeing as it was used in her defence. I mean did she have a little joint or a gigantic bong? Did she smoke weed? If so, what type? The crappy stuff that you get off bums or the really strong GM strains from amsterdam? How often did she smoke? Did she do blowbacks? Did she inhale and hold it? What if it was dipped in acid for god's sake?? 86.42.206.219 (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

A high proportion of the media coverage of this case is biased one way or the other. Readers of this article want to work out if they really did it or not. There is so little about the evidence for anyone reading this to work that out. If evidence such as a footprint is disputed, what is the truth of that matter; what ruling was made on that and why? Was the knife the murder weapon or not? Whose knife was it? If it was kept in the kitchen and used by all those living there, then DNA from them would prove they used it, but that could be just from normal kitchen use on food, not necessarily from using it to kill Kercher. There is little about independent witnesses; did any disinterested parties see any of those convicted at or around the time of the murder? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

So she was a drug addict (defined by her life being ruined by drugs, or ruining someone elses) that killed a friendly, intelligent young woman. Shame Italy doesn't have the death penalty.

There is growing evidence in the forensics community that some of the claims for the reliability of certain types of evidence are greatly overblown. In particular, ballistics (matching a bullet to a specific gun to the exclusion of all others) and shoeprints (matching a print to a specific shoe to the exclusion of all others) are not definitive as has been claimed. Eyewitness identification is also notoriously unreliable. Hopefully, the defense pointed all this out during the trial. But I would also vote for a point-by-point description of the evidence from both sides.208.73.29.10 (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#FORUM. LeadSongDog come howl 13:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The allegations that she bought bleach and other cleaning chemicals were discredited and not presented as evidence by the prosecution because the store clerk was not credible and also because no receipts, video were ever found from the transaction.

Also, the woman who claims to have heard the screams on the night of the murder actually stated she could not remember the specific date. So those two statements need to be revised or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.239.74.75 (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Tactics interrogators used to deceive Knox

12-Dec-2009: I was still wondering, to explain the events in the article: How could 8 (eight) experienced judges (on the Knox/Sollecito jury) possibly conclude "guilty" with so little evidence? There are 2 psychological factors:

• Pass the buck - render "guilty" so the appellate court gets the re-trial.
• Peer pressure - appease the angry mob outside (they cheered when they heard "guilty")

However, I think the key is in the manipulated interrogation testimony, spliced together to give the appearance of nervous and guilty remarks. There are now claims of 5 tactics possibly used by the interrogators:

• Interrogate someone all night long, when they would be sleeping.
• Claim that someone they know admitted something that really didn't happen (as above, under "#June 2009 transcript").
• Ask them to role-play to explain what might have happened if they were in the next room.
• Ask them to conclude the likely outcome, based on various sets of starting events.
• Threaten them, or hit the table, or similarly scare them with excessive force.

Perhaps the most self-damning approach is to ask someone to respond to a friend's remark, which didn't really happen. For example, a hypothetical trap, based on a police lie:

- "Mr. Smith said he went to your house at 9pm (the lie). Why weren't you there?"

"I was still at my boyfriend's house."

- "So you met Smith later?..."

"No, what I meant was, when Mr. Smith arrived at my house, I was still staying at my boyfriend's house."

- "You just admitted Mr. Smith arrived at your house, so you did meet him, didn't you?"

"No, I didn't see him that night."

- "Ah ha, so you do admit that you were there, but you didn't see him arrive."

"No. No. No."

- "Well which is it? Get your story straight...(you stupid liar)".

No wonder, when parts of such an interrogation would be shown during a trial, chop-edited and out-of-context, even experienced intelligent judges could be tricked into thinking the responses appeared guilty and deceptive: she claimed "Mr. Smith arrived at my house" (guilty of incriminating him). Using all the various tactics to make someone feel nervous, and trapped, many people might conclude the suspect appeared guilty. Even if there were limited forensic evidence, the interrogation videos or recordings could sway judges toward guilty.

Because the trial, of Knox/Sollecito, had also included civil charges about incriminating others (Patrick Lumumba), parts of her interrogation, about him, could be shown out-of-context, to the same jury who decided the criminal charges. In the U.S., American citizens such as Amanda Knox (even at age 20) have a right against self-incrimination ("take the 5th" Amendment), hence, many Americans do not grow up realizing the tricks of interrogation. It is a major cultural difference. All of these issues will be tedious to add into the article. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, this appears to be entirely speculation on your part, and as such is not very helpful for talk page discussion. If you are interested in discussing these sort of issues in the article you'll need to provide reliable sources up front, otherwise it's extremely difficult for other editors to respond constructively to your comment. (Also, upon seeing your redlink, I'd note that we do have an article on pleading the Fifth, though apparently it needs some work).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Many are aware of these issues already (hence above: #June 2009 transcript). In talk-pages, we don't expect more sources than an article would require. For a topic of this complexity (reported in Italian), I just hunt "where there's smoke there's fire" not demanding the source flames ("Does anyone see flames down there under all that black smoke? Let's be sure there's a fire." ). Also, we want to focus on the major concepts, not nit-picking which source claimed which point. However, I wish you could get involved, unless that affects your neutrality. We have an article here which will enter the Top 1000 ("WP:Most read articles in 2009" ). The controversy is an American girl & boyfriend convicted with no DNA or hair evidence found inside the room of the victim with 43? wounds/bruises, but blood smears everywhere. No one can comprehend a fight (with 43 wounds) that leaves no DNA/hair of hashish-smoking "sex devils" who calmly met police 13 hours later. So, yes, expect many readers to want some content in this article. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

