Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher

Restored omission: Police released Guede days before murder

11-Feb-10: The article has been re-expanded to note that Rudy Guede had been caught with a large stolen knife (16-inch, 40-cm) inside a closed Milan school on 27-Oct-07 (5 days before the murder) with a laptop PC reported stolen 14-Oct-07 from a Perugia law office burgled with a rock breaking an upstairs window. The Perugia police were notified Guede had the laptop, plus a cellphone also stolen from the Perugia office with the broken window. However, Guede was released by the Milan police, and not transferred to the Perugia police, as testified by the two Perugia solicitors (attorneys) at the Knox/Sollecito trial hearing on 26-June-2009 and by the school director 27 June. Hence, the reports of Guede holding a woman's watch, a hammer, a stolen knife and stolen property from a prior upstairs-window burglary could be confirmed by Milan police, Perugia police, and the 2 solicitors (lawyers Palazzoli and Paolo Brocchi) whose PC, printer and mobile phone were stolen on 14-Oct-07. I regret these major events had been omitted from the article, even until late December, while the details had been in major news reports in June 2009. The details are not rumors, but rather, confirmed by Milan police, Perugia police, Judge Micheli, and court testimony of 3 professionals. See source "Knox Trial Witness Points Finger at Guede" by Ann Wise (Rome) 26Jun09, web: ABCNews. -Wikid77 23:49, 11 February 2010

It is vandalism to alter the text while it is under review on an official notice board; and discussions on crucifix.

I chose, as a courtesy — and to avoid the usual claim of censorship —, not to ask Zlykinskyja to remove the text she added, pending the review on the official notice board (after all, there is no reason her version of the text should remain, in lieu of mine, until this dispute has been resolved...), but nonetheless, I strongly object to this statement "copies of the diary and notebooks were somehow acquired by the journalist from the government": it is unsourced, it is biased, it is defamatory and it is wrong. Please, do remove the "from the government" part. I do not want to do it, because I fear an edit war might ensue, but I appeal to Zlykinskyja's good will to do that. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who believes this is vandalism is welcome to try to find such a statement in WP:VANDAL. They will not be successful. Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to make the encyclopedia worse. Edits made as part of a content dispute are not vandalism, because each party is trying to insert what they believe is correct. EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion! Anyway, I will not remove the text, hoping Zlykinskyja will oblige me... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

And, by the way, I'd very much like to hear your opinion on this dispute on the NPOV notice board, if you wished to comment on it... ^___^ 14:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

My point is that it is too difficult to conduct a review at the NPOV board if the text is altered. What is the point of including the exact text in a chart form, and then altering the text in the article, when I have asked that a review be done of the text in the chart WITHIN the context of the article. So if now editors start altering the text in the article, it no longer matches what is in the chart and the whole process becomes confusing, time consuming, and any result possibly moot. If time and effort is going to be spent doing a review of the text in the chart--and WITHIN the context of the article---, then having two different texts make no sense at all. Also, there is nothing defamatory about the information at all. The government seized the materials, and then the press got the materials. Saying that does not constitute defamation. So there is no emergency in needing to delete the information while a textual review is underway. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, apparently she will not oblige me...

By the way, there is no proof this material was leaked; a recent, unrelated episode was heavily reported, in which two journalists (of two different newspapers) sneaked into the office of a prosecutor and stole a copy of a wiretapping transcript; they're now about to be charged. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

And even if they were leaked by someone, it is, at least, incorrect to write that they were leaked by the Government: that would make it somewhat legal (or, at least, an action political in nature, which risks confirming the claims of anti-americanism). They could have been leaked - if they were! - by a crooked cop, who committed a crime and who would be incriminated, if he were to be caught...

Moreover, in the past, defence lawyers have been known to leak material to the press - for instance, wiretapping transcripts regarding the private life of a politician, episodes that were considered morally reprehensible, albeit not unlawful -, to grant a change of venue or to smear the prosecutor and the police, making them appear fraudulent... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The defense would never have leaked such highly damaging and profoundly private information to the press. That would be crazy. The government--either the police or the prosecutor or BOTH-- had possession of the seized materials. The materials were highly damaging. Then it all ends up in the media and in a book. This took place in the context of many other highly damaging leaks from the government. Judge Heavey of Washington has stated that Amanda was "demonized" and that the Italian government did that to her by many times leaking FALSE information and other damaging information prior to trial. That is what it looks like to many people. There was indeed defamation, but it was by the Italian government against Amanda, in the eyes of many. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

And so you're here to try and rectify it, is that correct? Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not a fair accusation. I am here to write a story that is non-defamatory against Amanda and Raffaele--and thus complies with BLP-- and is NPOV. But the fact that they have been villified in the media is not a minor issue. It is a very major issue mentioned countless times by public officials, public figures, U.S. media, family and supporters, and so it is fair to include that issue in the story. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

My point is that, in doing this — I mean to try and write a NPOV article, which is what we are all trying to do, I think —, we may risk defaming the prosecution or the members of the Court of Assize, if we're not careful; this is a good example of what I mean: In terms of Mignini's stupidity, well that was clearly shown in the documentary. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was not in the article, it was on a Talk page, so it is irrelevant to the content of the article. In terms of the documentary, almost the entire hour of The Learning Channel documentary on "The Trials of Amanda Knox" shown nationally on Sunday night focused on how Amanda was convicted in the court of public opinion by the villification of her due to government leaks and media sensationalism. The court and Mignini are not immune to criticism over the way this has been handled. If the US media is now making claims that the Italians mishandled this, and public officials are making those claims as well, then that is legitimate information for the story. In America, the US media is free to call it as they see it. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No, but that shows what you think of Mignini... In Italy, you can criticize, even harshly, a verdict (that's why our Judges publish written motivations: to allow for public review of their decisions), but not the Magistrates themselves as persons (attacks such as "mentally unstable" or whatever). I saw the documentary and I deemed it extremely POV. That's the prerogative of TLC, of course, but, still, I hope this article will be far more balanced. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you watch this on The Learning Channel? Is that shown in Italy? There are seven versions of the documentary so what was shown on The Learning Channel Sunday night and what was shown in Italy might not be the same version. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

