Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:33, 5 March 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Amanda Knox 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, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Amanda Knox 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, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

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. United States: Washington / Seattle Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle (assessed as Low-importance). An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Italy Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Amanda Knox be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) 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.

This article was nominated for deletion on June 9, 2010. The result of the discussion was redirect to Murder of Meredith Kercher.

This article was nominated for deletion review on October 3, 2011. The result of the discussion was vacate.

This article was nominated for deletion on October 22, 2011. The result of the discussion was keep.

Edit Amanda Knox Retrial

Please Edit Italian judges order retrial for Amanda Knox in murder case CNN News Yahoo News 182.178.67.210 (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The introduction is contradictory. It refers to "Knox's retrial ...Knox lost the appeal of her conviction at that retrial" It is either an appeal or a retrial, it cannot be both.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not think you understand the Italian justice system, which fuses those two elements in a second-level court review. (I am a law professor licensed in two jurisdictions). I am reinstating those edits.24.108.128.204 (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The current edit is absurd. It should just read "known for being a suspect in a murder case." I understand this does not sound glittery, but that's what she is. Ted Bundy does not have all his appeals listed. Knox may be sexually attractive to Americans, but she is just a suspect in a murder case, nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.89.1 (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Double Jeopardy

I am not sure why there is a mention of the American rule of double jeopardy here, as it would not be applicable to Knox had she been tried in the United States: when a conviction is vacated by an appellate tribunal, the retrial does not violate that rule. The mention of this rule in her case appears to be a PR move, at best. Ulpian (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

What? In the US she would have gotten acquittal and not "conviction vacated by an appellate tribunal". I believe that would qualify for "subsequent prosecution after acquittal" which is double jeopardy.

Extradition won't likely happen.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

People aren't acquitted by appeals courts. The judgment of the trial court (i.e., a guilty verdict) is vacated. Then they are tried again. There are literally thousands of American examples of this.24.108.128.204 (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• As I suggest in my post in the ""Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2014" thread, unless and until there is an extradition process that raises the issue, any reference to a comparison with US double jeopardy is a speculative irrelevance which has a POV undertone. DeCausa (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On January 30th 2014 Amanda Knox and Sollecito were convicted for a second time for the murder of Meredith Kercher. 131.109.225.35 (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The article has been edited to reflect the court's decision.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under: “Retrial See also: Murder of Meredith Kercher#Prosecution appeal Unlike the United States, Italy does not absolutely prohibit double jeopardy—the retrial of acquitted persons for the same crime”.

This is a misleading and incorrect statement, Please remove and replace with the following text:

The European Convention on Human Rights, (to which Italy is a signatory and accepts the Seventh Protocol of Article 4), states:

“No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State”.

Knox has never been finally convicted or acquitted and will not be so until the Supreme Court finally confirms the judgment of her latest appeal, (Guilty), handed down on 20th January 2014.

Only thereafter would double jeopardy apply in the case of Knox.

Therefore, Italy, (in common with the US), accepts and abides by the “double jeopardy” principle.

Mealer (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Nope. It's certainly not "in common with the US"; in the US, once there is a not-guilty verdict at any level, be it trial court or appeals court, that's it. It doesn't matter what a higher court thinks of the earlier acquittal. The EU and the US have a different definition of double jeopardy, and under American law, what has just happened is the very epitome of double jeopardy. --jpgordon 18:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You're forgetting that intermediate level appeals courts in the United States don't issue not guilty verdicts, they vacate convictions. New trials of the person who benefited from the judgment happen all the time. Literally thousands of examples exist.Ulpian (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Double jeopardy is not applicable in this situation at all; Knox was found guilty in the first trial, an appeals court threw that out, then the original finding was upheld this week. That's not even "double jeopardy" were this to take place in the American legal system. Tarc (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The point is, as far as I understand Italian law, that a verdict (in either direction) is not a final verdict until all appeals are exhausted; or, of course, if no appeal is filed within a certain time limit. What is missing here are sources to back up such potential content.TMCk (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Two points that need to be mentioned: Why is there no mention of Rudy Guede, who was named as accomplice, and has admitted to his role in the murder. I don't wish to trivialise this, but it's like Santa's sled without working without reindeer.

