| Revision as of 20:16, 5 December 2015 editRothorpe (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers104,418 edits →Unclear sentence← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 00:44, 20 December 2024 edit undoJas88 (talk | contribs)63 edits →Guede speaks: ReplyTag: Reply |
| (47 intermediate revisions by 32 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}} |
|
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|class=|importance=}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{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}} |
|
|
{{GOCE|user=Corinne|date=5 December 2015}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== My revert == |
|
|
{{Moved discussion from|User talk:HelenOnline#Murder of Meredith Kercher|Moved from my user talk page. ]] 11:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Just out of curiosity, why did you feel the need to revert the information posted in regards to the above topic? As both statements were legally true. Amanda Knox was found GUILTY by not 1 but 2 high courts in Italy and is wanted on charges of murdering Meredith Kercher. Her current whereabouts in the US are unknown, due to the extradition order placed by the Italian courts to the US supreme court. Was Wiki not the place for truth? and not just a biased opinion of a Knox fan??????????? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:56, 29 May 2014 UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
|
{{ping|Fleetzy}} As stated in my ] (incidentally you should try adding one if you don't want your edits reverted), I reverted for the following reasons: |
|
|
|
|
|
# I removed Amanda Knox's name from the opening sentence as Knox was not the only person tried and found guilty of the murder (there were three of them and all their details are already covered later in the article lead). Emphasising her name, and her name only, in the opening sentence is what we call undue emphasis violating Misplaced Pages's core ] policy. |
|
|
# I removed your ] statement that "Knox has subsequently refused to return to Italy and currently is in hiding in the USA." as it violates Misplaced Pages's core ] policy. Misplaced Pages content is based on ]. We take this policy especially seriously when talking about ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
Please note that suggesting another editor is biased, especially without presenting supporting evidence in an appropriate forum on Misplaced Pages, could be considered a ] which is not allowed on Misplaced Pages and could lead to sanctions against you. ]] 11:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:It is verifiable... & for starters... --] (]) 17:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The entry states that Knox & Sollecito were exonerated and that the court went out of their way to proclaim them innocent with nothing to do with the murder. This is untrue. Knox & Sollecito were acquitted under paragraph 2 of article 530 of the Italian Criminal Procedure Code, which is an "insufficient evidence" acquittal, which the court were not legally authorized to do as they were viewing the case on its merits, which had already been covered at their trial and appeal. |
|
|
The Supreme Court only had the legal authority to send the case back to a lower appellate court as they could only rule on points of law, such as a legal, procedural or systematic error that occurred at their trial/appeal. |
|
|
They were actually in violation of article 620 & artice 617 by acquitting. |
|
|
Misplaced Pages should strive for accuracy whenever possible and with respect, accuracy is not being observed or applied in this entry. (Jimjoneskoolaid 28/07/15 17.32) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Weasel words == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have with ] terms. The ruling did not come as a surprise to everyone, so it is someone's POV and referring to unnamed "experts" is a classic weasel technique. Someone else . ] has seen fit to . ]] 08:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
1) The only person "surprised" in the particular source cited is Kercher's mother. 2) Even if a source uses weasel terms, it does not mean we can. We do not follow the lead of the news media, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. ]] 08:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Fair enough. My objection was that the news article did provide source, but I did wonder who they were referring to as "legal experts". I reverted the removal mostly out of objection to the edit summary of "biased nonsense", which itself isn't exactly a pinnacle of non-bias. ] (]) 04:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Lead == |
|
==Guede speaks== |
|
|
. He claims that Knox was present at the murder. Probably should be included in this article. ] (]) 23:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
I think the current lead goes into a lot of details that an average reader would get lost reading. I think we need to have a bit more of an inverted pyramid style, so the very first part has the most important parts right away. Those important parts would be that Kercher was murdered, Knox and Sollecito were accused, convicted and ultimately exonerated, Guede was also convicted but there is no doubt of his guilt, media circus. The stuff about staged break in, legalese, etc. can all just be covered in the full article. ] (]) 16:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:Rewriting an article of this size can be, speaking from experience, a very time-consuming and arduous. If you'd like to do it, I don't think anyone will object, but they probably won't help out much either. It's not like the old days on WP anymore, when it was easier to get people to help out with significant article improvement. ] (]) 01:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::It may be worth exploring whether or not to start from the version of the article after the rewrite following the last exoneration. The current version is so problematic that I gave up on it long ago.] (]) 02:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I agree that this article deserves revision, if only because for the most part it is another take on the Amanda Knox article. However, I will not venture to make substantial revisions to this article while the relatives of the victim are reeling in the knowledge that the Italian judicial system has thus far declared that the one convicted murderer did not act alone and that all the prosecutors' other suspects have been exonerated. Perhaps when Italy’s Court of Cassation has made its reasoning public, that would be the time for a major revision. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== links to original case files and documents] (]) 00:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC) == |
