Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Appearance Knox railroaded by police

29-Dec-09: The text of the article might seem to indicate that Amanda Knox was railroaded into conviction on little evidence. In fact, it has been difficult to explain why Knox was convicted, when detailed text from the article has been repeatedly removed or censored, which might have provided some insight that implicated her in the murder. However, to claim that the police railroaded Knox into conviction seems incorrect. Instead, it appears that false testimony by some witnesses might have bolstered the illusion that Knox was deceptive or concealing the truth. In general, it only takes a few false witnesses, in connection with police hostility, to sway a conviction. In particular, the hostile testimony by her Italian roommate Filomena Romanelli, seems to include false statements that condemned Amanda's behavior as deceptive. I'm not saying that Romanelli was intentionally lying, under oath, about all of Amanda's actions; however, Romanelli's claims seem to show a pattern of untrue statements that would contradict Amanda's alibi and veracity. Regarding mobile phone calls, there has been an insinuation that Amanda Knox had purposely avoided reporting the suspicious situation at the flat: the blood smears, broken glass, and Kercher not returning her calls. However, the logs of cell phone records seem to indicate that Amanda, earlier, called others to report the suspicious details, before the postal police arrived at the flat on midday 2 November 2007. Also, Romanelli was free to roam the crime scene, and move items, before the area was sealed by the 2 postal-police officers. Beware of other court testimony that might have falsely accused Amanda Knox of deceitful behaviour, and be sure to seek reliable sources before adding more text to the article. Surely, there could be some evidence to convict Knox, but beware of false claims and try to include all viewpoints, considering that, at least, 8 people were walking all through the flat for hours before the floor was evacuated for formal investigation. -Wikid77 20:05, 29 December 2009

The conviction of Mignini in connection with his duties as a prosecutor seems to support the view that Amanda and Raffaele were railroaded. A leopard does not change his spots. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Contaminated crime scene

29-Dec-09: The article does not yet describe issues of crime-scene contamination. The number of people who were walking through the "thoroughly-cleaned-with-bleach" flat is staggering: at least 8, including Knox, Sollecito, 2 postal-police officers, roommate Filomena Romanelli, her friend Paola, and their 2 boyfriends (occupants 7 & 8). Meanwhile, there was blood (from a cat's ear?) outside the downstairs flat, so the police "kicked in" that door as well when Mignini arrived: it is not known how much cat blood was tracked into the upstairs flat. About 100 police officers arrived for the investigation. When Kercher's door was kicked open (4 kicks?) by Paola's boyfriend, at least 6 or 7 people were present at the doorway: the 2 boyfriends, plus Sollecito, Romanelli, Paola, and 1 or 2 police officers (Amanda Knox was down the hall). Reportedly, someone saw Kercher's lifeless foot lying under the quilt in the darkness, and screamed in Italian, "A foot! A foot!" (which Amanda claimed that she interpreted as a severed foot was found in the room). Anyway, this case is likely to become a notorious example of what happens when a crime scene is not sealed and coralled quickly. If you find cell phones discarded in a garden, and someone reports blood smears at that flat, then.... You get the idea. -Wikid77 20:05, 29 December 2009

Agree. The degree of contamination of the crime scene needs to be looked at more closely. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You (both) make it sound a bit as though you think we should do some original research about this. Surely the thing that we should look at closely is whether the reliable, independent secondary sources have suggested that the crime scene was contaminated and whether they suggest that this may have had an adverse effect on the investigation. Bluewave (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Biased Editing of Article and Harassment of Those Attempting to Include Minority Viewpoints

I must object to the conduct of FormerIP, who has gone through this article for weeks taking out every statement and citation that supports the minority view that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito might not be guilty. He has also deleted most every statement that presents the concerns of Americans, such as that the prosecution Halloween theory and other theories on motive were bizarre, that there was a lack of credible forensic evidence, and that the prosecutor had engaged in questionable conduct in this case and another murder case. FormerIP's editing violates the NPOV policy that minority views should be included. He went so far as to delete a paragraph that I was still trying to type--on the basis that I had not included sources!!! Yet, by deleting my new paragraph he was intentionally preventing me from adding the sources that I was trying to type in at that very moment!! FormerIP's biased editing must stop. Minority points of view MUST be included in an article--and therefore the views of many Americans who think these convictions are quite dubious should be allowed into the article under NPOV policy. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You say that "the views of many Americans who think these convictions are quite dubious should be allowed into the article". If you are talking about the views of editors, no they shouldn't be allowed. Where there are minority views expressed in reliable, verifiable sources, they should of course be mentioned but, if they are minority views, this should be represented in the balance of the article. Bluewave (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The hypocrisy is stunning! There has been heavy editing in an obviously biased manner by British editors to delete or change much of what was added by American editors. Looking over the edits that have gone on here for weeks, they have all been very one-sided. That is so obvious, Mr. Bluewave from Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlykinskyja (talk • contribs) 20:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Concerns about recent edits to the lead

Zlykinskyja has recently added a chunk of stuff to the lead section. I am concerned for several reasons:

• I think it gives undue weight to perceptions in the US and material about the prosecutor. To my mind, this unbalances the lead and I would suggest that the material was moved elsewhere, with the lead left pretty much as it was yesterday.
• The citation for the satanic rite is a UK newspaper, quoting an Italian newspaper, which seems to be quoting a defence lawyer quoting the prosecutor speaking during a closed session of the court. And the newspaper quotes from a blog. This is not a suitable source for the lead.
• The conviction of the prosecutor is completely unrelated to the case. Worth a mention somewhere, but not as a major part of the lead.
• This reads like someone's personal manifesto for why they think there was a miscarriage of justice. Not like an encyclopaedia.

Bluewave (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I notice that Bluewave (British editor) didn't raise concerns about creating imbalance or undue weight while FormerIP (British editor) spent weeks deleting and editing this article to read in more much more biased way against the American Amanda Knox. The article has been greatly changed from the more balanced article that it used to be and now reads more like a manifesto of someone's belief that the American and her boyfriend are guilty. The new lead text should stay because it reflects the essence of the debate from the perspective of millions of people in the U.S.--and their views deserve to be included just as much as the British and Italian views. Stop with this biased editing. Also, if there is a particular source that is weak, that does not justify deleting the text. It only justifies a comment that a better source needs to be looked for. As for the prosecutor who is now a convicted criminal, that is a crucial issue from the US perspective. It is shocking and unacceptable to Americans that a man who engaged in criminal misconduct as a prosecutor in a murder case would be trusted to handle another murder case. That would not happen in the US and so this is a major issue from the US perspective. 20:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for being British, Zlykinskyja.

