| Revision as of 19:01, 2 August 2010 editPhanuelB (talk | contribs)428 edits →A Better Introduction← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:27, 2 August 2010 edit undoPhanuelB (talk | contribs)428 edits →Material about MigniniNext edit → | ||
| Line 218: | Line 218: | ||
| ::My understanding is that the wiretaps in question were not ruled illegal in themselves, it was the way in which the evidence was handled. So I think the wire story (edit: just noticed the Freudian slip there) you have is inaccurate. But that's a side-issue. The main point is that he is not notable enough for his own article and there should also not be a POV fork into the Murder of Florence article, because POV forks are a bad thing and because he is not notable enough in relation to that article either. There particularly should not be a POV-fork created with the unusual belief in mind that Mignini is "the most heavily criticized judicial figure in post-war Europe". --] (]) 16:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC) | ::My understanding is that the wiretaps in question were not ruled illegal in themselves, it was the way in which the evidence was handled. So I think the wire story (edit: just noticed the Freudian slip there) you have is inaccurate. But that's a side-issue. The main point is that he is not notable enough for his own article and there should also not be a POV fork into the Murder of Florence article, because POV forks are a bad thing and because he is not notable enough in relation to that article either. There particularly should not be a POV-fork created with the unusual belief in mind that Mignini is "the most heavily criticized judicial figure in post-war Europe". --] (]) 16:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::I can't think of a European judicial figure who has been ridiculed and dragged through the mud on cable channels broadcast throughout the world in the way that Mignini has. Name somebody who's more heavily criticized. In the years following WWII there were probably figures who's wartime records caught up with them, particularly in Germany, but that isn't what we're talking about. There would of course also be those who were removed from office for various common violations of the law, but that doesn't result in an international debate about them and it probably doesn't call into question the quality of their past work in court. Reliable secondary sources say there IS a nexus between Mignini's crackpot theories in the MOF case (Preston an accessory to murder for example) and his crackpot theories in Amanda's case (Amanda directing Rudy to assault Meredith.) There's a litmus test here, if a reliable source says something it gets thrown out if it's not what somebody wanted to hear. I don't think any other Misplaced Pages page violates NPOV today in the way this one does. ] (]) 19:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:27, 2 August 2010
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38Auto-archiving period: 10 days  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Italy may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. | Upload |
 | A news item involving Murder of Meredith Kercher was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 5 December 2009. |
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Misplaced Pages-logo-v2.svg){kind=link}
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 31 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | Trial of Knox and Sollecito was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 December 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Murder of Meredith Kercher. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
| The contents of the Meredith Kercher page were merged into Murder of Meredith Kercher on 13 November 2007. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
| The contents of the Amanda Knox page were merged into Murder of Meredith Kercher on 13 November 2007. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
 | Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38Auto-archiving period: 10 days |
References
Judges’ reports as reliable sources
FormerIP wrote: ...If you think the Massei and Michelli reports are unreliable, please start a new section to discuss that.
I’m glad someone brought that up. I was already drafting a comment to bring it up myself. I think we need to be very careful how the judges’ reports are used as references. Certainly, as Bluewave noted, they are useful and reliable as a record of the decision-making process which the judges adopted. However, we must remember the reports are only the CONCLUSION of the judges/court, and not everything in them can be claimed as irrefutable fact. As an example, Judge Micheli’s report is cited to support the statement Kercher was murdered in the apartment at around 11 pm. But I know there is controversy as to the time of death. There’s a report that forensic scientists have said it could have been anywhere from 9:00 pm to 4:00 am which could have a major impact on alibis, etc. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3282588.ece
Since the judges’ reports support the court’s position (that Knox and Sollecito are guilty), they are certainly biased and (on controversial issues, at least) I see them as the equivalent of an “advocacy site” for the court/prosecution. Kermugin (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not quite the same thing, really; the judges' report isn't pushing a particular POV, it's merely reporting their findings. As long as the text makes it clear that " according to the judges' report, X event happened as follows" as opposed to "X event happened as follows", then there isn't an issue there. Saying that "the conclusion of the court was that X happened" isn't biased. Now the court's findings are clearly notable, and may need to be included, but similarly we can't allow random non-notable opinion, as advocated by other editors above, to be included. