| Revision as of 13:05, 5 May 2014 editTarc (talk | contribs)24,217 edits →Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann: - don't get too worked up over it← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 00:44, 20 December 2024 edit undoJas88 (talk | contribs)63 edits →Guede speaks: ReplyTag: Reply |
| (95 intermediate revisions by 51 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}} |
|
{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{Notice|1=This talk page is semi-protected. If you want to request an edit on this page click ] instead.}} |
|
{{Notice|1=This talk page is semi-protected. If you want to request an edit on this page click ]}} |
|
{{British English|date=September 2010}} |
|
{{British English|date=September 2010}} |
|
|
{{Afd-merged-from|Trial of Knox and Sollecito|Trial of Knox and Sollecito|19 December 2009}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
|
|
{{ITN talk|5 December|2009}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=B|listas=Kercher, Murder Of Meredith}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Crime|class=B |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|blp=other|listas=Kercher, Murder Of Meredith| |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography}} |
|
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = yes |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=low}} |
|
| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = yes |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Death|importance=low}} |
|
| b3 <!--Structure --> = yes |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=Low}} |
|
| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = yes |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Italy|importance=low}} |
|
| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = yes |
|
|
|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Death|class=B|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Women}} |
|
{{WikiProject Italy|class=B|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|user=Corinne|date=5 December 2015}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{top 25 report|January 26, 2014}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|text=More banners| |
|
|
|
{{Banner holder|collapsed=yes| |
|
{{ITN talk|5 December|2009}} |
|
|
|
{{Merged-from|Meredith Kercher|13 November 2007}} |
|
{{afd-merged-from|Trial of Knox and Sollecito|Trial of Knox and Sollecito|19 December 2009}} |
|
|
{{merged-from|Meredith Kercher|13 November 2007}} |
|
{{Merged-from|Amanda Knox|13 November 2007}}}} |
|
{{merged-from|Amanda Knox|13 November 2007}}}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 300K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|counter = 37 |
|
|counter = 38 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 2 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I |age=30 |units=days}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|target=Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive index |
|
|target=/Archive index |
|
|mask=Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive <#> |
|
|mask=/Archive <#> |
|
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article tools|1=Murder of Meredith Kercher}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Document all evidence? == |
|
|
Can we reasonably document all evidence? So much is missing here. Article does not talk about footprints found at the scene or mix blood in the bathroom. I'm sure there's plenty more missing, as I'm finding more and more as I dig on my own. --] (]) 20:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:'At the scene' would mean in Meridith Kercher's bedroom. There were no 'footprints there', just a number of bloody shoeprints (like the one the article mentions found beside a piece of glass fron the broken window) left by Guede. It is true that the police originally said said the shoe prints were Sollecito's but "Sollecito's own family made up the shortfall in police work by scouring the country for the sneaker that matched the bloody footprint at the crime scene, a Nike shoe but not, as the police maintained, one that matched Sollecito's Nike shoe. Eventually, Sollecito's uncle Giuseppe found an out-of-stock pair of Nikes in a sales rack with the same swirly pattern on the tread, and emphatically not the shoe that Sollecito owned" see . It was ruled the shoeprints were not Sollecito, by the supreme court I think. It was much the same story with the footprint on the bathmat. You're turning up old news stories I think. Anyway it's not encyclopedic to try and document all the evidence. ] (]) 17:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::It should state whether all evidence is presented or not. The article makes no indication of its intention in that regard. --] (]) 05:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Lumumba== |
|
|
Did Knox ever pay the judgment to Lumumba for falsely accusing him of the murder? The article doesn't say that I could find. ] (]) 00:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::She's appealing that verdict.] (]) 16:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Is there a source for the statement that Amanda Knox raised the alarm? == |
|
|
|
|
|
The article says that "The alarm had been raised by one of her flatmates, Amanda Knox". Does that statement need a source? My reading of the trial transcript translations suggests that was not the case. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Books == |
|
|
I want to make it clear that I do not care if my book is posted on this article. I am here to point out how biased the editor was when removing it. It was brought to my attention that an anti-Amanda Knox group was gloating over this edit on their forum so I decided to come take a look. It is sad that after all these years, this article continues to be controlled by biased editors. |
|
|
|
|
|