I do not think that it is inappropriate to include details of the pro-Knox POV in the article. However, your recent edit was not balanced, in that it increased the word-count of the lead to 160% of what it was previously. In order to make such substantial changes to the POV slant of the article, you really should attempt to gain talkpage consensus first. I would suggest copying the text that you want to add here so that it can be discussed by editors. Thanks, I hope you can understand the reasons why it might be good to work in this type of way. --FormerIP (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

When FormerIP made hundreds of anti-Knox edits to this article over the last several weeks, I did not see him seeking consensus first. Yet, he insists that someone adding ONE paragraph must first seek his permission. FormerIP has no respect for the work and time that other editors have put into this article. He trashed this article with his hundreds of one sided edits. He deleted my paragraph TWICE without first discussing the matter with me, just as he has deleted whole sections without first seeking consensus. FormerIP is not acting in good faith but with a lack of ethics as shown by his hundreds of one sided edits. STOP DELETING MY WORK. Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, are you the same person as Pilgrim Rose? As far as I understand, it is legitimate to return to Wikipedia under a new user-name, as long as you are open about this when you return to articles you used to edit. --FormerIP (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP, are you the same person as Bluewave? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlykinskyja (talk • contribs) 22:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Accusing FormerIP and me of being the same person is a very serious allegation in the Wikipedia culture. If you think you have the slightest shred of evidence, please state it! If not, apologise to both of us! Bluewave (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Efforts to Block the Addition of American Viewpoints

Now this is really disgusting. Someone, likely FormerIP, has gone and had this article locked so that only certain people can edit the article. That is truly disgusting. The locking of this article was NOT due to any vandalism. It was due to an attempt to block alternative viewpoints. This is the most extreme form of censorship. So now, only the British editors who trashed this article can edit the article, while any American joining in to add WELL DOCUMENTED, WELL SOURCED information is blocked. That is just despicable. Americans are asked to contribute financially to Wikipedia, but are being blocked from adding information about an American many believe to be innocent. I intend to vigorously oppose this. All Americans should oppose these sleezy tactics! Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It is reasonable to speculate that you are an alternate account of an editor previously sanctioned for edits to this article, per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikid77. If you can shed any light on that question, please do so. In the mean time, you are free to make arguments on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Zlykinskyja. I Have responded on your talkpage. --FormerIP (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

To Ed Johnson:

There needs to be a full analysis and consideration of the attempts by FormerIP and some other British editors to block, censor, intimidate other editors from adding some of the American viewpoint to the Meredith Kercher Murder article. FormerIP came at me today just for trying to add a paragraph that added some of the American perspective to the article. He deleted my paragraph just two or three minutes after I posted it claiming that it lacked sources, when I was actually in the process of adding sources. The paragraph is well documented, well sourced, quite legitimate. He deleted it twice without prior discussion. This is just one of countless actions by him and other foreign editors to delete information that presents the American perspective on the case. The reality exists that Amanda Knox could be in fact innocent. She is a living person entitled to her good name if she is innocent. FormerIp has made hundreds of edits to slant the article to make Knox sound more likely guilty. Yet I am being blocked for TRYING TO ADD ONE PARAGRAPH that presents the American view, which is well documented by U.S. media and Senator Maria Cantwell. Wikipedia solicits funds from Americans, but here we have a situation of discrimination against American editors. Wikipedia is not supposed to be about censorship but that is what is indeed going on here. If you look at FormerIp's hundreds of edits over the last several weeks, they are all about making Knox look more guilty, while my one paragraph offering an opposing view gets deleted and now I am blocked from editing the article for a month. It is very difficult to respect policies like this. I am requesting that the article be unblocked to stop the censorship. Furthermore, I am by no means a sock puppet. I post under one name only in compliance with Wikipedia policy. The issue of sock puppet is just an excuse for censorship. FormerIp will use any tactic to get his way, such as he is doing now. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

ED:

One further point. I do not know the procedures. Where can I formally report this situation for dispute resolution or arbitration? This is a serious matter, since some believe that Amanda Knox is being defamed by Wikipedia while she is pursuing an appeal for which the next 26 years of her life may be at stake. There needs to be compliance with the policy on biographies of living persons. By blocking the American viewpoint from being added to the article, her reputation is being unfairly damaged during the appeal process. There needs to be a full review of this situation by a Wikpedia board--not censorship which allows only the current British editors from presenting information about the American Amanda Knox. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlykinskyja (talk • contribs)