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, the conclusions of the court are not always all there is to say on the matter. You say there is controversy about the time of death, Kermugin. Maybe there is, but I've not heard of this previously. I'd suggest that what we have in this case is a newspaper providing running commentary at a particular point in the investigation. Is there some particular reason why this might be important? AFAIK, the time of death has not been raised as an issue either in the trial or in any media report. It may have a major impact on alibis, but this is your OR unless a reliable source has talked about this. --FormerIP (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don’t have the exact reference now but I think I remember reading somewhere a charge that the prosecution revised their estimated time of death to fit their theory and their witnesses’ statements (i.e. adjusting the "evidence" to fit a theory rather than finding a theory to fit the evidence). Whether that’s true or not, I don’t know. I was just using that as an example. My point is that some things in the judges’ reports may be contentious and shouldn’t be treated as facts. As Black Kite said, saying that "the conclusion of the court was that X happened" is not biased. But treating a conclusion of the court (which could be incorrect) as if it was an indisputable fact is a problem. If a judge’s conclusion is disputed, we should note that it is a conclusion, not a fact. In the example I cited, if the time of death is at issue (I’ll have to look for a source on that) we should add the caveat. Kermugin (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, it would have to be disputed widely and reliably, not just by any random source on the Internet, or it probably wouldn't be worth a mention. Anyone, after all, can "dispute" something. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don’t have the exact reference now but I think I remember reading somewhere a charge that the prosecution revised their estimated time of death to fit their theory and their witnesses’ statements (i.e. adjusting the "evidence" to fit a theory rather than finding a theory to fit the evidence). Whether that’s true or not, I don’t know. I was just using that as an example. My point is that some things in the judges’ reports may be contentious and shouldn’t be treated as facts. As Black Kite said, saying that "the conclusion of the court was that X happened" is not biased. But treating a conclusion of the court (which could be incorrect) as if it was an indisputable fact is a problem. If a judge’s conclusion is disputed, we should note that it is a conclusion, not a fact. In the example I cited, if the time of death is at issue (I’ll have to look for a source on that) we should add the caveat. Kermugin (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, the conclusions of the court are not always all there is to say on the matter. You say there is controversy about the time of death, Kermugin. Maybe there is, but I've not heard of this previously. I'd suggest that what we have in this case is a newspaper providing running commentary at a particular point in the investigation. Is there some particular reason why this might be important? AFAIK, the time of death has not been raised as an issue either in the trial or in any media report. It may have a major impact on alibis, but this is your OR unless a reliable source has talked about this. --FormerIP (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
All findings, of all courts everywhere could be incorrect in terms of absolute truth. "The finding of the court was X" is a verifiable fact
"The finding of the court was X" does not necessarily mean that X is the absolute truth.
Criminal trials in may countries typically have a prosecution and a defence. These two teams of lawyers work by presenting facts, theories, evidence, and statements. They also dispute and attempt to discredit the facts, theories, evidence and statements presented by the other side. Their job is not to establish absolute truth. Their job is simply to win the case, and this his how they do it.
If the court finds that a person is guilty this does not mean that a document recording this fact is biased against the accused. That's ludicrous.
We do not need access to all of the trial documents to write this article.
We do not need to discuss the "quality of the evidence" in this article because we are not lawyers and we are not trying the case. pablohablo. 10:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Kermugin: I would agree that if it can be shown that there is a significant disupte over the time of death, then it may be approporiate to note that in that article, but that would need to be more than a newspaper reporting something that is not consistent - if that's all we have, then it seems obvious to me that, barring a conspiracy theory, the court report is more likely to be correct. --FormerIP (talk) 10:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Reliable secondary sources report that there is a significant dispute over whether this was a kangaroo court or not. WP:NPOV requires that this be discussed. It is a "fact about an opinion" and the central theme of virtually every secondary source that has written about this case. WP:BLP does raise questions about the use of the Micheli/Massei reports as reliable sources (they aren't anyway) but that is not an issue here. The Judge's reports are not reliable sources because a primary theme of all secondary sources that cover this case is the quality of justice in the case. The reports -- to use an analogy -- are specimens, not scholars.
- Yesterday one of the CBS documentaries that has been banned from this article was nominated for an Emmy Award. The POV of this documentary and virtually all of the others is diabolically opposed to the POV of this article. The POV of this article must be NPOV and that must be a proportional representation of what reliable sources are saying. Here are some significant words from that documentary. It is on topic because it speaks to the issue of whether the Judge's reports are reliable sources.
- Paul Ciolino:
- “this is a lynching… this is a lynching that’s happening right now in modern day Europe and it’s happening to an American girl who has no business being charged with anything."
- “I’ll probably get indicted in Italy for saying this. I don’t care. He is ruining the lives of two kids who have done nothing.”
- Peter Van Sant:
- “The case with tabloid claims of drugs, kinky sex, and even satanic rituals is a murder mystery sensation in Europe.”
- “but it did match this man 22 year old Rudy Guede, a local thief known to carry a knife”
- “We have much more on this hour that I really want you to watch and at the end of it I promise you're going to want to send in the 82nd Airborne Division over to Italy to get this girl out of jail.”
- Doug Preston:
- “You cannot believe the hysteria, the anger against Amanda Knox”
- “this is a case based on lies, superstition, and crazy conspiracy theories and that’s it.”
- "I don’t think so." when asked if AK could receive a fair trial.
- “he interrogated me. He accused me of committing horrendous crimes including being an accessory to murder…. I’m a professional journalist; I have a very good memory; I know what happened in that interrogation.”