TLC is not shown in Italy, as far as I know, but I managed to watch a copy of the documentary — I procured it in a not so legal way... :o) —. I read that Curt Knox complained about there being more than one version of the documentary, so I can't be sure that we watched the very same thing... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Where was the camera placed that recorded the courtroom scenes? Was that in a balcony or was the camera up on a pole or affixed to the ceiling? I ask because the camera position made the courtroom scenes look extremely intimidating. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it was on a pole, but I am not sure; after all, only very few scenes of the courtroom were shown — they preferred closeups of Amanda and her interpreter —. Anyway, I don't think that it could be intimidating, but it's my opinion. The courtroom was crowded, crammed with journalists because the trial was watched closely and journalists from at least three countries had gathered there... I also saw that you thought that the crucifix was intimidating. I don't know if it is - and it seems to me, but I could be wrong, that it is present in U.S. courtrooms too -, to me it wouldn't be. However, many people would like to have it removed — I am one of them —. It is a very interesting dispute, that has crossed our borders, but I fear this is not the place to discuss it... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There are no crucifixes in U.S. courtrooms. The U.S. Constitution guarantees separation of Church and State. And if you try to see things from a defendants' point of view, having any religious articles in a courtroom where you would prefer the surroundings to be as neutral as possible, could be interpreted as intimidating by a defendant. I don't know what Zlykinskyja's original post about it was, but she has a point about the courtroom proceedings being intimidating. I would imagine, any courtroom is intimidating to any defendant.Malke2010 19:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In Italy, that's true as well: the Church and the State are two different entities (art. 7 of the Italian Constitution). At the same time, though, under an extremely old executive order (dating back to Mussolini's times), in schools, in courtrooms and in every public office there must be an image of the President of the Republic and a crucifix. Since it is not a statute, the Constitutional Court cannot rule that this is unconstitutional. In Courtrooms, there must also be an inscription which reads "la Legge è uguale per tutti" (Law is the same for everyone) and "la Giustizia è amministrata in nome del popolo" (Justice is administered in the name of the people).

It's tradition, just like robes, sashes and "your honour"... It has no bearing whatsoever on the outcome of a trial... And I don't know if I would be intimidated by the presence of a crucifix or by the fact that my freedom is at stake... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 19:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Malke is quite correct. There can never be a crucifix in an American courtroom. That would be considered an outrage. I myself, even though a Roman Catholic, would be outraged. I can only imagine how upsetting the image must have been for Amanda and the entire Knox family, as Americans (although also Roman Catholics). This, especially while Mignini was painting Amanda as some type of crazy killer in front of that crucifix, as well as the whole world. How devastating. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've only got a couple of minutes, so can't enter into the wordy exchanges that are usual on this page. However, you might like to re-read the above comment and consider refactoring it (unless it's a quote from a citable source). BLP (and libel law) applies as much to talk pages as anywhere else. Bluewave (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

NO, I stand by my comment and opinion that Giuliano Mignini horribly defamed Amanda Knox before the world. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am an atheist, but I've never felt threatened or outraged, although cricifixes were in the university classrooms I studied in and in the courtrooms I've attended. I thought it should be removed, but it does not offend me or make me think that somebody's rights might be encroached on. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

For Giuliano Mignini to be presenting his delusional theories about Amanda, a Roman Catholic, in front of that crucifix, while characterizing her as some sort of crazy killer must have been totally devastating to her and her family. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that is an overstatement... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. As a Roman Catholic (yet American) female, that is surely how I would have felt. Furthermore, the American unrest against Mignini is only now coming to the surface. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20001171-504083.html Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that there's a great deal of difference between having to serve 16 months and 26 years — and that sentences of up to two years' imprisonment are almost always suspended —, Amanda's in gaol as a precautionary measure because she might commit other crimes, according to the Judges. And because, if freed, she would flee back home and we would never see her again. She is not yet serving her 26 years. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Really? Then consider this exact quote fron CBS NEWS in the bolded text that follows:

According to the Italian newsmagazine Panorama, investigators discovered that Mignini maintained computer lists entitled "Attacks to Remember" and "Orgy of Attacks." The lists contained names of journalists, government officials, and members of the Italian Parliament.

Mignini was convicted of launching investigations into his critics in the media, the police, and the government. The prosecutor illegally wiretapped phones and cell phones in his ambition to end the "orgy of attacks."

Because he violated the public trust, the Florence court banned Mignini from holding public office for the rest of his life. But, during his appeal, the prosecutor gets to remain in office. Mignini has not been called on to resign either.

Following his sentencing, Mignini told the media that he has a clear conscious and has done nothing wrong. Back on the job in Perugia, he is again in hot pursuit of some of his critics. Italian media have recently reported that the prosecutor has opened up criminal defamation cases against two Perugia lawyers associated with Amanda Knox's case.

The man who has been barred from ever holding public office in his lifetime, needs to now step aside. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's just the presumption of innocence, that you so vehemently advocate as far as Amanda is concerned... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The reality is that the truth is becoming known to the American people, thanks in particular to The Learning Channel. As more and more Americans become aware of the gross injustice, the hew and cry will only become louder. Mignini would be doing himself and the Italians a favor by backing off with this crazy killer theory, since there are few Americans who will believe it. The Italians need to realize that this problem will not go away until Amanda and Raffaele are freed. Until then, be prepared for battle. Americans are not, on the whole, stupid people. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That's how bullies behave; and I hope that the Italian Courts will not be easily intimidated... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I do not know if Amanda is guilty. To be honest, I do not even care that much about this. I only wish that our judicial system and our people in general are not painted as a bunch of idiotic witch-hunters who still try people by ordeal... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the die has been cast. There is no undoing it now. Italy has cast Amanda Knox as a nut who sexually assalted, beat, strangled and cut the throat of her roommate. There will be no stopping things now until the totally innocent Amanda is free and home with her family. Already there are Americans boycotting Italy and I am one of them. My family long had plans to meet in Italy this summer, but now none of us will go due to the way Italy has treated the innocent Amanda Knox. I have traveled all over Europe many times and never have had a single bad experience, but now I would not dare to go to Italy, nor would I allow any family member to go there. Italy has to deal with the public image it has created for itself due to the actions of Giuliano Mignini. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You keep repeating the totally innocent Amanda: have you read the Judges' report? Have you tried to examine the case without any preconceptions? If Amanda's innocent, she will be acquitted; if she's not, she'll remain in gaol. That's what I think. About the boycott Italy thing, it saddens me, but I, as an Italian, am not ready to give in. I think that our Judges must be free to convict, if they so deem. And I fear that, if push comes to shove, all this fuss the Americans are kicking up will backfire on Amanda... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The reality is that there is growing opposition in the U.S., including talk of boycott and fears of going to Italy. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

