Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:34, 12 March 2010

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Trying to curtail deletions in MK article

03-March-2010: I have been monitoring the numerous deletions of sentences from the MK article, and I think, in the days since you have objected to the deletions, there now is sufficient evidence to begin notifying individual users of a pattern of behavior. As a courtesy, I have finally posted a reminder:

• See "Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher#Violations of WP:NOTCENSORED"

Although there is no requirement in Misplaced Pages to warn people of violations, such as against WP:NOTCENSORED, I think posting reminders gives people every chance to alter their actions, before escalating the issue. This men-behaving-badly notion that they can delete whatever they dislike has become commonplace in Misplaced Pages, within many articles, and perhaps it is convenient when removing rambling text from seasoned articles. However, in the Kercher article, which is still awaiting an official Italian statement of the latest convictions, the use of large deletions seems to border on harrassment against other editors explaining the murder. This is only my personal opinion, so please feel free to handle the deletions in any manner that you prefer. -Wikid77 06:46, 3 March 2010

Expanding to other articles

After reviewing many new articles, I believe that the admins are now swamped with trying to monitor all the thousands of new articles and cannot afford to spend more time to control the Kercher article. I would recommend to put the Kercher case details as examples in many other articles, and not get hounded within that 1 article. For example, Misplaced Pages matches the legal word "prejudicing" over 7000 times (!), but there is no article (!), and someone needs to write a new article "Prejudicing the jury" with examples of famous legal cases, certainly including the Kercher case as a recent example. Google matches numerous webpages for Prejudicing, so the topic is notable, and many Kercher pages clearly use the phrase "Prejudicing..jury" so no one could claim WP:NOR (the world knows the Kercher case concerns Prejudicing). See Google searches:

• 176 webpages: Google "prejudicing the jury" Kercher
• 249,000 webpages: Google "prejudicing the jury"

I often work on numerous articles, and that reassures me, that there are thousands of other people who are interested in the truth, but only 800 readers, per day, see the Kercher article, while thousands read all the other legal articles and would like to know more actual, legal details. When you mentioned "prejudicing" and other issues, then I realized that the Kercher article would need to be 10x times larger to cover all the important information. The details must be spread into multiple articles: too many people will fight against an intelligent presentation of all the facts in one article. (Don't put all your eggs in one basket.) Perhaps 10,000 people a day could get the facts if multiple articles were updated to mention the Kercher case details, as related to each article: DNA profiling, concealing a deadly weapon, judicial misconduct, crime scene contamination, etc. Again, this is my personal opinion, so feel free to do as you prefer, with the time you have available. For the record, I am not asking you to be a puppet on my behalf, and with that having been stated, no one can accuse you of misconduct (because perhaps some would try). -Wikid77 (talk) 06:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Expanding details

03-March-10: I'm sorry I haven't responded to more of your entries on the MK talk-page: I have been busy on other issues plus waiting to see how bad the censorship would get if I stayed away a few days. I suspect that much of my text gets deleted within 5 days if I stay away from the talk-page, as if they are free to ax as they please when I'm not vocal. Hence, I have been mostly watching, from afar, to analyze the bullying, and again, I apologize that I did not defend the issues more. I did not want to warn you that I was secretly watching the activities in silence; otherwise, people might try to get you banned for "collusion or puppetry" involving my plans. That wait-and-see period is over, and now there is enough evidence to report how soon after a user leaves, do they start deleting and censoring that text. Long-term these are my public plans:

• broader evidence of police pressure: it is time to emphasize, from the audio testimony, that they asked "Did you hear...scream? No." which led to fingers-in-ear warped confession; Lumumba's actions must be expanded to note he was arrested same day & claimed extensive pressuring by same police, plus he has suggested Amanda killed Kercher over her being hired at Le Chic, and issued insults such as Amanda's "Queen Bee syndrome" led to the murder or other libelous remarks he made without being sued.
• no sex game evidence: the early testimony of 3 Italian forensic experts concluded no pre-murder sex, then Mignini fires them, and hires others who say "multiple sex attackers", while Mignini is under investigation for judicial misconduct of wiretapping, falsifying evidence, so now perhaps firing people to get the court testimony he wants. Sexual preparation: witnesses say Guede shows up, 3 hours later, at Domus nightclub smelling so bad that people "kept their distance" as if he had not washed. Men, even 20 years old, know to bathe before a date, certainly before an n-way party, so what sex game involves who can smell the worst? Plus, Guede testified he spent the time at home, 15min away, washing off blood but what was he really busy doing that he did not have time to bathe in 3 hours, to pretend a calm night on the town, not busy returning to re-arrange a murder scene and then dart into a nightclub.
• dropped phones evidence: the phones were dropped 1 kilometre away (0.6 miles) along the path to Guede's house. We need to see if those phones were more towards Sollecito's place or more towards Guede if possible. Not original research, just state distances between locations and let readers decide.
• toxicology concluded Kercher had no alcohol: However, Kercher was a frequent(?) nightclub drinker, so what kind of sex game forbids beverages to improve the sexual atmosphere? Where in Italy is there no wine? All these issues line up like 15 holes shot in the sex-game theory. No one reading the article would believe any of those bizarre motives, if the article text covers all the main issues. The libelous sex-game would be completely refuted with no chance of normal people thinking ill of the defendants.

