Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:42, 25 February 2010

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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 page is not a forum for general discussion about the murder. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the murder at the Reference desk.

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.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Italy This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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.

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Halloween/Satanic Ritual Theory

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)

The "satanic ritual" theory has very much entered the folklore about this case, but the only citations that I can find for its origin are those discussed above: namely the words of Sollecito's defence lawyer, giving his version of what the prosecutor had said at a closed session of the court. I have not been able to establish the complete "audit trail" but I think the lawyer spoke initially to a journalist from Il Tempo, who published a story, which was then picked up by the English-speaking press. By looking at the various papers, it is apparent that some of them (eg Times and Scotsman) make it clear that the quote originates from the lawyer: others (eg Independent) miss out the middleman and make it sound like they are quoting the prosecutor directly. There is a well-known debating trick which dates back at least to Classical Greece to re-present your opponent's argument in the most ludicrously extreme version that you can get away with and the to rubbish it on the basis that it is extreme and ludicrous. Sollecito's defence lawyer has clearly tried to do that (and that's what he is paid to do) and the Knox-funded PR firm have probably done the same (which is what they are paid to do). If you believe the prosecution case was based on a "satanic ritual" theory, you will need to find a more reliable source than I have been able to find so far. Actually, I don't believe we have any sources for the full details of the prosecution theory because things like the prosecution's reconstruction of the murder were held in closed sessions of the court, where journalists were not present. Bluewave (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Bluewave.

And I'd like to remind Zlykinskyja that it was not the prosecutor who chose to hold Knox and Sollecito for a year. He asked the Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari (a Judge) to order their arrest; then, his order was upheld by the Tribunale della Libertà (3 Judges) and by the Court of Cassation. Salvio giuliano (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, I have come across numerous other sources saying that a satanic type motive was being put forth by the prosecutor. I don't have them right at the moment, but I'm sure that I can find them again when I re-do the Goggle search. I can assure you that the satanic/Halloween theory is much more than "folklore." To ease your concerns, I will agree that any inclusion of the theory in the article must be based on multiple citations beyond the Times and Scotsman. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, You deleted some paragraphs on the issue of motive, which were properly sourced, so I restored them. I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that Il Temporo was relying only on info from one of the lawyers. Where does it say that? Also, how can you assume that Popham did no independent verification on his own? In any event, there are several additional sources providing info consistent with this that have been included. Also note that Judge Micheli is reported as expressly rejecting Mignini's theory on Halloween, ritual and Manga comic books as a "fantasy". This is a quote from the one of the sources I included: "He dismissed as “fantasy” prosecutors’ claims that the sex game in which Miss Kercher is alleged to have died was inspired by Satanic rites, Halloween rituals or violent Japanese ‘manga’ comics about dead vampires." In order for Micheli to have rejected the theory, Mignini indeed must have presented the theory. You can find that quote in here. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/3285478/Meredith-Kercher-suspect-Amanda-Knox-tells-of-disappointment-at-being-sent-for-trial.html So you are incorrect that this Halloween, Satanic stuff is just folklore about the case. It really was part of the case.Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the paragraphs because I thought that the above discussion had established the origin of the satanic ritual theory as being from the defence counsel and therefore hardly reliable or notable. You said you would find citations "beyond the Times and Scotsman. You've come up with a piece headlined Masonic theory that put Knox in the dock in which Peter Popham puts forward his own theory that Mignini was duped by a blogger. Starting off a section on the prosecution theories with this far-fetched piece of journalism is hardly giving the article a balanced content! I hope someone else might agree with me and delete it, but if no-one else finds it unacceptable, I will at least correct some of the errors when I have time. Bluewave (talk) 09:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave: No, the origin of the satanic/ritual/Halloween type theory was Mignini, not the defense counsel. Your re-write makes it sound like Mignini may never have actually presented such a theory. Did you check the link I cited above? Clearly, if Judge Micheli expressly rejected that type of theory in his ruling on the indictment of Knox and Sollecito, then that is proof that Mignini did present such a theory to the court. Thus, it is legitimate to present such a theory as Mignini's in the article.Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Knox's statement against Lumumba

The section about Amanda Knox's statement which implicated Lumumba looks like it was written by Knox's lawyer! (See the 'Amanda Knox' subsection which mentions "53 hours of questioning", "non-recorded interrogation", "supposed confession", etc.) What statements were made by whom, and whether they were admissable in court should really be a matter of fact, rather than allegation and speculation. I have had a go at piecing together the events surrounding the statement, but accounts are not consistent. I have been checking the accounts against Knox's own testimony for which there is an audio recording and transcript online. This is probably not admissable in the article as it is a primary source and is hosted on a blog, but it looks and sounds genuine and is is a helpful check, when trying to get the story right. I'm not suggesting we put it in the article! If we can agree on the facts, we can summarise them in the article...I'm not suggesting putting all the detail into the article, either!

On 5 Nov 2007, Knox voluntarily accompanied Sollecito to the police station. During the course of his interview he said that he did not know for sure that Knox was with him on the night of the murder. The judicial police (rather than the prosecutor) then decided to question Knox. It would make sense that she was initially questioned as a possible witness (and therefore with no lawyer present) but I haven't found a citation.

At 22:40 Knox called a flatmate: the police questioning had not yet begun. According to the Newsweek summary cited above, the interrogation began at about 23.00.

At 01:45 on 6 Nov, under questioning, Knox made a statement that she had accompanied Lumumba to Kercher's house and had been in the kitchen and heard screams while Lumumba committed the murder. At this point, it seems that the questioning stopped, presumably because Knox was no longer a witness but was a suspect. At 05:45, Knox made a second statement, descibed in some accounts as a "voluntary statement" or "spontaneous statement". This was still without a lawyer present but, by this time, the prosecutor had arrived. This statement confirmed the earlier statement. Knox claimed that both statements were made under duress and that at one point she had been hit twice by a policewoman. This is denied by the police who have now responded with a defamation charge. The contents of these statements was widely reported in the press at the time.

Knox was formally arrested later on the morning of 6 Nov. Knox also made a written note to the police. The Telegraph say this was written at 2300 on 6 Nov 2007, but the audio recording of Knox's testimony to the court seems to place it on 7 Nov. Either way, this was leaked to the press and the Telegraph, for example, published a full transcript. In this, Knox explained that she was confused when she made the earlier statements. However, it still seems to incriminate Lumumba: "I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik , but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house." She went on to say "I see Patrik as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night."

Knox's defence lawyers tried to have the statements made at 01:45 and 05:45 ruled inadmissable at their trial. The various newspaper accounts seem a bit confused about what ruling was made. It sounds from the trial audio that the 01:45 statement could, in any case not be used in the case against Knox, because it was self-incriminatory. Regarding the 05:45 statement: in the "Court of Cassazione, first section, sentence number 99-08, dated April 1, 2008, it is asserted that the spontaneous declarations from 5:54 are inadmissible regarding both the accused and the other subjects involved in the same crime, being contrary to the defense guaranteed to a person who is already officially a suspect." Nevertheless, the judge (at the Knox trial) ruled that both statements were admissable in Lumumba's civil case against Knox, which was being tried in the same court at the same time as the criminal trial of Knox and Sollecito.