She should only be acquitted if she is innocent, not due to any boycott. But the fact is that she has been innocent all along, but too defamed for people to see that. In any event, the views in the US media seem to be moving in a certain direction and more people are realizing the problems with this case. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20000577-504083.html?tag=mncol;lst;1 Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"The U.S. Constitution guarantees separation of Church and State.": In God We Trust became the official U.S. national motto after the passage of an Act of Congress in 1956.It is codified as federal law in the United States Code at 36 U.S.C. § 302, which provides: '"In God we trust" is the national motto'. , "having any religious articles in a courtroom": incorrect, American courts will have a Bible (the law has recently been amended to allow other religious books) to swear on. But legal advice for athiests is still to swear on the Bible.Kwenchin (talk) 09:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, if you say that person X has described person Y as a "crazy harlot", and you publish this information globally, you must either be sure that you can prove your facts, or both you and your publisher can expect to hear from X's lawyers and Y's lawyers. In this case, you and Wikipedia are potentially libelling both Mignini and Amanda Knox. Please provide a very clear source or edit the above as a matter of priority. Thanks. Bluewave (talk) 09:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well then, how about "crazy killer"? Is that better? The sources don't report what exact words he said, but the overall gist was defamatory towards Amanda. Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Kwenchin, you are right about the Bible. I was referring to religious artifacts in courtooms in the form of crucifixes, decorations, statuary, pictures, ect. None of that would typically be allowed in courtrooms. But I suppose there could be a courtroom somewhere in the U.S. which constitutes the exception. The same rules apply to government buildings in general, but I think as to those buildings some non-compliance has been noted on occassion. Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

For instance, we do not swear on a Bible to tell the truth, but the words of the oath call upon the witness's civic conscience and his civic duty to tell the truth. Frankly, to have to swear on a holy book would make me feel much more uneasy than the mere presence of a chunk of wood, no matter what my faith can be. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

In England, there is a royal coat of arms (like this) above and behind the judge's bench, but I don't think there are any other national or religious symbols in the court. The court has a range of holy books available, only one of which is the Christian Bible. It is also acceptable to make a "solemn affirmation" (without any holy book) rather than swearing an oath (with one). Criminal courts are nevertheless intimidating, and are probably intended to be so, with judges and barristers in gowns and wigs, for example. Bluewave (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Guess what? Italy is a Roman Catholic country. And it's courts are going to reflect that. You're right, it's not like that in America. If she wanted to be treated like an American, she should have committed her murder in America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all I would like to point out that any democracy as we see it in the western world consists of three powers: The legislature, the executive and the jurisdiction. They are all separated in every western democratic constitution! Please bare this in mind, when you, Zlykinskyja, talk of the "government" (legislature) leaking information to the press. This is most certainly incorrect and untrue. What you probably mean, is that officials from the prosecution (executive) or the court (jurisdiction) has leaked information. I am German not Italian, so therefore I might be wrong, but to my knowledge, the government in Italy is represented in the moment by Silvio Berlusconi and his federal ministers. They most certainly have not leaked any informtion, as they don't have access to it. You might perceive the police, FBI or any legal court in the USA as the government, but in fact you are wrong there as well. -> The government of the USA is represented by President Barrack Obama and his officials, not a judge or the police.

Second, Italy is, like any other western european country, a christian country and the fact that a cruzifix is present in the courtroom only shows, that the legal system is based on the believes, morale rules and standards christianity has formed this country over many centuries. In fact, the presence of a cruzifix is therefore better than not to have one at all, because it reminds at any given time every person attending the trial, that this is a christian court with its christian standards.

To believe, that a person, which was lingerie shopping a few hours after the death of a close friend could be in any shape or form intimidated by a cruzifix in a courtroom is somewhat ridiculous.

Thirdly, the american outcry because of a girl convicted of murder in a foreign state is percieved in Europe with quite some (negative) amazement. The american legal system convicts foreigners according to the US laws on a daily bases. No outcry there, even so the legal system of the USA has been proofen faulty too often to be considered strictly just anymore. The case of Amanda Knox recieved a lot of media interest, which was definately not helping the case of Amanda Knox, but a lot of this media interest (if not the most) originates in the USA, because a sweet all-american girl gets tried for murder in "old Europe". Now, thats a story and a half, don't you think? So, if the press (and you) complain about the excessive publication of the case of Amanda Knox, it needs to blame itself (the press).

If you would like to boycott Italy because of a lawful trial with a verdict you don't like, than this is your decission and prerogative. Loads of Europeans already do that with the United States because of its "worldy" behaviour and this group of people is getting bigger every day. But to be honest, it is again quite ridiculous (from both sides).

You just miss out on things to see and to experience in other countries. Akuram (talk) 10:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

One of Sollecito's lawyers is one of the most prominent members of parliament and of the ruling party in Italy. Sollecito's father is wealthy and a prominent person as well. To suggest that anything about the trial was unfair is ridiculous. Sollecito was represented by one of the most important people in Italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Unresolved issue about Knox's lawsuit and pretrial publicity