@ Wikid77 Your contribution to the discussion seems increasingly to be based on pure speculation and also misinformation. None of the scenarios that you present above has any connection whatsoever with the evidence that was presented at trial, and your contention that "no DNA or hair evidence found inside the room" is also wrong, as DNA evidence and a bloody footprint were found inside the room, together with a number of other traces around the apartment which had been cleaned away, but were discovered by the police using Luminol (which uncovers blood stains that have been rendered invisible to the naked eye by cleaning). I'm wondering if contributions (even on a discussion page) that are purely fictional or are factually incorrect should be allowed to stand, and if not, whether wikipedia has guidelines on their status?--Plasticmanic (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has few restrictions on talk-page text. People even call another person "misinformed" (or "wrong") as if God gave them ultimate truth. Speculation is not banned from talk-pages; it is even used to convict people in numerous criminal trials, but I might be misinformed about all of those. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikid77, I think you hit the nail on the head by highlighting the issue of the interrogations. That does indeed seem to be a crucial underlying problem with the case, and may well prove to be pivotal in the appeal. A high court in Italy has already ruled that some of the interrogations were illegal and inadmissable for certain purposes in the trial. It would be helpful if somehow we could get an English translation of that court ruling linked into the article. It would seem that if the high court has already ruled that some of the interrogations were illegal or inadmissible, yet those statements (false accusations against Patrick) made their way into the trial anyway, that the trial may have been impermissably tainted by forbidden fruit. You are right to say that this is an alien situation for Americans, because it would be unconstitutional in the U.S. for the fruits of an illegal interrogation to ever be admitted into a criminal trial. I agree that this issue could appropriately be included in the article. PilgrimRose (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, the right to silence is implicit in European law. The European Court of Human Rights has held that "the right to remain silent under police questioning and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6 [of the European Convention on Human Rights]". (Murray vs. UK). Bluewave (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There is also a very detailed (and apparently well-researched) timeline at http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmktimeline. Assuming this is accurate, the questioning of Knox began at 2400 and she changed her story to accuse Lumumba at 0145. So, when she first changed her story, she had been questioned for an hour and a half, not all night. Bluewave (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

@Wikid77 I think your agenda is pretty clear now, but just to clear up the veiled attack implicit in this statement: "People even call another person 'misinformed' (or 'wrong') as if God gave them ultimate truth." I think it's fair for another participant to correct your factual errors by stating facts that were not contested at the trial by either defense or prosecution. It seems from your statement that you believe there is no 'Objective Truth' in the world, whatsoever - and though I'd endorse that viewpoint to a certain extent in purely philosophical terms, if we take it to its logical conclusion in discussions of judicial process (where you seem to be implying that totally fictional speculation is a on a par with forensic evidence), then I'd say with respect that the discussion is of no practical use, at all. --Plasticmanic (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Wikid was referring to the 8 December dispute above. There is no need to infer an agenda. The parties seem to have dropped that discussion now, as is best for all. Please stick to discussing edits or proposed edits on their merits and avoid discussing the editors and their motives.LeadSongDog come howl 22:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I felt that an agenda was quite clear in the biased title of the section, and the loaded question: "How could 8 (eight) experienced judges (on the Knox/Sollecito jury) possibly conclude "guilty" with so little evidence?" The insertion of these statements (which are not true, as there was a relatively large amount of circumstantial and technical evidence) together with the totally fictional speculation below it helps to disseminate and legitimize the point-of-view that the conviction of Knox was based either on police corruption, or on Italian bigotry. Placing these bogus sections on Wikipedia exposes them to a broad public, and enables others with the same agenda to propagate these myths and untruths elsewhere. Someone could just as well start a section called "How did Amanda Knox persuade two men to help her murder Meredith Kercher?" and follow it with a fictionalized dramatization of the conversation between the three convicted people - but this would be both offensive and fruitless, and neither that fictionalization nor the one by Wikid77 above has a place on this discussion page imho. --Plasticmanic (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

If an "interrogation" (such a pejorative word - I wonder why it is being used here?) was "illegal" then that would mean that an offence had been committed and so charges would be brought against the "interrogator". Presumably perverting the course of justice or assault or similar. What really happened is quite different from the picture that is trying to be painted here. When first interviewed as a witness Knox had no legal requirement to have a lawyer present. As soon as her statements led the police to believe that she might actually be a suspect, they halted that interview because she now was indeed required to have legal representation. The later interviews were conducted with such representation, however, in the meantime it appears that she decided to write down a version of what she had just been saying. Here is what the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini is reported to say to Linda Byron (a reporter for a tv station in seattle - KONG?) in a letter: "Knox was first heard by the police as a witness, but when some essential elements of her involvement with the murder surfaced, the police suspended the interview, according to Article 63 of the penal proceedings code. But Knox then decided to render spontaneous declarations, that I took up without any further questioning, which is entirely lawful. According to Article 374 of the penal proceedings code, suspects must be assisted by a lawyer only during a formal interrogation, and when being notified of alleged crimes and questioned by a prosecutor or judge, not when they intend to render unsolicited declarations." [3] rturus (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Italian justice system section is all POV - request delete!

This is completely and utterly reprehensible. And is arguably contempt of court in any jurisdiction in the world. It has two two sources: Judy Bachrach and John Q. Kelly. So the criticism is singular and from a reporter (not a legal expert) and a lawyer not connected with the case.