Do other editors agree that the above is a valid (long) summary of events. If we can agree it at this level of detail, it will be easy to summarise it in a few sentences in the article. However, if the above is correct, I don't feel that the current summary adequately represents the facts. I'm sorry to labour this, but I think that if I simply rewrite the section of the article, it will just start another edit war. Bluewave (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure, but I think I would include that Knox testified (on 12June09) that the interpreter asked her to consider if she had a traumatic mental block, then could she (Amanda, at age 20) try to imagine what her psyche was blocking her from remembering, and then the police suggested, "Did you hear Meredith scream?" (reply: "No") and "Was Raffaele there?" (reply: "I can't remember him being there"). Hence that became the forced confession that she said Meredith's screaming was hard to hear and Raffaele might have been there as well (all not true). I think that begins to seem a more-balanced explanation. Perhaps we should link: "interrogation tactics" to explain forced confessions. -Wikid77 18:39, 10 February 2010
  • But no, you can't put in this analysis because it is your analysis. Please read WP:SYN. Misplaced Pages is not a bulletin board. And yes, you can't use material that is in a blog since we know nothing about its provenance. --Red King (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I'm trying to "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", which is what WP:SYN is about. I'm trying to piece together the sources into a longish version of the story, so that we can write a short summary that fairly reflects the sources. As I said, what statements were made and their legal status ought to be a matter of record, not allegation (which is what the article says at the moment). Of course HOW two of the statements were obtained is disputed and we need to reflect the views of Knox (as reported in reliable sources) and of the police interviewers (again from reliable sources). Bluewave (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Red King was talking to Wikid77...

In my opinion, your summary could be directly put in the article.

And as far as Amanda's self-incriminating statements are concerned, I think - I think, I cannot quote any reliable sources! - they were deemed not admissible only with regard to the murder charges, because she was, by the moment she rendered them, already technically a suspect but they were considered admissible with regard to the obstruction of justice charges (calunnia), because, in that instance, they were not a testimony, but a crime in themselves. I mean, it was a crime for Amanda to try and witness that she thought that Lumumba had something to do with the murder, since she knew he didn't; so, there was no other way of proving her guilt... But, as I've said, this is just an educated guess. Salvio giuliano (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The current section in the article reads as follows:

Knox was arrested on the morning of 6 November 2007. This followed 53 hours of police interrogations, which became the subject of much controversy. Some of the statements allegedly made by Knox during her non-recorded interrogation in the early morning hours of 6 November, 2007 were later excluded from evidence by the Supreme Court of Italy. The Court found that Knox's interrogation was illegal because she did not have a lawyer or an official interpreter present. The excluded statements included a supposed "confession" in which Knox purportedly said that she was home the night of the murder, heard Kercher scream, and indicated that Patrick Lumumba had been in Kercher's bedroom. Knox later retracted her statements. Knox claimed that she had been struck twice on the back of the head during her interrogation and called a "stupid liar." Knox also claimed that she felt panicked and confused during her interrogation and that she had been threatened with incarceration for 30 years.

I suggest replacing this with:

On 5 November 2007, Knox voluntarily accompanied Sollecito to the police station where he gave a statement, in the course of which he said that he did not know for sure that Knox was with him on the night of the murder. The police then decided to question Knox and began the interview at 23.00 that evening. Knox was interviewed twice during the night of 5-6 November, firstly by the judicial police and then, later, in the presence of a prosecutor. During these interviews, Knox made statements that she had accompanied Lumumba to Kercher's house and had been in the kitchen and heard screams while Lumumba committed the murder. The contents of these statements was widely reported in the press at the time. Knox later claimed that both statements were made under duress and that she had been coerced into implicating Lumumba: she said that she had been struck twice on the back of the head during her interrogation the interviews and called a "stupid liar." This is denied by the police who have now responded with a defamation charge. The conduct of these interviews remains an area of controversy in the case.

Knox was formally arrested later on the morning of 6 November. Some time afterwards she made a written note to the police, explaining that she was confused when she made the earlier statements, saying "I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion". However, she still seemed to incriminate Lumumba, saying: "I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik , but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house." She went on to say "I see Patrik as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night."

This written note was admissable at the trial of Knox and Sollecito. However, the statements made to police during the night of 5-6 November were not: one because she was being interviewed as a witness and the other (which was the subject of a ruling by the Court of Cassazione) because no lawyer was present. Nevertheless, the judge (at the Knox trial) ruled that both statements were admissable in Lumumba's civil case against Knox, which was being tried in the same court at the same time as the criminal trial of Knox and Sollecito.

I will of course add citations. Any views from other editors, please, before I edit the article? Bluewave (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, I object to your POV editing in this article. You intentionally try to slant the article to make Knox sound guilty, as you are doing above. Your edits are consistently along that objective. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was taking great care to set out my reasoning and then my proposed change on this talk page, so that the issues can be discussed rationally, here, rather than editing the article directly. So I'm a bit confused by your objections about my "POV editing in this article". I don't think I've edited the article on this subject yet. Or are you referring to some other POV editing that you think I've done to the article. If so, please tell me what it is. Bluewave (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Amanda Knox has consistently claimed that she was led by her interrogators into implicating Lumumba. She has consistently said that she was confused and intimidated during her interrogations. You cherry pick the facts and you cherry pick her statements to paint her in the worst possible light. Furthermore, if the fact that she is being charged with defamation is to be mentioned, then the fact that Mignini is also charging with defamation her parents, the West Seattle Herald, her lawyer, Raffaele's lawyer, Joe Cottonwood, an Italian magazine, and others (for a total of eleven additional victims) must also be mentioned. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I was really trying to get the balance right here. You say Knox says she "was led by her interrogators into implicating Lumumba": I have said that she says that her "statements were made under duress and that she had been struck twice on the back of the head during her interrogation and called a stupid liar." You say she was "confused and intimidated": I say "she was confused when she made the earlier statements". You say we should also mention the defamation charges against other people: I agree, but it doesn't belong in this section about the statements that she made about Lumumba. The fact that she made the statements is a matter of record and was printed in newspapers around the world in November 2007. The degree to which Knox was intimidated into making those statements remains a matter of controversy and I am genuinely trying to reflect that and to give both sides of the argument. The fact that she didn't fully retract her allegations about Lumumba in the note to the police is again a matter of record and I don't think I've "cherrypicked" that. I'd really welcome the views of some other editors on this - I feel I have put quite a lot of work into sorting out a consistent story from the various sources, to try and improve what is a very poor part of the article. But, if I'm just wasting my time, I'll do something else instead! Bluewave (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts, Bluewave. Do go ahead & edit the article. Rothorpe (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have slightly refactored my proposed text, to take account of Zlykinskyja's points. Also changed "interrogation" to "interview" because the former word carries POV connotations. Added text is boldened and deleted text struck through. Bluewave (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC) One further point: Zlykinskyja lists various people who may have defamed the police. They may well all be under investigation, but I have only been able to find a reference for Amanda Knox actually being charged with slander. Time will tell if anyone else is charged. Of course we need to be very careful about how we phrase the allegations about the police, too! We don't want Misplaced Pages to be charged with libel. Bluewave (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, your proposed text still misses many main points and reflects an attempt at POV editing. You have added much incriminating detail, while removing crucial exculpatory information. You delete the fact that Amanda was subjected to 53 hours of interrogations over several days. You delete the fact that she claimed she was threatened with 30 years of jailtime during the interrogation. You delete the fact that the Supreme Court of Italy ruled that the interrogation was illegal--you leave in only that some of the statements were ruled not admissable for certain purposes. You quote the damaging part of her written statement, while leaving out information that would tend to show that there is a sound basis to question what really happened in connection with that interrogation. The significance of the interrogation is that it led to her arrest. Yet, that interrogation was deemed illegal. In the U.S., a case based on an unlawful interrogation would be thrown out of court. And the proper legal term is "interrogation", not interview. Amanda has said that she was crying, confused, frightened, hit, intimidated and threatened. She had no lawyer present, and had been actively dissuaded from seeking a lawyer. There was no reliable, official interpreter involved, while Amanda at that time still had limited knowledge of the Italian language. No recording of the interrogation has been disclosed, although the police were careful to record/video many other aspects of the case. Amanda was just twenty years old and alone in a foreign country. This highly suspect interrogation resulted in an alleged "confession" by Amanda. There is a legitimate basis to question whether her alleged confession was made of her free will and in sound mind. If you are going to re-write this section, then the other side of the storyabout this suspect interrogation process needs to be included as well. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, Here is some of the text of Amanda's written statement that you left out when you cherrypicked the quotes:

"In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received.