- Nathan Abraham (primary source only)
- “People knew who Rudy was.. we found out he tried to rob one of our bar tenders where he went to his house had a little scuffle with a knife… he was one of those people who you knew him but you stayed a little far away from him.”PhanuelB (talk) 11:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- PhanuelB, the opinions that you quote contain a lot of emotion but very little substance. Taking, for example, your assertion that the trial of AK/RS has been reliably reported as a "kangaroo court": if I understand the term correctly, that would mean that the verdict was predetermined and was not based on the evidence presented. That is a very serious allegation (much more so than the view that the court made a mistake, for example) and would have to be based on some supporting facts, not emotion. Have any of the sources that you mentioned put forward evidence that the court had, in fact, prejudged the case? For example, did one of the judges comment on the guilt of the defendants before the trial had been held? Or is there evidence that the judges were corrupt? If such evidence exists, it is relevant to the article, but if the sources are making accusations against the court without this kind of supporting evidence, then I would question whether they are reliable sources! Bluewave (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Making a claim that the court was biased or predetermined would of course be a WP:BLP violation - if not libel - as it would allege (probably criminal) misconduct against those involved. In no way could that be included, especially based on non-neutral sources such as those above. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- PhanuelB, the opinions that you quote contain a lot of emotion but very little substance. Taking, for example, your assertion that the trial of AK/RS has been reliably reported as a "kangaroo court": if I understand the term correctly, that would mean that the verdict was predetermined and was not based on the evidence presented. That is a very serious allegation (much more so than the view that the court made a mistake, for example) and would have to be based on some supporting facts, not emotion. Have any of the sources that you mentioned put forward evidence that the court had, in fact, prejudged the case? For example, did one of the judges comment on the guilt of the defendants before the trial had been held? Or is there evidence that the judges were corrupt? If such evidence exists, it is relevant to the article, but if the sources are making accusations against the court without this kind of supporting evidence, then I would question whether they are reliable sources! Bluewave (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- The allegations are being made by numerous reliable sourcesWP:RS.PhanuelB (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Who? The ones listed above don't appear to be in the slightest reliable, judging by their tone. In no way would we support any sort of conspiracy theory based on such claims, especially, as I said, if they alleged some sort of criminal activity with no proof. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- The allegations are being made by numerous reliable sourcesWP:RS.PhanuelB (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Who? This CBS documentary was just nominated for an Emmy Award. All these people showed up neutral and came away breathing fire. CNN Larry King Live had the same experience. They selected neutral people, they looked at the case, and they're breathing fire. Tim Egan is a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist. He's breathing fire also. Same for Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper. They selected neutral people. Those people came away breathing fire.
- What kills me about this is that I'm the one who's complying fully with Misplaced Pages's requirements. I show up with facts (Rudy's criminal history) and they say "that's synthesis or original research." Fine; then I show up with secondary sources in the form of television documentaries and they say "we report facts, not random opinions." At a certain point this stuff can't be ignored.PhanuelB (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
At a certain point this stuff can't be ignored Correct. It won't be able to be ignored once Knox's Italian counsel actually files charges in an Italian Court ... or once the US State Department protests ... or perhaps once it moves beyond news reports and blogosphere opinions & becomes tangible. Until them, it can be ignored. I won't hold my breath. Jonathan (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- The criteria you have created (Italian Lawyer's charges, US State Dep protests) are utterly irrelevant to Wikpedia's rules of inclusion. Do you really think this CBS television documentary is "blogosphere opinion"?PhanuelB (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
" Do you really think this CBS television documentary is "blogosphere opinion" The CBS documentary you are referring to is a self-publish source; self-funded, self-produced, not subject to peer-review and therefore, a biased source. CBS is not presenting the source, CBS itself IS the source. that's why it is essentially a blogosphere opinion. Jonathan (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm seriously wondering how many times this has to be re-stated before you grasp the concept here, PhanuelB. CBS itself is undoubtedly a reliable source; but CBS aren't saying those things - their documentary happens to contain footage of other people saying those things. Are those people reliable sources? Well, that's the question. Of course the documentary is going to show the most sensationalist quotes it can; it wouldn't be doing its job otherwise. But to give an example using Preston's quote "this is a case based on lies, superstition, and crazy conspiracy theories" - well, nice quote. Any reliable sources showing evidence that he may be correct? No, thought not. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
(NathanWard1234 (talk) 04:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)) I have been reading through the discussion and I do not understand how Barbie Nadeau can be considered a reliable source when it comes to blood evidence but a CBS 48 Hours documentary is banned as a reliable source. I guess Black_Kite's explanation is not enough for me.
- “Making a claim that the court was biased or predetermined would of course be a WP:BLP violation...” But factually noting such a claim having been made by multiple renowned professional investigators and journalists is simply reporting the truth and is relevant.
- “Who? The ones listed above don't appear to be in the slightest reliable, judging by their tone. In no way would we support any sort of conspiracy theory based on such claims...”