It's egregious and cynical and has just one purpose to smear the Italian Judiciary. Likewise just because this section is referenced from two named sources does not make it correct in assumptions. It's Fringe theory and based on complete lies. Yet the lies are given undue providence and the "real" facts are tagged onto the end.

Just reading it makes my toes curl.

The Italian justice system has been criticized by American reporter Judy Bachrach. Bachrach quoted an Italian ecclesiastical judge, who is not employed in the Italian legal system, in an article about Knox for Vanity Fair magazine. The ecclesiastical judge claimed that the Italian justice system “stems from the Inquisition and also from medieval law. [It] is based on the supremacy of the prosecution. This nullifies the fact – written in our constitution – that you’re innocent until proven guilty.” Bachrach did not seek out an alternate opinion.
On October 18, 2009, Bachrach appeared on a broadcast of CNN's Larry King Live which featured Knox's parents. Bachrach claimed that in Italy “the ordinary person is considered guilty until proven innocent. Italy's laws are direct descendants of the Inquisition.” On that same King show, John Q. Kelly – a prosecuting attorney in the civil trial against OJ Simpson – commented on the Italian Justice system in relation to its treatment of Knox and Sollecito. He said that “it's probably the most egregious, international railroading of two innocent young people that I have ever seen.” (Kelly does not represent anyone involved in the Kercher trial.) King did not feature any experts in Italian justice on the show to provide a counterbalance to Bachrach or Kelly.
The Italian judiciary system is derived from Roman law and Napoleonic code. The Constitution of Italy, article 27, reads "The defendant is not considered guilty until final judgement is passed"; in article 111, that "Guilt shall not be established on the basis of statements made by anyone who has freely chosen not to submit to questioning by the defendant or the defendant’s Counsel ad litem".
It is also a fact that Italy has a very complex legal system with three levels of courts: First Grade Court, Appellate Court and the Supreme Court, the "Corte di Cassazione". A defendant can appeal to all levels of courts including the Supreme Court in most cases. In comparison, the legal system in many other countries (e.g. USA) features much stronger filters between the appeal trial and the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, it shows what happens when you have amateurs doing this stuff, when you include quotes like this “it's probably the most egregious, international railroading of two innocent young people that I have ever seen.” How can the source say that, are they trying the case, NO! It's for the court and the jury to decide. Kelly is also implying impropriety, collusion and dishonesty on the part of the Italian Judiciary. The case is still active and that's contempt of court.

This whole section should be deleted forthwith, as it's arguably WP:FRINGE (only two cited proponents), dubious (the quotes are based on personal conclusions - and not established facts) and it's entirely NPOV.

It's ironic WP has strict rules on Living Person biographies regarding libellous material but nothing concerning contempt of court actions while legal trials are still being held!!!

I therefore recommend for these reasons stated that this section should be deleted forewith.

[Besides if you want hypocrisy; before you start to smear a country's legal profession, is it not better to start with one's own first? Maurice Clemmons, the man who is alleged to have killed those police officers in Washington state was released by the US legal system after only serving a few years of a 35 years sentence. To me that suggests the U.S. judicial system has serious issues of its own]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.68.26 (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

clearly not neutral --Frukko (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Again: I'm all in favor of cutting that section down as it's not utterly relevant. However, it deserves at least a fleeting mention, since it seems to have been in mainstream media and has potentially reached millions of people. Also, it is not required in Wikipedia that each section is "neutral", NPOV means only that the whole article presents all (relevant) points of view equally without giving preference to one. It is also not required that a source is neutral or (in this case) qualified. That said, I'll chop a good part out of this now. Averell (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I am tagging the section for bias.--Karl franz josef (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Not enough, it should be deleted as either pathetic or disingenuous. See above. --Red King (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

For American readers, I think a level-headed discussion of the differences between the two legal systems relative to their handling of the case would be helpful. Different legal systems have different standards of evidence and procedural rules. For example, Americans may benefit from an explanation of why the jury was not sequestered in spite of the charged media atmosphere, while in the US, we would be very careful to make sure that the jury reaches its decision based only on the evidence presented at trial. Also, public criticism of the handling of a trial is legitimate discussion. See the WP articles on the OJ trial, the trial of Sacco and Venzetti, the Rosenburgs, etc. etc. Italian courts are not exempt from this.208.73.29.10 (talk) 03:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There is now a detailed article at Italian Criminal Procedure which should answer these concerns. --Red King (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sashes/family view