My book is titled: "Injustice in Perugia - a book detailing the wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito" |
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the comment about the edit: |
|
|
''Binksternet (talk | contribs) |
|
|
(Undid revision 599393738 by 210.94.201.41 (talk) rv... no need for self-published book by someone trying to leverage the case for personal gain)'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Binksternet boldly accuses me of trying to leverage the case for personal gain. Why? |
|
|
|
|
|
Leila Schneps and Coralie Colmez added this case to their book "Math on trial" in the attempt to sell books. Amanda Knox brought far more attention to their book than it would have received otherwise. The Meredith Kercher murder case has no place in a book about math. Why are these authors not accused of leveraging this case for personal gain? In fact, why aren't all authors accused of trying to leverage the case for personal gain? Have the other authors made a profit from their books? Why not simply say that the book is not allowed because it is self-published? Why did the editor feel the need to take a cheap shot? Just curious. ] (]) 19:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Books, part 2 == |
|
|
"The Forgotten Killer" should be on the books list. Douglas Preston is a well respected NY Times best selling author. I added the book and it was removed by Tarc. Tarc stated: #1 Anyone can publish eBooks via Amazon Digital Services, #2, the "Guede is the real solo killer" angle has now been officially refuted by the Italian courts, so this now falls under the "conspiracy theory" category, which we do not need. |
|
|
|
|
|
This is false. Tarc is using the Italian Court system as the judge of the content of the book. Tarc has failed to realize that the process is not complete until the Italian Supreme Court finalizes the verdicts. Nothing has been "officially refuted" by anyone. Tarc's extreme bias is glaring. ] (]) 22:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:We don't need to place fringe books by self-published authors into an article's bibliography. If it was released by a legitimate (i.e. real) publisher, that would be a different story. The fact that the subject matter is akin to an ]-esque ] is just icing on the cake, seeing how the official court position is that . ] (]) 23:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thank you for freely exposing your extreme bias Tarc. I expected nothing less from you. ] (]) 03:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Bruce, WP usually doesn't allow self-published books. ] (]) 00:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Sure, I understand that to a point Cla68. This is a unique case where a well known and well established NY Times best selling author has published a book. |
|
|
Of course Tarc could have simply stated that Misplaced Pages does not allow self published books, but instead Tarc decided to make a ridiculous comparison to Oj Simpson's "If I Did It." There is absolutely no comparison. A group of well respected experts came together with Douglas Preston to analyse this case. Tarc has once again failed to realize that the case has not been finalized by the Italian Justice System. The same two people that Tarc wishes to condemn were also declared innocent by an Italian judge in an Italian courtroom, and both were released and went home to their families. This has been a long drawn out process in Italy. Tarc should keep that in mind when falsely claiming that the Italian court has "officially refuted" the lone attacker theory. Nothing is finalized. The defense arguments should not be veiwed as a "conspiracy theory" and the argument should definitely not be made by a Misplaced Pages editor that is currently editing this article. In my opinion, Tarc has shown extreme bias and should not be anywhere near this article. ] (]) 03:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Guede speaks== |
|
:Well-respected by who, your injusticeinperugia.com crowd? Pass. Your addition was problematic for two reasons, that's all there was to it. Focusing on one is a bit of a ]. ] (]) 04:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
. He claims that Knox was present at the murder. Probably should be included in this article. ] (]) 23:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
::Have you even bothered to look at the authors of the book? Leave your bias aside for 5 minutes and read the list of people involved in the book. Your sarcastic remark about my injusticeinperugia.com crowd shows your true intentions once again. Take a look at the distinguished people you are attempting to smear with your snide remarks: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:It's already noted that he initially denied she was there (on the police tape) then changed his story on that point. ] (]) 00:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
DOUGLAS PRESTON is a journalist and author who has published 25 books, nonfiction and fiction, several of which have been #1 New York Times bestsellers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== links to original case files and documents] (]) 00:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC) == |
|
JOHN DOUGLAS, who served as special agent for the FBI for twenty-five years, is the Bureau’s pioneer of behavioral profiling and modern criminal investigative analysis. He authored the landmark study of incarcerated serial offenders that ultimately led to the FBI’s operational profiling program. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi fellow Wikipedians, |
|
MARK OLSHAKER is an Emmy Award-winning filmmaker and New York Times bestselling nonfiction author who has worked closely with many of the nation’s leading experts in law enforcement and criminal justice. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have posted online 1000s of documents related to the murder case including police investigation reports, prosecutor files, defense team reports, courtroom testimony, court motivation reports, etc. The website is http:/www.themurderofmeredithkercher.net. Is it okay to put links to some of the original case files? |