- I don’t think the “tone” of a source is sufficient to judge its reliability. If it is, we would have to eliminate a large percentage of sources on both sides of the issue. Black Kite is absolutely correct that we can’t support conspiracy theories based on unproven claims. But I see a large difference between supporting a theory and factually noting that a widely-held theory exists and is supported by notable professional investigators, journalists, celebrities, politicians, etc. This case is exceptionally notable because it is fraught with claims of irregularities in the judicial process. The article should not seek to prove these claims. But it would be incomplete and dishonest if it tries to hide or fails to note them. Kermugin (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- It does note them, that's the point (see the Media coverage section). But WP:UNDUE means we can't list every quote by every single media commentator that has casr doubt on the trial. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don’t think the “tone” of a source is sufficient to judge its reliability. If it is, we would have to eliminate a large percentage of sources on both sides of the issue. Black Kite is absolutely correct that we can’t support conspiracy theories based on unproven claims. But I see a large difference between supporting a theory and factually noting that a widely-held theory exists and is supported by notable professional investigators, journalists, celebrities, politicians, etc. This case is exceptionally notable because it is fraught with claims of irregularities in the judicial process. The article should not seek to prove these claims. But it would be incomplete and dishonest if it tries to hide or fails to note them. Kermugin (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
JSL5871 (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC) There is nothing irrelevent about the argument about the crediblity of the investigation, prosecution, or outcome of this case; in face, that argument about the credibility is itself a major part of this story. Whether one chooses to believe it or not, there are a lot of inconsistencies with the method of investigation (enough so that part of Amanda's interrogation was thrown out by the Italian Supreme Court), prosecution (the prosecution admitted that they believed Amanda was guilty early on simply because of her "behavior" , the prosecution DID admit to withholding key evidence against Raffale Sollecito (the bra clasp, halting the trial for a month)and the outcome (it is a fact that the judge took cell phone calls and members of the jury fell asleep during the defense portion of the trial. These are facts. The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to tell the entire story, not just the part that is convenient. People above are correct -- this is not the forum to debate the trial, but it IS the forum to define the trial. The trial definitely has in consistencies and that needs to be narrated. You don't have to agree to it, but you do have to allow it. If not, it is the editors here who are using Misplaced Pages as an incorrect venue to be a forum of pro-guilt only.
- Oh for goodness sake - it is noted in the article already that some people believe the trial has inconsistencies. The article is not "pro-guilt" or "pro-innocence", it is neutral - something which it definitely wasn't before. The fact that there are two whole sections devoted to media criticism and the support for Knox surely indicates that both "sides" (if that is the correct phrase) are represented here. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
JSL5871 (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC) I see two possibilities here. One is to enable this page to discuss the trial -- all of the trial, all of the discussion, not just a small portion that is conveniently here and the rest removed. The other option is to remove the block of the original Amanda Knox page. There is no reason there cannot be a page dedicated to her (intead of only redirecting here). There are clearly two points of view here: Amanda is guilty, and Amanda is a victim of a bad legal process. They should both be freely discussed and not censored.
NathanWard1234 (talk 04:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)) I agree with JSL5871 with regard to the Amanda Knox page. What is the harm in dedicating a page to Amanda Knox?
- Well it's scarcely surprisingthat you would agree; you are JSL5871. pablo. 08:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
NathanWard1234 (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Pablo, your comment did very little to answer my question. Why did you say that I am JSL5871? I am not JSL5871 and I have no idea why you would make that accusation. I would like an answer to my question. What is the harm in dedicating a page on Misplaced Pages to Amanda Knox? As far as I know, she has been a major news story for almost 3 years. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. Amanda Knox would certainly be independently mentioned in any credible encyclopedia that was detailing this time in history.
JSL5871, you're presenting a false choice here. There is yet a third option, which is to consider the entire "Knox is innocent" crusade as attempting to right a great wrong, and therefore not allowed in Misplaced Pages. That is why the previous Knox page was redirected. Jonathan (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Correct. As noted previously, many times, there are many outlets on the Internet for people to discuss their conspiracy theories (or even reasonable theories) about how the trial was badly handled. This is not a discussion page, it's not a forum, it's not a blog - it's an encyclopedia, and that is not the place to be hosting such issues. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
In response to NathanWard1234, the proposal to maintain a separate Amanda Knox page has been discussed fairly recently at AfD. Knox could well have been "major news" to some people, but since her name is presently inextricable from the subject of Meredith Kercher's murder, she merits inclusion on Misplaced Pages as an aspect of a parent article rather than the subject for a separate page. Until her notability is demonstrated in a capacity external to the murder, the trials and the convictions, a dedicated sub-article is not warranted. SuperMarioMan 16:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
A Better Introduction
- Meredith Kercher was a 21 year old British exchange student who was murdered in Perugia, Italy on November 1, 2007. The killing shocked the medieval hill town where thousands of foreign college students come each year to study Italian language and culture. Three people have been convicted in the killing: Amanda Knox, a fellow exchange student and housemate of Kercher’s from the Seattle area; Rudy Guede, a petty criminal originally from the Ivory Coast; and Raffaele Sollecito, the son of a wealthy Italian doctor. The case received widespread media coverage and remains controversial because of questions about whether Knox and Sollecito received a fair trial.
- Guede, who was linked to the crime by substantial physical evidence, was convicted in October 2008. The trial of Knox and Sollecito took place between January and December 2009 and was closely watched in both Europe and the United States. By the time of the guilty verdict on December 4, 2009 the trial and the police investigation had come under sharp attack in the United States. Shortly after the verdict which was shown live on US television members of the Washington Press Corp and at least one United States Senator were asking US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton if the US government planned to intervene.