I'm continuing the discussion from an above section under a new heading in case anyone is misled by the earlier title of "Censorship again". Salvio and Zlykinskyja disagreed about the coverage of Knox's lawsuit against Fiorenza Sarzanini for violation of privacy: Salvio wrote a short summary of the lawsuit, whereas Zlykinskyja developed it into a new section about pretrial publicity. Both versions were taken to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Murder of Merdith Kercher, where they can be seen side-by-side. The issue was not resolved there and Salvio has now closed the discussion there as "Unresolved". I have suggested a way forward: I think Salvio's summary fits very well into the "Civil actions" section and is proportionate with the other cases mentioned in that section. So I would cover the civil case in that way. Zlykinskyja's text is mostly about concerns with the pretrial reporting by the media and I wonder if we should rework the existing "Media coverage" section, along with Zlykinskyja's material, and focus on the main issues of media protrayals of the case. The pretrial publicity is one of these, but I think it is misleading to suggest that it is the only one. Other notable features of the media coverage are the influence of the Knox-funded PR campaign (which currently only gets a brief mention) and the personal attacks by the media on the prosecutor, Mignini. Both of these are unusual issues in the media coverage of the murder case. What do other people think?—particularly Zlykinskyja, who wrote the piece about pretrial publicity. Bluewave (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I put a lot of time and effort into that NPOV Board topic, and so have re-opened it for comment and advice. That NPOV Board has a backlog. Patience is needed. Eventually, my new section will be reviewed there and I look forward to hearing what advice will be given there. Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with your time, your effort or your patience; I put a lot of time, effort and patience there too. It's only a matter of staleness: nobody has intervened so far, excluding us and I think we should move on and try to get consensus here. You really ought to stop owning this article... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Salvio, please stop with these personal attacks. For me to simply try to add material to the article, and have that reviewed on the NPOV NoticeBoard, does not constitute an attempt to "own" the article. All indications are that "ownership" of this article is being claimed by you and others who are willing to allow only incriminating information about K and S into the article, while deleting, removing and watering down information that tends to show the "other side of the story." It is because there has been a persistent refusal to allow "the other side of the story" into the article that advice from the NPOV NoticeBoard is needed. You are the one who posted that NPOV NoticeBoard filing to begin with. You took up my time and effort with that NPOV NoticeBoard filing and it is unreasonable to now close the thread over my objections without receiving any input from disinterested parties. I am prepared to wait until disinterested advice is given on the NPOV NoticeBoard, which I would anticipate receiving shortly. If you look at the list on the NPOV NoticeBoard you will see that the article is slowly making its way up from the bottom of the list. This shows progress, and supports the view that eventually the Kercher article will have its turn at receiving review and advice. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If you truly wanted the article to be NPOV, you would stop editing it. Because you not only have a point of view, you're trying to make the article reflect your POV. Knox and Sollecito were found guilty of the murder. That's the fact this article should be wrapped around. Knox murdered Kercher. That's not a POV. That's what the court decided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that the NPOV noticeboard discussion has been closed again (after 2 weeks with no independent input) how about us having a go at resolving this here. So can we please discuss my proposal at the beginning of this section? Bluewave (talk) 08:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

POV issue

I'd like to know why my minor edit was reverted for being POV [1]: Knox, Sollecito and Guedé were convicted, weren't they? So, to say that they maintain their innocence although they've been convicted is not really POV. It is merely a statement of fact... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't know about POV, but it's a bit redundant, and odd wording. The article makes it clear that all three have been convicted. They maintain their innocence. Them's the facts, and that's all that is needed. 'Despite' could be read as meaning 'although they are guilty'.   pablo_hablo. 12:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, the fact that they "maintain, that they are innocent", even though they are convicted should be stated togehter. I think it is crucial in this matter, that these two facts (innocence vs. conviction) are stated together, otherwise it might look to the casual reader, that the conviction might be unlawful or unjust and therefore one could get the impression that the article is taking sides (in favor of Knox, Sollecito and Guedé). The verdict comes from a respected Italian court, which cannot be disputed by a mere Wikipedia scribbler. Everybody please also take in consideration, that from the moment of the verdict, the principle "innocent until prooven guilty" is not applicable anymore. Instead it is: "guilty until verdict is successfully appealed". Akuram (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Aye, couldn't have said it better myself. As for the "odd wording", it's just that English is not my mother tongue... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't passing any opinion on the correctness of the verdict or the actual guilt or innocence of any of the three parties. I still think that wording's unnecessary, but that may just be my opinion. You could try asking whoever removed it in the first place.   pablo_hablo. 14:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Pablo. The intro and article make it perfectly clear that the two students were convicted. There is no necessity that the fact of conviction and their position of innocence all be stated in one sentence. It is not accurate that this verdict is necessarily correct. There stands a good chance that they could be found innocent at their second trial. They are still "presumed innocent" under both Italian and US law until a FINAL determination is made in this matter. The problem I have with the new additional phrase that Salvio tried to add is that, as Pablo noted, the phrase implies that they are somehow taking an incorrect position by stating that they are innocent. Yet, there is nothing incorrect about it at all. They may indeed be factually innocent of the crime, and as a matter of law they have the right to proclaim their innocence and are still presumed innocent at this time. So the additional phrase will only mislead the reader, and provoke a need for new additional language to clarify their status. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Au contraire my friend, they are not presumed innocent any more. The court gave a verdict and it states, that they are guilty of murder and other crimes. They have been convicted! I know, you think that the verdict might be wrong, but you are not in the position to dispute a rightful verdict. You have to go with it and wait for the outcome of the appeal, in which the verdict might get overruled or might not. Until then, even though you might not like that at all, they have been found guilty of murder. Please do not change this article in the way, you feel is correct or fair or just, as you are not the judge nor a member of the court and it is not a question of how one feels about it. Corrections you have made and you are still doing are all in favor of the position of at least Knox and Sollecito and therefore bias and don't represent a NPOV. Akuram (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• No, the Italian law is extremely different than U.S. or UK viewpoints. So, we're not sure about the meaning of "guilty" in Italy: it is a spoken verdict, but perhaps not a conviction, yet. Sollecito claims his computer had recorded his offline usage (all during the time of the murder), but Mignini's people destroyed Sollecito's PC and that evidence is lost. The problem was highlighted when Prosecutor Mignini was "convicted" of judicial misconduct for illegal evidence with the Monster of Florence journalists, but even still, he is allowed to serve in the courtroom, pending the appeal of judgment (like a fox in the henhouse with chicken confirmed in the belly, but was it these chickens?!?!). I hope this makes sense: the conviction is not really set until the appeal stages have determined that it is, in fact, a valid conviction. Hence, we believe that Mignini might have been tried, convicted, and guilty as a skunk for using illegal evidence, but he is free to falsify more evidence, in court, until his appeal-process lands him in prison for years. That's why we hesitate to say "convicted" for Guede, Knox or Sollecito. In Texas, a person can be judged "guilty" but released on appeal bond if the sentence is below 15 years and 1 day. -08:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the above discussion. Acuram states that Guede, Knox and Sollecito's are "are not presumed innocent any more" (unless and until the verdict is successfully appealed), whereas Zlykinskyja says they are still "presumed innocent" under Italian law (I don't think U.S. law is relevant to this). Can anyone please clarify exactly what their status is under Italian law (preferably with a citation)? I don't think it is our job to discuss whether they are guilty or innocent, but it is our job to be clear and factually accurate about their status under law. Thanks. Bluewave (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Technically, they are still considered innocent (under art. 27 of the Italian Constitution) — but that only means that they cannot be gaoled to serve their twenty-five or twenty-six years, and in fact they are gaoled as a precautionary measure —. But they've been found guilty, we cannot overlook that; if their appeal were deemed unreceivable, this verdict would become res judicata. Scholars in Italy have been debating for years over the meaning of the presumption of innocence clause in the Constitution — and the weight carried by a first-instance conviction —; suffice it to say, I think, that although still technically presumed innocent, a Court of Law has already ruled once on the matter — and convicted. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Salvio! Now I understand exactly why I'm confused :-) Bluewave (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Arkuram is wrong on this issue of the presumption of innocence. But we quite a while ago debated this at great length, so I don't think we need to revisit this issue all over again. The Italian system and the US system are very similar on the presumption of innocence. The presumption applies until conviction. Upon conviction the presumption disappears. However, if an appeal of the conviction is filed the presumption is reinstated upon the date of filing. On March 4 or 5, 2010 the lawyers for Amanda and Raffaele signed papers stating that they were appealing the motivation report "on all points." Thus, when they filed their appeal, the presumption of innocence was reinstated. Now they will have a trial de novo at the Court of Appeals with a new jury and new judges. They will have the opportunity to provide new evidence. Their lawyers have stated that they intend to introduce additional evidence on the DNA evidence. At the trial de novo, there will be new findings of fact, new determinations of guilt or innocence. Until there is a FINAL determination of guilt or innocence, the presumption of innocence still applies. That is how it works in the US and by everything I have been able to find, the Italian system is identical as far as the presumption of innocence is concerned. In terms of res judicata, in both the US and in Italy res judicata does not apply during the appeal period. In the US, for example, if someone is convicted of a crime and then dies AFTER he filed his appeal papers, but before the appeal is completed, his conviction is deemed vacated because the presumption of innocence was reinstated when he filed his appeal and there was no final determination of his guilt or innocence before his death. If he is convicted and then dies BEFORE he files his appeal papers, then the conviction stands under principles of res judicata. Thus, since Amanda and Raffaele have initiated their appeal as of March 4 or 5, 2010(although the specific points of appeal will not be revealed until the detailed papers are filed by next Monday) their current status is "presumed innocent." Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It is roughly correct. In Italy the presumption of innocence is not reinstated after an Appeal has been filed, but applies until the term to appeal has expired. And the death of the defendant during a trial estingue (literally, extinguishes, that is to say render null and void) the crime itself. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, my username is Akuram, not Acuram or Arkuram! :)