|
STEVE MOORE retired from the FBI following a 25-year career as a Special Agent and Supervisory Special Agent. During his tenure, he ran Al Qaeda investigations for the Joint Terrorism Task Force in Los Angeles, and later headed the investigation of terror attacks against the US throughout Pakistan and Asia. Steve has received multiple awards from the US Department of Justice for his successful US and overseas investigations, which ran the gamut from bombings to school shootings, anthrax threats to kidnappings and murders to international terrorist organizations. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are also a few minor mistakes in the otherwise good article (as one example: Meredith didn't have seven knife wounds; she suffered two major knife wounds and 10 minor ones and at least 39 distinct bruises.) I can provide links to the original autopsy report and a few of the follow-up consultant reports. Any report, presentation, photo or video the website has been censored out of respect for the Kercher family. |
|
Please tell me that there is someone here with some common sense that can see that the book in question is written by well respected people. I would suggest that Tarc read the information on the links that he provides in an attempt to educate me. The suggestion that my argument is "a bit of a strawman" is absurd. I acknowledged both points that Tarc made. I did nothing at all to create a strawman argument and I took nothing that Tarc said out of context. Tarc is openly biased. Unfortunately that has been a problem here for years and Misplaced Pages doesn't seem to care. Jimmy Wales got involved at one point and was mocked by the biased editors that control this page. That's when I knew this article would forever remain hopeless. ] (]) 07:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
: To ] and ]: There is simply no policy that forbids self-published books categorically, as you can see here ] (and perhaps already were aware of). Wiki policy says that self-published books are reliable "when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Considering Mr. Peston has had true crime books and articles published by Simon & Schuster, Smithsonian Magazine, and others, as well as the fact that the other authors have considerable expertise in law enforcement, I am struggling to see why the book doesn't deserve a mention on this page. ] (]) 15:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure if linking to 'original' case documents is acceptable in this particular case. |
|
::I'm with Tarc and Cla68 on this one. It's a self-published book that you're wanting to add in a BLP article. That's a no-no. See ]. <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 15:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Tarc should step away and move on to other things. Tarc's comments clearly show that Tarc is extremely biased. Tarc is also misrepresenting the current status of this case. Ravensfire, I understand that you have cited a Misplaced Pages guideline. Please tell me why "Math on Trial" belongs on this article page. The book is about math. The authors added this case to the book simply to help sell it. This case has nothing to do with math. One of the authors is a regular poster on an anti-Amanda Knox website. You are accepting that book simply because it has a publisher. And you are rejecting NY Times best selling author Douglas Preston because he chose to publish himself. Everyone here should be well aware of the fact that Douglas Preston can get a publisher anytime he wants. He is a very well respected proven author that has no problem getting published. He has also joined other well respected people in writing "The Forgotten Killer." I think we all know why "Math on Trial" is on this article page. The editors controlling this page are friends with the anti-Knox crowd that supports the authors. Just read Tarc's comments to gain an understanding. ] (]) 16:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Ravensfire, you cite a guideline for living persons. The focus of this article is not a living person. "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person." Please tell me how this is relevant. We are not discussing Amanda Knox's article here. We are discussing Meredith Kercher. ] (]) 16:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Bruce - read ] again. The entire thing. Are living people involved? It's not, of course, that the book tries to prove the innocence of a living person. Nope - it's just about non-living people. Yup, that's it. <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 16:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::The reasoning is flawed. The book discusses the murder of Meredith Kercher. That just happens to be the focus of this article. To claim that other living people are involved is silly. Also, why is "Math on Trial" on this article page? Look, I am biased as well, and therefore I have stayed away from editing this page. I only brought up the book to show how ridiculous all of this is. The article should be managed by non biased editors. People like Tarc and I should not edit. Yet, Misplaced Pages encourages Tarc to edit because Tarc edits other extremely important topics like Justin Bieber. The funny thing is that the biased editors are so angry that they cannot resist posting their thoughts when editing. Read Tarc's comments here. Read the comments by Binksternet about my book. The bias is glaring. ] (]) 17:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Based on the evidence at hand, I certainly think she did it, but apart from that I do not have a vested