Those are a few of the issues that I intend to add to the article, so I just wanted to see how quickly people delete the minor issues, before adding "acquittal dynamite" to the article. Once the simple evidence contradicts all prosecution claims, it might result in "total doubt" of all guilt, while explaining that Kercher was stabbed wearing clothes and she did not do anything lurid or deviant. For those reasons, I wanted to see how frantically people would censor the truth, because I can just avoid the edit-war time and put such statements in other Misplaced Pages articles that aren't vastly censored every week. Many other articles can emphasize Kercher was wearing clothes instead of some perverted prosecution claims. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikid, you have done an amazing amount of research and know the details of this case far, far better than any other editor. But after all the research time put in, they just delete what does not support their side of the case---which is anti-Knox. The situation is dysfunctional. I am wondering if some sort of dispute resolution/mediation/arbitration would help. I put that question on the Talk page, but I just hope they don't delete that too! Please let me know how you feel about a formal dispute resolution process, when you get a chance. Thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think posting notices might stop most censorship; see below: #Steps to take. However, regardless of the edit-war conflicts, I will no longer stop composing text, offline, to insert. For example, I plan to find more sources about Amanda's desklamp found plugged under Kercher's door (in Micheli Judgment), then an opinion that using a lamp indicates a nighttime cleanup, not a move-and-shower the next day. From those issues, how would Amanda, in a dark house, leave her desklamp inside Kercher's room during a cleanup, and lock the door knowing she had no light remaining in her own darkened room nextdoor, where she, most certainly, would have placed her handbag, cellphone, and towels in preparation for leaving. If her room also had an overhead light, it could be argued that she forgot, but very unlikely when one room is lit and her room is total darkness. Seems as if someone else used her desklamp, locked behind Kercher's door and unplugged the hallway cord, with no intention to return to Amanda's room, and despite DNA showing Guede was present, no Guede fingerprints were found anywhere in the house (only the palm-print on the pillow), no Guede prints on Kercher's nightstand, door, nor on any lamps. I don't think this case requires Sherlock Holmes to spot a telltale pattern in rare cigar ashes, or such: once the forensic evidence is considered, it is pretty clear there was no pre-bathed nude sex game, nor an Amanda cleanup, and Guede did not spend 3 hours washing to appear innocently clean and relaxed at the nightclubs. If Amanda had not returned to the house to spot the blood in the no-window bathroom, there would be no one home to meet the postal police with the located phone, and Filomena might have delayed returning from her festivals, delaying discovery & autopsy many hours thereby confusing time-of-death. She and the others only came 30 minutes after the post-police because Amanda called her to come. Otherwise, the house might have been in November darkness for Filomena, while Knox stayed a 7th consecutive night with Sollecito. It was in the killer's best interest to stay on holiday with friends, and let others find the body too late for accurate time-of-death so that alibis could not be focused into a 2-hour murder timeframe. I realize this is rambling, but it just serves to show how the article could be expanded, and there are sources for many of those issues. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Steps to take