The second point relates to the misunderstanding of "Double Jeopardy" in this case. All verdicts are subject to confirmation by higher courts in Italy until you reach the Court of Cassation. The acquittal was provisional, and a higher court refused to confirm this, therefore there was no "Double Jeopardy" as she was never acquitted in the first place.80.111.155.138 (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Too much WP:OR going on in this thread. Let's just stick to what the sources are saying. In any case, this edit was exactly right - comparison with double jeopardy in the US is irrelevant per se. The reference to it here appeared to be a POV way of disparaging the Italian legal system. If it does have a relevance, it will be through how it plays out in any extradition. At the moment, that discussion is WP:CRYSTAL. So I don't see any point in this discussion unless and until there is an extradition process and if double jeopardy comes up in that process. By that time some more thoughtful and well informed RS than now will have emerged. DeCausa (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Almost every article says that extradition would be unlikely because of double jeopardy or that experts disagree as to whether extradition could happen due to double jeopardy. Are people saying that they don't want mention of this at all, or has the past mention just been too POV?LedRush (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

As I said earlier above, there is no applicability of "double jeopardy" here. This is little different than an appeals court tossing a decision out the door and ordering a new trial. Tarc (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You can say that, but you're wrong. A judge may agree with you that double jeopardy doesn't apply, or a judge might disagree with you. American legal experts are conflicted on this. But double jeopardy is where the fight will happen.LedRush (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no "fight" only media speculation. Before this is even an issue there will be an appeal in Italy and then an extradition application is to be made. There is nothing for this article at present. DeCausa (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that when actual legal scholars are listened to rather than the Nancy Graces of the media, you'll find that I am quite correct, but really, that's neither here nor there. Even for the sake of argument that what has happened in the Italian legal system is analogous to "double jeopardy", that is not an impediment to Knox being extradited. We do have a treaty with Italy that covers this sort of thing, you know. The only viable option is an appeal to the Sec. of State to deny an extradition request. Tarc (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the treaty covers this and a judge initially (or the state department at the end) will make a decision on this under the treaty. The decision will be based on the treaty itself, which doesn't allow extradition in cases where double jeopardy isn't respected. "Extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been convicted, acquitted or pardoned, or has served the sentence imposed, by the Requested Party for the same acts for which extradition is requested." As I stated, the argument will be whether the "acquittal" was enough like an acquittal referenced here (i.e., a double jeopardy issue). It's ok that you're wrong as you've probably been listening to Nancy Grace, but it's silly to pretend that you're right. The fight will be based on double jeopardy (at least initially...if Knox were to lose that the fight would be on patent unfairness in the process). But it's fine if people don't want to include any speculation at all as this won't be an issue for a year or two.LedRush (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, when this may actually be relevant in a couple of years time you two can pick up where you left off. DeCausa (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Fans of Amanda(tm) have been camping these articles for years, and I can't help but rebut the misstatements and distortion of reality that they deploy in defense of the subject. Knox’s acquittal was not finalized by Italy’s highest court; this wasn't a "second trial" in the sense that it is being warped into. Tarc (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is making that point. This is simply a discussion about the nature of the "acquittal" and why whether it qualifies as "double jeopardy" under the treaty will be the first and main point of contention in an extradition decision. A point that you were wrong about. Some of the difficulties in understanding the case are due to the very different system of justice that Italy has, but some are clued by ignorance and people pushing an agenda, regardless of the facts.

The extradition point has been brought up a huge amount in articles on the trial and Knox, so I think we would be well within bounds to mention it here, but I'm also fine to just leave it out as it won't become more than an academic debate for some time.LedRush (talk) 04:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Just because there is speculation in the media about hypothetical issues concerning a future event that may never take place, it doesn't follow that it is encyclopedic per WP:CRYSTAL. An encyclopedia article should not be a news summary, and certainly not a pundit summary DeCausa (talk) 07:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