interest in the case or the person one way or the other. I don't write books (as you do) on the subject, I don't run/participate in a web forum devoted to conspiracies and minutiae (as you do) of the case. Having an opinion on a subject (i.e. me) is not the same as having a ] (i.e. you) with a subject. I flit to a variety of articles, mainly ]s, that have issues, even to dear ol' Justin Bieber's for a brief time. A serious subject such as this deserves and requires us to present solid, scholarly sources and bibliographies; not tabloids, not self-published eBooks. ] (]) 17:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You wrote: "I don't run/participate in a web forum devoted to conspiracies and minutiae(as you do) of the case." There is no truth in that statement. But the fact that you made that statement tells everyone here that you do have a vested interest in the online debate surrounding this case. If you had no interest, you would have no clue that I own a forum that discusses wrongful convictions. You have intentionally misrepresented the forum because you dislike it. Please do not insult the intelligence of anyone that may read this discussion. You have made your position very clear. You cannot possibly make an argument that the author's of "The Forgotten Killer" are not "solid, scholarly sources." Go ahead, give it a try. Embarrass yourself. Can anyone answer the question regarding "Math on Trial" that I have posted numerous times in this discussion?] (]) 17:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::So there's "no truth" to saying that you run a web forum devoted to this case, yet in the next breath you say "I own a forum"? I think you're getting a bit tongue-tied there, but I'm aware of your forum because it was once mentioned ''by you'' in a debate here a year or so ago. Perusing the archives we find the line , so that answers that tangent. Interestingly, after reading some more of the archives just now, I am reminded that Knox supporters have tried to pull this stuff before, e.g. ] and ], trying to get non-notable self-published books into the article. ] (]) 18:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I am not tongue tied at all. Maybe you are having trouble comprehending what I am saying. You misrepresented the forum describing it as a "web forum devoted to conspiracies and minutiae." That is false. Please tell me where I was tongue tied. You conveniently leave out your sarcastic comments when trying to claim that I tripped up. I am very clear in my writing and you are clearly dishonest in yours. You have also neglected to comment on the fact that you attempted to smear the distinguished authors I posted above. Like I said above, you cannot possibly make an argument that the author's of "The Forgotten Killer" are not "solid, scholarly sources. Excluding these distinguished authors simply because you disagree with their opinion is damaging to Misplaced Pages. Sure, you will mask your bias by painting a broad brush with Misplaced Pages's guidelines, but it will not hide your position here. I still have not received an answer as to why "Math on Trial" belongs here. It appears the only reason is that it has a publisher, making the Misplaced Pages guideline being enforced here against Douglas Preston look pretty silly. And just to add another note, the reference you make regarding my website refers to my website Injusticeinperugia.org, not the discussion forum that you are choosing to mock. The forum is a completely different website that you would have no knowledge of if you were not part of the online debate surrounding this case. Lets stop playing games. You are not looking good here. |
|
|
I just looked through the links you posted above, and sure enough, I found you to be one of the people arguing with Jimbo Wales when he made his concerns about the editors of this article known. But of course, you have no agenda here! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your efforts! Marcello |
|
Jimbo wrote: "Tarc, I just don't know how to talk to you about this. You don't seem to be hearing me. I'm trying really hard to understand you, and if you're saying something correct, I am not hearing it. You talk about "the conspiracy notion that tehre was a cover-up, a frame-up, or a case of police incompetence or rush to judgment regarding the current convicts". My point is that reliable sources contradict you on the point that at least some of these things are a "conspiracy notion". Yes, there are conspiracy theories in the world, crazy ones that make no sense, etc. JFK assassination theories - the example you gave - are a good example. But there are also cases, lots of them, where there are legitimate objections to convictions, cases where there are cover-ups, frame-ups, police incompetence, rush to judgment. So I'm not getting where or why or how you feel justified in calling the work of literally dozens of reliable sources calling this particular case into question, for reasons that - even if we don't agree with them in the end - don't seem particularly wild or crazy - "conspiracy notion"s that need to be minimized in the article. We have to follow the sources, and the sources are quite clear. If all you are saying is that some people who have edited this article in the past have been unreasonable, well, sure. On all sides. But you seem to be arguing for more than that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Murder of Meredith Kercher edit warring == |
|
Jimbo suggests following the sources. You would rather keep sources that you don't like off the page. But, I know, you are just an honest Misplaced Pages editor. :) ] (]) 20:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] ] |
|