However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked....The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at the house, my house, at the time of Meredith's murder. I don't know what proof they are talking about, but if this is true, it means I am very confused and my dreams must be real." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlykinskyja (talk • contribs) 18:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, if Amanda's words that incriminate Patrick and herself are to be quoted or used in the article, then her words that show that she did not believe her statements to be based on fact but rather on dreams or images resulting from the stress of interrogation should be included as well. The police made a decision to arrest Patrick based on statements which Amanda clearly and repeatedly said she did not know were accurate memories rather than dreams or invalid visions. While some in the press tried to make Amanda sound like a liar who falsely implicated Patrick--her written statement shows that within hours of her interrogation she tried to make clear that she did not believe her memories were real. On a different point, it should also be noted that Patrick claims to have been hit by the police, consistent with Amanda's report of her treatment. Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to address some of these points:

• "53 hours of interrogations over several days". This looks like propaganda from the Knox-funded PR firm. She made the statement about Lumumba after less than 3 hours of questioning. No doubt the police had spoken to her before that....maybe 53 hours earlier.
• "She claimed she was threatened with 30 years of jailtime." I think I've made clear that she claims there was "duress" and she was "coerced". We need to summarise, not reproduce all Knox's allegations.
• "Supreme Court of Italy ruled that the interrogation was illegal" No I don't think it ruled about the legality of the interview. It ruled on the admissability of the statement to the criminal trial. The statement was included in the civil action.
• "You leave in only that some of the statements were ruled not admissable for certain purposes." I do because I think that is the truth and is verifiable.
• "The proper legal term is "interrogation", not interview." To me, "interrogation carries a connnotation of coercion.
• "Amanda has said that she was crying, confused, frightened, hit, intimidated and threatened." I've said she was confused, and allegedly under duress and coerced
• "She had no lawyer present" as I have said.
• "Actively dissuaded from seeking a lawyer." That is an allegation that I didn't mention.
• "There was no interpreter." I thought Amanda has suggested that the interpreter put ideas in her head, so ther must have been one there.
• "No recording of the interrogation has been disclosed" so we can't say anything about it.
• "There is a legitimate basis to question whether her alleged confession was made of her free will and in sound mind" which is why I say that this remains controversial.
• "Some of the text of Amanda's written statement that you left out...". The first one you quote is not left out. ("I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements....etc")
• Alleged hitting already mentioned.
• How much of her 4-page note to include is open to debate. I think this is quite an important source because it is one of the few things that has not been filtered through some journalist.

Having answered some of the specific points, I am a bit wary of making a major change on the basis of one editor's views. Particularly when that one editor (Zlykinskyja) has, within a couple of weeks of creating an account on Misplaced Pages, accused me of anti-Americanism, hypocricy, sock-puppetry and POV editing—all without backing it up with specific details. I'd welcome some views of other editors (especially those who don't display antagonism to me personally). Bluewave (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave:

• You conclude that the mention of "53 hours of interrogation" sounds like a claim by a "Knox-funded PR Firm." Just what do you base that on? The "53 hours" of interrogation has been reported in many media sources. There is no basis that I have seen for any claim that Knox's PR firm made that up. It is pretty clear that Knox was interrogated repeatedly over several days and that some of those sessions were many hours long. Obviously, the stress of those many hours would have a cumulative effect. Amanda's written statement was composed after she had been up all night being questioned by the notorious Mignini. It is common sense that for a young girl to go through all of that (and in a foreign language)she could end up quite confused and tramatized and saying things that are not reliable. That is exactly what happened, since it turned out that Patrick had never been at the murder scene at all and that her memories were illusions--just as Amanda had expressly warned the police and Mignini.
• Being threatened with 30 years of jailtime in a foreign country would scare even a mature male (such as the terror experienced by American middle-aged author Douglass Preston when interrogated by Mignini), never mind a young girl. It is not a minor detail that she was threatened with 30 years of jailtime, as you seem to suggest. That threat should be included in the article as it is surely relevant and important.
• You say the Supreme Court of Italy did not rule that the interrogation was illegal. My understanding is that there is an actual statute in Italy that makes it unlawful to question a suspect without his/her lawyer present, and that the court ruled that the statute was violated. This should certainly be included in the article, as it is a major finding about the interrogation. If you have a copy of the ruling showing that no finding was made of unlawful activity, please provide the link.
• The caselaw in the U.S. consistently uses the term "interrogation" when someone is questioned on the record by the police in a formal setting, such as occurred with Amanda. The term "interrogation" is an actual legal term. The term does not have a negative connotation. What Amanda experienced was an interrogation, not an informal, off the record questioning.
• I have to go now and watch the Olympics on the telly. I will fill in more info later. If you have a link to an actual copy of the full text of Amanda's statement, it would be very helpful if you could provide that link. Thanks. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's get some more views by other editors. The "53 hours" is an interesting case, so I'll probably write something about that under a separate heading. Bluewave (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Slanting the article to say Knox is guilty is not POV. It is a fact established by the courts.Kwenchin (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Italian law prescribes that a suspect must be heard (not interrogated, but this is a technicality) with his lawyer. If someone is not a suspect, then there doesn't have to be a lawyer present.

In this instance, Amanda was heard as a witness and so, she didn't have to have a lawyer; when she disclosed pieces of information that could incriminate her, her interview, her interrogation was interrupted, just as article 63 of the Italian Criminal Procedure Code requires.

What she had said, before the interruption, under Italian law is inadmissible in Court; and this is the technical name of the procedural sanction: it was not an illegally-gathered evidence, because the Prosecution could not foresee that she was or would be a suspect. But, nonetheless, since her right of defense had been limited, the statements she had rendered were considered inadmissible.

Then, about the threat of thirty years of jailtime, it was not a threat. Thirty years is the temporary maximum penalty that a Court can mete out in case of murder (then there's life imprisonment, but for a Court to inflict that punishment, the murder must be aggravated); so I think they were just informing her of the crime she was charged with and its penalty.

As far as the beating, insulting and name-calling thing goes, I really think that it was made up by Amanda. I remind you that, in Italy, a defendant may freel lie. Granted I was not present during the interrogations, and granted that Italian police (just like American, French and so on) can be a little overzealous at times, I pose a question: she is an American young girl; she is studying abroad, so it means that she is at least well-off; as far as the cops are concerned, she could even be the daughter of a U.S. Senator. They would never manhandle such a girl, just as they'd never manhandle the daughter or a son of a rich doctor or professor in Italy. If the ill-treat someone, it's always the dregs of humanity as they see them (poor immigrants, usually).