Second, I still contradict Zlykinskyja, since the presumption of innocence is to my knowledge not stated in any law in Italy (after conviction). The general principle is stated in the constitution, yes, but it is open to debate if and how this is applicable to a convicted person. And make no mistake, Knox, Sollecito and Guede are all convicted of murder! Their convictions still stand until they are appealed succesfully. So, it would be misleading to over higlight the fact that they maintain that they are innocent, while they are convicted. This would, in my humble opinion lead to a none NPOV. Akuram (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Akuram, Salvio is an Italian lawyer. He agrees with me that the Italian and US applications of the presumption of innocence are essentially the same. In both the US and Italy the presumption of innocence continues until the appeal process is completed. Unless you can cite to something backing you up, I think you need to concede the issue. It is impossible for the presumption of innocence to apply to the appeal process, and for the defendants to be viewed as "guilty" due to the first trial----at the very same time. A person cannot be officially guilty and officially presumed innocent at the same time. That is all I want to say about this dead horse. Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Really, folks, this is wikipedia. Rather than repeat an argument, please just link to it. Since Salvio is an Italian lawyer, it should be trivial for him to provide a cite to back up the statement and bring an end to this discussion. Just stating it carries no weight without the cite, per WP:V. User:LeadSongDog come howl 22:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Here you are:

1 The defendant is not considered guilty until final judgment is passed. (art. 27 const.)

2 Sono irrevocabili le sentenze pronunciate in giudizio contro le quali non è ammessa impugnazione diversa dalla revisione.

Se l'impugnazione è ammessa, la sentenza è irrevocabile quando è inutilmente decorso il termine per proporla o quello per impugnare l'ordinanza che la dichiara inammissibile. Se vi è stato ricorso per cassazione, la sentenza è irrevocabile dal giorno in cui è pronunciata l'ordinanza o la sentenza che dichiara inammissibile o rigetta il ricorso.

Il decreto penale di condanna è irrevocabile quando è inutilmente decorso il termine per proporre opposizione o quello per impugnare l'ordinanza che la dichiara inammissibile. (art. 648 c.p.p. — here the Code states which verdicts are irrevocable)

3 Salvo che sia diversamente disposto, le sentenze e i decreti penali hanno forza esecutiva quando sono divenuti irrevocabili.

Le sentenze di non luogo a procedere hanno forza esecutiva quando non sono più soggette a impugnazione. ([http://www.altalex.com/index.php?idnot=36871 art. 650 c.p.p. — here the Code states that only irrevocable verdicts are enforceable).

This is an interesting short essay (in Italian), written by a Judge of the Appellate Court of Assizes of Rome, dealing with new evidence during the trial de novo. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Salvio, any chance for an english translation (I mean point 2 and 3)? Akuram (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Only by me, if it is enough...

The verdicts delivered at the end of a trial that can no longer be appealed — except by way of the review of trial — are irrevocable.

If a verdict is appealable, it becomes irrevocable after the term to appeal it has expired or when the term to appeal the Court order declaring unreceivable the appeal has expired. If the order was appealed before the Court of Cassation, its verdict is irrevocable from the day when the order or the sentence (sentenza) was delivered, that rebuts the appeal or declares it unreceivable.

The penal decree of conviction becomes irrevocable when the term to challenge it or when term to appeal the order declaring unreceivable the challenge has expired. (art. 648 c.p.p.)

Unless otherwise provided for by law, sentences and penal decrees of conviction are enforceable only when they have become irrevocable.

Sentences of non luogo a procedere (no grounds to proceed) are enforceable when they are no longer appealable. (art. 650 c.p.p.)