:Jimbo's meddling in the article was an unfortunate and intrusive affair, long since past. He attempted to get the articles to give credence to your person p.o.v. ("Knox is innocent", "Italian police are inept", "cover-up", etc...), but as we now see in the court's rulings, those were just smokescreens, wishful thinking, and a bit of white-knighting. As for "following the sources", that is what we are doing now; the sources are abandoning the Knox-is-innocent campaign like rats fleeing a sinking ship. This is really beginnging to diverge form the original topic here, which was the attempt to insert links to non-notable, self-published books. Are we done with that now? ] (]) 20:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Haha, yeah, you have no interest in the case! Right! Do you think Judge Hellmann was a white knight? Why do you ignore the court ruling that declared Knox and Sollecito innocent and sent them home? Thank you for talking here. Every time you type, you tell us all that you have an agenda. You should not be editing this article. You wrote: "the sources are abandoning the Knox-is-innocent campaign like rats fleeing a sinking ship." Do you care to clarify that nonsense? The recent media has done nothing but report on Judge Nencini's report. You wrongly assume that the case is finalized. Judge Hellmann is speaking out about the current ruling. I guess you just see him as a "white knight" right? |
|
|
Judge slams Amanda Knox conviction report : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHnzUiTavzU |
|
|
] (]) 20:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote> |
|
Tarc, you have completely ignored the arguments made regarding "The Forgotten Killer" and instead you have decided to expose yourself once again as a biased editor with an agenda. Please make an argument that the author's of "The Forgotten Killer" are not "solid, scholarly sources. Please make the argument that Douglas Preston is non-notable. How about John Douglas and Mark Olshaker. Give it your best shot. If these authors are not distinguished enough for Misplaced Pages then no one is. ] (]) 20:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::'''Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher: Revision history''' |
|
|
*2021-08-14T16:28:22 '''Binksternet''' talk contribs 2,981 bytes −1,854 →edit warring: rv... that's not for the article talk page undothank Tag: Manual revert |
|
|
|
|
|
|
*2021-08-14T16:25:16 '''0mtwb9gd5wx''' talk contribs 4,835 bytes +1,854 →Murder of Meredith Kercher edit warring: User:Lard Almighty User:Binksternet undo Tag: Reverted |
|
:I impugned the book itself, not necessarily the author(s). Self-published is self-published, that's all there is to it. ] (]) 22:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
</blockquote> |
|
::I wrote that the authors were well respected and you responded: "Well-respected by who, your injusticeinperugia.com crowd?" You were hardly discussing the self-published aspect. Your reasoning for rejecting a NY Times best selling author is incredibly weak, and common sense should prevail here. ] (]) 22:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
<blockquote> |
|
|
:::'''User talk:0mtwb9gd5wx''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You may be '''] without further warning''' the next time you violate Misplaced Pages's ] by edit warring, as you did at ]. <!-- Template:uw-npov4 --> '''User:Binksternet''' |
|
*'''Comment''': Is the "books list" intended to be a ], or a ] (i.e. "Works cited")? Currently, it is presented as the latter, as a subsection of "References". From what I can see, the Preston book has not been used as a source for any of the statements in the article (probably because it is a very recent release); therefore, it does not warrant a place in the bibliography. It may or may not be suitable for inclusion in a FR section. ''']]]''' <small>( ''']''' )</small> 21:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
</blockquote> |
|
::I do not see "Math on trial" being used as a reference for anything in this article. Can you point me to where I should find that? By the way, hello SuperMarioMan. You are mentioned in my second non-notable self-published book "Finding Justice in Perugia". I was attracted to your name of course. :) ] (]) 22:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote> |
|
:::I don't know when ''Math on Trial'' was added to the list. It's possible that it's being used as a ] (like ''The Italian Legal System: An Introduction''), but more likely that whoever inserted it was confused about the list's purpose, believing that it was further reading. I'm sure that the article had a FR list in the past, and I'd support re-establishing it. Unless someone can show which broad sections of the article they are referencing, I endorse moving ''Math on Trial'', ''Waiting To Be Heard'' and ''Honor Bound'' (none of which have any specific page citations) to a separate list. ''']]]''' <small>( ''']''' )</small> 00:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::'''User talk:Binksterne''' |
|
::::This sounds like a plausible solution. I see no logical reason to keep "The Forgotten Killer" off of a further reading list. The author is a NY Times best selling author. ] (]) 08:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'''0mtwb9gd5wx''', the ] is on you to gather consensus for your additions by starting a talk page discussion. You can't just keep adding your preferred version after others have removed it, no matter how many warnings you deliver to the people opposing you. When there is a dispute about article content, the disputed material stays out until consensus is clear to put it in. Your next move is to argue your case on the talk page. '''Binksternet''' (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC) |
|
== Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann == |
|
|
|