I have removed a reference to the jurors wearing Italian sashes - so what?; would we comment if a US jury wore flag pins? This is trivial and tries to make a political point. I have also removed a reference to the family's view of Knox's innocence sourced to a Knox pressure group. The family have no first hand knowledge of Knox's involvement, if any. We can cite reliable sources who criticise the Italian judicial system but must be careful not to synthesise (which the sashes inclusion was an attempt to - see the edit summary here). TerriersFan (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have visited Italy several times and I have never seen Italians wearing Italian sashes. If this is not common in Italy, one could reasonably ask after its meaning, especially in a jury of a controversial trial of a foreign national. Is it unreasonable to wonder if the sash-wearers were making a statement, and if so, what that statement might mean? I have seen many people in the US wear flag pins for no particular reason, so to see a juror wearing one could well be without significance. But if several jurors wore them in a controversial terrorism trial, for example, one could reasonably inquire whether they were truly imparitial.208.73.29.10 (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The sashes are worn because they are acting on behalf of the state. It has nothing to do with xenophobia or racsim. Bjorn I. Clever (talk) 07:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue is whether the wearing of the sashes is typically done in most criminal trials in Italy, or was it done specially for this trial due to its international aspects. I would need to see some reference source that states that sashes are typically worn by jurors in Italy before I would accept the assertion that such sashes are worn simply to show that the jurors are acting on behalf of the state. PilgrimRose (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have just watched several videos on youtube.com of verdicts being read in an Italian court, in every video I saw (4 not including the Kertcher trial) the jurors were wearing a sash in their national colours. My understanding from reading comments from Italian posters is that they do this to reflect that they are doing their civic duties by serving on a jury. Would a person wearing a lapel pin displaying the Stars and Stripes be seen as nationally biased and xenophobic or patriotic and correct in the USA ? Would it help if I provided links to those videos of juries wearing sashes during the verdict proceedings ? Justin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.121.195 (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Your understanding is quite right. Actually lay judges (they are not, strictly speaking jurors) are requested by law to wear those sashes (think of it as the "Jurors" pins you have in the USA). --140.105.47.81 (talk) 08:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read Italian Criminal Procedure where all this is explained: the lay judges and their sashes, the professional judges in their robes, the difference from a US/UK jury. --Red King (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Propose full protection of Murder of Meredith Kercher page

This article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia, it is being used by some people as a tool to attempt to further their own views and opinions. The obvious attempts by some to try to exonerate a convicted murderer are quite disgraceful.

It is not the place of Wikipedia to advocate one position or another, nor to try to discredit a country's legal system. Rather, Wikipedia should present a neutral reporting of facts and events. The rights and wrongs, issues and principles of a criminal case are a matter for the courts to decide.

I propose that the Murder of Meredith Kercher page be given full protection by an administrator and examined for NPOV, edit war and defamation issues and then revised to an acceptable condition before resumption of it's semi-protected state. rturus (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree. The article as it stands is incredibly non-neutral (particularly the Amanda Knox section, which mainly consists of her defence case). It's probably a highly-viewed page at the moment, and I don't think it is showing Wikipedia's systems in a very good light at all. --FormerIP (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

i agree as well, this page was already dealing with a lot of neutrality questions, the fact that the verdict has just been sent out, makes it even more susceptible to damage by well meaning individuals.Killemall22 (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems a bit drastic to full-protect this article. Considering the high profile of the case, there has been little vandalism and few BLP violations. The biased additions are not being added every few minutes. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is drastic, but what less drastic alternative would you propose? For now, I've POV-tagged the Amanda Knox section. --FormerIP (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree. And I think this article needs a strong revision.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better to narrow the problem down to what the significant points of contention are. Most of the article is good. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• My proposal for full-protection has been declined. At the moment it is considered not to merit an edit-war protection. Currently the article remains semi-protected and flagged for NPOV. I hope that people can refrain from pursuing their crusades and points of view in the article and let Wikipedia perform it's neutral, factual purpose.rturus (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia should be NEUTRAL. Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) under Wikipedia policy means that when there are alternative viewpoints, or substantial minority viewpoints, those should be included in the article. If only ONE viewpoint is allowed to be included, then it is not neutral, it is biased. Check out the NPOV policy and you will see that alternative or minority views should be included. So on this topic, there is the majority view of some media and countries, and as found by the jury, that Knox is a murderer. Then there is the minority or alternative view prevelent in the U.S., and as expressed by her family, that Knox is innocent of the murder. Under NPOV policy, both sides of the story must be included. And, no, it is not "shameful" to include the other side of the story. It is merely refective of the reality of the situation that there is no one, single, "correct" version of the events at this point. Perhaps there will be after the appeals process is finished. PilgrimRose (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I mentioned this in my reply to you further up the page. However it is clearly evident that certain people are being especially concerned to put across as much as possible in favour of Knox and also attempting to discredit the Italian justice system. This is an encyclopaedia, not a news-sheet or a blog. NPOV means being balanced and reporting (with citations) facts, not constructing arguments to enhance one opinion or another. If one tries to read the article and this talk page with some objectivity one is bound to notice that certain people are stridently trying to display their outrage. (Although I think perhaps that you might disagree.  ;-) ) I have no views either way on this trial, I have not sat through the evidence gathering and examination that the Italian jury have. I know it will all be examined in more detail in the appellate court (when perhaps Sollecito will break his silence) and in fact the Guede appeal might even bring more light to the situation. I am just looking to try to convince people that we should maintain Wikipedia's neutrality and that those who have an axe to grind, should take it elsewhere. Anyway I have put up a request on the NPOV noticeboard (because the NPOV Project seems to have ceased work?) asking for an editor experienced in NPOV matters to have a look at revising the article. (Also, please don't try to lecture me about Wikipedia, you can see - if you look - how long I have been on here) rturus (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Pilgrim Rose, I think what you should consider most is not WP:NPOV in this case, but WP:WEIGHT. In the context of a criminal trial, it is ridiculous to put so much emphasis on the unsuccessful arguments of the defence. If you look at other pages about cases with comparable media interest (Harold Shipman say), you will notice that there is little or no discussion about defence arguments at trial. This is mainly because those arguments were rejected at trial and they are therefore much less notable compared to the facts of the case that were established at trial. It would be conceivable that someone could research all the defence arguments from the Shipman trial and insert paragraphs and paragraphs of material into the article. This would undoubtedly give us an article that made it look like there had been a horrible miscarriage of justice. But it would by an obvious breach of WP:NPOV, as is the current state of this article. --FormerIP (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with FormerIP. At present, the Investigation section of the article is clogged with assertions – by the prosecution and counter assertions by the defence – that clearly belong in the Trials section. In my view, these should be relocated. --Red King (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