By the way, let us not forget that she was found guilty of calunnia (obstruction of justice), for trying to implicate Lumumba; under Italian law, had she retracted (ritrattato) her statements, she could not be sentenced for that felony; obviously, since she was actually sentenced, she must not have retracted her statements. Salvio giuliano (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Salvio: I have not been able to find a link to the ruling of the Supreme Court of Italy on this issue. Do you know where I can find such a link in either Italian or English? Thanks. Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

To use the word "interrogate" would be POV because it is value laden and does not reflect police terminology in any English-speaking country. It is an exclusively military term. So, while she was not a suspect, she was 'interviewed'; when she became a suspect, she was 'questioned'. --Red King (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Red King: the word "interrogate" is most definitely not exclusively a military term. It is a standard legal term in the U.S. applied to formal questioning in a criminal case. As a standard legal term, it is not POV. I will try to link to a case showing the use of this term in the U.S..Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This particular article is written in British English, so I suggest you look for the British usage of the terms. Bluewave (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Restored omission: Police released Guede days before murder

11-Feb-10: The article has been re-expanded to note that Rudy Guede had been caught with a large stolen knife (16-inch, 40-cm) inside a closed Milan school on 27-Oct-07 (5 days before the murder) with a laptop PC reported stolen 14-Oct-07 from a Perugia law office burgled with a rock breaking an upstairs window. The Perugia police were notified Guede had the laptop, plus a cellphone also stolen from the Perugia office with the broken window. However, Guede was released by the Milan police, and not transferred to the Perugia police, as testified by the two Perugia solicitors (attorneys) at the Knox/Sollecito trial hearing on 26-June-2009 and by the school director 27 June. Hence, the reports of Guede holding a woman's watch, a hammer, a stolen knife and stolen property from a prior upstairs-window burglary could be confirmed by Milan police, Perugia police, and the 2 solicitors (lawyers Palazzoli and Paolo Brocchi) whose PC, printer and mobile phone were stolen on 14-Oct-07. I regret these major events had been omitted from the article, even until late December, while the details had been in major news reports in June 2009. The details are not rumors, but rather, confirmed by Milan police, Perugia police, Judge Micheli, and court testimony of 3 professionals. See source "Knox Trial Witness Points Finger at Guede" by Ann Wise (Rome) 26Jun09, web: ABCNews. -Wikid77 23:49, 11 February 2010

53 hours of questioning????

Statements to the effect that "Amanda Knox implicated Patrick Lumumba after 53 hours of police interrogation" have entered the folklore of this case (along with things like the "satanic ritual" theory already discussed). The problem is that the arithmetic just doesn't work. Amanda Knox accompanied Sollecito to the police station sometime on 5 Nov 2007. The police began questioning her at about 2300 on the 5th. She made two statements about Lumumba, one at about 01:45 on the 6th and the other at about 05:45 on the 6th. Even if she was questioned continuously (which she wasn't), that can't come close to 53 hours. I've been trying to track down the origin of the 53 hours and note that it was widely reported in the press in early December 2009 (hmm, strange that no-one commented on it within the 2 years before that!). One of the earliest was a report in The Guardian on 3 Dec 2009. This says: On Wednesday, Luciano Ghirga, a lawyer representing Knox, claimed Knox had blamed an innocent man, local barman Patrick Lumumba for the murder after 53 hours of police interrogation spread out over "four days of stress and fear". So now, it sounds like the source for the 53 hours is Knox's defence lawyer, so this is not a "fact" at all. Predictably, this was picked up by the rest of the UK press and lazily quoted as though it was a fact, not the opinion of a defence lawyer. eg the Mail (9 Dec). The next puzzle is why the 53 hours wasn't challenged in court. The Guardian said the statement was made "on Wednesday"...that would have been the previous day, 2 Dec 2009. That was the day Ghirga completed his summing-up. So, the 53 hours is not an undisputed fact: it was part of a statement made by Knox's defence lawyer, during his summing-up (ie when he cannot be challenged). Yet another example of how we need to be extremely careful in our use of press reports as definitive sources. Bluewave (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave: Amanda was interrogated over four days, not just on Nov. 5-6 as you suggest. The sessions each lasted many long hours, so 53 hours is indeed possible. The information on the number of hours is still valid, even if presented in a summation. It is not true that the claim of 53 hours was immune from challenge because it was stated in a summation. The prosecutors certainly could have objected to a falsehood being stated by the defense lawyer if he made a false claim. But I doubt Amanda's lawyer would have lied to the court on the number of hours of interrogation involved. It is an objective fact as to how many hours of interrogation were involved which could be verified, not merely the expression of an opinion, so the lawyer would have been crazy to make something like that up and state it to the court. Zlykinskyja (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The statement about Lumumba was made in the early hours of 6 Nov 2007. The Newsweek source that I gave previously says that the police questioning started at 2300 on the 5th, and I haven't found any source that disagrees. The Murder was discovered on the 2nd. On the evening of the 3rd, Knox and Sollecito were shopping for underwear and at that point "they seemed very relaxed, they were hugging each other and kissing each other non-stop." I don't know where you can find these 4 days of interrogations prior to the statement about Lumumba. Bluewave (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

There was plenty of time--November 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Unless you can find a source saying that the lawyer was incorrect in claiming 53 hours of interrogation, that number appears to be the only number claimed by anyone involved in the case pertaining to the length of hours Amanda was questioned. Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see WP:verifiabilty. We have to regard the lawyer as a verifiable source in the absence of any disagreement from another reliable source. The article cannot presume to question that. It is certainly not incredible. --Red King (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Surely the source about the lawyer is only a verifiable source for saying "Knox's lawyer stated, during his summing up, that Knox had been questioned for 53 hours", not for saying that the 53 hours is a fact. The Newsweek source says she was questioned between 11pm on the 5th and 5:30am on the 6th. That is also verifiable. A statement that she was "interrogated over 4 days" gives the reader the impression that she was in police custody and under pressure during that time. In fact we know that, half way through that time she was buying underwear and very relaxed (also from a verifiable source). This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia and I, for one, would question the reliability of a "fact" stated by a defence lawyer in his summing up, when there is other evidence that is inconsistent with that. I would doubly question the reliability when the "fact" seems only to have been introduced during the summing-up and was never previously mentioned during the case, and was never subject to scrutiny by the court. Bluewave (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I would also point out that it was during this 4 days of supposed interrogation taht Knox put on her display of cartwheeling for the police. This was "while she was waiting for her Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, to be interrogated by detectives" on 5 November. This is consistent with the Newsweek citation but difficult to fit in with the picture painted by the defence counsel. This source describes Knox as being interviewed "long into the night" but that is not 53 hours. Bluewave (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Newsweek doesn't say that she wasn't questioned for 53 hours in the course of 4 days , so it doesn't contradict her lawyer. At the risk of being charged with POV, I suppose we could say that 'her lawyer said that she had been questioned for 53 hours' but there isn't any way we can cast doubt on that (even though as you say it is very difficult to credit). As for the cart-wheeling, she says it was yoga so we have to give her version as well as the police version. --Red King (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you really proposing that we must take everything said by a defence lawyer as being a fact? If so, we must also say that Knox was definitely innocent, that she was found guilty only because the police mishandled the case and because she was misrepresented in the media. We must say that Kercher was killed by Guede alone (except that his equally truthful defence lawyer says he was innocent too)... Where do we stop? Bluewave (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Amanda's self-incriminating statements

Let me first contextualize the ruling, which you can find in Italian here http://www.alphaice.com/giurisprudenza/?id=5285.

The Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari (Judge for the Preliminary Investigations) issued an ordinanza, ordering Amanda and Raffaele's arrest as a precautionary measure. This ordinanza was, then, upheld by the Tribunale della Libertà (Court of Liberty, the appellate court in this instance) and by the Court of Cassation. The ruling of the Court of Cassation contained also a paragraph about the admissibility of Amanda's statements with regard to the ordinanza.

The relevant paragraph reads as follows:

2. Con riferimento alla seconda censura difensiva la Corte osserva che le dichiarazioni indizianti sono caratterizzate da un differente regime di utilizzabilità sotto il profilo soggettivo. Nel caso in cui esse provengano da persona a carico della quale già sussistevano indizi in ordine al medesimo reato ovvero a reato connesso o collegato con quello attribuito al terzo le stesse non possono essere utilizzate, oltre che contra se, neppure dei confronti dei coimputati dello stesso reato (o degli imputati di reati connessi o collegati). Il regime di inutilizzabilità assoluta di cui all'art. 63, comma secondo, c.p.p. è, invece, da escludere nell'ipotesi in cui il dichiarante sia chiamato a rispondere, nello stesso o in altro processo, per un reato o per reati attribuiti a terzi, che non abbiano alcun legame processuale con quello per cui si procede, rispetto ai quali egli assume la qualifica di testimone. Infatti, mentre nel primo caso, in forza dell'intima connessione e interdipendenza tra il fatto proprio e quello altrui sorge la necessità di tutelare anche il diritto al silenzio del dichiarante, nel secondo caso, invece, la posizione di estraneità e di indifferenza del dichiarante rispetto ai fatti di causa lo rende immune da eventuali strumentalizzazioni operate da parte degli organi inquirenti (Cass., Sez. Un. 13 febbraio 1997, Carpanelli).