Sorry if I made any mistakes or if I were not clear enough. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm.... that still presents the question, what is meant (intended) by "until final jugdement is passed". Does the final judgement include appeals? Or is this the written down principle "innocent until prooven guilty", which only holds up till the conviction. And convicted they were. I still believe that one needs to find a source or citation for the fact, that already the attempted appeal nullifies the guilt of the convicted person and not the other way round. But apparently this is a dead horse and Knox/Sollecito supporters don't need sources or citations. Akuram (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that we're starting to see books published by the professional journalists that were at the trial, it becomes obvious that your ( Zlykinskyja) efforts to defend Knox are the amateur hour. It's well past time that this article started including the facts that came out in the trial and are being reported in the books, and you can give up your amateur effort to free her. The time trial section should be the straight story of how Knox and Sollecito killed her that was presented at the trial, instead of your fantasy version. It's clear now that Knox and Sollecito brought Rudy back to the cottage to complete a drug deal and it's indefensible that it's not mentioned in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Salvio, that's very constructive.User:LeadSongDog come howl 14:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

IP 173.25.240.217, please stop with these personal attacks. My input into this article does not consitute "amateur hour" any more than anyone else's input does. Furthermore, my writing here does not constitute an "amateur effort to free her" anymore than your efforts constitute an amateur effort to convict her. Under Wikipedia rules both sides of the story need to be included in the article. You might not like that, but that is the policy. In the meantime, you need to stop posting your repeated personal attacks against me on this Talk page, including saying that I should give up participating in the article. That just isn't going to happen. I will be participating whether you like it or not. Furthermore, the information that I have included or tried to include does not constitute my "fantasy". I have included only well sourced material from mainstream US media. My contributions are valuable since without my input this article would be largely one sided in violation of NPOV policy. Please stop with this nonsense. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not the Friends of Amanda webpage. That's great that you personally believe Amanda Knox is innocent. But that's not what the courts in Perugia have decided. They've found her guilty of murder. The "Murder of Meredith Kercher" is about how Guede, Sollecito, and Knox killed her. Since you will be participating whether I like it or not, maybe it's time I started making a lot of edits to the article. Sound fun for you? Or maybe the article should be edited by people other than us that don't have a POV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

After all this debate, how about someone writing a short section on the current legal status of the three accused? I'd have a go at it myself, but I'm still not entirely clear what it is! I think it is the kind of thing that would be a useful addition to the article--certainly for readers like me who live in countries where there is no automatic right of appeal and where a defendant is considered guilty if a court finds them guilty. Bluewave (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be more than glad to do this, but, actually, I do not know what to write... The situation is: they are still presumed innocent, but they've been convicted by a Court of first instance. If this Court rejects or declares the appeal unreceivable, the conviction becomes res judicata; if the Court quashes or changes the verdict, it's this verdict that will become res judicata, if it's not appealed or if the Court of Cassation rejects or declares unreceivable the appeal. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Things should be clearer by early next week. That is the deadline for filing the points of appeal. If the defense attorneys miss the deadline or if the court rejects the filings (possibly due to form) and does not extend the deadline, then the guilty verdicts becomes res judicata and Amanda and Raffaele are deemed officially guilty. I doubt this will happen though. By next week the points of appeal will probably be properly before the court, with the presumption of innocence of Amanda and Raffaele safely intact until the moment the new jury at the Court of Appeals announces its verdict in late 2010. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I edited the text of the article very slightly to make it clear that both sides have a right of appeal and I added a few sentences to say that the prosecution filed their appeal yesterday. Bluewave (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

If one makes a request for mediation it's a good idea to check on the current status. Hipocrite accepted and is now waiting for response. Please, everyone, indicate over there if you're accepting as well. Cheers. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Where are we now

Having not edited the article for nearly 2 weeks (and actually not spent much time looking at Wikipedia in that time), I thought I'd re-read the whole article and clarify at least my own view of where we are. So here goes...

• I think the lead is the best part. We've managed to keep it to fact, not opinions. Some of the wording could be tightened up, but it summarises the events. Maybe there could be less detail about some things and more about others, but that is not a major problem.
• The rest of 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 worked hard to agree neutral versions of particular sections, only to have less neutral descriptions of the same thing reappear somewhere else.
• The very negative portrayal of Guede (particularly compared with the other defendants) is something that has been discussed here on the talk page but has not yet really been tackled. 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.
• There is a huge amount of detail about timelines and forensic details. We have had discussions before about the purpose of the article not being to encourage readers to be "armchair CSI investigators" but I think the article still reads like this.
• With the controversies section, it is difficult to distinguish genuine controversies from those that are purely invented by newspapers to liven up the story on a dull day. For instance, there is still 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 remains an open issue, discussed earlier on this page. I have suggested a way forward, but without managing to provoke a debate! Whatever the way forward, I think that we should 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.

Just my thoughts on the tough job facing us with this article. Bluewave (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see the editors read "Angel Face" by Barbie Latza Nadeau before you go any further. A Newsweek reporter in Italy for 14 years, she was at the trial, and she adds a lot of important details about the crime that haven't been included her at all. She talks about the evidence presented against the two at the trial in great detail. There are lots of things that point to these two having committed the crime that are not even hinted at in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, I agree that the negative portrayal of Guede could be put into a better context. To go along with your example of his portrayal as a "drifter", Guede is refered to here as a "known drug dealer" .. while the article makes only a passing, almost casual mention of Knox admitting to drug use the night of the crime. This is one point that I am surprised has not received much more attention, after all, marijuana is illegal in Italy. Jonathan (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

Users here should be aware that a mediation on this topic has been opened at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-03-26/Murder of Meredith Kercher. Everyone is welcome to participate, and participating does not place any requirements on you to do anything - Mediation is a way to find a consensus everyone can live with. Hipocrite (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

There are a few factual developments due in the next few days—the filing of appeals by all the parties (one of which was filed yesterday). I assume there is no problem in our adding a brief update of these events to the article, to keep it current, while the mediation takes place, is there? Thanks. Bluewave (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ooops. I added an edit with responsive info to Bluewave's last edit before I read this notice that mediation had started. I thought it was starting after April 29. I agree with Bluewave that there will be a lot of new info next week, so I think we need to clarify whether that new info can be added, given that the mediation will not be officially starting till after April 29. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can edit this article however they want. I don't have magic police powers as the mediator, I have magic powers of not caring about this article and being able to broker an agreement everyone can live with. Hipocrite (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Mignini's conviction