American view is anti-fascist or anti-brutality not anti-Italy

08-Dec-2009: I've read the article several times, and I didn't find any shocking bias in the statements. Because Amanda Knox is an American, convicted in a way totally unacceptable in America, then many of the sourced controversies are, quite naturally, going to oppose the prosecution and the verdict, rather than claim, "Why wasn't Amanda beaten more severely to confess all in the first 2 days, then publicly hanged, stoned, knifed and burned rather than merely sentenced to only 26 years?" That's not the typical American way. Please understand the typical American heritage: "It is better that 10 (or 100) guilty men go free rather than 1 innocent person be wrongly punished". If Amanda Knox is only guilty of helping her boyfriend buy bleach and cleanup a crime scene (that he might have helped initiate), then sentence her to 2 years cleaning diapers, not 26 years. Please understand, in America, if it can be proven that a confession was forced/beaten, then it must be suppressed/banned (totally) from the trial, and if police commit a crime to obtain evidence, then that evidence must be omitted (although it is often used anyway in many corrupt American courts). The American way is very different: if a guy actually commits murder, and the police lie, then the guy is legally "not guilty" and cannot be tried again for that event. The American legal system does not pretend to magically "know" a sex-game occurred, but must prove each point of evidence, in accordance with the laws of physics. In general, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (not just one person's testimony): if it's true that the DNA of Amanda Knox was not detected at the scene, then it must be proven that she wore gloves+hairnet or had extraordinary powers to remove her DNA while leaving DNA of Rudy Guede at the scene. That issue would be expected in the article. If a knife has traces of bleach, then it must be proven that other knives/forks or dishes nearby were not likewise bleached because they happened to be in a sink also (as in the old adage: "correlated does not mean causally related"). Because America has extensive cultural diversity, many people have met others that laugh or joke, under stress, or in times of sorrow. In South Texas, the Karankawa native tribe (some of them cannibals) and their descendents have been known to constantly smile, in the most "inappropriate" of situations (this has been documented for nearly 400 years). In some Japanese-related families, it is often typical to publicly laugh at horrific events, and this also has become understood in the American diversity. However, America's big concern is: anti-fascist or anti-brutality (anti-king, anti-royalty, and anti-bully). Perhaps claims of brutality have been falsified, but it is an issue that causes Americans to rally in protest, so that is why it is a typical American complaint about the Kercher trials, rather than some exaggerated, POV-slanted view that seems to unfairly highlight those views as unbalanced. Almost any American source is likely to protest evidence gained by police brutality. Also, as others have noted, the automatic appeal in Italy as a type of "re-trial" is rarely found in America, so Americans typically have to protest immensely, with numerous points citing judicial error, to be granted an appeal: a court verdict in America is often "fatal" in the sense that it cannot be overturned, so the American press can be expected to protest loudly about a questionable verdict, rather than let Italy's appeal process merely expand the evidence during the re-trial, where a prison sentence in Italy is often reduced by half. I hope that helps explain the American viewpoints, in the article, from the numerous sources about the trial events. It's not a problem of bias, but rather, of viewpoint. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry - are you really saying that you think the American view is that Italy is Fascist and that police brutality is prevalent in Italy? I really think you should rework your "rant" to be a little less insulting and misinformed. rturus (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

21st century Italy is not fascist, and I don't believe it is generally considered to be so by any country. Any claims to the contrary should be backed by reliable sources. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you are a victim of a very bad journalism.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

@Wikid77 Your extreme, prejudiced, racist and factually incorrect rant is exactly the sort of thing that unfortunately highlights the weakness of the entire Wikipedia system, and which (imho) is in serious danger of bringing it into wide disrepute. As others on this discussion page have pointed-out, the entry on the main page already gives undue weight to those that believe that Amanda Knox is innocent, and regardless of whether that is indeed the case, this sort of nationalistic abuse and directly factually incorrect statements helps neither your cause nor the reputation and standing of the entire Wikipedia project. --Plasticmanic (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sashes

I am re-adding this sentence: "At the reading of the verdict, six of the eight jurors were wearing red, white, and green sashes, the colors of Italy's flag." It had been deleted with the comment "what the jurors wore is trivial and irrelevant", but it is relevant in light of the "Media coverage" section, which suggests that this case may have been influenced by criticism of the Italian judiciary system. I've read editorials suggesting that Knox was more likely to be found guilty merely because of all the foreign press suggesting that Italian police were buffoons who contaminated the evidence; the jurors may have been motivated by a desire to show that an Italian court can indeed convict on a murder case. The CNN article also said that people applauded outside the courtroom after the verdict was announced. - Brian Kendig (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed. It seems to me that there was a bit of disinformation. Corte d'Assise Jurors always wear tricolor sashes, this wasn't a particular behaviour.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds reasonable. - Brian Kendig (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read Italian Criminal Procedure where all this is explained: the lay judges and their sashes, the professional judges in their robes, the difference from a US/UK jury. --Red King (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sections looking very mixed up

For example, the section about the forensic investigation has got a lot of stuff about the trial. The trial section has got a lot of stuff about Cantwell, Clinton and other commentators. I suggest that we should keep the sections on the investigation and forensic evidence completely factual (eg where the knife was found and what DNA was on it, but not whether it was or was not the murder weapon). Then the trial sections needs to focus on what actually happened at the trials and the arguments put forward by each side. Then a separate section about the way the case has been seen in various countries, mentioning Cantwell, Clinton, et al. Bluewave (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Applause! --Red King (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I was going to propose a major sort-out of material into the right sections (or even just doing it!) but was waiting for the decision on whether the other article on the trial is going to be merged, deleted or left alone. Bluewave (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree Bluewave, I have made some partial suggestions as to proposed structures in the "Prosecution's version of events" and "Michelli judgment" sections at the foot of this page. Perhaps it is time to set up a section to purely discuss an agreed new article structure? rturus (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the structure looks too bad (though, don't let me discourage you from opening a discussion on improving it!) The worse problem is that people can't seem to let material stay in the right place in the structure. So the section on forensic evidence, for example, ends up with some of the refutations that belong with the trial or with the opinions of lobby groups that belong somewhere else. Bluewave (talk) 16:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Actual charges and verdicts?