Well that just confirms it. FormerIP has once again deleted my well documented, single paragraph that presents the view held by Senator Maria Cantwell and American media on this case. Americans who are concerned that Amanda Knox is being defamed by British editors like FormerIP on Wikipedia have good reason to be concerned. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User Zlykinskyja was, according to the records, a newly registered member of this community on 2 Feb. Within half an hour or so of registering, he or she added a chunk of material to the lead section of the Meredith Kercher murder article. The lead had been more-or-less stable for several weeks. It seemed to me that this edit upset the balance of the lead and I listed my concerns in a section above. In response to my concerns, Zlykinskyja accused me of being British (guilty as charged); seemed to imply that I was anti-American (which anyone who knew me would find quite amusing); charged me with hypocrisy (no comment); and accused me of being a sock puppet of FormerIP (which made me furious until my wife pointed out that anyone who had seen my face might easily mistake me for a sockpuppet). He or she doesn't really address my concerns, other than to say that the added material "reflects the essence of the debate from the perspective of millions of people in the U.S." I'm sorry, but I am very wary of anyone who claims to speak on behalf of millions of people (of any nationality). If Zlykinskyja is a new editor, he or she would do well to engage in some debate before wading in and making major changes to an article. If he or she is actually a pseudonym for another editor who has previously engaged in edits here, then I think some action should be taken. Bluewave (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, you have not addressed the issues I raised at all, which are that the edits that have been going on here have been very one-sided. You seem to think that is okay, when it is not. Wikipedia is about presenting a neutral article that reflects the facts, not the opinion of a particular group. The NPOV guidleines are quite specific. All significant viewpoints should be included in the article. The information that I added was after there had been hundreds of one sided edits by FormerIP and you. I tried to add merely one paragraph that presented the other side of the story and met with immediate resistance on the trumped up charge that there were no sources included. Yet I was trying to type them in when the text was deleted within two or three minutes of being added. That was obviously hostile treatment. It went downhill from there. FormerIP violated policy by reverting my text, three times. The text was well sourced by then with many footnotes. It presented a legitimate view shared by mainstream American media and Senator Marie Cantwell. The sources I included were solid, such as New York Times, CBS News, CNN, Senator Cantwell's website. The tactics that are being used on this article are not in good faith or in accordance with policy. It is a sad situation of censorship, when Wikipedia is not supposed to be about that at all. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You unbalanced the lead. It read like a blog. Rothorpe (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The lead, as it was before your edits, Zlykinskyja, did not represent the opinions of any of the people who might have a viewpoint. I would therefore argue that it was very balanced. If you want to add in the views of one set of people to the lead, I would argue that you would have to add the views of all groups of people with an equally legitimate view. These might include the victim's family; the three people accused of the crime; and their families; the variety of views expressed in the U.S. media (who are not unanimous in their views); the variety in the Italian media; and in the British media; any other people who have commented, such as Senator Cantwell; etc. If we decided to include all these viewpoints in the lead, it would be greatly expanded, and would make the views of the murder appear more significant than the murder itself and the subsequent judicial process. I think it is better for the lead simply to relate the events that have occurred and that we should include the various opinions elsewhere in the article. Bluewave (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with saying we should include the information elsewhere in the article is that much of the information that I attempted to include in the lead was already in the article but was repeatedly deleted over the course of weeks or months. There were whole sections and issues deleted. So the problem is not that it would be better to place the information elsewhere, as Bluewave claims. The problem is that information that is not consistent with the British and Italian view that Knox is guilty of a sexual assault and violent stabbing and murder is consistently being deleted. This creates a biased article because the article no longer incorporates the significant view that Knox was wrongly convicted. Thus, NPOV policy is being consistently flaunted in this article. Furthermore, given that this is a living person, the article may turn out to be defamatory if she is ultimately cleared of the crime during the appeal process. Under Italian, English and American law, a person is innocent until proven guilty and the process of determining guilt or innocence is not complete until the appeal process is complete. Thus, the view that Knox may be innocent or did not receive a fair trial, as reflected in numerous U.S. news articles and statements of public figures in the U.S. rightfully should be included in the article, along with the view of the Italian court and the European media that she is guilty. That is the real issue--NPOV. That is the real dispute here. Everything else is a smokescreen. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Controversies section is the right place to put doubts about the verdict. If someone deletes a bit, you can always put it straight back, can't you? Rothorpe (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, it seems clear that, at present, other editors are not convinvced that the material you have inserted into the lead is suitable. I think Bluewave sums up the reasons for this well. As he points out, the lead did not previously report any specific pro-Knox or anti-Knox stuff that has been in the media, leaving this for the body. If you want a large amount of pro-Knox material into the lead, then you should start by putting forward an argument in favour of doing that here on the talkpage. Since it is clear that some editors squarely oppose the edit you made on returning to the article, it is probably unlikely that it will stand as it is. But you might walk away with something at least. If you carry on as you are, I think it will just be frustrating for you, as well as other editors.

Please note that by "putting forward an argument", I do not mean accusing other editors of patriotic bias, censorship, intimidation and sockpuppeting. Nor do I mean issuing legal threats or deciding to edit the article the way you want it and to hell with any editor that disagrees. IMO, these are all things that make it less likely that you will get any of what you want. Try explaining why it is you think those who think Knox is innocent deserve more attention in the article, for example. Perhaps there is something crucial that other editors are not understanding at present. --FormerIP (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Expanding details for American readers

05-Feb-10: I think we need to add more bottom sections into the article, to expand the amount of detail that American readers will want. As I tried to explain last year, the American audience has been immersed in forensic TV shows for years, and they expect many details about a crime: Americans are continually hearing about DNA, probable cause, the perps, the unsub, "GSR" and "CoD" on a daily basis. Forensic and mystery TV shows run every night in the US: CSI Miami, NCIS (TV series), NCIS: Los Angeles, CSI New York, Criminal Minds, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (Las Vegas), The Forgotten, Ghost Whisperer, Medium, etc. To Italian, Spanish, or British readers, the typical American perspective might be difficult to grasp: think "Sherlock Holmes" with DNA profiling, luminol, ballistics, and tire treads, every night of the week. To add that level of forensic details, the article needs additional bottom sections to describe the blood-spatter patterns, Low Copy Number DNA, cell-station tracking, CCTV security-camera videos, etc.
Some people claim that such details are beyond the scope of an "encyclopedia". However, today's encyclopedias are much different than years ago: in 1963, when London-born (Hampstead) actress Elizabeth Taylor became the highest-paid actress (US$2 million for Cleopatra), she was a "nobody" with no article, at all, in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (which did not cover films or actors). The times have changed, and we at Wikipedia now write the articles that the readers want to read. If Americans want to know when mobile phones were used during a crime event, we add those details to the article. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Both Wikid77 and ColorOfSuffering have zeroed in on the importance of including the forensic evidence in the article. I agree with that. Not only will it make for interesting reading, it will go a long way in demonstrating the problems and issues in the case that underly the discomfort in the U.S. with the court proceedings to date. This will inform the reader of at least some of the basis for the international controversy. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Now, obviously we should include the important foresinc evidence, but this argument for excessive detail is quite absurd. First off, viewers in Italy, Spain and Britain are immersed in those shows, too (really, they run on any random day). Really, it's an international phenomenon. Secondly, these shows are fiction - they entertain, and that is fine. But they bear as much resemblance with real police work as Star Trek does with NASA does. While Encyclopedias may have changed, the goal is still to provide a coherent presentation of a subject which is understandable by a regular person, not a random collection of facts. If such in depth-information exists, it is fine to include them in an article as links. (I suspect that when you say "Americans", you rather speak of "people who like to play detective in their heads"). My personal point is that the "discomfort in the US" has little to do with the understanding of the evidence. It's rather an empathic reaction: When a co-national is sentenced in a strange country without 100% conclusive evidence, you're more likely to believe in the innocence than if it happened at home. Averell (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you have neatly summed up a point that I have been labouring to express...that we are not trying to provide the material for "people who like to play detective in their heads". Bluewave (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikid77: while we are in the middle of discussing the merits of adding extra detail, you seem to have made a unilateral decision to add lots of detail. Not only that, but the article is suffering in the process. For instance, you've changed some instances of "Guédé" to "Rudy" and "Caporali" to "Mr Caporali". Why are you doing this? Bluewave (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• I am trying to add details that provide the context of the case, such as when people moved to the house: Kercher came in late August, Knox arrived (back from Germany) on 20Sep2007, and Romanelli/Mezzetti (who were long-term friends) rented the flat in August 2007. I have only limited time, and I am sorry if I have introduced some awkward phrases or naming, but I try to improve that text with each edit. Also, I have discovered we can remove duplicated footnotes to remove much excess detail there, so I am trying to keep the detail minimized. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment to Averell on the "discomfort in the U.S."-