03-March-10: After the general notice about WP:NOTCENSORED, then the next step could be to quote the excerpt from WP:BLP about correcting text by modifying any insults rather than deleting all the text. Then for those who still don't quit deleting, I would post a notice to each user's talk-page, with links to various edits where they deleted a sentence or more. By formally listing the deleted sections, that level of notice posted to each user talk-page would let an investigating admin see the exact details of each problem. At that point, an admin might just remind a user that the deletions were not condoned by policies, and a warning from an admin might be last warning they need. If not, then a formal dispute-resolution would be much easier after having listed the deleted sections to each user's talk-page. By trying a multi-step approach, the problem might end sooner than a full arbitration request. As you might know, many arbitration requests end with both parties being asked not to edit Misplaced Pages articles for weeks or months. It's as if the easiest way to end a WP conflict is to throw all involved users into jail at the same time, and thereby no single person could hold a grudge because everyone was punished almost "equally" for not reaching consensus. However, there's a further danger: if one person has already known the admin for months, then they might get banned for only a few days while the other users get banned for weeks or months. Again, some admins think the "devil they know" should get less punishment than "the devil they don't know". Such all-user punishments have been issued for years, so arbitration might result in all users being banned a while, and then even editing of other legal-topic articles might be ruled as off-limits. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess I was thinking more of mediation than arbitration. Are you saying that mediation could result in everyone being blocked, or is it just arbitration? I have heard arbitration could be strict, but had not heard that about mediation. But of course, I have heard very little about either one. BTW, your level of knowledge of the case is absolutely amazing! Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I guess I'm saying that these admins are not professional judges, not even law-school dropouts. Many of them might be teenagers with their first taste of power, and perhaps friends of other editors. We don't yet know who they'll favor, and it's very risky. Meanwhile, let's explain the murder, not fight the troublemakers. See below. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The lone wolf theory

04-March-10: The Massei Judgment document has been released and, of course, has no explanation of the murder, according to short reviews by the media. Yes, there are 427 pages which could contain crucial evidence, but no one in Perugia could explain a 3-attacker scenario. The evidence just does not fit, so they had to conclude "guilty anyway" despite the evidence. I think we can solve this murder, in parts, to write the results in some articles (perhaps not in the MK article). Primarily, think of the setting as "knife-wielding burglar" (no names please) as in the bartender-house buglary. The knife is intended, to the burglar, as a means of escape when caught. Possibly the door has been left unlocked (or a window left unlocked), so the burglar enters, holding the knife just in case. Wandering through the house, he confronts Kercher, she sees the knife and thinks fight-or-die. From her martial arts training, she instantly fights back, and gets cuts on her hands (no fibers under her fingernails because she is kept back at knifepoint). Then she screams loudly, while fighting, and the knife is used to silence her neck. But perhaps she is still screaming some, so he drops the knife on the bedsheet and tries to strangle her into silence, which succeeds, so he lets go while she grabs her throat. He takes all 300 euros, and perhaps the phones to keep her from calling the police immediately. However, he must flee because of the screams, so he grabs the knife (to ensure his escape against any others), and perhaps washes some blood off hands & shoes, then runs. Hours later, he can't resist, he must return to the scene of the crime: he watches across the hillside, for the police, and to see: did she really die. When the path is clear he returns, but always in danger and with his knife (to ensure escape). He's already washed his shoes, so he enters barefoot to check for death, yes, then decides to fake the event. He takes the desklamp from the next bedroom & plugs into the hall to have light in the dark bedroom. He moves the body away from the window, then using his "escape knife" he removes the bra, places the clothes near the door, and cleans his shoeprints (unaware some of his shoeprints are under the duvet). Instinctively, he wipes all the other blood from the doorway, not just his shoeprints, and cleans the hall into the bathroom where he has left a bare, blood footprint on the bathmat (but it was too dark to notice). He rinses his barefeet, now into his shoes, then quickly closes Kercher's door with the desklamp plugged in the hall socket. In panic, he unplugs the desklamp but the plug won't fit under the door, so he drops the cord. It is still night, and in haste, he leaves some partial shoeprints in the hall or other rooms. He doesn't have time to mop totally (it's not like he lives there), he just wanted it to look like a rape, with none of his shoeprints (as he saw), and then leaves with the front door open, and always with his escape knife. Time is short, so he must try to look like he's been at the nightclubs, and no time to shower now. Unless the event is totally explained as a lone wolf theory, then people will always ponder the 3-attacker viewpoint. Explaining the murder is the focus, not how innocent some people seem, and that's what needs to be written, in part, based on sources for each aspect. I realize that it will be difficult to write that text. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikid, are you perhaps a genius? Just curious. Brilliant analysis. In all the material I have read about this case, no one has raised the theory that Guede HAD to go back to see if Meredith was still alive. She was still alive when he left. Her wounds caused a long, slow death. So he HAD to go back, otherwise there was a witness if she had not died. You just hit the nail on the head! Now its starting to make some sense. It will be very interesting to see if this gets raised in the appeal. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I was just using the extra time I gained, from avoiding the article, while you were very busy trying to keep facts from getting deleted there. Again, I apologize for not helping you defend the balance in the article, but previously, I was unable to learn any details about the murder when being sidetracked and blocked over the simplest insertions to the article. Now, there is a major controversy over my 20-word insertion which listed Senate powers (!) as if I'm warping the article by noting the 220-year-old newsflash that the U.S. Senate decides foreign treaties & confirms ambassadors. Citing WP:SYN, they are claiming the insertion is unfair by "advancing a position" such as, what, a U.S. Senator might be a very important person in international affairs? It's all just a colossal waste of time, and I suspect some invent the conflicts, so I have been much happier spending the time to solve the murder, based on all the various reliable sources. For example, I think the "satanic-ritual" blood image of the Celtic horse, refuted in closed hearings, was finally decided as a smeared blood handprint on the wall, in major sources. So again, you are right about the Halloween-ritual claims, but the time is better spent to get several reliable sources about an issue, then re-add a paragraph with all those footnotes inside, at the same time. Plus, for whatever paragraph you add, I recommend to keep a separate copy of your inserted text, so that you can re-add it 5 more times over the next 6 months. You can't stop the deletions, but they can't stop the re-insertions, either. Also, you are free to join other websites which could post this "💕" text, edited as you prefer, onto other websites which might not be so heavily censored. Misplaced Pages truly is a great resource, and all the information is intended to be shared and copied elsewhere, not deleted. Please don't quit totally, but just avoid the troublemakers from day to day, and regain your valuable time. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention of quitting. I smell victory in this case, which is going to make this article all the more interesting to write. I think this is going to turn into a HUGE story. HUGE. I predict that this story is will go down in history as one of the clearest examples of the conviction of innocent people based on prejudicial pre-trial publicity. The "trial by tabloid" of the "she-devil" the "Luciferna" the "promiscuous American" with the "eyes of a killer"--who turned out to be totally innocent. I predict that in the long run this is what this case will stand for. It will be a story that you can tell your grandchildren about someday in the future. Hang in there! Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, and we need to plan text about "crime scene contamination" which derails the DNA claims. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Article of prosecution