I have made some changes on the article page and the sub-page changing the conspiracy to murder convictions to "Murder and sexual assault". However I also changed the remarks on Guede to "conspiracy to murder" in the text. Unfortunately I might have been wrong in doing the latter, my apologies and if the actual charges and convictions can be obtained from a reliable source will someone post them (and the citation) here or on the page. I know for example that Knox and Sollecito were also found guilty of unlawful possession of a weapon and of staging a crime scene but not guilty of theft and that Knox was found guilty of defamation. I am sure there are other charges and/or verdicts but I cannot find English language references. Again, apologies for any error and please feel free to correct if you have reliable citations. rturus (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not have edit rights on this article but wanted to help clarify the verdict information for Guede. Here are the links to references documenting "Murder and Sexual Assault" -- Times Online, Time, TGCom. Can someone correct this? Christaltips (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Done.--FormerIP (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it correct that all three were convicted of sexual assault, but no-one was convicted of rape? Was anyone charged with rape? Kercher was raped, so why was Guede not convicted of that offence? Were the sexual assault convictions on the basis that Knox and Sollecito held Kercher down whilst Guede raped her, or that they actually sexually assaulted her? The article needs clarification on this matter. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sexual assault and rape are not necessarily the same -- rape is very narrowly defined in some local jurisdictions whereas sexual assault may encompass a wider range of offenses. I suggest providing a link to the WP entry for sexual assault. Christaltips (talk) 02:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Guede denied committing any offence against Kercher; no-one believed his lies. Many media reports state he had intercourse with her against her will and deliberately killed her. Why wasn't he convicted of rape? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 11:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There may not have been a rape conviction because, according to the trial judge's report in the Guede case, Guede "didn't finish the act" of sex. His DNA was found in epithelial cells on and in Meredith, not semen I understand. I don't know the Italian legal definition of rape so that is just my supposition as to why it was a sexual assault conviction and not a rape conviction in Guede's case. rturus (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no felony of stupro (rape) in Italy; there is a felony of violenza sessuale (sexual violence/sexual assault), which encompasses a great number of behaviours, from touching somebody's butt to actually raping him or her. Penalties, of course, are different: less serious charges are punished with a lighter sentence (a third of the maximum penalty).

There have been cases where defendants were convicted on charges of sexual assaults for caressing lasciviously somebody's thighs; or for kissing somebody's neck; in one case, somedoby's cheeks.

Until 1996 there were two different crimes: violenza carnale (carnal assault, which meant rape) and atti di libidine violenta (acts of violent lust, which referred to both sexual assault and sexual harassment). Salvio giuliano (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Salvio. Your insights and contributions are greatly valued. rturus (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure! ;) Salvio giuliano (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Previous convictions

I believe the article should state that neither Knox or Sollecito had any previous convictions, but that Guede did. Does anyone know the details of Guede's previous convictions? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Guede reportedly has previous convictions for drug-dealing: [4]. Knox has a conviction for "public disturbance", whatever exactly that means: [5]. --FormerIP (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Is Knox's previous conviction for a criminal offence? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on US criminal law, but the (pro-Kercher) site truejustice reports that it has a crime number 071830624. If it has a crime number, then it's a crime, I would suppose. --FormerIP (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This was a civil infraction rather than a crime See Citation for Noise for the ticket issued. Christaltips (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So why does it have a crime number? The ticket doesn't say "this is a civil infraction, not a crime". In any event, it the past records of the defendants are to be mentioned in the article, it should be included. --FormerIP (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Please refer directly to the Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 25.08 I do not know who referred to it as a crime number. The official citation and code are the best sources for this. Christaltips (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Christaltips, if you want to distinguish between a civil infraction and a crime in Seattle, you may well be perfectly right. However, it would be helpful if you could provide a specific source for this. I am not qualified to make a judgement based on reading through the Municipal Code. Like I say, though, in any event, if the records of the defendants are to be included in the article, this offence would form part of that. --FormerIP (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream media sources have reported quite prominently that Sollecito had no previous convictions and that Knox had either no convictions or only one very minor one. It is relevant as to why Guede's sentence is longer than Knox's and Sollecito's. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 08:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It may be relevant, but think you would need a source in order to demonstrate that it is (and that what you are saying is true in the first place). --FormerIP (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There is information in the media that Guede had been involved in past break-ins and thefts, and that some had occurred just prior to the possible break-in into Kercher's apartment. PilgrimRose (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