An acquittal does not qualify as "double jeopardy". Period, full stop. Even if it did it wouldn't matter since the extradition treaty doesn't prevent extradition on those grounds. The US sent a man back to Turkey in 1995 after his initial acquittal for rape was re-instated on appeal. Barring an 11th-hour miracle by Sec. Kerry, Miss Knox is Italy-bound as soon as they file the papers, and since we're leaning heavily on Russia and others to help us get Snowden back on US soil, putting up a stink about Knox would fairly hypocritical. At some point all of this will be article-worthy, but it will have to wait for the talking heads to chase the next attention-getting squirrel and for the actual legal experts to be more vocal. Tarc (talk) 15:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong. Period. Full Stop. The treaty does prevent extradition on these grounds. The only question (and it is a question) is whether a US judge/state dept. would view the Italian "acquittal" to fall within the US/Italy treaty language I cited above (I have bolded it as you seem to be missing it), or if Knox would get any traction with a judge/state dept. with an argument of manifest unfairness. This is so simple, and so uncontroversial, it should be shocking to me that someone could fail to understand it. But your history shows an unwillingness to admit mistakes or to look at an issue involving this case objectively. And seeing as the conversation is done regarding inclusion in the article (for now anyway), I'm not sure why you need to bring this up again. Anyway, I'm done. Have your last word.LedRush (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it prevents nothing of the sort. I have no further use in interacting with someone so closely enamored of the subject that they have to blatantly distort a simple truth to try to win an argument. Good day. Tarc (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Since someone still can't drop the stick, I'll have to return to point out that the now-bold part protects a person who was acquitted here in the US, not elsewhere. For example, if an American citizen killed an Italian national on US soil, was found not guilty here but a later trial in absentia in Italy found the person guilty, the US would be well within their rights to decline an extradition request. Tarc (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, it covers both situations. The main question is whether the Italian "acquittal" was an acquittal under the meaning of the treaty. Some legal scholars say yes, others no, other say they don't know.LedRush (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it does not, otherwise no nation would ever have to respect another's sovereignty. Just "well, those laws ain't our laws", and off they go. Tarc (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "... by the Requested Party ...". That would be the United States in this case, Italy being the "Requesting Party". Having been convicted, acquitted or pardoned, or having served the sentence imposed, by the United States would clearly be a reason to deny extradition, as in the hypothetical presented by Tarc. Prior actions by the requesting party, Italy, are not covered by the portion quoted. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I was just about to post the same thing re. the "requested party".TMCk (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Even Dershowitz, who has publicly said extradition would be allowed in this case, disagrees with your analysis on the treaty and the issue of double jeopardy: "And the extradition treaty's reference to double jeopardy may not be binding in some cases, said. "In the United States, generally, when you appeal a conviction, you waive your double jeopardy rights, and we permit retrials of people who have had their convictions reversed, at least on procedural grounds," he said."LedRush (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Whatever you say about Dershowitz is besides the point. The above responses from several editors point out the misunderstanding or most likely just the misreading of your bolded quote. I had to read it twice to catch the "fine print" myself. So can we please put at least that part to rest know?TMCk (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as even legal commentators that agree that double jeopardy wouldn't stop extradition in this case admits that it is an issue that a judge will address...no.LedRush (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Merge?

Is there anything here that couldn't be included or summarised on the article on the one thing she is known for? --John (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The various attempts to delete or merge this article have failed, and since those closures the only thing that has changed is that Knox has gotten more notable. Binksternet (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I think this ship sailed long ago. Knox meets the initial criteria of WP:BLP1E, but the coverage has been sustained and in-depth for, what, half a decade now? Tarc (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Most of the content of this article doesn't belong in the MoMK article, yet is properly sourced. The article has survived previous deletion/merge requests for a reason.LedRush (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• • Sorry, I wasn't looking for precedent or opinion here but actually asked a question above. I will try again. Is there anything here that couldn't be included or summarised on the article on the one thing she is known for? Again, I am not looking for opinion about her supposed notability, but for an answer. Thanks a lot to anyone who can give it. --John (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I believe we fully understood your begging the question the first time around, yes. If you believe that the trial details are too excessive in this article, then by all means pare it down a tad. But there's been more than enough coverage of Knox pre- and post-trial to justify a standalone BLP. Tarc (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
      • That may be true but it is only visible then to the eye of faith. The rest of us can only see an article which, aside from the three sentences of the Early life section, could wholly be included (and mostly is) on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. Once again, what is the advantage of saying it all twice? I can see plenty of disadvantages but I cannot see anything that pushes us in this direction. Far from begging the question, this is an honest inquiry. If, after three shots at it, you are unable to answer it, I will take that as a "no". I don't know why you couldn't just say that in the first place but whatever. --John (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
        • Please tell me who "the rest of us" is exactly? You and your family?. It has been described to you now twice why it shouldnt be merged and if you decide not to see or understand that then it is your problem my friend. Let the discussin run its course instead of trying to diminish other users opinions. Just being frank with you. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - this has already been dealt with through a AfD previously. Also the subject has reached notability on her own as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
• Question What is her notability, outside of the murder allegation? --John (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The murder that has given her continued media attention for almost a decade you mean?--BabbaQ (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that one, the one we have an article on. Apart from that, what is she known for? --John (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to ask you about this comment you made above Sorry, I wasn't looking for precedent or opinion here but actually asked a question above. But if you ask a question you effectively asking for an opinion, it might not be the answer that you prefer but it is still an answer and opinion. Secondly, there is enough material on Knox both pre and post-trial to justify a separate article on her. I will not respond further to this discussion. Regards, --BabbaQ (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

