Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:29, 12 June 2010

sample diff

I think it is appropriate to include in the article the issue of unfair interrogation techniques being used resulting in a false confession. A useful discussion of this type of problem can be found at false confession.

Please also see the text of Amanda's memorandum of November 2007 concerning her interrogation. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570225/Transcript-of-Amanda-Knoxs-note.html

I note that in the text of her memorandum of November 2007 she says that she was told by the police that they had solid evidence placing her at the Kercher house at the time of the murder. Yet, this appears to have been a trick that confused Amanda. I am not aware that there was any such evidence. Amanda apparently was vulnerable to the technique of suggestion. She started to believe that her own memory that she was not at the house was incorrect and that the police must be telling the truth that she was present because of course the police would not lie to her. It is remarkable that such a technique would have worked, but she was very young, immature, frightened. This technique led her to doubt her own mind and 'confess' to being present at the time of the murder. That led to her arrest. This seems to be a remarkable case of unfair interrogation techniques causing an innocent person to confess. The situation is well documented in her memorandum and was raised by Amanda and her lawyers at trial, as reflected in numerous press accounts. As reflected in the Misplaced Pages article noted above, there is an actual phenomenon known as false confession, and Amanda' memorandum shows many earmarks of this. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is another sample diff

This comment is in response to Bluewave above concerning the issue of the prosecutor's theory of a satanic ritual or Halloween ritual. The prosecutor did indeed have a theory that the motive for the murder involved some sort of Halloween or satanic ritual. It was not clear exactly what it was-Halloween or satanic. But he did have that general type of theory early on. Amanda and Raffaele were held for a year before they were indicted. At the hearing on their indictment before Judge Micheli (around the time of the Guede trial) prosecutor Mignini presented his theory of a Halloween or satanic ritual being the motive for the murder. That became a source of ridicule for some, and alarm for others. Clearly, it was a ridiculous theory. The newspapers have reported that Judge Micheli rejected the theory. But the fact that the prosecutor relied on that theory to hold Amanda and Raffaele for a year and seek their indictment is relevant to any assessment of the case. This is especially true given that Mignini then changed his theory on the motive at the start of the trial to a sex game or sex orgy. Then Mignini in his final summation to the jury abruptly changed his theory of the motive to a desire of Amanda to seek retaliation against Meredith for being "prissy", ect. So the prosecutor's theory on the motive kept changing right up until the end of the case. The issue of a weak or defective prosecution theory on the motive for the murder is an important one and a very appropriate issue to include in the story. Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