It is an oversimplification to suggest that many folks in the U.S. are uneasy about this case primarily because the case is proceeding in a foreign country. That comment seems to imply that there is little defective in the forensic evidence or in the case. Yet, from the persective of many in the U.S. there are a substantial number of very serious defects, and a conviction despite such defects is problematic. That is a big part of the international controversy, and I think that only by including the details about the forensics can the reader understand that controversy. You just said in the section above that you are willing to include the various perspectives in the article. But this comment I have noted seems to suggest that you do not consider the perspective of many in the U.S. to even be valid. By nullifying that perspective, you are contradicting yourself. If you are willing to include the various perspectives in the article, then you should be willing to assume that the perspective of many in the U.S. at least has some modicum of validity. And that perspective, as expressed over and over in the media and during court proceedings, is that there are serious issues with the forensic evidence. If we really are going to include the various perpectives in this article, then detailed information about the forensics should be included. Thanks. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I said that I don't think that people (not only in the U.S.) who agree or disagree with the judgment do so because of an in-depth study of the foresinc evidence. I neither said that we shouldn't include forensic evidence, nor any point of view. What level of detail makes sense can be discussed. But the argument that "we must include as much detail as possible, because Americans watch CSI" didn't strike me as very convincing. Averell (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Again, we need to add detail to offset the public perception that the police and Rome's Polizia Scientifica were incompetent (not true). In fact, if we add detail about the trial cross-examinations, it becomes clear that the prosecutors and plaintiff's attorneys also used "pressuring" and badgered the witnesses to force the answers, and hence, it is not mere "police brutality" to yell and intimidate a witness (as a form of procedural incompetence); instead, the yelling, shouting, and forceful arguments appear to be common practice in the whole Italian judicial process, and the judge has to remind everyone to talk in a calmer tone. This "ain't your grandfather's Perry Mason". Hence, as a consequence, there are dozens of crucial reasons to add massive detail to the article, but I am willing to compromise to perhaps only 200-300kb as the article size. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Forensic investigation

Can anyone enlighten me as to why in the world all forensic evidence from Guédé was removed from the article? This diff talks about the evidence [1], yet somehow it was removed in the article's current state [2]. I'm struggling to come up with a logical reason for this removal, as the enormous amount of forensic evidence implicating Guédé is fairly important to the murder investigation, right? I'm going to re-add the deleted sections, unless someone says otherwise. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Color. It was me that did that. The info wasn't actually removed from the article, but the section duplicated a lot of the same information as the Rudy Guédé trial and appeal section, so I merged some of it. Probably a job that is still not complete (IMO you don't actually need a "Forensic investigation" section and then sections which outline the forensic investigation in relation to the different defendants). If you have a view in terms of structure and what goes where, that would be great, as long as the article doesn't repeat itself. Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it should either include forensic evidence against all of those involved, or be removed entirely. Personally, I believe the forensics from the case, and the details of the trial for Guédé are two separate issues that should both be kept. Now, in the article's current status, the only evidence mentioned was the contentious evidence implicating Knox and Sollecito, without mentioning the uncontested evidence implicating Guédé. That edit would seem, on its face, to be promoting a certain point of view. If there were issues with a merge, that's fine...but why only merge the parts pertaining to Guédé? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You may be right that the forensics and trials should be kept separate, but I think there is a conundrum about how to do this without repeating large amounts of information - after all, the forensics are likely to be relevant to the trials. I would support doing away with the forensics section and merging the info elsewhere. You suggest that the previous merger of info looks POV, but I was just merging the info on the basis that it was duplicated. If I can be accused of having a POV at all, it is certainly not my intention to defend one of the murderers. I don't *think* the remaining information is included elsewhere, which is why it was not merged - if you think differently, then I would be happy with the info being appropriately merged. --FormerIP (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You may be right that the forensics and trials should be kept separate, but I think there is a conundrum about how to do this without repeating large amounts of information - after all, the forensics are likely to be relevant to the trials. I would support doing away with the forensics sections and merging the info elsewhere. You suggest that the previous merger of info looks POV, but I was just merging the info on the basis that it was duplicated. I don't *think* the remaining information is included elsewhere, which is why it was not merged - if you think differently, then I would be happy with the info being appropriately merged. --FormerIP (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hang on. The forensic information regarding Knox and Sollecito is kept, while the information regarding Guédé is reverted? Why, exactly? This article is about the murder, not about the "trials of the individuals implicated in the crime." Your claims of "duplicate information" doesn't really hold up, as the Knox and Sollecito information is duplicated elsewhere in the article. And why merge that information at all? You don't own this article, and you shouldn't be reverting good faith edits without proper justification. In its current status, that section is violating WP:NPOV, specifically, giving undue weight to contested evidence while ignoring the uncontested evidence. It does not matter if it is redundant (and please, cite a policy or something from the manual of style about repeating information before reverting that edit again). WP:MERGE does not apply, since that is for redundant pages, not article materials. Can you really not see the problem with a section titled "Forensic investigation" that does not include any of the forensic information collected from the only person whose presence during the murder is not under dispute? Honestly? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you are correct to suggest that info about K and S has been kept whilst info about G has been reverted. All the information was retained. However, it is my view that these details need only be included once in the article. I made a decision about where they should be included, which is up for revision if you have better suggestions. I take your point about a section titled "Forensic investigations" not including a complete picture - my proposed solution to this would be to do away with the section and merge the info elsewhere in the article (incidentally, the fact that there is a guideline WP:MERGE does not mean that it is forbidden to merge contents within the same article). I don't think it is necessary to refer to MoS here - clearly, it is preferable for the article to be constructed in a way that does not require the same information to be repeated.