Based on the limited text allowed in the MK article, I think it is time to start another article on a highly WP:NOTABLE topic: the Prosecution of Amanda Knox. The topic spans more than just the MK events, because it involves the interrogation stages, plus civil charges with Lumumba, plus the planned new trial about slander against the Perugia police, all beyond the main focus of the MK article. Then there's the aspect of "most watched person on Italian TV" in 2009, and the FoA or other groups related to her prosecution. All of those aspects justify a separate article, with fair-use-rationale photos (because her name is in the title and no one could reject those as off-topic photos). Also, we know that the Misplaced Pages readership is 10x more interested in her name than the others. In such a separate article, perhaps the interrogation could be 10 or more paragraphs with no WP:UNDUE limits, since the article is all about AK prosecution. I recommend to develop the article, in user-space, as "User:Zlykinskyja/Knox_prosecution" until the coverage is balanced enough to copy into article space (with the longer title), or you could start with title User:Zlykinskyja/PAK to thwart vandalism attracted by the name. I can upload fair-use photos for you to link, once moved to article space, if you wish. As always, you are free to think about the idea or decline, and no one could claim you are colluding as a puppet, because it is your own free choice. Also, I recommend you to write most of the wording from scratch so no one can claim it's "the same text slightly modified" as, therefore, a duplicate to be deleted. Long term, there will still be deletions but not justified as WP:UNDUE because the topic would be different now. Things to ponder. -Wikid77 22:47, 6 March 2010