The fact that he was convicted ("ironically" or not, which, by the way, is not a neutral way of putting it) has nothing to do with the appeal process; it's neither a matter of citations as you appear to imply here, nor a matter of censorship as you imply here. As I've repeated over and over again, it has no bearing whatsoever on the appeal process, nor or on the outcome of said appeal. It can be placed in the controversies section, not here. It would be off topic and rather POV. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite has suggested that we apply the BRD process for any controversial issues (and TMC-k has suggested this previously). Zlykinskyja has Boldly edited; Salvio has Reverted; Salvio has opened a Discussion. Why don't we try to develop this discussion, rather than edit warring. To that end: I agree with Salvio that the charges against Mignini have nothing to do with the appeal. They should be covered in the article, but not here. I also think we should generally avoid repeating the views of journalists, such as what they regard as ironic. We use media sources to establish facts but we should surely try to avoid reporting journalists' opinions. Bluewave (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2010

(UTC)

The information is in a quote from a reputable news source, in response to a quote from Mignini. His quote is included as his opinion of the matter. It is not fact, but Mignini's opinion. Including the opinions of others about what such a highly controversial figure as Mignini is doing is completely appropriate. Mignini has been convicted in a first trial of abuse of his powers as a public official and has been barred from holding public office for the rest of his life. He continues to exercise his public powers against Knox and Sollecito pending his appeal. Surely this is a highly unusual situation, and something that would never, ever be allowed in the US. I have never heard of such a thing ever happening in the US. It is highly notable information from the US perspective that the very man who is trying to impose life sentences on K and S has such a background of criminal abuse allegations, since in the US a prosecutor facing such charges would be immediately suspended from his job pending the final outcome of the criminal proceedings against him. The fact that a prosecutor with such a background is the same one seeking life sentences against K and S is highly relevant to the claim by the Knox family that what Mignini is doing is "harassment." The abuse charges against Mignini also involve harassment in the form of intimidating and wiretapping journalists.

There is no rule against including the opinions of news journalists--this article has lots and lots of that already. There seems to be one standard for the editors on the pro-guilt side of the case, and other standards for the editors on the pro-innocence side of the case. To say that we cannot use a quote from a journalistic source imposes a whole new limitation that has never been used to limit the pro-guilt side of the case. As another example of double standards, Bluewave included a quote in this same paragraph from the Daily Mail. Yet he recently deleted my use of this very same source, the Daily Mail, on the basis that the Daily Mail is not reputable but more of a tabloid. So its a "tabloid that cannot be used" when it has information supporting my edits, but it is a "reliable source" when it has information that Bluewave wants to use. This "double standard" will then be enforced by "consensus", which means that I will be automatically outnumbered and voted down by the pro-guilt side of the article, resulting in a POV outcome. Thus, the dynamics of the numbers make it extremely difficult to achieve NPOV in this article, despite NPOV being the essential goal of Wikipedia. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:TLDR Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Trying to pick out some the main points from Z's post...

• Yes the stuff about Mignini's conviction is from a reliable source and is notable. However, I would say there are better places to put it in the article than in a section about the filing of appeals. It would be inappropriate if, every time we mentioned Mignini, we said something negative about him. Every time we mention a statement by Knox, we don't add "which is ironic, given that she has been convicted of giving false evidence". The same applies to Mignini.
• The quote by Mignini looks relevant because it helps to explain why the prosecution have filed their appeal. By contrast, the quote about his conviction is purely a personal attack and sheds no light on the appeal process.
• With regard to our including the opinion of journalists, I would say that they are only notable in sections such as that on press reactions. Otherwise, they are just the opinion of one person. You're right that we shouldn't have double standards on this, and I would suggest removing all journalistic opinion from the article unless there are exceptional cases.
• With regard to the reliability of the Mail as a source, I previously said that it has some claims to serious journalism although not being regarded as the "quality press".[2] Nick Pisa does at least go to Italy to research his articles and does at least speak the language. I would have quoted The Times but I think they have lost interest in the Kercher murder. I don't recall the occasion when I deleted part of the article on the basis that it was sourced from the Mail: could Zlykinskyja please remind me what that was.

Bluewave (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

3RR

Would you please stop attacking me [3]; it is evident that you misunderstood the meaning of the 3rr rule (and risked violating it, yesterday: 1st revert, 2nd revert and 3rd revert). You're trying to insert wrong or superfluous pieces of information:

1. it is superfluous to write that new evidence will be admitted and new witnesses heard, because that's implicit in the concept of trial de novo, because testimonies are a kind of evidence and because new evidence will be admitted only if the Court allows it;
2. it is wrong that there will be another Prosecutor: under article 570.III of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Mignini might be the prosecutor again. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Salvio: You made at least three revert edits yesterday, but I did not say anything about it on the Talk page. Now here you start a whole topic about it on the Talk page to attack me. Why don't YOU stop attacking ME! I have had it with these personal attacks that you have been making for weeks, including trying to get me banned or blocked for no legitimate reason. That is not something that I have ever tried to do to you and the other people who have tried for weeks to get me banned or blocked (essentially because my views on the case are opposite of yours and the others), and I think that speaks volumes about who has been making the personal attacks around here. In terms of my reverts, those were only in response to YOUR efforts to repeatedly revert my work, which you do over and over. I hardly ever revert other people's work, yet that has been done COUNTLESS times to me, and I wish people would cut that out. How would you like it if your work was constantly reverted like that.

As for your deletions of the information about Mignini's convictions I don't see that as legitimate at all. Since it now appears that he will be part of the appeal, because he filed his own appeal, and could be the main prosecutor as you now say, that makes his criminal conviction for abuse of power in another murder case all the more important. If he is someone who is willing to break the law in a criminal manner in his handling of murder cases, then that is information relevant to any assessement of his highly controversial handling of the Sollecito and Knox case. This information is disturbing to people in the US, and is constantly noted in the media. Thus, the information about his conviction for abuse of power and abetting should not have been deleted from the article yesterday.

In terms of your deletions of the information about new evidence and new witnesses, that issue is far from self-evident and needs to be clarified in the article. It is new information to US readers because that is usually not allowed in our appeals, unless a new trial is ordered as a RESULT of the appeal. But since we consider new trials and appeals two completely different procedures, there will be many questions on the part of US readers and the information should not have been deleted from the article. You should consider that I am writing for a US audience (as well as other English speakers) that does not understand Italian criminal procedures. What you see as self-evident is not self-evident to those who are not Italian lawyers. If I have said something incorrect, then the information should be corrected not deleted entirely.