No need to apologise, and it's perfectly fine with me if you don't respond when you have nothing to say; we are volunteers after all. I was looking for an opinion but I was really looking for an answer to the question. If one was going to come it would have come by now. So we can safely conclude from this discussion (such as it was) that Amanda Knox has no notability whatsoever apart from her role in the murder trial, and that this article exists as a kind of spin-out for the non-essential froth generated by her many fans. As such it probably violates policy, but hey, vox populi. At the very least it should be trimmed down to summary style and the extensive coverage at the other article also, so we are not duplicating content. --John (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Nothing that can't be merged. A lot of people reading WP seem to want to read the AK angle right now though.Overagainst (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The answer to the question is yes, there is material here which would be best left out of the Murder of Meredith Kercher article.     ←   ZScarpia   23:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I'm assuming this separate article was created in an effort to reduce the size of the main article. That's usually the reason a linked article is created from a section in a main article. Since Overagainst has spent time recently reducing the size of the main article, perhaps it is time to reconsider merging. I also fail to see any notability outside of the trial. Her only written book is all about the murder case, as is her media coverage. Such "notability" is a direct result from that. Jodon | Talk 12:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I did object to it the way it was before, but I was maybe assuming more resistance to bold editing than actually existed. I don't see the current incarnation of this article as a problem. There isn't the kind of edit warring there was a few years ago. The MoMK article must be over 100K so things would have to be taken out both to merge. Yet there are things that are having to be added to both 6 years later. I don't think this is the time to merge it with AK. It would look like an attempt to take out the page that's being visited a lot. At present people want to know about the subject of this article specifically, and can go to the MoMK to get the more involved background of how she became notable. Someday perhaps a merge will be practicable, now is not the time in my opinion.Overagainst (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Those reader reaction things at top o' article page are presumably there for us to pay attention to. WP is there as a service to the readers. Readers don't want to be tasked with going through a long but very summarised article to get the info. I do agree more of a summary style can be used for both articles It's easier to put things in the article, then summarise it and I intend to do more summarising. Hopefully the two pages will not duplicate too much.Overagainst (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Facts

They don't have bail in Italy. If Sollecito has been definitively convicted of murder and sentenced to 25 years, why is he walking around free in Italy eh? Overagainst (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Good question. I was wondering that myself. Could it be that "guilty" in this second tier doesn't mean "guilty" until the appeals process is exhausted? Jodon | Talk 11:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Paraphrasing reliable sources, outlining Italian law

Testify definition "to talk and answer questions about something especially in a court of law while formally promising that what you are saying is true." Guede did not testify at the trial of Knox and Sollecito, although they requested him to. Do I have to justify the using the word 'testify', even though it is the word a reliable source uses?

(addendum: Guede did testify at the appeal trial on 27 June 2011, but only in relation to denying he'd discussed the trial with the fellow prisoners who were called by the defence. Then Mignini read out a letter Guede had sent to his lawyers in which he directly accused AK and RS of murdering Kercher.. Knox lawyer Dalla Vedova tried to question Guede about exactly what AK and RS had to do with the murder but he refused to say more. Guede refused to be questioned on what he said about AK and RS being involved in the murder of Kercher.)

We can't just copy and paste from sources. My approach is to be somewhat more conservative than the source. 'Many American jurists were...' was very conservative (as anyone who checked the ref would know it said in one place that Americans were appalled). The article wording was changed to 'Some commentators and jurists were...'. I object to editors making significant changes without explaining how the text they alter misrepresents what is in the referenced source. It really will not do to reflexively tone down all text in a know it all fashion without citing why and where the source has a different meaning. What American were disturbed by could be made clear by providing quotes of what was said by prosecution and plaintiff's lawyers about Knox:'a talented and calculated liar' or 'she-devil focused on sex, drugs, and alcohol, living life on the edge'. Is that going to be necessary?