Wikid: I will think it over. But wouldn't something like that be best to do all off-line so the Knox-haters can't trash it? It would take a lot of time and effort to research and write. But they could just come on my page some night and trash it. Is there some reason why it must be written on-line before posting it as a new article? Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The cyber-stalking going on is indeed a problem. I just can't waste more time on the childishness of it all. I could have written about ten sub-articles on this case by now if I did not have to deal with all the nonsense. Recently and up till now Magnificent Clean-Keeper and Malke have been plotting on his Talk page to get me into trouble. They are planning on filing some sort of charges against me and laughing about it. It is extremely distressing to see other editors conspiring and plotting to undermine another editor because they don't agree with the content of the article. This is why I think to get some peace and concentration, it would be best to work off-line, then post on my Talk page for comments before creating a new article. With my background, I could write something of high quality about this fascinating case.Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• That sounds good. I often create articles offline then test the formatting by copy/paste while edit-preview of a new empty article named "test777" (just don't save it accidentally). You might want to stay away from the MK page a few days, while I add some text to that page. I've been blocked previously from editing due to being trapped by 2 users goading me into a WP:3RR, and that goes on your permanent record if they find admin friends to block you. That's the wiki-gang tactics I call Clique-ipedia, and they laugh about it while readers wonder why no one is adding valuable content to the article. It's the Law of the Old West: avoid making enemies else leave town for a while. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Meanwhile, I can be doing some outlining on what should go into a new article. I have a lot of research to do on the early part of the case, and where it went wrong. The crucial mistakes were right in the very first days. See you later!Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• I wish G. would just be honest about that night, but I don't think he could be believed unless backed by key forensic evidence. First, he claims for 4 months that Knox wasn't there, then in March 2008, he claims he saw her outside "through the window", but the cuts/scratches on the body indicate a long fight, not just arguing "with Knox about money" and then MK gets stabbed as an "Italian man" flees. She had 3 deep knife wounds on her neck/chin, the signs of strangulation for at least a few minutes, and cuts in both hands. So, G. wants us to believe he "told the truth at trial" and heard "Knox's voice" during an iPod song, behind a closed door, through 4 rooms across the L-shaped house. Perhaps, just quote news reports about him claiming an "unknown Italian man" when Sollecito's photo had been all over the Internet and news for months. Some reports note that G. "couldn't describe the knife the attacker held" (!), so I guess that's his idea of truth. Those issues need to be stated in an srticle. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Magnificent Clean-Keeper: Deleting text while an editor is writing

Magnificent Clean-Keeper: STOP HARASSING ME. STOP DELETING MY WORK. I was simply trying to write on-line. I should be able to compose on-line without this harassment. I was simply doing my writing and researching as I typed. I had good sources for each statement. But it is simply easier to go back and put in the cites when finished composing. I specifically noted that I was intending to add cites to the new text!!!!!!!! It was OBVIOUS that is what I was doing. STOP HARASSING ME. I have as much of a privilege to contribute to Misplaced Pages as you do. Now I don't even know where my text is and I am too upset to continue writing. LEAVE ME ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I If you continue harassing me I am going to report you.Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

TO DELETE TEXT WHILE SOMEONE IS COMPOSING TOTALLY WASTES THE EDITOR'S TIME AND IS INTENDED TO HARASS THE WRITER, NOT TO SERVE THE INTERESTS OF WRITING A GOOD ARTICLE, WHICH IS THE PURPOSE OF WIKIPEDIA. NOW MY TEXT IS GONE SOMEWHERE JUST BECAUSE YOU WOULD NOT ALLOW ME THE DECENCY OF COMPLETING WHAT I WAS WRITING SO THAT I COULD THEN ADD ALL OF THE SOURCES THAT TOOK ME A LONG TIME TO FIND AND HAD TO TRY TO TRANSLATE FROM ITALIAN. YOU ARE INTENTIONALLY HARASSING ME AND TRYING TO INTIMIDATE ME FROM PARTICIPATING IN WIKIPEDIA, AS REFLECTED BY YOUR PLOT AND JOKES ON YOUR TALK PAGE ABOUT INTENDING TO SEEK SANCTIONS AGAINST ME. YOU ARE INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO INSTIGATE SOMETHING SO THAT YOU CAN THEN FILE A COMPLAINT AGAINST ME. LEAVE ME ALONE. I HAVE HAD ENOUGH. THIS IS A TYPE OF CENSORSHIP OF THE ARTICLE.Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Notes on Possible Additional Suspect in Kercher Murder

5th suspect in case--first reported by Francesca Bene http://www.komonews.com/news/19361399.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4002791.ece

Info Rocks case http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20000174-504083.html http://www.westseattleherald.com/2010/03/06/news/update-cellmates-deposition-427-page-motivation-document-may-clear-amanda-knox http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/10/world/main6284773.shtml?tag=mncol;lst;3 http://abcnews.go.com/International/AmandaKnox/mystery-man-blamed-amanda-knox-case/story?id=10028590

Prosecution of reporter Francesca Bene, who works for a small Italian paper, Giornale dell 'Umbria, who was interrogated by one of the same police women that interrogated Amanda Knox and was indicted for causing public alarm by publishing false information http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com/2010/02/monster-of-florence-and-tragedy-in.html