You also deleted the information about the defense lawyers stating that Mignini "botched the case", claiming that is POV. No, it is not POV, it is a correct interpretation of the views of the defense counsel as reported in the newspaper. The fact that the defense attorneys express their personal opinions in the case does not make the inclusion of their views here POV for purposes of Wikipedia policy. The opinions on both sides of the case are properly included under the NPOV policy. Clearly, if only the prosecution opinions are included, this article can never become NPOV. While the opinion expressed of Mignini's work may be harsh, I think it pales in comparison to the opinions already included in the article such as Knox having "the eyes of a killer" and "a diabolical soul".

I would appreciate it if you could cool it with the deletions. Thank you.Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

DNA Evidence Deletions

Bluewave has raised the issue again of whether there is too much info on the DNA evidence/section and whether or not that info/section should be deleted or beefed up. I think yesterday's appeal filing shows that the DNA issue is now front and center of this case. The DNA section needs to be beefed up, not deleted, IMHO.

Most importantly I ask people to seriously consider this question: If Knox was involved in a violent attack on Kercher, how could her DNA, hair, fiber or fingerprints not be found at the murder scene, as Guede's DNA was found? Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Could I respectfully suggest that it is not our role to consider the implications of the lack of Knox's DNA etc at the murder scene. That is the job of the police, and the courts. Our job is to report the facts in a neutral way, rather than trying to draw our own conclusions from them. Bluewave (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, you should also consider that a murder weapon wasn't found in the room either, but that doesn't mean it wasn't never there at all. Wikipedia does not need to play CSI. Jonathan (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Detailed timeline

The earlier discussion about deleting the detailed timeline has been archived. The presentation in the timeline doesn't even come close to Wikipedia standards and the events seem to be covered in the body of the article. Should I just go ahead and delete this section? Footwarrior (talk) 04:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is currently the subject of mediation (see somewhere above). Hipocrite, who is leading the mediation has suggested that, during the mediation process, editors restrict themselves to the WP:BRD process—ie making Bold edits, Reverting such edits if we disagree with them, then Discussing the issue (rather than edit warring). My advice (for what its worth) is that follow Hipocrite's advice and make the bold edit then, if it is reverted, open the discussion. I know the timeline has been discussed before but I would be inclined to stick to Hipocrite's proposed approach while the mediation is taking place. Bluewave (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with that at all. Any major changes to the article, like deleting or modifying a whole section, should be discussed in mediation. The way I read what Hipocrite was saying is that typical edits can be done outside of the mediation process, but not major changes like restructuring the article or deleting sections. There has been a ton of work put into the timeline section. There is no need to rush to delete that section. It does no harm just sitting there, and would best be taken up during formal mediation. Zlykinskyja (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I said. There are no prohibitions against boldly editing this article, except that I suggest you not edit war. Hipocrite (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

From my perspective I would prefer that major deletions and restructuring be discussed in mediation first so that material is not removed without some sort of formal review. I assume that is the type of review that mediation can accomplish if requested. It gets discouraging when a lot of time is put in to do the research and writing and then it gets deleted. I think the timeline can be improved upon and made a useful section in the article. It helps me to focus on the sequence of events when I look at it, and I would think some others find it useful as well. But I recognize that the timeline needs a lot more work, as do many of the other sections. This is all a work in progress. It is getting done in bits and pieces since we are just volunteers. I think the more that is added to the article, the more informative it becomes. Then later, after everything is added, we can go back and do some pruning and tightening up. At least, that is what I have had in mind as one of the writers. Zlykinskyja (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation is not a formal review. It's a way for all parties to reach an agreement on something. If you don't want to put a lot of time in to do research and writing because you are worried that mediation will reach agreement - with you - then wait. Right now, you've asked that we wait to start the mediation for another 11 days because you're not able to edit. Just because that process is delayed dosen't mean this article is frozen at all. Hipocrite (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

One of the topics that I hope we can agree on somewhere is the courtroom events section. I have added a templete to mark this section as needing more discussion. But I don't intend to make any major changes to that section until we hash it out in mediation since it strikes me that that would be the more harmonious way to try to change someone else's work. I understand that things are not frozen, it just seems that mediation would be the better format for major changes. Zlykinskyja (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Persuant to my mediation strategy, as opposed to tagging the section, could you instead rewrite it in your userspace to the version that you would prefer? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Response on Mediation page.Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to a discussion of the detailed timeline section. Is there anyone willing to defend the six lines for the time period 13:10 to 13:16? In the "Timeline and police investigation" section, these events were described more appropriately (i.e. "The door to Kercher's room was forced open") for an encyclopedia The times are not known to the precision suggested by the timeline. Even if we knew the precise times, they are not important to understanding the case. Footwarrior (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Issue of prejudicial pretrial publicity and trial impact

Aside from the fact, that this section badly needs to be rewritten is there a reason why it cannot be in the "various controversies" section [4]? Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Appeal section

I have made a bold edit to the appeal section which appeared to me to be written in a highly-POV manner. I have tried to remove all the opinion from both the prosecution and defence parts and leave just the facts. The previous version:

• confused opinion with fact eg "The appeal also highlights that the DNA evidence in the case was seriously flawed";
• included a lot of non-notable opinion (not notable that Knox's parents and her lawyers think she is innocent);
• made the defence part totally disproportionate to the coverage of the prosecution case;
• read like it had been written by the "Friends of Amanda" (though I know it wasn't).

I think my new version looks more balanced and encyclopaedic but this edit was made in the spirit of WP:BRD! Bluewave (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave: I find your repeated attempts at censorship very disturbing. There is no rule of Wikipedia that opinions cannot be included in the article if they are identified as opinion, relevant, and well sourced. You do not have the authority to make up your own new rule that opinions on one side of the case cannot be included in an article. It is also troubling that you consider the opinions of the police and prosecutor and court as "fact", while the views of the defense lawyers and family and other lawyers are viewed as "opinion." In realty, both sides of the case are merely opinion since no one really knows what happened that night. It is merely the opinion of those on the prosecution/police/court side that Knox engaged in a murder and other specific acts, yet that is stated as fact all over the article and Knox is painted on here as a horrible killer. If you are going to continue to try to block 'the other side of the story' from being included in this story, (even during mediation!) then I will have no choice but to notify the Wikipedia Foundation of what is going on, since by blocking the other side of the story, Knox will end up being defamed. There is no way anyone should be painting Knox as a killer, and then blocking the inclusion of information that presents the other side of the story. ENOUGH! Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)