I think we have to explain a little about Italian trial law rules of evidence and the role of the judge. Evidence was given in court which would not be allowed in the US, although it was quite permissible in Italy, unless that is made clear it would give the impression rules were thown out in this trial. The judge questioned Knox at some length and introduced a new issue: the lack of heating in the house where she said she had had returned to take a shower (which came through in the judges written explanation of the guilty verdict, when they said Knox lied about showering as she'd had a shower earlier at Sollecito's apartment after sleeping with him. There is going to be a brief point made for the Italian system and the ease of a successful appeal in Italy in contradistinction to the US, where once a court convicts there is no review of the facts in the case, making it very difficult to overturn a wrongful conviction._Overagainst (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Categories

The category Overturned convictions in Italy seems to have been created so this article can be placed there, the category is redundant as it has only MoMK and AK. AK does not belong in Category:Fugitives wanted by Italy or Category:People convicted of murder by Italy or Category:21st-century American criminals either IMO.Overagainst (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Until Italy asks for her extradition, I don't think she belongs in the fugitive category. For the rest, she was convicted, it was overturned and she was convicted again. That's her current state and categories based on that are valid. You might want to try CFD for the Overturned convictions category though. Ravensfire (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Even if Italy did ask one day, a fugitive is a person who fled or is fleeing from custody, and she won't be that, because she left Italian jurisdiction openly as an acquitted person, and is living in the US. The category is for people on the run.Overagainst (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary style?

There has been a bit of reverting on the grounds that details are 'a fact that can/should be kept'. I would like some imput on the level of detail to be used. I think only the essential points should be mentioned, and mentioned once only. Overagainst (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC) Anybody?Overagainst (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Your editing style makes it very difficult to assess changes. Quite honestly, I wanted to revert all of your edits and ask you to make them one at a time, making a case for each. However, your life seems devoted to the project and I don't have the time or energy to fight on that point. I'll just say that we could do with a bit more detail, and the article had better information for readers before you edited it.LedRush (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Re. the style which you're complaining about. OK point taken. In future, if I want to edit I'll put a final version of any section of text I propose adding here, and await reactions.

There are editors with thousands of pages on their watchlist.

It seems you are not alone in wanting certain details back in the article as can be seen here The information that subject's parents hired a public relations firm, the subject's appearance in a sexiest women list and a comedian's joke about having sex with the subject are back in. As is her being a bigger personality than Carla Bruni (the link to the Carla Bruni page is back too). Overagainst (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

On the whole, your edits are trying to bring focus to the notion that Knox is a poor, wrongly-accused soul rather than the reality of the situation, which is that she has been convicted (with further appeals to go) of murdering another person. This shift has been reverted. This is the Misplaced Pages, where we adhere to WP:NPOV, not injusticeinperugia.com's web forums. Tarc (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I ever visited injusticeinperugia.com's web forums. I certainly haven't posted on or spent any real time on it or similar ones, but I can't prove that so attribution of bias to me will stick. I do have Follain's book on the case, and I have edited the MoMK page a lot. I am not aware that there is any principle to the effect that editing many pages (one editor I had extended argument with on DoNH has over 10,000 pages on his watchlist) gives an editor extra weight over others in discussion on a particular page against a more focused editor. Mine is by no stretch a single use account. I have created the pages Silas Jayne, Geoffrey J. Morton, and Danilo Restivo. I have done a lot of editing on the pages Vitamin D, Giovanni Falcone (I have John Follain's book on Falcone), Valerio Fioravanti, George Edalji and Cleveland Elementary School shooting (San Diego). Most recently I tried with extensive discussion over several months on the talk page, and a little success, to alter the page Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. I thought I had achieved all I could and stopped there after getting agreement to change certain aspects of the lede of that page a month ago.

"poor, wrongly-accused soul rather than the reality of the situation, which is that she has been convicted " If she is a poor, wrongly-accused soul, no court verdict can alter that reality. It is not, I think, our job to discount that possibility by suggesting that her current status is exactly equivalent to having been convicted of murder in a US trial. The point at issue is the status of Knox's conviction, and whether it can be described as the infobox would pithily have it, or as you describe it: "she has been convicted (with further appeals to go) of murdering another person".