Mignini to Interrogate Guede, Opens new prosecution case/intimidation tactic http://www.asca.it/news-MEREDITH__PM_ASCOLTERANNO_GUEDE__DOPO_DICHIARAZIONI_MARIO_ALESSI-900665-ora-.html

Trump http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/03/02/Trump-Amanda-Knox-is-innocent/UPI-95601267562258/

Guede claims man in Norwegian Napapijri & white cap

12-March-10: I have re-read the Micheli Judgment and confirmed Guede also described the man as wearing a black Napapijri jacket (Norway flag logo) and a white cap with a "red stripe in the middle".

A jacket photo: http://www.julesb.co.uk/menswear-1/outerwear-128/casual-jackets-7/napapijri-skidoo-jacket-106249-13145_medium.jpg

The man had light brown (blond?) hair, so the question becomes: did Guede describe the Napapijri jacket before, or after, the news report about the bloodied man from 7am? Possibly, Guede had seen the news, in Germany or prison TV, and thought that guy would be arrested, but later changed to say "looked like Sollecito" to satisfy the prosecution, perhaps to get a reduced sentence.

Here is the excerpt from the Micheli Judgment (a third of the way from the top), where the Judge recaps Guede's description for the Napapijri jacket/cap, from the larger lavatory (original Italian & my translation):

"Il giovane ricordava anche la sequenza dei primi tre brani ascoltati, essendo quella abituale, e mentre era a metà del terzo - malgrado il volume molto alto - aveva sentito un urlo: asciugatosi di fretta, senza neppure chiudersi bene la cintura, si era diretto verso la camera di M., trovando sulla soglia (ma appena dentro la stanza) un uomo che gli dava le spalle."

• Translation: "The youth also recalled the sequence of the first three tracks listened to, being the usual place, and while he was midway through the third - although the volume turned way up - he had heard a scream: exited in a hurry, without even fastening the belt, he was directed toward M. 's room, finding at the doorway (but just inside the room) a man who had his back turned."

"A quel punto, il G. aveva posto la mano sulla spalla di quell'individuo, scorgendo nel medesimo istante il corpo della ragazza in terra: l'altro si era repentinamente girato, vibrando colpi al suo indirizzo con un coltello che teneva nella mano sinistra, di cui non sapeva indicare lunghezza od altre caratteristiche."

• Translation: "At that point, the G. had placed his hand on the shoulder of that person, seeing in the same moment the girl's body on the floor: the other had suddenly turned, quivering strokes in his direction with a knife which he carried in his left hand, which he could not specify length or other characteristics."

"Descriveva il soggetto in questione come di poco più basso di lui, di corporatura analoga, con jeans chiari, una giacca nera marca “Napapijri” di cui aveva notato il logo, una cuffia bianca recante una striscia rossa nel mezzo ei capelli - che si intravedevano al di sotto - di colore castano: non era in grado di fornirne una descrizione migliore proprio a causa dell'aggressione in atto, che lo aveva indotto a prestare attenzione a non essere ferito, anche se l'uomo lo aveva attinto di striscio alla mano destra."

• Translation: "He described the entity in question as a little shorter than him, of similar build, with light jeans, a black jacket brand "Napapijri" of which he had noticed the logo, a white cap bearing a red stripe in the middle, and his hair - which could be seen below - of pale brown : he was not able to provide a better description precisely because of the aggression under way, which prompted him to be careful not to be hurt, even if the man had grazed his right hand."

He claimed that the confrontation had moved into the kitchen, where the nighttime lighting was brighter than the solitary desklamp in Kercher's room.

Questions:

• Did Guede describe a Napapijri jacket & white cap before the news reports?
• Was the bloodied guy (taken to the asylum) left-handed?
• Does the unknown DNA on the severed bra clasp match that guy?
• Do any of the unidentified 13/14 fingerprints match him?

If that guy was really there, it doesn't mean Guede would have left any cash at the scene, but Kercher's mobile phones might have been gone.

All of these issues should be written in some WP article. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but there is NO WAY to get the material into the article. I just spent a lot of time last night adding text and many cites to their new section on the defense of Knox, and all that was deleted. They have the "consensus" and it does not include US. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Attempts by Anti-Knox editors to restrict particpation by Pro-Defense Editors

I have added this much needed discussion to the Talk page of the article.Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts

FYI, I've filed a report here.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)