Alla stregua di questi principi, le dichiarazioni rese da A. M. K. alle ore 1,45 del 6 novembre 2007, all'esito delle quali il verbale venne sospeso e la ragazza venne messa a disposizione dell'Autorità giudiziaria procedente, emergendo indizi a suo carico, sono utilizzabili solo contra alios, mentre le "dichiarazioni spontanee" delle ore 5,54 non sono utilizzabili né a carico dell'indagata né nei confronti degli altri soggetti accusati del concorso nel medesimo reato, in quanto rese senza le garanzie difensive da parte di una persona che aveva già formalmente assunto la veste di indagata.

Al contrario, il memoriale scritto in lingua inglese dalla K. e tradotto in italiano è pienamente utilizzabile, ai sensi dell'art. 237 c.p.p., poiché si tratta di documento proveniente dall'indagata, che ne è stata la spontanea autrice materiale a scopo difensivo. La disposizione in esame consente di attribuire rilevanza probatoria al documento non solo in quanto tale e per il suo contenuto rappresentativo, ma anche in forza del particolare legame che lo lega all'indagato (o imputato), così lumeggiando il sindacato di ammissibilità che il giudice è tenuto a operare.

I'll summarise this paragraph, pointing out the relevant pieces of information.

• The Court of Cassation points out that the self-incriminating statements can be utilised, during a trial, in a particular way: if they were rendered by someone against whom there was already circumstantial evidence that he or she had committed the crime or a connected crime, they cannot be used either against the stating person or against his or her co-accused. If this circumstantial evidence was not present, they can be used only against his or her co-accused.
• In keeping with these principles, Amanda's 01:45 statements could be used against the co-accused.
• After these statements, the interview was interrupted and the girl was turned over to the Judicial Authority (the Prosecutor).
• Amanda's 05:54 statements could not be used either against her or against her co-accused, because Amanda was interviewed without a lawyer. Salvio giuliano (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Salvio, thanks so much for posting the link and translation. Can you clarify who her co-accused was at that point? Was it Lumumba or Sollecito? Also, does it say what it was that Amanda said at 5:54 that was excluded? Thanks again.Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Great work Salvio! This site has an audio and a transcription of evidence given at the trial. It is probably inadmissable for the main article because it is a blog, but it looks genuine. It looks as though Amanda made the initial incriminating statement at 01:45. Then the interview by the judicial police was stopped and the prosecutor was called. When he arrived, the interview was re-convened at 05:45 and she essentially repeated the statement about Lumumba. Bluewave (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right. According to the Court of Cassation, her statements were:

n) dichiarazioni rese il 6 novembre 2007 ore 1,45 dalla K. che indicava in L., invaghitosi di M., l'autore dell'omicidio dopo un rapporto sessuale con la vittima; o) dichiarazioni spontanee rese dalla K. il 6 novembre 2007 ore 5,45 dalle quali emergeva che L. e M. si erano appartati in camera, che, ad un certo punto, M. aveva iniziato a urlare, tanto che A., per non sentire, si era portata le mani alle orecchie, che forse in casa era presente anche S.;

First Amanda stated that Lumumba, fallen in love with Kercher, was Kercher's murderer, after having sex with her; then, she states that Lumumba and Meredith had withdrawn to Kercher's room and that, suddenly, Kercher had begun to scream so loud that Amanda, in order not to hear, had covered her ears; perhaps Sollecito too was in the house. Salvio giuliano (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfair Interrogation Techniques; False Confession

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)

Unless Knox or her lawyer used the defence of false confession

Hi Red King:

The issue of a "false confession" was raised in the trial by Knox's lawyers. This article says that the theory was raised on the first day of the trial. http://www.newsweek.com/id/180004 The false confession theory seems to have been an important part of the defense and was covered during Amanda's testimony. So, I would argue that it is appropriate to include that theory in the article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is another article on the topic, which claims Knox raised false confession as part of her defense. I can't formally link to this article, but this is the address: examiner.com/x-8922-Skepticism-Examiner~y2010m2d14-What-everyone-should-know-about-false-confessionsZlykinskyja (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Knox, Sollecito and Guede were heavily into drugs especially marijuana. This is the reason she gave for her confusion.:- "But something happened to her in those three months, according to people within the university community of the Umbrian hill town. At some point, apparently quite early on in her stay, she lost control. In the town’s seedier bars, she soon became known as someone who was capable of intense jealousy and rage. She dedicated her free time to the drink, drugs and easy sex of Perugia’s nightlife. ... In the story, Baby Brother, a man called Edgar asks his brother, Kyle, whether he carried out a rape with a drug called “hard A”.... Drugs remain at the heart of the case. Marijuana was grown by the students at the whitewashed cottage Ms Knox and Ms Kercher shared with two Italian girls and Ms Knox and her boyfriend admitted smoking on the evening of the murder, which they claim accounts for their confused accounts and memory lapses." Kwenchin (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kwenchin, Your comments also speak to one of the points that the Knox supporters don't address - the Friends of Amanda wants everyone to envision Amanda as the eight year old girl running around on the football pitch, and not as a 20 year old that has made some very questionable life decisions in Italy. While I don't think that anyone can ever know the extent to which drugs played a role here, they certainly can explain some of the erratic behaviour.

Zlykinskyja Confused accounts, memory lapses, and a lot of Amanda and Raffaele's actions during police questioning are also consistent with what you could expect of two people that had been "free" for four days after the murder, and suddenly were faced with charges. There were probably more than one moment during those four days when the thought that they had eluded arrest. Anyone that thought they had "gotten away with" such a serious crime would suddenly panic, be frightened and all the other actions that the Knox supporters are lumping under the "false confession".

Also, I would also not classify Knox as "very young" - as a twenty year old she had reached the Age of Majority in both Italy and the State of Washington, fully responsible and legally accountable for their actions. Jonathan (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

New section on Lumumba witnesses

Wikid: Just curious on where this new section is going. I'm curious as to whether this new section really hits on the central issues in the story. I mean, isn't Lumumba now out of the picture entirely in the criminal case? Also, there was a glitch in the new text that seemed to be related to a defect in the cites, and was causing several lines to be invisible. So I removed the two cites to "Owen". Not sure how to put those back. Can you fill me in on how this new section is needed? Also, do we really need the section on the mobile phones? That seems to be a minor issue as well. Meanwhile, the big issue of the knife/DNA does not have its own section.Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to the "Mobile phone evidence" section? During the trial it was not considered a minor issue, as it showed a common action of Sollecito and Knox on the evening of Kercher's murder, and covering the time of the killing. Before that evening, Sollecito had turned off his mobile phone only for very short periods of time. --Catgut (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead section

I just had a look at this page after several days doing other things and noticed that the following had been added to the lead:

"In the U.S. the case is particularly controversial, with claims of miscarriage of justice, due to concerns that the interrogations of Knox and Sollecito had been conducted without a lawyer, questionable forensic evidence, the prosecutor's theory of a Halloween ritual sex orgy or sex game, and prejudicial pre-trial publicity."