|
:::Whether the convicted murderer had accomplices or not, I’ll add that a lot of people have got away with murder. That’s not much consolation for Meredith Kercher’s family, but it shouldn’t reflect unduly on those who have been named, shamed and exonerated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi fellow Wikipedians, |
|
:::As for justice, only God knows. ] (]) 21:43, 4 April 2015 (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? |
|
::::], That the 'Italian judicial system has thus far declared multiple attackers is wrong. Knox, Sollecito and Guede were arraigned before judge Micheli in Sept 2008 to decide if they should be sent for trial. The prosecution charges against Guede were clearly framed to implicate Knox and Sollecito as the primary offenders because although all three were charged with acting together in the murder, Guede was not charged with having a knife or faking a break in. Guede opted to be tried Mechelli heard the prosecution's case that Knox Sollecito and Guede had committed the murder, and in the same Oct 2008 ruling found Guede guilty and sent Knox and Sollecito for trial. Micheli's report followed the prosecution in almost everything. It ruled out Guede might have been a lone killer who had got in by simply knocking on the entry door at 11pm and attacking Kercher when she opened it to him (she knew Guede as a pal of her boyfriend) and then faking a burglary to mislead investigators. The 2015 Italian ''supreme'' court decision means the aforementioned scenario is most certainly not ruled out.] (]) 17:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::], I don't agree we can say Knox and Sollecito were accused, convicted and ultimately exonerated in the lead before mentioning Guede. Guede was long ago found to have committed the murder and exhausted his appeals. This is a BLP for Knox and Sollecito who were never convicted in that sense, and the international publicity and criticism over their prosecution is the main notability of the case.] (]) 17:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
::::] Guede had a different type of trial and his conviction was made definitive years ago. Knox and RS were never definitively convicted (convicted in the US sense) and exonerated only in 2015. As the article is about the murder and not AK's travails it really should not have all very much about Amanda Knox in it. Unfortunately there were people who insisted on emphasising that she had been "convicted"implying it was in an analogous sense to being found guilty of murder in a US jury trial, and there was a need for balance. Now that Knox and Sollecito are definitely acquitted the AK part of this article can be greatly condensed.] (]) 17:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure if linking to 'original' case documents is acceptable in this particular case. |
|
:::::Except that reliable sources still tie Knox inextricably to this case. The article should reflect that. Otherwise you're POV-ing. ] (]) 09:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your efforts! Marcello |
|
:I hate the lead. Tell the narrative as best as possible, and fill in the details later on in the article. "On (date), (victim) did x, y and z with persons a, b and c and next day their body was discovered.] (]) 05:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Murder of Meredith Kercher edit warring == |
|
== Autopsy == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] ] |
|
In the section Autopsy, the final sentence makes no sense. How are the reviewers disagreeing? If Lalli meant that there was no sexual motive, being instead robbery or something else, this needs to be made clear so the reader can see why they disagreed with him. ] (]) 06:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote> |
|
|
:::'''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 |
|
==Patrick Lumumba== |
|
|
|
</blockquote> |
|
Details on the false accusation of Lumumba seemed to have disappeared from the article, so I readded them. Saying that Knox was "exonerated" is not true; her conviction over her false accusation of Lumumba was upheld by the top court. I've added a note on that in the article and in the intro. ] (]) 01:42, 8 September 2015 (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''' |
|
== Unclear sentence == |
|
|
|
</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote> |
|
I've finished copyediting ]. I have a question about just one sentence. It's this sentence, which appears in the section Murder of Meredith Kercher#Alarm raised: |
|
|
|
:::'''User talk:Binksterne''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
'''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) |
|
*Subsequently, the Polizia Postale arrived, having already traced two mobile phones found in a garden near to Via della Pergola 7. |
|
|
|
</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) |
|
There's something wrong with this sentence. It's definitely not clear. Did the police trace the two phones to residents of Via della Pergola 7? Or is the sentence not saying to what address the phones were traced, and just saying that the garden was near Via della Pergola 7? I read in another section that those mobile phones belonged to Meredith Kercher, so perhaps they did trace the phones to Kercher's address. Which one do you think it should be -- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::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) |
|
'''A.''' Subsequently, the Polizia Postale arrived, having already traced two mobile phones found in a nearby garden to Via della Pergola 7. |
|
|
|
::: ]: "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) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''B.''' Subsequently, the Polizia Postale arrived, having already traced two mobile phones that had been found in a garden located near Via della Pergola 7. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Suspect arrests == |
|
If the second version is correct, it's a little odd to say the police traced the phones but not say to whom or to what address the phones were traced. I think it should probably be Version A, but the source needs to be checked. ] (]) 16:08, 5 December 2015 (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 == |
|
:If memory serves, it's A. I suspect it may be clear in an earlier version. ] (]) 19:51, 5 December 2015 (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) |
|
:10:53, 1 Dec 2007 is the first mention of one of the phones being registered to Kercher. It's sourced to the Times, which is closed to me; perhaps you know how to get at the source. ] (]) 20:16, 5 December 2015 (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}