[Lengthy copyvio redacted - see the link below instead.] LeadSongDog come howl 03:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1234298/Amanda-Knox-The-troubling-doubts-Foxy-Knoxys-role-Meredith-Kerchers-murder.html#ixzz0ZbOlnAS1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by PilgrimRose (talk • contribs) 20:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify one point, Guede's sentence of 30years was automatic because of the fast-track trial he elected for (giudizio abbreviato). In that process, if found guilty of murder the sentence is 30 years, as opposed to life and is one reason why people chose to elect for it (presumably). See Italian_Criminal_Procedure rturus (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Prosecution's version of events

Should the article state the prosecution's scenario of events on the evening of the murder? As they were all convicted, it would seem that the jury believed that to be what happened. Whilst none of us can know what actually happened, shouldn't the claim that Sollecito held Kercher down, whilst Guede raped her and Knox cut her throat be mentioned, as that is the version of events that was believed by the jury? Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this should be included, but it is problematic, because I am not able to find an RS giving a full account of the prosecution vesion of events (I am, however, able to find lots of sources giving improbable defences of Amanda Knox...). I think it is possible to draw it from multiple sources, but extreme care should be excercised, because there has been sensationalisation in the press. It is certainly offensive (IMO) to suggest that Kercher died as a result of a "sex game", as has been widely suggested. My understanding, which looks different to yours (which is why an RS is needed) is that the prosecution case is roughly as follows:

• All three defendants either forced or persuaded Kercher to kneel.
• Sollecito and Guede restrained her whilst Guede put his hand down the front of her jeans and sexually assaulted her.
• She struggled and was violently restrained and assaulted by all three defendants, and strangled by one of the defendants (which defendant is not known).
• This continued for a while, then Knox stabbed Kercher in the neck, twice with a pocket-knife belonging to Sollecito (which has not been recovered), then once with a kitchen knife (later recovered at Sollecito's flat). The last of these wounds caused her death.
• The three defendants then fled. Guede went home and then to a nightclub (supposedly in the hope that this would give him an alibi) and Knox and Sollecito went to Sollecito's flat, where they discussed a plan to cover up the crime, which they began to put into effect the following morning.

--FormerIP (talk) 02:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the assertion was that Knox delivered the fatal knife wound (because of her DNA on that knife) but that it was not known who made the other wounds because that weapon was never found. The presence of one small knick on one of Meredith's hands but several larger cuts on the other hand was submitted as evidence that she was restrained, possibly by two people of different build/strength. rturus (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

More evidence that we need solid sources, I'd say. If the info is to be included, we may also need to distinguish between what the prosection assert was the case, and what they speculate might have been the case. On the pen-knife wounds, I think the idea is that it must have been Knox, because the other two were busy restraining her. But we need sources, rather than my or your recolections of things we have read.--FormerIP (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the article should include both the prosecution's and the defence's version of what happened. Is it claimed by the prosecution that Guede, Knox and Sollecito planned it? That they only intended to sexually assault her, but it turned into a murder? Did the prosecution claim that all three began attacking Kercher at the same time, or that, for example, Guede started attacking Kercher first, then Knox and Sollecito joined in later? That there is so much misinformation on and offline about the case and those involved, makes it even more important to clarify in the article what each side asserted / claimed happened. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

One problem with presenting the prosecution version of the actual murder is that it was presented behind closed doors at the request of Meredith Kercher's family due to the graphic and disturbing nature of it. The prosecution summing-up described this but I have not seen a full translation because the final 15 minutes of Meredith's struggle were apparently so sad and disturbing that the website wouldn't post the translation. There was a computer simulation of this also shown in the summing-up which appears to show that the two figures holding down the victim each had a knife and the figure doing the sexual assaulting did not - however I have not seen this clearly. (Was it reported in USA? I don't remember it here in the UK.) Since I don't have good enough Italian I wouldn't attempt to translate the Micheli report[6] but I have at least waded through a fair portion of it and see for example that the number of wounds and injuries is much more than is given on the article page. The only source of seemingly accurate (partial) translations I have would not I think be acceptable to many of the editors of this article and I am new to the case so I don't know of it's partiality, therefore of course I have not used that source in any reference. If anyone wants to look at the site it is at: [7] rturus (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If the article is rewritten to form a more logical structure then it would be easy to reconcile the wishes of Lkjhgfdsa 0 and others. The prosecution case is I believe (essentially) the same for both trials since the murder is a case in itself. The two trials are as a result of one defendant having elected to be tried fast-track (giudizio abbreviato). So basically the whole prosecution case can be added as a summary at the end of the Murder and investigation section or a sub section at the head of the Trials and convictions section. Each trial sub-section could then précis the defence case for each defendant, highlighting (without undue weight or prejudicial language) defence refutations. Once the trial judge publishes his judgement, that can be summarised at the end of each trial sub-section (the Guede one can be done now). As each appeal is held / completed a sub-section of a new Appeals section can be constructed, again finalised with a summary of the published reasoning behind the court's decision. I also think that it would be productive to create a new section in the article to cover the Amanda Knox campaign, thus separating that information from the media section. This would allow detailing of the campaigns and their points of contention because it is certainly seems to be a significant element. I see no reason why any perceived injustices (beyond the defence refutations) cannot be contained within that section. I believe that my suggested approach would prevent any tendency to edit-warring by separating the two approaches - submitted evidence and refutations. Unfortunately this article has become extremely messy for a variety of reasons and there is a need for the whole thing to be tidied up and presented in a balanced, clear and logical structure. The prevalence of editing to try to present a less-than-favourable view of the prosecution case and also to present a more favourable view of Amanda Knox is making this article very painful to read. (I won't mention the trials sub-page since it is so obviously a POV span and is on the AfD list.) rturus (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that it will give undue weight to give the prosecution arguments in full because then we need to give the defence arguments in full. Furthermore, as there is no trial transcript, we can't do so accurately. We have multiple instances of inaccurate reporting in news media - it sometimes seems that they make stuff up to catch a deadline. In my view, we should say the minimum about the allegations and wait until we have the judicial decision. In particular, we certainly can't assume that a guilty verdict means that the Judges' bench believed the Prosecutor's theory about how it happened, only that they believe that the defendants participated in the murder in some way. --Red King (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree that we should not be going into the arguments in full, either for or against, just a précis in each section. However I don't think that undue weight would result either way, I think it would be a logical presentation of facts. After all this is an encyclopaedia - not a blog or forum. I was certainly not suggesting that the objections and refutations were invalid, nor that all the prosecution evidence was accepted by the judges. I also believe that more detailed information about the Sollecito/Knox trial should wait until the judgement is published, although the Guede judgement could be covered. Unfortunately there are some editors who are determined to drag out every objection and criticism of the Sollecito/Knox trial at every opportunity for some reason (I wonder why?). So I doubt if they would be happy to accept that situation. rturus (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The trial is over. The case is closed. Knox is guilty.