This is all over-simplistic and opinionated. For instance, the particular "interrogations" of Knox (I don't know about Sollecito) that had been conducted without a lawyer were not admissable in the criminal trial, so it is difficult to claim that they resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Calling the forensic evidence "questionable" is entirely an editor's POV. We know that the Halloween theory was dismissed by the pre-trial hearing, so none of the defendants were sent to trial on the basis of that theory, nor convicted based on it. Summarising the prosecution case in that way is grossly misleading. Unless this is all explained (and it would unbalance the lead to do so) it is best left out of the lead. I would also add that a similar proposed addition to the lead was discussed a few weeks ago, with the consensus being against adding it. Bluewave (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have divided this discussion into two sections because we are talking about two different sentences.

As for the deletion of the info on the controversy, your objection that the statement is 'oversimplified' is not well founded. This is an introductory section. It introduces what will be discused below. Some of the info discussed in the story includes issues that folks in the U.S. find disturbing about the case. That is the "other" side of the story, which should be included in the article under NPOV standards. Since this info can be included in the article, merely including a brief reference to these issues in the intro is appropriate. Then the reader will be intrigued to continue reading down further in the article to learn more. It is not necessary that the whole story be clarified in the lead, only enough to let the reader know what will be discussed below so that the reader can determine if the story interests him/her or not. All of what I included in the sentence is discussed below in detail and is not merely my opinion. The prior paragraphs that were rejected a few weeks ago were much longer and were rejected on the basis that they made the lead too long. What I did here was condense the info down to one sentence to avoid the objection that the info made the lead too long. Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________________

I've also deleted the phrase "after lengthy interrogations by the police and prosecutor without an attorney present (suspects were arrested)" from the lead. Once again, this is highly misleading. Knox only acquired "suspect" status at 0145 on 6 Nov 2007. She was then arrested on the morning of the same day. We know she was questioned around 0545 and made a statement but we don't know if this was a "lengthy interrogation". She was also interviewed on previous days, but as a witness, when one would not normally have an attorney present. Once again, putting in a statement like this without all the explanation, presents the reader with a highly POV summary. So best left out of the lead, I suggest. Bluewave (talk) 09:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I have re-worded to read "after many hours of questioning". This is a crucial fact of the case. It plays into many aspects of the story. It is what brought the whole machine of prosecution down on A and R. There is no justification for leaving it out of the lead, since it is such a big element of the story. In the U.S., such tactics would lead to a very solid Appeal. This case presents to American readers the issue of how seriously does Italy take the right to counsel, the right against self-incrimination, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, which are all considered paramount rights in the U.S. The absence of an attorney is part of the international controversy and one of the reasons why the U.S. public finds the case so disturbing.Zlykinskyja (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC).

Italy is not Iran.

The self-incriminating statements were deemed inadmissible. And the many hours of questioning may amount to some six or seven not even in a row, since Amanda's questioning was interrupted at least once. Salvio giuliano (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Six or seven hours is a lot of hours to be questioned without an attorney. We are talking hours, not minutes. The fact that the statements were ruled inadmissible does not make the absence of an attorney irrelevant to the story. The declaration made to Mignini at 5:45 am was made without an attorney. Clearly, he had to know that his questioning of Amanda and the seeking of the signing of a written declaration without an attorney was unlawful. It is hard to believe that this could have been an oversight by the prosecutor. Yet he did it anyways. Then he had her arrested and jailed on the basis of her statements and declaration unlawfully obtained. The absence of an attorney is by no means irrelevant to the story and rightfully belongs in the lead due to its importance to her arrest. 19:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlykinskyja (talk • contribs)

Zlykinskyja please do not persist in adding this stuff against consensus. The "interrogations of Knox and Sollecito conducted without a lawyer" were provably immaterial to the conviction. The "theory of a Halloween ritual" was provably immaterial to the conviction. The level of detail in which you are describing the controversies is greater than the level of detail about the trial and convictions. This doesn't belong in the lead. Bluewave (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave: Please do not falsely claim that you have 'consensus' when you do not have that. It is comical for you to say that the interrogations were "provably immaterial." Amanda was arrested largely (if not solely) on the basis of the interrogations. She was jailed on the basis of the interrogations. She became a suspect on the basis of the interrogations, which then caused the prosecutor to search for forensic evidence that would match up with her. She became reviled in the press and by the public on the basis of the interrogations and her alleged "confession". It was reported in the press in several countries that she had "confesssed." Her interrogations resulted in the charges against Lumumba and then his suit against her. Her interrogations were discussed at trial. Her memorandum about the interrogations was admitted into evidence. Thus, it is "provably wrong" for you to call the absence of an attorney at these interrogations "immaterial". If Amanda had had an attorney during the interrogations she probably would not be in jail today. Now that last part is just my opinion, but the rest is pretty much fact. I notice that it is okay to say in the lead that Guede was arrested on the basis of forensics, but it is not okay to say that A and R were arrested on the basis of their interrogations. You are simply trying to block crucial, central info about the other side of the story from being included in the lead.Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not entirely correct: the Prosecution did not ask the Judge to order Amanda's arrest because she had confessed.

These are the pieces of evidence that justified it:

3. Il Tribunale riteneva che gravi indizi di colpevolezza nei confronti dell'indagata fossero costituiti dai seguenti elementi: a) risultanze dell'autopsia e della consulenza medico-legale; b) rinvenimento di un coltello delle dimensioni di cm. 14 di manico e di c. 17 di lama, sequestrato all'interno del cassetto delle posate posto nella cucina dell'abitazione di S., recante, sul manico, tracce di DNA riferibili alla K. e, sulla lama, tracce di DNA ascrivibili alla vittima; c) dichiarazioni rese dalle persone informate sui fatti F. R. e L. M., coinquiline della vittima, le quali concordemente escludevano che il coltello sequestrato fosse in dotazione del loro appartamento e riferivano che la K., il giorno del fatto, indossava una felpa, che non è stata poi rinvenuta; d) esito dei rilievi tecnici effettuati su un paio di scarpe marca N. n. 42,5 di proprietà di S., evidenzianti una perfetta corrispondenza tra le predette calzature e l'impronta rilevata sul luogo dell'omicidio, nonché sulla porta dell'appartamento di via della P. che non presentava segni di effrazione; e) risultanze degli accertamenti tecnici svolti sull'impronta palmare rinvenuta sul cuscino su cui era adagiata la vittima e risultata appartenere a R. H. G., cittadino della Costa d'avorio, soprannominato "il barone", conosciuto da A. M. K.; f) presenza del DNA di R. H. G. sul tampone vaginale prelevato dal cadavere della vittima al momento dell'autopsia e sul frammento di carta igienica prelevato all'interno del bagno più grande dell'appartamento, dove erano state trovate feci, risultate essere di G.; g) esito degli accertamenti biologici espletati sul sangue trovato nel bagno più piccolo dell'appartamento in uso alla vittima e alla K., che permettevano di stabilire che alla vittima erano riferibili le macchie di sangue presenti sul tappetino, alla K. quelle rinvenute nel lavandino, ad entrambe le ragazze le tracce di sangue rilevate nel bidet; h) dichiarazioni rese dalla cittadina americana R. C. B., la quale, tornata in patria alcuni giorni dopo il fatto, riferiva alle Autorità che la K., in attesa di essere sentita dalla Polizia la mattina del 2 novembre 2007, le aveva riferito di avere visto il corpo di M. su un armadio (o riflesso su un armadio), con una coperta sopra di lei e di avere visto un piede dell'amica dopo che un poliziotto aveva aperto la porta, circostanze confliggenti con le modalità dell'intervento presso l'appartamento; i) dichiarazioni rese dalle amiche di K. M. S. C., le quali concordemente riferivano che la ragazza aveva trascorso in loro compagnia il pomeriggio del giorno 1° novembre 2007 e aveva lasciato l'abitazione in compagnia di S. P., la quale, giunta intorno alle ore 20,55 alla sua dimora di via del L., si separava dalla vittima, il cui appartamento di via della P. distava meno di dieci minuti da via del L.; 1) dichiarazioni rese da F. R. e P. G., contattate da A. dopo la constatazione che la porta di ingresso del loro appartamento era aperta, che c'erano macchie di sangue e che la finestra della camera di K. M. S. C. presentava i vetri infranti; m) dichiarazioni rese da S. il 2, il 5 il 6 novembre 2007 in merito agli spostamenti effettuati sia da solo che con A. M. K. tra il giorno 1 novembre 2007 e il successivo 2 novembre, a quanto riscontrato all'interno dell'appartamento di via della P., alla richiesta di intervento avanzata alle forze dell'ordine, nonché al riferimento alla ricerca di emozioni forti contenuto in alcuni suoi scritti apparsi su un suo blog; n) dichiarazioni rese il 6 novembre 2007 ore 1,45 dalla K. che indicava in L., invaghitosi di M., l'autore dell'omicidio dopo un rapporto sessuale con la vittima; o) dichiarazioni spontanee rese dalla K. il 6 novembre 2007 ore 5,45 dalle quali emergeva che L. e M. si erano appartati in camera, che, ad un certo punto, M. aveva iniziato a urlare, tanto che A., per non sentire, si era portata le mani alle orecchie, che forse in casa era presente anche S.; p) contenuto del memoriale scritto dalla K. che ribadiva di avere sentito M. gridare, di essersi appartata in cucina e di essersi tappato le orecchie con le mani per non sentire le urla dell'amica e di avere visto sangue sulla mano di S. durante la cena che si era svolta intorno alle ore 23 del giorno 1 novembre 2007 nell'appartamento di S.; q) contenuto dell'intercettazione ambientale effettuata dentro il carcere il 17 novembre 2007 relativa al colloquio intercorso tra la K. e i genitori nel corso della quale la ragazza, tra l'altro, testualmente dichiarava" È stupido, perché io non posso dire nient'altro, io ero là e non posso mentire su questo, non vi è alcuna ragione per farlo"; r) accertamenti svolti sul computer e sul cellulare in uso a S., dai quali emergeva, contrariamente all'assunto difensivo dell'indagato, che il computer non era stato utilizzato durante la notte ed era stato attivato solo alle ore 5,32 del giorno 2 novembre 2007 e che, parallelamente, anche il cellulare era stato spento durante la notte ed era stato usato unicamente all'alba del 2 novembre 2007.