As I said, I don't *think* the remaining information is included elsewhere, which is why it was not merged - if you think differently, then I would be happy with the info being appropriately merged. --FormerIP (talk) 02:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

ColorOfSuffering, you raise an excellent point about the deletion of so much negative information about Guede. In addition to the deletion of the damaging forensic evidence about Guede that you have noted, there were deletions of all of the damaging information concerning his break-ins or thefts and use of knives just days or weeks before the murder, as well as the watering down of claims in the media that he was regarded as a drug dealer and petty thief. So after all this negative information about Guede is removed, as well as the removal of the forensic evidence about his presence at the murder scene, he looks a lot less shady to the reader. Now add in the removal of some of the positive or exculpatory information about Amanda and Raffaele, and the reader is now far more likely to see A and S as the real culprits in this case than would have been the situation several weeks ago. I note also that there were deletions of almost all of the damaging information about the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, although this man has actually been convicted of criminal activity in his handling of another murder case. By deleting that information, the reader may be left unaware of the fact that there are legitimate reasons to question his ethics in his handling of the Knox case. There was also removed the entire section on the prosecutor's bizarre claims that the murder was related to a Halloween ritual or a sex orgy, which ultimately were never established. So I really think there has been extensive cherry picking of the information that once was included in the article and that now the article is a lot less NPOV. Thanks for your time. Zlykinskyja (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the Guédé details on this article seem to be a bit skewed, but that's a separate NPOV issue that I wanted to raise in another topic heading. The forensic investigation issue is just the first thing that jumped out at me. Now, the problem, FormerIP, is that you merged something from a "more inclusive" subject heading, to a "far less inclusive" subject heading. It'd be akin to removing all mentions of "Communism" from an article about the USSR and inserting them in an article about "Josef Stalin." Both can, and should, be kept. This article is named "Murder of Meredith Kercher," not "Trial of Rudy Guédé." So, the "Forensic investigation" section is far more important to the wider view of the topic than burying this information under a specific heading (where a reader is far less likely to see it). Additionally, if you want to view it chronologically instead, the forensic data on Guédé was gathered before his trial. This means that there would be no trial without the forensic data. So, as I say, I can't possibly see a justifiable rationale for either reverting the edit I made to the Forensic investigation, or your decision to merge that information in the first place. When I get time tomorrow, I will merge the information from the Guédé trial into the Forensic investigation subheading (if you're truly only concerned about duplicate information). Because, frankly, this is not an article about the trials. It's about the murder. Also, I will try to compile a list of NPOV issues in the article, of which I can see several...for instance, why is there information about how Guédé's played basketball, but no mention of how Knox played soccer? Guédé is made out to be a far more sympathetic individual than Knox, who gets "the face of an angel - but the eyes of a killer" in her 4th paragraph, while Guédé gets: "High hopes..." and "He sporadically studied accountancy and hotel-keeping." If that's not a violation of NPOV, I'm not sure what is. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 07:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi ColorOfSuffering. There is a lot of history to this article! At one point, there was a massive amount about the evidence, and it seemed to be growing every day, and being duplicated in different parts of the article. I think there may have been a view among some editors that our purpose should be to present all the evidence about the case, so that the reader can make a judgement about whether there was a miscarriage of justice. I would argue very strongly against trying to do that: Wikipedia is not a forum for re-running trials and should not be one of those "here's all the evidence, now you, the reader, decide" websites. (If anyone disagrees with me, we should really debate this point!) On the other hand, we must absolutely not edit the article in such a way as to suggest that there was a lack of evidence against Guédé. That would indeed violate NPOV. I would also argue that the evidence against Guédé was pretty much taken at face value, was never tested in open court, never debated in the press and, on its own, would barely warrant a Wikipedia article. The evidence against Knox and Sollecito, on the other hand, was the subject of a trial that lasted a year, was reported all round the world and was hotly contested in public as well as in court. That difference should, I suggest, be reflected in the article. But that doesn't mean that the evidence against Guédé was weak.

• Do you think there is specific forensic evidence that should be mentioned, that is currently missing? If so what in particular?
• Do you think we need to move stuff between sections (in which case we should do some work on agreeing an improved section structure)?
• Do you think the phraseology about the Guédé evidence implies that it is weak? (In which case, let's fix it.)
• Or have I missed your point completely? Bluewave (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear that his article has gone through quite a bit of contentious editing. There are two strong points of view, from what I can tell:

• Guédé, Knox, and Sollecito murdered Kercher during a sex game.
• Guédé murdered and raped Kercher after a botched robbery.

Consequently, the evidence is the most important aspect of this article. Any tampering, hiding, or moving the evidence against those involved should be done very carefully. I don't want to get off on a whole NPOV thing at this point, but the article should reflect both theories on the murder equally (because both have been reported in reliable sources as being equally valid). But, to answer your questions:

• Do you think there is specific forensic evidence that should be mentioned, that is currently missing? If so what in particular? Yes. The revision I made regarding the vast amount of forensic evidence recovered implicating Guédé was removed from the "Forensic investigation" section, while all of the contentious information regarding Sollecito and Knox was kept.
• Do you think we need to move stuff between sections? Not sure what is meant by this, but I think the article should go: background, murder, investigation, trial. In that order, for consistency in both weight and chronology.
• Do you think the phraseology about the Guédé evidence implies that it is weak? It's not just weak, it's non-existent. Merging, typically, goes from the "less important" aspect of an article, to the "more important" aspect. For this article, the evidence is, by far, the most important aspect (without evidence, we have no description of the murder, no suspects, and no trial). As it stands, it appears to the reader that the only forensic evidence collected by police was that which implicated Knox and Sollecito alone. The first mention of the high volume of evidence against Guédé comes under the subheading "Rudy Guédé trial and appeal," which appears after a background description that portrays him, primarily, as a hard-working immigrant who loved basketball.
• Or have I missed your point completely? No. But it's distressing that my initial good faith edit was reverted two minutes after it was made. There is no article "gatekeeper." No one owns this article. I think balance is sorely lacking in this article, as it stands now. The aforementioned "forensic investigation" is just the most obvious aspect of that imbalance. Now, I would love to be able to spend some time restoring an NPOV, but I'm afraid that my edits will simply be reverted once I begin, and that's just not helpful to build consensus. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Sorry, I've only got a couple of minutes so can't respond properly til tomorrow. Just one point now: I agree with your analysis of the two strong points of view. I just think that the article needs to make absolutely clear that two independent courts of law (Guede and Knox/Sollecito) examined all the evidence in great detail and rejected the second point of view. One of those courts then reached a conclusion aligned to the first point of view. We need to reflect that result and also make it clear that there is a body of opinion that does not agree with the verdict of the court. But we shouldn't be trying to re-present all the evidence so that readers can decide whether the court got it wrong. Bluewave (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, even if the theoretical final version of the article does not go as far as re-presenting the evidence so that the reader can decide the case for himself or herself, the article should reflect the differing viewpoints about the case. The fact that this case is seen so differently in different countries is part of what makes this case notable. If there was not great international controversy about this case, there likely would not even be an encyclopedia page about the murder. While all murders are tragic and important, not all murders or even most end up in an encyclopedia. It is the fact that the controversy has rocked three countries that we are writing about this case, and the media continues to report on it. Please also consider that there has not yet been any final determinations reached in this case. The appeals process may not be concluded for a period of years. At this point I don't think we can say that there is anything final or conclusive in this case. So to accurately report on the state of this case as it presently exists, there needs to be included the differing viewpoints on the evidence, the factual background, the trials and appeals. There also needs to be included a coherent description of how and why the perceptions of the media, public officials and public sentiment in different countries vary so greatly. I think that only if the article describes all of that is the reader in a position to understand what all the international controversy is about. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a substantial body of opinion that does not agree with the court, including a great number of reliable sources, as well as notable individuals (including a United States senator). While I think it's fairly clear that Sollecito, Knox, and Guédé were convicted of the murder, what is not clear is to whether those convictions were valid. For instance, do you think the O. J. Simpson murder case should focus more on the evidence used to demonstrate his innocence? Or (to use a British equivalent), should the Richard Bingham article focus on the evidence showing that he did not, in fact, murder his nanny (since he was never convicted)? Or what about Randall Dale Adams, who was found guilty in a similarly independent court. Should the article focus more on the evidence used to convict him? Of course not, and it's silly to not present both viewpoints equally if there are reliable sources that express doubt about the conviction. Right now, it sounds like you're lobbying for the article to have a clear point of view (Knox and Sollecito were rightfully convicted). If there were no reliable sources to the contrary, I'd agree with you. But since CNN, Newsweek, The New York Times, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, TIME Magazine, The Seattle Times, The Daily Mail, Vanity Fair, and the New Scientist published articles expressing doubts about the evidence and the conviction. That's not just some some unsupported fringe theory, it's a well-sourced opposing viewpoint, and it should be treated as such. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Heck, even la Repubblica has an article expressing doubts about the conviction: "In questi casi, come nel caso Knox, non scommetterei cento euro sul fatto che la giustizia italiana sia stata in grado di identificare i veri colpevoli." Roughly, "In these cases, as in Knox, one hundred euros would not bet on the fact that the Italian justice has been able to identify the real culprits." [3] There is a similarly questioning article in The Guardian. [4]. There is no doubt that two courts of law convicted them of the killing. But, you have to concede that a large number of reliable sources are calling those results into question. Most of the damning articles are, also, somewhat outdated...many from 2007, before any of police investigative work had been officially released. The same paper that once published an article titled "Foxy Knoxy: Inside the twisted world of murdered Meredith's flatmate" in 2007 wrote an article titled "Amanda Knox: The troubling doubts over Foxy Knoxy's role in Meredith Kercher's murder" in 2009. [5] What, exactly, is your legitimate complaint with both theories being given equal treatment? Certainly it's not a question of verifiability, or reliable sources. Is it just your own opinion? I'm honestly curious. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well you've made me think about what I'm trying to do here, which has to be a good thing! First of all, I agree we are trying to hit a moving target: even before the appeals, we are waiting for the written judgement from the Knox/Sollecito case, which will tell us how the court reached its conclusions. But back to my concerns....when I first noticed this article, the version back then included the most atrocious misinformation. It stated that the Italian judicial system was based on the Inquisition; that people there are considered guilty until proven innocent; that there is no right of silence in Italy, etc, etc. We have also been through a version of the article where, almost every time a piece of prosecution evidence was mentioned, it was followed by a phrase saying how the defence had successfully refuted it. I really don't want the article to go back to either of those versions and I'm probably being over-sensitive about changes to the article, in case it starts to deteriorate into something that is not encyclopaedic. I am also sensitive to the fact that one of the defendents has got a powerful public relations company feeding their angle on the case to anyone who will listen (including some lazy journalists) and I don't want to see the article directly or indirectly influenced by the output of a PR company.

I more or less agree with your analysis that there are the two theories about the interpretation of the facts (Guédé, Knox, and Sollecito murdered Kercher during a sex game versus Guédé murdered and raped Kercher after a botched robbery), but I wouldn't want to see the article structured around those theories: those are interpretation not events or facts. Also, it is not quite so simple as the two theories: it is quite possible to refute the lone killer theory, without accepting the theory that Knox and Sollecito were either or both murders.