Why should it be relevant that some Americans still think Amanda is innocent? The fact is, she was convicted by a court of law, and therefore, in text, it should always be "Amanda Knox is guilty", and never "Amanda Knox is allegedly guilty" anymore. It is no surprise that certain Americans say she must be innocent, regardless of how compelling the evidence is (or is not), they would have supported Knox either way. The trial is done, finished and over. Amanda Knox is guilty. Now this article should reflect that this is a solved and closed case, and not an ongoing trial. Especially not by giving credit to those whose only argument for her innocence is that she is American.

This should be an article on a closed case which has been solved. Not an ongoing debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IainUK (talk • contribs) 01:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As there are appeals to be heard and an unusually large amount of support for one of those convicted, it is not really a closed case. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 11:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Meredith Kercher Erasmus University

The article recited that Meredith attended to the University for Foreigners, but in reality she did attend her lessons (in European Science Politics) to the University of Perugia (here's the official source from the University [8], bot in Italian and in English).

I couldnt find any sources stating this in the mainstream media (instead a blog [9] was more accurate), but I found one recent that was stating she studied at the University for Foreigners [10]. I think that the Guardian chronist simply cut and pasted from Wikipedia without checking the info. That is really dangerous for the credibility of this article if we have to rely on sources that rely on us... I hope these journalists will do a better job in the future. --Grifomaniacs (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the Leeds Uni website [11], they appear to have an exchange partnership with the Uni of Perugia, but not with the Uni of Foreigners. --FormerIP (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Appeals under Italian law

Someone has reverted my addition that "under Italian law, appeals are automatic unless the individual opts out". Admittedly I read this in the Daily Mail (on line[12], I hasten to add...in case anyone thinks I actually buy the Mail!). Can anyone with a better knowledge of Italian law than me explain what the actual appeals procedure is in Italy. Thanks! Bluewave (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Have you checked the new article "Italian Criminal Procedure" for accuracy, as it relates to this article? -Wikid77 (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That looks a really useful article and it firmly refutes some of the crazier things that have been said about the Italian justice system on this page (and in the press). Bluewave (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It was me that removed the "automatic appeal" reference, because it wasn't sourced and looked (still looks) dubious. Think about it. An automatic appeal? Even if there's nothing new to say? I think an automatic right of appeal may be more plausible.

The Mail source does indeed seem to refer to a mandatory appeal. But I suspect the journalist has misunderstood. The Telegraph describes a different process, where the convicted party has 45 days to lodge an appeal following the publication of a detailed judgement [13]. This would not seem compatible with the notion that the appeal is automatic. --FormerIP (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Please read Italian Criminal Procedure where all this is explained. Also, please realise that the Mail is a tabloid and not a reliable source. (US readers, think Fox News). --Red King (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

FormerIP added a "citation needed" tag. Subsequently, I removed the assertion because that was inaccurate (sources: it:Appello_(diritto_penale) and [14] (in Italian)). In reading the referenced articles I realized that under Italian penal law there's the "reformatio in pejus" right. It means that an appeal sentence may at worst confirm the first grade sentence, or declare a lighter (or null) sentence. That's why all lawyers use to appeal for their clients, because it cannot get worse... The Mail probably misinterpreted this procedure.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you quite sure of that Grifomaniacs? I ask because why would the prosecution also have the right to appeal if no higher sentence or more serious conviction could result? I refer to the appeals entry in Italian_Criminal_Procedure, which is I believe posted by an Italian lawyer. rturus (talk) 10:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Rturus is completely right: if the prosecutor appeals the judgement, the Court of Appeals can issue a more serious sentence; after all, to deny this would be illogical, since a prosecutor can appeal an acquittal... The Court of Appeals cannot issue a more serious sentence only if the prosecutor has chosen not to impugn the judgement. This is stated quite clearly - for those who can understand Italian, unfortunately, since I am not aware of an English translation of our Code of Criminal Procedure - in article 597.III, which goes: Quando appellante è il solo imputato, il giudice non può irrogare una pena più grave per specie o quantità, applicare una misura di sicurezza nuova o più grave, prosciogliere l'imputato per una causa meno favorevole di quella enunciata nella sentenza appellata né revocare benefici, salva la facoltà, entro i limiti indicati nel comma 1, di dare al fatto una definizione giuridica più grave, purché non venga superata la competenza del giudice di primo grado. Salvio giuliano (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)