Amanda's statements are under n) and o) and were deemed inadmissible. Salvio giuliano (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Salvio, Thanks. Do you have the link to this document? Do you know the date and who the judge is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlykinskyja (talk • contribs) 22:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking that there had to be an earlier document prepared on or about November 6. That is the date on which Amanda was arrested. This document above must be much later, since it talks about Rudy Guede and evidence they did not yet have as of November 6. As of November 6 they did not have much other than the interrogations.Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It is the Cassazione's verdict I mentioned earlier (http://www.alphaice.com/giurisprudenza/?id=5285); unfortunately, I do not have - and don't know where to find - the ordinanza of the GIP or that of the TL (the Appellate Court)... Salvio giuliano (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I will also note that the fact that her statements were ruled inadmissible against her by the high court on the criminal charges does not mean that they did not come into the trial. It is my undertstanding that her statements were discussed in front of the jury in connection with the civil action by Lumumba. Thus, the jury would have had the information about her statements during the interrogation even though not admissible for the criminal charges. Thus, it is impossible to say that the interrogations did not influence the jury in some negative way on the criminal charges. Also, this article talks about the civil trials as well. Certainly, where she was found liable for defamation and the defamation occurred during her interrogation, the fact that no attorney was present is a crucial fact. Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, as for the other issues mentioned in the lead, those are discussed in the article. I referenced them in the lead, consistent with the very purpose of the lead---tell the reader what will be covered in the article. The article need not discuss only what led to the convictions. If that were the rule then a whole lot of stuff would need to be deleted. The article rightly includes what comprises the whole story. Part of that story is that A and R were held for a year on the basis of a bizarre motive--Halloween ritual. Then no evidence of that was ever presented. So how was that legitimate. The article goes on to discuss other issues about motive. I referenced also, problems with the DNA evidence and pre-trial publicity. The article also discusses these issues. So the one sentence I included in the lead presents the other side of the story, and there is nothing wrong with that under NPOV standards.Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The lead says there were trials and that people were convicted. It doesn't mention all the witnesses and itemise the evidence. Likewise it says there were controversies about the trial. Again it should not itemise them. This is about balance. Then there is the issue of stating the controversies factually. But the first point is that the specifics don't belong in the lead. Let's keep the lead to unassailable facts: there were trials...people were found guilty... someone else was exonerated...there are controversies. Then let's leave the more speculative things to the body of the article. If you say in the lead that there were "issues concerning DNA evidence" you would also have to first say there was "DNA evidence of Sollecito at the scene" and "there was evidence of Knox's DNA on a knife which matched one of the wounds". To give either side without the other is not neutral. Lets leave out both, and stick to the events. Bluewave (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, when I spoke about consensus, I was referring to the archived discussion of a few weeks ago when you tried to add similar material and were opposed by FormerIP, Rothorpe, EdJohnson and myself. I thought that was a consensus. I think the onus is now on you to get a consensus if you want to add the material. So please do not, as above, say that I "falsely claim that have 'consensus'". Bluewave (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, You refer to an entirely different dispute involving entirely different language and entirely different issues from weeks ago and say that that somehow constitues consensus for the current dispute. Please try to be a little more genuine in some of your arguments.Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, the US Department of State monitored this trial. Any suggestion that "If Amanda had had an attorney during the interrogations she probably would not be in jail today" is quite frankly, ridiculous. 99.8.149.98 (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(US Dept of State maintains a fair trial)

( 23:03, 24 February 2010 (edit) (undo)

I don't know of any jurisdiction anywhere where it is conventional for witnesses to have an attorney during interview. However, as in this case, if a witness makes a self-incriminating statement then she becomes a suspect and is entitled to legal representation during questioning. Anything she said when not under caution as to her rights is and was inadmissable. Yes, it is odd that the police extended the interview so late, but her stories were so confusing and inconsistent that it is not ever so surprising that they tried to get to the bottom of it. --Red King (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Red King: it is standard rights for the suspect or person of interest or even a witness, (they have rights too) to have an attorney present during all questioning/interviewing in all jurisdictions in the U.S. and it's legal territories. Agree with Bluewave and the IP. Also note that this article is not about putting on a legal appeal of Knox's conviction, or refuting that conviction by posting contrasting evidence or opinions, etc.Malke2010 23:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the latter, I'm surprised by the former but happy to take your word for it. --Red King (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I like that you are so succinct. If you look at high profile U.S. cases you will see that the witnesses always show up with a lawyer.Malke2010 23:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In Italy, during pre-trial investigations, a witness may have a lawyer, if he so wishes; it is not that common, but they may. A defendant, on the contrary, must. Salvio giuliano (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Good to know that, thanks Salvio.Malke2010 02:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