In terms of motive, it makes sense that MK fought back, reacting from martial arts training, perhaps worried about the 300 euros, with 250 rent money (we have sources for that). However, people have said the cuts RG had on his 3 knuckles seem those of a knifer, holding a knife, who gets the blade pushed back toward him. MK had small cuts in her palms. RG insisted the duvet+pillow were on the bed, when he left, so the blood palmprint and Nike Outbreak 2 shoeprints (3? on the pillow) indicate he is not telling the truth about returning. He noted Amanda's desklamp on the floor, as new, saying it would have cast light in a "different direction" but only someone who saw the desklamp, shining at night, would speak about the direction of the light. It does make sense that he, in trying to invent a rape, would return to disrobe and move the body onto that pillow, but people note "common sense" would dictate that he should have called the police (unless he knew culprits get sentences reduced 14 years and seek revenge on your parents). Yet that sounds like a story invented to clear RG, but not of moving the body. The big problem is: if a blood-soaked guy in a black Napapijri "Norway" jacket & white cap ran away, why are there only 1 set of blood shoe-prints in the room & tracked down the hallway? Many Nike shoes have similar patterns: it is possible they both wore size 11, but I think no one found evidence of 2 people's shoe-prints overlapping. It seems as though someone, with ample time, moved things around, cleaned shoe-prints near MK's door but overlooked shoe-prints leading to the front door. There are 3 unknown DNA on bra clasp: 2 male + 1 female (with MK & RG DNA) & 13/14 unmatched fingerprints. Only the DNA matching RG everywhere is "abundant" (with peaks over 50), so he will likely get convicted in that mock-trial being conducted by those U.S. Govt officials. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I still think that a neutral article is needed; it is unfair to tie a person's name, based on no evidence, to a page that says Murder. So, I started this, to begin as a more neutral page. Besides, I've always questioned the title "Murder of" and why not "Manslaughter of" or just "Death of" as alternate viewpoints. My intent is to take the side of the readers, who have heard the name "Amanda" but do not understand the imprisonment and pending defamation case. We have been so geared to the forensic details from 1 Nov 2007, that it is easy to overlook the times that Meredith and Amanda went to classes together, or went to the pubs together. This is not special treatment for 1 of 3 suspects: AK knew MK for 6 weeks, lived in the next room, and shared the same bathroom. For months, I have understood: when Meredith was gone, Amanda had no one else to discuss things in English. Then, I read Frank Sfarzo's entry about "Lost in translation" of how Amanda spoke English for 20 minutes, and no one at the scene really understood all she had said. No wonder she learned more Italian, during that first year, and switched her testimony into Italian, when the court translator could not transform the English phrases into equivalent Italian. That issue alone (bad translations during the trials) should be a whole paragraph in an article. The Murder article is so far removed, from the actual trial transcripts, that it fails to convey the constant battle to state every sentence. In reality, many statements were refuted, or Sollecito, exercising his right, made a unilateral announcement, during the prosecution's arguments: none of this listing all prosecution claims, then 200 words later, refute those as if the prosecutor were never interrupted during the hearings. -Wikid77 09:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• That's great news about Murder in Italy. I was hoping we could use that Dempsey book as another source to show that Knox and Kercher went to the university together, went to Merlin's, went to the 25Oct07 classical music concert, and generally spent more time together until AK started spending nights with RS. Before I knew any details, I naturally assumed that AK and MK had become huffy roommates who tried to avoid each other, not texting each other the night before(!), about Halloween costumes. I guess you agree that an article centered on "Murder of" has too many legal issues to dwell on a "six-week friendship of Kercher and Knox" but a dedicated AK page would provide ample space to have whole sections about such friendships. Readers are asking, every day, about AK not the murder. Again, this is not special treatment for 1 of 3, but rather important background for a person arrested for assault, charged a year later with defamation of her boss, and charged in February? 2010 with defamation of the Italian police. Those 3 separate events, spanning 3 years, prove individual notability for an independent AK article (I've been debating WP:NOTABLE for years; we just need 3 sources for each defamation charge). That's why I started writing and planning diagrams: if they won't let us use any fair-use photos, then we can draw our own diagrams and adapt paintings. You could try translating to Italian or Swedish Misplaced Pages (has English word-order), using those same diagrams, re-labelled), and I could translate an AK page to the German Misplaced Pages, where I've been getting many long articles about Vienna. I suspect the resistance, here, has been ODD about "guilty" which would not affect writing about friendships: when you don't edit the legal article, others have very limited interest in editing, or arguing. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• There is another guideline about WP:GAMING, which warns about people trying every trick to force their way in an article. I have reverted the self-righteous deletions of the media text, twice (as vio of WP:CONSENSUS). However, I think we need to inform Jimbo, that this harrassment is continuing, and although we have limited time to fix articles, the gaming is ruining our ability to keep the article at a mature level, and also how sophisticated readers have been complaining that the article lacks appropriate details in several areas. Even though he is busy, I think he needs to know, in general, we have studied the case evidence intensely, and can provide more answers to readers, but people keep deleting text that readers want to have. He needs to know, we understand the source texts, and the potential falsified evidence, so we are ready to post any critical details, as sources become available. We understand the "lone wolf theory" and reports of "another man with blood-soaked clothes" but he needs to understand that people keep deleting details to avoid those possible explanations. Perhaps we need some user-space pages to show him the alternative wording. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

How should we approach Jimbo? Should we go to his Talk page or send him an e-mail? Or send him a letter? Or should we call the Wiki Main Office on the phone? Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• I would go the route of private email, and be diplomatic about the tortured souls ("God forgive them for they know not what they do" ), and perhaps ask his advice to get an "American" admin to review this article, noting the bizarre inability to list forensic details for the Italian "Trial of the Century", when CSI: Miami is one of the top TV shows, worldwide. We just need to overcome the WP:GAMING, such as a non-admin who pretends to be neutral, or experienced editors who pretend people don't want forensics but many readers watch Criminal Minds or CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Also, we need a separate article about AK as a former student being prosecuted 3 times, not as an alleged sex-game she-devil.