- Note: TLC documentary says "petty criminal." Nadeau and Gary King book say drug sales so it's OK to use that term here.
- Note: Jill Dougherty on CNN 7-Dec-09 "Senior State Department officials tell CNN the US will review the trial but is being cautions about commenting while an appeals process is underway."PhanuelB (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Think this is a decent proposal, but there are one or two things I would take issue with:
- Slightly too journalistic in style in a couple of places (eg "shocked the medieval hill town")
- "Petty criminal" is obviouslt in issue in other discussions, and even if it is contained in the TLC source, it appears to be contradicted elsewhere.
- "Substantial physical evidence" is true of all three killers, so it is misleading to highlight this in the case of Guede.
- "Under sharp attack" would quickly get a "who?" tag.
- --FormerIP (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I took this out of the current lead:
- She was lying partially unclothed under a duvet in her bedroom. There was blood on the floor, bed and walls. Forensic pathologists concluded she had been choked, after which her throat was stabbed, causing fatal bleeding. Her body had 40 bruises and scratches, plus knife wounds on the neck and hands, and there was evidence of sexual assault.
- On the basis that those details are contained later in the article and didn't really enhance the lead.
- --FormerIP (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I took this out of the current lead:
- Is it necessary to describe Sollecito's family as "wealthy" in the first paragraph? The term is rather vague, and furthermore what is its import? However, the last sentence of the first paragraph is a fair assessment. The current lead section would benefit from a few sentences summarising public reaction, but the second paragraph above (which aims for that) has a definite skew which lends prominence to Guede's guilt while omitting the evidence raised against Knox and Sollecito (the subject shifts to focus on reception in the media). Lumumba, as a former detainee, requires a mention, but his name is nowhere to be seen. SuperMarioMan 18:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree the article needs a better introduction. The one proposed may need a couple of minor edits but if it sounds a trifle “journalistic”, I think it’s certainly a lot closer to “encyclopedic” than the existing introduction. And perhaps it should say even more about the controversy.
- There have been many tragic and brutal crimes within the past few years (as always). I don’t mean to minimize the tragedy of Meredith Kercher’s murder but most of them are unheard of outside the local area and are not recorded in Misplaced Pages or any other encyclopedia. The thing that makes this case internationally notable is the controversy over whether Knox and Sollecito received a fair trial or were unfairly prosecuted without proper cause or evidence. That fact needs to be brought out clearly in the introduction and not relegated to a paragraph toward the end of the article. (As a comparison, the article about The O.J. Simpson murder case brings up doubt about DNA evidence and allegations of police misconduct in the introduction.)
- The article must not try to convince the reader that the allegations in the controversy are either right or wrong. But it should give due consideration to the fact the controversy exists so the reader can understand what it’s about and look elsewhere for more information or to engage in debate if desired. Certainly we should all agree that an encyclopedia article should be clear, concise, and totally factual, as well as unbiased. It should give a reader (even someone with no prior knowledge who quickly skims through it) an overview of the salient facts even if they don’t read through every section. I think this is a step in the right direction. Kermugin (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I see no reason to have this in the lead: "Shortly after the verdict which was shown live on US television members of the Washington Press Corp and at least one United States Senator were asking US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton if the US government planned to intervene." ... the US Department of State had monitored the trial all along and at best, Senator Cantwell was shown to be ill-prepared and out of line with her open letter. Nothing has been heard from Senator Cantwell since the verdict, so it definitely does not belong in the lead. This is a case of too much emphasis given to Senator Cantwell's open letter. Both Senator Cantwell and the Department of State belong to "the US government", however the DoS has jurisdiction in this matter. Jonathan (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, agreed. I think the rewrite is OK with FormerIP's changes, with the second sentence ("The killing shocked...") removed completely (it's tabloidy and unnecessary), and with the last sentence either removed, or shortened and merged with the previous one, i.e. "After the verdict, at least one United States Senator asked US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton whether the US government planned to intervene." The three guilty parties need to be mentioned equally in the lead; attempting to skew guilt towards Guede is a WP:BLP violation. Lumumba also needs to be mentioned, I'd say. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Although the present lead section offers a clear and concise run-through of the murder, trials and convictions, it summarises nothing below point 7 in the table of contents. The re-write that is needed here should endeavour to provide a brief overview of the whole text. A two-paragraph structure as PhanuelB proposes would be suitable — perhaps the first to contain basic historical facts, the second reserved for responses. Ending the introduction with a one-line mention of Clinton makes for a rather abrupt finish — other reactions could be noted, and the resulting lawsuits against various involved parties should also not be excluded. SuperMarioMan 21:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- The lead needs to mention at least two or three of the reasons why the conviction of Knox and Sollecito remains controversial. Reasons that might fit here include the alleged abusive nature of Knox's interrogation, the early declaration by the police that the crime had been solved, massive pre trial publicity, unconventional handing of DNA evidence and key witnesses that came forward only months after the crime. The controversy over the verdict is after all the reason this murder is notable enough to include in Misplaced Pages. --Footwarrior (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think we can mention controversy in the lead, but this needs brevity, sourcing which is strong and clear, and balance. The lead is definitely