I think the article should summarise the important evidence and the main arguments of the prosecution and defence for each of the trials. It should also state the conclusions reached by the courts and the rationale for those conclusions. It should also state the conclusions reached by other people, including the US senator, and their rationale, if we know it. What it shouldn't do is to imply that the evidence points to a particular conclusion, nor should it look like it's trying to do some sort of "better job than the court", to enable the reader to reach a conclusion. I think, if we were starting from scratch with the article, I would probably structure it as I have just described: a section on the main evidence (forensic and otherwise); a section on each of the court cases, including paragraphs on the prosecution case, the defence cases (Knox's and Sollecito's were not the same, for example) and a paragraph on the conclusions reached by the court and how those conclusions were reached (which for Knox and Sollecito will be publised in a month or so). I'd then have a section on other interpretations of the evidence. As we have already got an existing article, I'm not sure I really want to suggest embarking on such a restructuring, but we need to at least make sure that the things that I have listed are present. The really tricky part is things like deciding what is the "main" evidence: but I think we should aim to do that rather than trying to list every single piece of evidence. Likewise, we would have contention over summarising things like the prosecution case: it is possible to find citations that would suggest that the whole prosecution case was based on the murder having been a satanic ritual (and therefore give the reader the impression that it can be dismissed as rubbish). I'm pretty sure that the prosecutor never mentioned a "satanic ritual" in open court, but this was how the defence chose to portray the prosecution case. This is an example of the difficult path we have to tread but is not the only such example: the way this case has been reported, you can find newspaper citations for almost anything (and as you point out, they can switch to opposite viewpoints almost daily) but I don't think it would improve the article to include everything that's printed in newspapers: we have to make a judgement, and that's where it gets hard and contentious. As for my own view of the case, I have shared that with friends, but not on Wikipedia. However, for the record, my own phraseology has been spookily similar to the quote you found in la Repubblica...but I certainly wouldn't want the article to reflect my opinion! Bluewave (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for being open to a tweaking of this article. And for using the "outdent" mark-up, which I'd never seen before, but will gladly use in the future.  :) The problem is, it's so hard to find concise information about this case because there's so much information that's been reported in reliable sources that seems to be based off of rumor and conjecture (compliments of the PR firm, as well as police/prosecutor leaks). Adding in substantial language & cultural problems has just made reporting (and reading) about this murder and case next-to-impossible. The problem is, I'm still seeing a lot of wrong information being cited (just reading the comments section of a Kercher murder article makes me want to bang my head against a wall), and I'd love to see this Wikipedia article be the place for people to go to find out the official story. I think there's been far too much "POV back-and-forth" for the article to be close to that goal at this point. Seems to me, the only fair way to restructure this article would be to lay it out chronologically -- background, murder, evidence, trial, reactions. References should follow suit -- no 2007 references should be cited in the section about the 2009 trial, for instance. These would include the "conclusions" you're seeking, each step of the way. I think a good article to use as a kind of template are the featured articles Red Barn Murder, Jack the Ripper, Moors murders, or the Toa Payoh ritual murders.

Now, I agree that the structure shouldn't be, "The prosecution said this. Then the defense said this." The opposing viewpoints need to be weighed by the strength of the argument, not just by the fact that there was a response. But, at the same time, it's certainly important to include both sides' information on the most damning evidence recovered by police (knife, bra clasp, footprints, confession), and it should not be couched in the language of "successfully refuted," but more along the lines of "the defense/police claim" or somesuch...easy to do if we stick to reliable sources.

And, just to answer a few of the content issues you mentioned (we can do the bulk of this in the new talk page sub-heading, but why not get a head start?) I agree that it doesn't seem that Mignini made the "satan" claim in open court, but he's certainly made that claim to the press: [6] and [7]. And I do believe his recent conviction for abuse of office bears mentioning, as this was an important aspect of the defense's case and will most certainly factor into the appeal. [8] But that's all stuff we can hash out over time. I think we can all work together to get this article to a point where we've struck a clear, neutral tone, using reliable sources. I dislike the "let the reader make up their mind" article goal, but at the same time we should avoid the "tell the reader what to think" goal as well. All we can do, really, is repeat the claims made by other reliable sources, balancing the strength of the arguments during each point and counter-point. I will try to start editing next week (others can begin "straight away," as the Brits are fond of saying), and I'll create a corresponding talk page subheading to discuss the various edits. Does this work for everyone? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, ColorOfSuffering. I would be interested in hearing what Wikid77 thinks of this though. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with the basic concept, but I suggest having detailed evidence in some bottom "appendix" sections of the article, so that first-time readers can focus on the top, overview sections, but others can read the detailed forensic analysis and other details. This case and article goes far beyond Jack the Ripper because there are so many photos, audio files and videos available for verification of the article: due to that detail, I recommend the appendix approach, and having studied the case for months, I believe that the details can be limited, without fear that testimony of 250 witnesses must be described in the article. I want the article to answer most people's questions, even to the point they no longer ask, "I wonder when/where that happened" but rather have readers begin to get "sick" of the text that covered all the bases about the event. If the article gets too large, we can split into a few subarticles, just as the Manson family involves 17 subarticles, with 4 people convicted of the Tate/LaBianca murders. Several people have complained that Wikipedia did not answer their questions about Kercher: for most of 2009, the article did not mention Kercher's 300 euros or 2 credit cards, nor Guede's fingerprinting in Milan when booked for concealing a weapon (16-inch, 41-cm knife?) and possession of stolen property in that Milan nursery school, while caught holding the stolen PC/phone burgled from a Perugia law office with a rock through an upstairs window 14Oct07. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

To pick up one of ColorOfSuffering's points - because it is such a good example of how difficult it is to sort out the truth....the "satanic rite". The Independent article cited[9] does indeed apparently quote the prosecutor as using those words. Later, the article says "The American [...] told the closed court...", making it clear that this article is about a closed session of the court. How, then, is the journalist able to quote the prosecutor's words? The Times carried the same story[10]. They say "The prosecutors 'laid out a scenario like from some crime novel', Sollecito’s lawyer Luca Maori said. He added that they 'alleged it was some kind of satanic rite...'" Ok, so we don't actually have the prosecutor's words directly (because it was a closed session of the court), but we have them quoted by a defence solicitor. The Scotsman is equally clear of the source.[11] And, by the way, this took place, in October 2008, well before the trial of Knox and Sollecito had begun. So, I believe it is complete nonsense to characterise the prosecution case at the later trial as being based on a theory about satanic rites. This was how a defence solicitor chose to portray the prosecution case: not an impartial source and not even at the time of the trial. Bluewave (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