With regard to Red King's point that it is odd that the police extended the interview so late, I can only speculate that they didn't want to stop Knox talking while she was giving them apparently damning evidence against Lumumba. At the time, they probably took this testimony at face value and thought they would have a watertight case against Lumumba and that Knox would never be charged with any crime. But this is only a guess. Bluewave (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, or they were hoping she would make a contradictory statement. The first thing the police look at is the people immediately involved with a victim since most victims are killed by people they know. And apparently, the break-in looked staged to them right away.Malke2010 08:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The point is that when a suspect has the right to an attorney, and there is no attorney present, it is unlawful to question that person. Period. It does not matter that they were having an important discussion. Once the right to an attorney kicks in, any interrogation with no laywer present is a violation of the suspect's rights. In this case, Amanda was interogated for an extended period of time without an attorney present (and in a foreign language, no less). Under Italian law, as well as U.S. law, it was unlawful to continue with the questioning once she became a suspect at around 1:45 am (I forget the exact time). But here, the police and/or prosecutor actually went so far as to have her sign an incriminating document at 5:45 am with no attorney present. It was unlawful with no justification for it as far as I can find. Shame on them. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Convictions were profitable

This section is a mess. Some of the points have nothing to do with profit or money and it is rambly. Regarding another section, I note the controversy about 'bleach receipts' is completely removed now, after several dozens of pages of discussion to finally include two opposite points of view. Well and good, the controversy about receipts should be forgotten as no receipts were entered in evidence in the trial. Still it is annoying that people put a few weeks of work into a section and it is then just simplified, while another messy section about something else is started with people adding irrelevant points here and there. Also, what is the reason for including various material or not? Editors don't seem to have read very widely, such as the Micheli report, its strengths and weaknesses, controversies about changing alibis etc etc. One difficulty is that a 'reliable source' means a journalistically reliable source, which isn't really that reliable. Wish there were some higher standard of reliability than that because some things just are unclear about all this even after reading the article, basic facts of evidence are obscure somehow. Perhaps one virtue of the article as it is now is that irrelevancies do get winnowed out over time.78.150.79.35 (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The section is a disgrace. It seems to suggest that the Kercher family and Lumumba have profited from the convictions. They haven't, and are never going to. The civil cases against Knox and Sollecito are about establishing a principle, but I doubt if anyone will ever get any money from Knox or Sollecito, especially while they are in prison. This is why Lumumba (who has been pilloried in the world press and has lost his business because of this case) is taking his case to the European court to seek compensation from the Italian state. Bluewave (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, agree with Bluewave. Seems there are violations of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE here.Malke2010 23:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it as it was completely wp:OR and wp:synth.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Witnesses contradicted Lumumba section

This section seems to be trying to cast doubt on Lumumba's alibi and goes so far as to say that "if released on appeal, Knox could sue Lumumba for slander against her reputation", which is pure speculation. The citation for saying that witnesses contradicted Lumumba is a news report from the Times, from November 2007: a time when Knox's accustaion against Lumumba was still being taken seriously. This article tells us that a Swiss professor had contradicted his own previous statements about seeing Lumuba and therefore was no longer able to provide an alibi. This is not the same as contradicting Lumumba. It mentions unnamed "witnesses" who said the bar was closed at a time when Lumumba said it was open and it casts doubt on whether Lumumba's friend can provide an alibi. The fact is that Lumumba was completely exonerated in the investigation. There was absolutely no evidence to link him to the crime and his alibi proved, in the end to be watertight. I really don't think this adds anything of value to the article. I suggest deleting the section. Bluewave (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that section and thought the same. It's also a violation of WP:SYN and should be removed.Malke2010 11:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, you should not be deleting whole sections without seeking consensus. Another editor put a lot of time researching and writing that section and now his work is gone. You should have at least waited until Wikid77 showed up, as he does every few days, to voice his opinion on his section. I am not clear about that section either, but it may be that with some tweaking his work could be preserved and add something to the story, and his time and effort not wasted. The bullying and rudeness going on with this article has to stop.Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I was being bold which another editor recommended regarding this article. But nothing is ever lost forever. If there is material from this section that people want to reintroduce that can be done, but personally I wouldn't recommend it. I will, however, be very happy if there is no more bullying and rudeness. That gets my vote. Bluewave (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Then why not put his section back with a note in the edit summary directing his attention to the Talk page and a discussion about deletion.Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Because it doesn't belong there as explained above.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, wp:BLP applies to all living persons mentioned in the article.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes that means that wp:BLP applies to Knox and Sollecito as well. Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Knox/Sollecito trial

I've just been looking at the Knox/Sollecito trial section, which currently seems a bit random (and there is stuff about the trial dotted around the article. I suggest there ought to be a chunk here which summarises the prosecution case and another chunk summarising the defence (much of which is just a refutation - with evidence - of the prosecution. Starting with the prosecution, I think that the main points are:

• The evidence that there wasn't just a single murderer.
• The evidence about the staged break-in and later clean-up and who would be motivated to do that
• The DNA evidence especially the "double DNA knife" and the bra clasp
• The lack of alibis (Knox says she was with Sollecito: he says he was alone)
• The witness testimony that placed them both in the vicinity of the house where the murder took place.

Is this a fair summary (of a prosecution case which consisted of about 10,000 pages of material!) I appreciate that all of these points are contested by the defence, and we will need to work on that too. Bluewave (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. I think that's a brilliant idea. Very well organized. It will make it so much easier for the reader to understand. There's so many bits like the double DNA knife, etc., having it all sorted out in that way will also make it more neutral POV. Well done, Bluewave.Malke2010 15:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Malke! Just to add to this, I think the main points on the Knox/Sollecito defence side are:

• The lack of any real motive
• The number of attackers being inconclusive (could have been a lone killer)
• Challenges to the DNA evidence (possible contamination and minute quantities)
• Lack of defendants' fingerprints/DNA at the crime scene
• The credibility of witness testimony (lack of)

Again is this a fair summary? Bluewave (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave: I object to any substantial re-write on the section. You consistently write in a highly POV manner, tending to make Knox sound as guilty as possible. That is what you will do with this section. Many editors have spent time adding to this section. What they have done should be tweaked, not re-written by you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to summarise the two sides that were presented at the trial. That seems to me a reasonable way of improving the content of the trial section. Re-editing of sections by various editors is the usual way that articles are improved. I expect it will be edited and re-edited until it reaches a "good article" kind of state, at which point there is then a good argument for keeping it stable. It certainly hasn't reached that stage yet. I have asked people if they agree with my summary of each side's case. The reason I am doing that is to try to avoid any POV being expressed. Bluewave (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, having seen countless edits by you, you tend to edit in a consistently POV manner, which is anti-Knox. There is no reasonable expectation that if you re-write the section it will be NPOV. Try tweaking the section. That will be less controversial, and less disruptive to the work other editors have already put into the article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, your arguments seem to be against me personally, rather than what I am proposing. The same is true of the rather upsetting message that you left on my talk page. Bluewave (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not the one who has been trying to whip things up behind the scenes. I am here simply to write and edit. Also, I have nothing to do with any person or group involved in this case. No association whatsoever. Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe I have ever suggested or even thought that you were connected with anyone involved in the case, despite what you say in the message. Bluewave (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, your editing style here has been tendentious. Please read the guidelines. You are editing from a POV. Everyone has one, but in this instance, Bluewave is attempting to restore WP:NPOV and remove unsourced material which is clearly original research which is also a violation WP:SYN. You don't seem to understand the point here is to make this article as balanced as possible in the interests of presenting a neutral article on the subject.Malke2010 21:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

So the real question is: have these summaries of the prosecution and defence cases picked out the main points (as far as we can tell them from the sources currently available)? Bluewave (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No I don't think so. There is a great deal being left out. In prior discussions it was agreed that the alternative or minority points of view would be included under NPOV guidelines. The whole thrust of your editing has been to minimize the defense views and to paint Knox and Sollecito in as bad a light as possible. So there is no realistic chance that if you undertake to write the defense side of the case that it would give proper credence to what the defense is saying. You don't agree with what they have to say. You think A and S are guilty. So how realistically can you write a report summarizing their views? That would take a great deal of objectivity, which you have not shown to date. I think things should be left basically the way they are in that section. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:42, 25 February 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