not the place to directly argue the merits and weaknesses of the prosecution case. --FormerIP (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I also agree with the proposal to improve the introduction and also agree with the points made about improving PhanuelB's proposal. The tone should be less journalistic (eg the sections such as "the killing shocked the medieval hill town..." and " was closely watched in both Europe and the United States". we certainly shouldn't describe Guede as a criminal (he had no criminal convictions) and shouldn't imply that there was more evidence against him than the other defendants (opinion). The fact that the verdict was shown on US television and a US senator wrote to Hillary Clinton about it don't seem sufficiently significant aspects of the murder to warrant a place in the lead. Regarding the prominence we should give to the controversy, I honestly don't know what would be appropriate. Presumably we are talking here about the opinions expressed in reliable media sources, especially those in Italy, the UK and the US. Certainly a vast amount of the coverage of the case in news reports was factual and didn't express any obvious opinions. There was also a lot of the tabloidish focus on "Foxy Knoxy", her sex life, diaries, drugs, etc. In the UK I also read opinion pieces that questioned whether the court reached the right verdict and questioned the standard of proof required for a guilty verdict in Italy. However, these were a million miles from the "public lynching" opinions that PhanuelB has mentioned. They were also balanced by equally well-argued opinion pieces that presented Knox as being rightfully convicted. Perhaps some of the US-based
neutraleditors can give an assessment of how prominent the criticism of the case is in that country: to me it looks like a handful of very vocal people who have, for whatever reason, aligned themselves with the Knox family, but I may have got this wrong. We clearly have a difficult job to get the balance right, but it would certainly not be a balanced view to imply that criticism of the court has been the only reaction to the case. Bluewave (talk) 08:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC) - Slightly refactored. On re-reading that, it sounds like I'm saying that some US-based editors are not neutral! That was not my intention. Bluewave (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I also agree with the proposal to improve the introduction and also agree with the points made about improving PhanuelB's proposal. The tone should be less journalistic (eg the sections such as "the killing shocked the medieval hill town..." and " was closely watched in both Europe and the United States". we certainly shouldn't describe Guede as a criminal (he had no criminal convictions) and shouldn't imply that there was more evidence against him than the other defendants (opinion). The fact that the verdict was shown on US television and a US senator wrote to Hillary Clinton about it don't seem sufficiently significant aspects of the murder to warrant a place in the lead. Regarding the prominence we should give to the controversy, I honestly don't know what would be appropriate. Presumably we are talking here about the opinions expressed in reliable media sources, especially those in Italy, the UK and the US. Certainly a vast amount of the coverage of the case in news reports was factual and didn't express any obvious opinions. There was also a lot of the tabloidish focus on "Foxy Knoxy", her sex life, diaries, drugs, etc. In the UK I also read opinion pieces that questioned whether the court reached the right verdict and questioned the standard of proof required for a guilty verdict in Italy. However, these were a million miles from the "public lynching" opinions that PhanuelB has mentioned. They were also balanced by equally well-argued opinion pieces that presented Knox as being rightfully convicted. Perhaps some of the US-based
- I think we can mention controversy in the lead, but this needs brevity, sourcing which is strong and clear, and balance. The lead is definitely not the place to directly argue the merits and weaknesses of the prosecution case. --FormerIP (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- The lead needs to mention at least two or three of the reasons why the conviction of Knox and Sollecito remains controversial. Reasons that might fit here include the alleged abusive nature of Knox's interrogation, the early declaration by the police that the crime had been solved, massive pre trial publicity, unconventional handing of DNA evidence and key witnesses that came forward only months after the crime. The controversy over the verdict is after all the reason this murder is notable enough to include in Misplaced Pages. --Footwarrior (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps some of the US-based neutral editors can give an assessment of how prominent the criticism of the case is in that country ... whenever I casually mention the name Amanda Knox, most people barely remember the case, and those that do recall the case remember her as "the college student that killed her roommate". Unfortunately for us in America, there have been a series of college & high school violent episodes (Columbine, Virginia Tech, et. al.) and an accompanying drugs problem that is becoming more publicized. I think these two things lessen the shock value of such tragedies, and as there is always some new story coming right around the corner, people have forgetten about Amanda Knox. This is most evident in how every "new" story about Amanda Knox gets its comment section flooded with the same cut & paste arguments. Jonathan (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Have you also noticed that most of the cutting and pasting is done by one person? pablo 09:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hello Pablo, yes, I have indeed noticed that all the comments seem to be derived from a singular source, I was just trying to be a polite as possible! Jonathan (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Perhaps some of the US-based neutral editors can give an assessment of how prominent the criticism of the case is in that country"? First of all, the personal experiences of other editors is not how Misplaced Pages works. It's supposed to be a consolodation of what reliable sources are saying. And that is not what is happening now. When a source is presented, a litmus test is applied. If the source has the wrong POV he gets ignored. Now for some WP:IAR. Let's cut the crap. There aren't any neutral editors here and there aren't any neutral administrators. Why not just admit it? At this point those who believe in guilt are up about 3 to 2. PhanuelB (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am neutral, and have done a lot of tidying & copyediting since the early days of the article. But I find I have to take long rests from it these days, such is the endless controversy. But since you mentioned it... Rothorpe (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