</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::{{u|Lard Almighty}}{{u|Binksternet}} , I have not added my preferred version, I corrected deficiencies, and added improvements based on similar articles. The complaints you made were you made were implemented, yet {{u|Lard Almighty}}{{u|Binksternet}} still deleted a string of all my edits with '''etc''' as your only reason. Why dont you complain about each delete separately ? ] (]) 23:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC) |
|
I believe the latest opinion from Judge Hellmann should be added to this article. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::Per ], you can make a case for your changes right here. You can talk about each of your changes separately if you wish. ] (]) 00:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC) |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHnzUiTavzU |
|
|
|
::: ]: "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" |
|
|
::: <nowiki>]</nowiki> what is the complaint {{ping|Lard Almighty}}{{ping|Binksternet}} ? ] (]) 01:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The nearby link to '']'' is the better target for the reader. It's more relevant to this bio. ] (]) 01:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
In an interview with CNN, Judge Hellmann states that Nencini’s ruling is “the result of fantasy,” According to Hellmann, “the Florence appeal court has written a script for a movie or a thriller book while it should have only considered facts and evidence.” Hellmann goes on to state boldly once again that there is no evidence to condemn Knox and Sollecito. ] (]) 20:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Suspect arrests == |
|
:As long as it is made clear that it is solely the opinion of a retired judge who is familiar with the case and not an opinion of any legal standing, knock yourself out. We generally avoid sourcing to youtube though, so use . ] (]) 22:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Can somebody add a paragraph about the arrests of the suspects? It would be a great addition just after the "Discovery of the body" section. ] (]) 17:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
Oops. Please disregard my previous post. The info is already in the article. Sorry. ] (]) 17:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "Patrick Lumumba" redirects here == |
|
:::What was the point of your comment tarc? A person that was the lead judge in one of the Sollecito/Knox trial makes a statement about the subsequent trials and you make a dismissive comment like that about the suggestion to add mention of it to this article? If you can't see, regardless of your view about this case, that this is highly relevant and absolutely should be mentioned in the article, I suggest your level of bias should serve to immediately disqualify you from editing this article. Misplaced Pages articles, from my perspective, are not designed to provide a soap box for partisans on either side of the issue and your post above suggests that this is exactly how you intend to use this article. --] (]) 04:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Another "Friends of Amanda" coming out of the woodworks, I see? I merely pointed out that, if presented in the article, it should be framed as his personal opinion and not a legal one. Nothing more. ] (]) 13:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What about we get rid of the redirect link here? He is a minor character in the whole story. And having a reference to him at the top - even as a redirect notice - provides some level of bias to the article. On the other hand the other Lumumba, the congolese politician, is a prominent character and there's no doubt which of the two bearing this surname is notable in Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 11:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
::I do not recommend the Daily Mail for anything. The interview was conducted by CNN. Judge Hellmann is a little more than "Familiar" with the case. He is the Italian judge that declared Amanda and Raffaele innocent and sent them home. I should not edit this article. I am making a recommendation. ] (]) 22:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:A bit late to the party, but the politician is actually called ], and generic ] redirects to the politician. ] (]) 11:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC) |
I have posted online 1000s of documents related to the murder case including police investigation reports, prosecutor files, defense team reports, courtroom testimony, court motivation reports, etc. The website is http:/www.themurderofmeredithkercher.net. Is it okay to put links to some of the original case files?
There are also a few minor mistakes in the otherwise good article (as one example: Meredith didn't have seven knife wounds; she suffered two major knife wounds and 10 minor ones and at least 39 distinct bruises.) I can provide links to the original autopsy report and a few of the follow-up consultant reports. Any report, presentation, photo or video the website has been censored out of respect for the Kercher family.
I'm not sure if linking to 'original' case documents is acceptable in this particular case.
Can somebody add a paragraph about the arrests of the suspects? It would be a great addition just after the "Discovery of the body" section. 199.102.241.68 (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Oops. Please disregard my previous post. The info is already in the article. Sorry. 199.102.241.68 (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
What about we get rid of the redirect link here? He is a minor character in the whole story. And having a reference to him at the top - even as a redirect notice - provides some level of bias to the article. On the other hand the other Lumumba, the congolese politician, is a prominent character and there's no doubt which of the two bearing this surname is notable in Misplaced Pages. --2001:B07:AE5:D54B:A184:822D:FEF3:4AA8 (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Misplaced Pages-logo-v2.svg){kind=link}