I agree your time is too valuable to grovel in this mire (in a deadlock), and I know it's hard to believe there are many intelligent people who haven't quit yet, but check out the other articles, and you'll find some amazing pages. Meanwhile, the complete article version, with balanced media coverage, and "Detailed forensics" is: . The Bible warns, "Do not cast pearls before swine" as well as the adage, "Trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear" (I don't mean to compare anyone to pigs, as an insult, because pigs are much smarter than that, and wouldn't waste time starting such psycho-games). This is the dreaded En-psycho-pedia with people who would rather be "right" than decent and proper. But, I still see how Misplaced Pages provides that grand experiment: the social litmus test which lets us know how Hitler, Mengele and Stalin did not invent atrocities: such cruelty comes in every generation, as we see here. We came to wonder could modern people really persecute innocent students (really?), and we found such baseless persecution proven, indeed, firsthand. Have no fear: God will get them: I have seen amazing revelations, and they have no idea the power they have betrayed. Someone said AK departed Seattle with hundreds of friends, and now she has thousands. So, we just move on to the next level. Please don't give up on the other decent people here: "Imagine a world where people have access to the sum of all knowledge" and can get the answers they seek, without censorship. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. The good news is that I have found a private communication route with the top echelon. I will go easy as you said, and work on preparing something for the big guys. This is clearly necessary. We are dealing with a high degree of ignorance, vulgarities, harassment, and in the end, if we give up, two innocent people will end up painted as guilty before a final determination of guilt or innocence is ever rendered by any court. I do think the higher ups in Misplaced Pages would appreciate knowing of this situation and being afforded the opportunity to take steps to protect their website for misuse like this. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree: they can find us a fair American admin who will end the censorship, and correct the current WP:NPOV violation which removes the viewpoint called "reality" (the forensic details). I have a measure to note: after weeks of being too busy, I spent hours to restore 17kb of sourced text, on 11 May 2010, which had been deleted despite ongoing talk-page topics to only delete by consensus. All those edits were rejected, and the text deleted again 2 more times, plus spelling fixes and added phrases+sources. They have been caught: censoring all 24 edit sections made by one editor, during an entire day. Most admins will understand, the highest regard is for: WP:CONSENSUS, especially when it has been discussed, repeatedly, for months. People who deleted, or massively reworded sections, against consensus are severely guilty of misconduct. Precedent: the 2006 intro text for article "Hurricane Katrina" was debated and could only be adjusted (not reworded) by consensus. Furthermore, deleting all forensic details is a vio of NPOV (removing the viewpoint called "reality") and vio of WP:NOTCENSORED, not to mention vio of common sense of the importance of CSI investigations (and details) in crime articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Analysis of Z-haters

This is a long-term topic to help understand the mindset of people who post such baseless hateful insults about someone's username. I am a scientist, educated for intense objectivity, and the recent vitriol I've read being posted has shocked me everytime. Some issues to ponder in coming weeks:

• What causes these people, each, to spew such merciless disgusting condemnation of someone's work?
• Are they "taking turns" as a mass psychosis, as if each, in turn, is being possessed by a hate-demon that forces them to post ourageous insults?
• Is the hatred a psychological transference of anti-Knox hatred, disguised and manifested as anti-user remarks?
• Is there some parallel from 1930s Germany, where disgruntled teenage children had repressed rage which could be directed against disloyal parents?

The unfounded insults go far beyond mere anger, or hurried rude remarks. I think we are seeing extensive evidence of dangerous, unbalanced behavior. I was reminded, years ago, that Misplaced Pages's goal is to write the encyclopedia, not act as a rehab for troubled souls (psychosis), so there are some areas, such as recently, where the safe route is to walk away, until the proper officials can restore normalcy. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I sometimes wonder if some of these people are posting while drinking. The anger, the use of profanity, the irrationality, the extreme aggressiveness, the typos, suggest that there is perhaps a cocktail or two sitting beside their keyboards. That is one possibility. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I can imagine some people have "blackouts" and would be surprised at what they had posted. Good observation. -Wikid77 (talk)

Notice to investigate article for policy violations

Hi. Wikid77 here. The following is the text, posted just seconds ago at MoMK, that begins an official notice, as required for oversight of an article at higher levels. As you know, although official notices can sound "scary" there is no avoiding the serious tone required for follow-up by higher officials. To whit:

14-May-2010: This is just a formal announcement, as required by policy, to inform editors that their actions, in editing the article "Murder of Meredith Kercher" are subject to review. Refusing to read this announcement will not excuse personal actions. This announcement is not directed at anyone, in particular, but rather serves as notice that Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines should be followed when editing the article. As typical, when requesting oversight for an article, then officials at each higher level can be expected to ask if proper procedures, such as notification of policies, were followed at each step along the way. In particular, the following apply:

• WP:NPOV - A neutral point-of-view must be represented in the article text, reflecting all major viewpoints, including potential statements made by those people mentioned in the article. Because observed evidence represents an objective point-of-view from scientists and investigators, that evidence must also be allowed in the article. Hence, the deletion or rejection of detailed evidence, from the article, might be considered a violation of WP:NPOV, as rejecting the point of view of basic objective observations.
• WP:NOTCENSORED - Text cannot be removed from an article, even if considered offensive to someone's religion or moral views. Even when a person's religion forbids the discussion of fingerprints, mobile phone usage, security cameras, DNA profiling, luminol testing, or news media reports, then those details cannot be removed from the article.
• WP:BLP - In articles heavily concerned with WP:Biographies of living persons, controversial remarks must be accompanied by sources. To make an accusation against a person, or to insinuate some controversial aspect, without a source that shows proof of those claims, is typically a violation of WP:BLP. For example, it would be a violation to state a specific prosecutor was a child molester, even if accused in a source, unless that source provided solid proof of the claim. Be careful to tie such details, as objective comments in sources, rather than express them as universal facts.
• WP:SYNTH - Stating a series of sourced facts that leads to a controversial, unsourced conclusion is violation of WP:SYN. For example, to quote a lawyer that a "trial was fair" could easily be seen as implying agreement with the ruling, which is a definite violation of WP:SYN, unless a source stated the lawyer accepted the ruling. Also, to state only that a court official was seen touching a goat in private areas, might be a violation of WP:SYN, unless adding sourced information that the encounter was perhaps only pushing the animal out of the path of movement. Be careful to provide a balanced view of events, so that one particular, controversial conclusion is not seen as the obvious sole implication. An imbalance can be corrected by adding sourced text to support alternate conclusions, in the same area of text, and WP:SYN is not an automatic reason to delete text. Ensure such text leads to sourced conclusions or to a variety of options, rather than misleading.
• WP:NPA - Repeated insults or other personal attacks violate policy. To claim that a person's behaviour would never change, or that a person has too little experience to count in a decision, might be considered as an ad hominem attack, so beware.

Those are the main policies, or guidelines, to be sure to observe. However, omission from this list does not imply that other policies, guidelines, or local regulations can be ignored. This concludes the formal announcement, as required by policy, to inform editors that their actions, in editing the article "Murder of Meredith Kercher" are subject to review. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

During future conversations, when people stray from the path, then feel free to wikilink (back to that announcement) by putting pound-sign "#" preceding the title, as:

See: "#Notice to investigate article for policy violations"

That announcement gives solid footing, all in one message, that the main issues have been noted. Per Thomas Jefferson, paraphrased, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" and a proper foundation is in place now. -Wikid77 05:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks anyway, for trying to help Misplaced Pages

Wikid77 here. I am sorry you have been ensnared in such unpleasant dealings with Misplaced Pages. You can email me, privately, at: Special:EmailUser/Wikid77 (select your private email address under Special:Preferences). As I said before, many experts have quit writing in WP, in utter disgust at how articles are handled. Perhaps, at this point, the friendly editors are a tiny minority of all active users writing articles. You know there is a serious problem when 2 expert editors, who have both published papers in professional journals, are then blocked from editing ALL articles at the same time. Some experts quit after they learned that even their discussions, posted on article talk-pages, were deleted, as if their expert concerns had never been stated for the record.

However, I must thank you for all your prior hard work in balancing the MoMK article, to provide a true NPOV-neutral outlook, for many thousands of readers, at a time when the subject was at high interest among the readership. Now, after the reader interest has fallen so sharply, it might be a good idea to move on to other articles, such as lawsuits about the Gulf oil spill. Also, competent people have been working on medical articles, such as "Regenerative medicine". When the appeal trials begin, then many readers will return to MoMK, to learn the new details (meanwhile, many will laugh when seeing the current censorship: no forensic evidence, OMG!). Still, overall, the WP project remains a "kid-opedia" with many articles written in a juvenile manner, with some of them actually teenagers having limited experience in professional subjects. Many other articles have unpleasant content-disputes and WP:Harrassment, so try not to think of the MoMK bunch as worse than all others. Numerous people have failed to understand that "going against an emerging consensus" is called "disagreement" (hello?), rather than some nefarious plot to violate all policies on a website. The terms "heathen" and "barbarian" were invented long before Misplaced Pages. Regardless, the angry mob is required to compromise to support minority opinions, but many refuse the notion. Again, in some arbitration disputes, all people were banned from editing for "6 months" (as a typical "cut the baby in half"), so it can be better to move on to other articles, where your expertise will be appreciated. You are probably more qualified than 99.9% of all admins, where many have trouble understanding even the basics of prior restraint or stare decisis. I thought this article was interesting:

• Lawsuit article: Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants

During the past 2 weeks, I have enjoyed posting comments on several other websites, along with many forward-thinking people, and without the intense debates often found in English Misplaced Pages. Again, feel free to email me privately, where you won't need to worry if someone is planning to twist your words into warped accusations of your intentions. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

MoMK

As a contributor at the MoMK article and/or talk page, please take a look at the new draft and the draft's talkpage and voice your opinion. Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)