There is absolutely no coverage or mention of this case in the U.S. at this time. If you Google, Amanda Knox, you'll see that there are virtually no news stories that have been written this year about this case. Senator Maria Cantwell has not said a single word about this case during the entire year. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has still never once commented on this case. If there is criticism of the case in this case, it's invisible. Except for a few blogs that are dedicated to the case. But the site traffic on those blogs has dwindled to less than zero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- The above post is pure fantasy and illustrates how some will report not what reliable sources say but what they want to believe. TLC Documentary, 4 books, Trump, dozens of newspaper articles. The US State Department has said they will not comment while the appeals process is ongoing. PhanuelB (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Until such time as further official comment is made, there isn't much more that can be added to the article on the issue of US executive or senatorial involvement. Also, claiming WP:IAR as an excuse for berating other editors on their (supposed) lack of a neutral perspective is not really that WP:CIVIL, is it? You have been warned about this before; please do not continue to post messages that contain a hostile tone. SuperMarioMan 22:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- The notable event is that the Washington Press Corp was asking the US Secretary of State if she planned to intervene. I know of no other non-political criminal case where this has occured in the last 50 years in a modern western democracy. The US State Department has NOT said they think the trial was fair. They have said they would not comment while the appeals proccess is underway. BTW... asking for neutral editors to comment on something does imply that some aren't neutral.PhanuelB (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
2nd para of "Events surrounding the murder"
I messed about with this para a bit. Here is the dif: .
Previously, it had Kercher being murdered at 11 and a neighbour hearing a scream and footsteps running away. However, I was not able to find a source giving the time of the scream and, as indicated elsewhere in the article, there may have been a time-lapse between the attack on Kercher and her time of death. So I have re-orderd the paragraph to avoid giving the impression that all these things happened at the same time. --FormerIP (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- These statement probably belong in the trail section. In this section the implication is that the time of death is certain and was not contested at trial. The elderly neighbor also didn't report the scream on the night of the murder. She came forward months later with the claim she heard the scream and people running. Her testimony was disputed at trail. A tow truck driver and occupants of a disabled car in the car park across from the cottage were present and did not hear a scream. --Footwarrior (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- My feeling is that it would be good to have a single section outlining the basic chronology as reported in the sources, rather than having bits of it in diffent sections, which must be hard for anyone reading the article.
- I didn't know there was any controversy over the woman who heared the scream. Do you have sources for this? One of the things that makes this article difficult is all the "here is what happened, except maybe it didn't". --FormerIP (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Material about Mignini
I just deleted a new paragraph that had been added about Mignini. It began "Prosecutor Mignini has a history of bringing false charges against people" which accusation would require a great deal better citations than were given! It also included things like "...prosecutor Mignini decided that..." which implies that the source knows a great deal about Mignini's thought processes. In any case, none of the material added was concerned with the trial of Knox and Sollecito, so I'd question its relevance. OK, so someone's made a Bold edit; I've Reverted; can we Discuss (WP:BRD)? Bluewave (talk) 07:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- For a number of reasons that specific edit was revertible. Questions of Mignini's conduct in related cases calls into question his judgment and fitness to hold office in Amanda's case and this has been pointed out by numerous reliable secondary sources. Such issues are best summarized on this page and discussed in detail on a page dedicated to Mignini. Doug Preston's firsthand account of his interrogation by Mignini (CNN AC360 5-Dec-09) refers to him as "crazy" and "obsessed." According to Preston, Mignini accused Preston of being an accessory to murder. That's a joke; Preston and Spezi weren't doing anything to keep a serial killer out of jail. And Ohhhhh yes that has everything to do with Amanda's case.
- Doug Preston is of course one of a number of banned subjects for this article. Others include Rudy's criminal acts prior to the murder and the condemnation of the trial in the days following the verdict by numerous reliable secondary sources on US cable channels. See also Anna Momigliano's Dec-09 article in Foreign Policy Magazine that very much states that this case is all about putting the Italian Judicial System on trial. I've been busy lately, but don't worry we're headed for arbitration. PhanuelB (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Mignini is a non-notable figure. Yes, he holds a senior position within the criminal justice system of Perugia, but this doesn't entitle him to his own article. A reminder that BLP also applies on talkpages. The investigation against him is already referred to in the article, but we don't need the whole history. If we do, we also need balance, which given the history of the page will mean citing every reason why he's a creep followed by every reason why the source in question is not to be taken at face value which, empahtically, would not be an improvement to the article. Arbitration? Can't wait. I assume you're aware you will need to show other attempts to resolve any issues there are, though. --FormerIP (talk) 12:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Mignini is of course not a notable figure because of accomplishment. He is notable because of his notoriety. It's fair to say he is the most heavily criticized judicial figure in post-war Europe. The reliable sources that say this (a dozen commentators appearing on CBS,NBC,CNN, TLC, which I have repeatedly cited previously) have been banned from this article.