While I'm all for including all relevant standpoints, lets clear up some misconception above: We do not weigh facts or viewpoints by the strength of the argument. Facts are weighed by the reliability of the source, and viewpoints are only weighed by their relative importance. To give a crude example, if 90% of the people/literature would say that the earth is flat, then 90% of the "shape of the earth article" would talk about the flat earth, irrespective of whether it is true or not. Also let me say that the "let the reader make up his own mind" is a general goal of Wikipedia, and the essence of the NPOV rule, not something we made up for this article. Averell (talk) 10:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it sounds as if we finally have reached a consensus to include the various perspectives in this article. That is a big step forward towards NPOV. Thanks to all. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course we need to include various perspectives. But we need to bear in mind that some of the most important perspectives are:

• The prosecution case.
• Each of the three defence cases (which were all different).
• The points of view reached by the courts (ie the Micheli judgement and the forthcoming judgement from the other trial).

I say that these are "important" perspectives because they are notable in having a direct impact on the lives of the people involved. Also, they are all carefully thought-out perspectives, rooted in the evidence. Also they are verifiable from citable sources. Most of our sources are newspaper reports of the court cases and relate to the above three perspectives. The perspectives of the Kercher family and the Knox family are also relevant and Maria Cantwell's perspective is notable because she is a US senator. I'm sure there are others. What I would be worried about is if we started to present the "perspective of the American people" (or the British people for that matter). I would also be worried if we moved away from an acceptance of the importance of the three evidence-based perspectives that I have bullet-pointed above. Bluewave (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Restoring Italian name as Guede

06-Feb-10: Considering that most reliable sources have used the unaccented name spelling as "Guede" which appeared on his Italian identity card, I think we should prefer the spelling as "Guede" in the article. However, let's note the other spelling in parentheses with "(sometimes as Guédé)" to simplify handling of both names. During the first few weeks while working on the article, I had not yet seen his Italian id with "Rudy Hermann Guede" and so, I did not realize that the spelling "Guédé" was so rare. Are there any objections to restoring the spelling as "Guede" and putting an internal note that we prefer that spelling to help search engines match any phrases related to that name? -Wikid77 (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll on what we are trying to achieve by detailing the evidence

It seems to me that there are strongly-held but widely differing views on the level of detail that we need to provide regarding the evidence in the case. I propose a quick straw poll to try to get agreement on what are trying to achieve, or at least to focus our understanding of why we can't agree. Bluewave (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

"The article should include evidence relating to this case in sufficent detail that the reader can make an informed judgement about the guilt or innocence of the three accused."

Voting

Please add a bullet point indicating that you support or oppose the above proposal, with reasons.

• Oppose. Wikipedia's purpose is not to provide the detail for readers to behave as amateur detectives. Also, to allow our readers to "do better than the courts" we would have to present as much detail as was available to judges who sat through a year-long case with dozens of witnesses and a prosecution case that ran to 10,000 pages. This is not practical. Bluewave (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think that the article should contain the findings of the Court, as soon as its motivazione is avalaible, but that it should also contain a short paragraph detailing all controversies; this because a judicial truth has been established and, even though someone may not like it, we must acknowledge it, but, at the same time, we obviously cannot skip the controversies, since wikipedia tries to be an encyclopaedia. Salvio giuliano (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral. My problem is with this poll. The issue is not properly stated in the poll question. I don't think the issue is whether we should be enabling folks to play detective in their heads and make their own decision about the case. That would take an article so large as to be ridiculous. The point I and others have tried to make is that there is an international controversy involved in this case, and the readers should be given enough information to understand the controversy. The controversy is routed in the forensic evidence. To explain the controversy does not require going so far as to create a gigantic article for amateur detectives. But the readers cannot be properly informed by including only a "short paragraph detailing all controversies" as Salvio suggests. The best approach is somewhere in between those two extremes. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't think I've asked the right question. I am really trying to find a simple statement of the problem...and I didn't want to start a poll on what question should be asked in the poll! Of course, there's nothing to stop you starting a new poll with a different question. I don't think anyone has ever suggested that we should provide insufficient evidence to understand the controversies, so that would be a pointless question. I am not sure if you are suggesting that the article should emphasise the forensic evidence more than other evidence. That could be the basis of a valid question. Personally I would argue against doing that on the grounds that we have no reason to think that the forensic evidence is more or less significant than any other evidence. The court presumably reached its conclusions based on all the evidence provided by the prosecution and defence. Bluewave (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, what I am trying to say is that the controversy should be presented. The readers should know why this case is so controversial. The controversy seems to center on the forensics, but that does not mean that controversy concerning other types of evidence should be excluded. I am not trying to say that forensic evidence should be discussed to the exclusion of other types of evidence. Whatever is interesting and informative for the reader, and helps to present what the case and controversy is about, should be included. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the murder of Meredith Kercher; it should first deal with it. And, since an explication of why the Court convicted will be avalaible, I think we should use it. As I said before, that is judicial truth. Of course, since there's a lot of disagreement, it would be correct to report it. But this should not turn the article into some sort of an amateurish review of the trial. Salvio giuliano (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is an encyclopedia article, and as such is the wrong place for a detail-driven discussion of the case's forensic evidence. Other venues are appropriate for collecting and discussing the minutae of the prosecution's and defense's cases. Wikipedia visitors who want more details to become fully informed about these details can visit this article's source documentation. Wikipedia is not CSI, the New York Times, or the Harvard Law Review. Townlake (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment (oppose). I'm not quite sure what this poll is to accomplish, but when I went through the article today I found already too much detail for my taste. It is not a problem if an article goes very much into the details of the topic, and information explaining those details can be included. However, I'd use the following test to determine what to include: If the significance of a piece of information cannot be explained, leave it out. For example, there' a paragraph explaining which number Kercher called from her phone. Why? Either the significance is explained in published sources - then we should explain it there. If not, why is the stuff included in the first place? Averell (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Given the sudden enthusiasm by some editors for adding more and more detailed evidence, the purpose of the poll was to establish at least some upper limit on what is acceptable. However, I think that your proposed test of if the significance of a piece of information cannot be explained [by reference to published sources], leave it out is a better one. Bluewave (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)