- Misplaced Pages has pages for literally hundreds of US judges and prosecutors both sitting and from the past. The page for America's counterpart of Mignini,Mike Nifong, is longer than the MK page. And the criticism is in three separate cases: His criminal conviction mostly to do with the MOF case, the MK trial, and his handling of Spezi and Preston which provoked the ire of human rights groups such as the New York based Committee to Protect Journalists. Events related to Spezi and Preston were NOT part of the criminal case against him BTW. Of course he gets a page. A reminder WP:BLP also relates to AK and RS. PhanuelB (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Repeated claims that sources have been "banned" will do rather little to advance the argument being made here. The worthiness of these sources respective to their inclusion in the article has been evaluated and discounted in previous threads. Talk pages are not the place to label biographical subjects "notorious" in accordance with the BLP policies — however, I do not see defamation of the convicts Knox and Sollecito on this page. And, on the subject of the prosecutor's independent noteworthiness, there is a the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS counter-argument. It's fair to say he is the most heavily criticized judicial figure in post-war Europe — oh really? SuperMarioMan 22:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Mignini's conviction for abuse of office and his other strange behaviors such as the arrest of Mario Spezi are all related to his investigation of the Monster of Florence case. Instead of creating a separate article for Mignini, I would suggest first updating the MOF article by translating the Italian Misplaced Pages article and then adding more details about Mignini to the section on the Narducci wild goose chase. --Footwarrior (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Get the idea in principle, Footwarrior, but think the type of material being talked about would be equally wrong inserted over there. Mignini didn't work on the Monster of Florence case and he's a very tangential figure in relation to it (notice how he isn't mentioned in the Italian article). It would be be total WP:COATRACK to expand that article just so a place can be found for non-notable BLP violations that an editor can't get inserted into this one. --FormerIP (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- You need to talk to the court in Florence who convicted Mignini of abuse of office in connection to the Monster of Florence case and show them your evidence that he didn't work on the case. --Footwarrior (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- No I don't. He didn't work on the case. If you don't believe me, do some research. --FormerIP (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- You need to talk to the court in Florence who convicted Mignini of abuse of office in connection to the Monster of Florence case and show them your evidence that he didn't work on the case. --Footwarrior (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- I did do some research and that is why I don't believe you. --Footwarrior (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- You clearly didn't. Mignini didn't work on the Monster of Florence case. He worked on the Narducci case, a different case where there seems to have been some sort of obscure theory of a link but which turned out to be unconnected.
- ie Mignini is a hopelessly tangential figure in relation to the Monster of Florence case, and so that is not an appropriate place to dump a laundry list of allegations against him. --FormerIP (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- The Narducci case was a suicide that Mignini claimed was a coverup for the MOF case. That is why the Italian Misplaced Pages article has a section on the Narducci investigation. Mignini's abuse of office conviction was for illegal wiretaps done to prove the coverup. Mignini also arrested Mario Spezi on charges of interfering with the MOF investigation. When a prosecutor files charges and has people arrested, it's not tangential to an investigation. --Footwarrior (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, it is not tangential to the Narducci investigation, but it is tangential to the Monster of Florence investigation. --FormerIP (talk) 03:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- PS Mignini was not convicted for illegal wiretapping. Per WP:BLP you should remove that false allegation and do some research as to the actual facts of the case. --FormerIP (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Facts that can be verified are not false allegations and do not violate WP:BLP, see WP:V. Source for my claim about Mignini's conviction.. --Footwarrior (talk) 04:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- My understanding is that the wiretaps in question were not ruled illegal in themselves, it was the way in which the evidence was handled. So I think the wire story (edit: just noticed the Freudian slip there) you have is inaccurate. But that's a side-issue. The main point is that he is not notable enough for his own article and there should also not be a POV fork into the Murder of Florence article, because POV forks are a bad thing and because he is not notable enough in relation to that article either. There particularly should not be a POV-fork created with the unusual belief in mind that Mignini is "the most heavily criticized judicial figure in post-war Europe". --FormerIP (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- I can't think of a European judicial figure who has been ridiculed and dragged through the mud on cable channels broadcast throughout the world in the way that Mignini has. Name somebody who's more heavily criticized. In the years following WWII there were probably figures who's wartime records caught up with them, particularly in Germany, but that isn't what we're talking about. There would of course also be those who were removed from office for various common violations of the law, but that doesn't result in an international debate about them and it probably doesn't call into question the quality of their past work in court. Reliable secondary sources say there IS a nexus between Mignini's crackpot theories in the MOF case (Preston an accessory to murder for example) and his crackpot theories in Amanda's case (Amanda directing Rudy to assault Meredith.) There's a litmus test here, if a reliable source says something it gets thrown out if it's not what somebody wanted to hear. I don't think any other Misplaced Pages page violates NPOV today in the way this one does. PhanuelB (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class Crime-related articles
- Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- C-Class Death articles
- Unknown-importance Death articles
- C-Class Italy articles
- Unknown-importance Italy articles
- All WikiProject Italy pages
- Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
- Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Italy
- Misplaced Pages In the news articles