Here is a reliable source: Mirabella, Julia Grace, Scales of Justice: Assessing Italian Criminal Procedure Through the Amanda Knox Trial (January 5, 2012). Boston University International Law Journal, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2012. link. Some quotes "In adopting features of the adversarial system, Italy did not simply transplant U.S. features into its legal system;169 rather, it translated such features into an entirely different legal language". A fairly reliable news source, the Wall Street Journal (which I had as ref 1) said: "Italian law doesn't consider a conviction final until the appeals process has been exhausted regardless of the number of times a defendant has been put on trial. In an interview with Italian daily la Repubblica earlier this month, Ms. Knox said she would resist extradition if the appeals end in a guilty verdict." So it is by no means true that Knox's legal position in Italy can be conveyed by the English word "convicted" without any qualification. Sollecito was found guilty on the same charges as Knox and sentenced to 25 years, yet although he has had to surrender his passport, Sollecito is walking around free as a bird in Italy And he is not on bail, it does not exist there. They are convicted, yes; but not definitively. There is no word for that status in English, because it is a legal status not found in the US, which has a quite different legal philosophy as to the purpose of a trial, as Mirabella explains in the above linked paper. We should not give the impression, as is being done in the infobox*, that AK and RS have been 'convicted acquitted and reconvicted" as if every country's legal process must boiled down in parochial fashion to an American style 'black box' verdict as to the facts of the case.

(*BTW ref 1, the infobox ref, is giving false information. Kercher asked Knox to make sure she flushed their toilet properly, an incident which the prosecution said was the motive for the murder at the recent trial. But Guede had nothing to do with that incident. No one says Guede was ever in the apartment Kercher, Knox and the Italian women occupied on the ground floor of the house before the night of the murder. Weeks before the murder he was in the walk in basement apartment of the house where the Italian men lived, and he fell asleep on their toilet. The recent trial judge has said they got together by 'coincidences'. The written judgement at the first trial speculated Knox and Sollecito (together 5 days) might have just bumped into Guede in the street on the night of the murder and invited him to join them.)

There are four people being mentioned in the lede and I happen to think my wording explained things more clearly, but I don't have any real problem with the lede as it currently is. I do still object to the infobox wording. I don't understand why the name of a PR firm or a comic's jokes about whether men would have sex with the subject or appearance of the subject in a rating of females' percieved sexual attractiveness by the 'readership' of Maxim (WP:BLPSOURCES) is considered relevant to a section called Public image._Overagainst (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The bottom line is that Misplaced Pages should remain neutral if we change the article into the "poor girl who was perhaps wrongly convicted in Italy" it will become a totally irrelevant article as it isnt neutral. You seem to be the kind of user that gives 100% and all your time to one article at the time and push to have your edits included, well that is your style and I respect that but you will also have to consider other users input. regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

But I have now seen your comment at the BLP noticeboard and realised that you are only out to get your own way instead of discussing. And when I left a nice message at the board you responded with the classic "im right you are wrong sadly you can not see it .. the section will be removed no matter what".. kind of response. I will not continue discussing it with you as I can see you are the kind of user that is mostly interested in being right than doing right. And yes, you are acting like it is "your article". I am being hard in my tone but I will not take any kind of bad behaviour from anyone lightly anymore, neither yours. Just finding it really weird that you are so upset with me telling you to discuss before removing an entire section of an article for consensus. But I guess it is not your style. I will not look at this talk page again as it is to infected by several huge egos at play. cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Explicit concensus isn't required for BLP violation removals and as can be seen above I did complain about that section 10 hours before removing it. You have made no reasoned argument for keeping it, either here or at BLP noticeboard._Overagainst (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem for you is that I have made no attemot to give an argument for keep or deletion as I was not making a point about that. I was making a point that it is not a good idea to remove an entire section without consensus. But now as you are so inclined to continue discussing it I guess I will agree with both Mosfetfaser and Rodericksilly and the other users when I say that the section should stay as it is sourced, not excessive and a big part of the Knox fascination in the public eye. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• hi guys, I added her book deal to that section, I don't think the verified details of her public image in the article are excessive at all. Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I agree. Public image was part of the article for a long time, consensus was that it should be there and there is little doubt that Knox's image has played a major part in the extensive media coverage and tone that she has garnered. Rodericksilly (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The 'Public image' section says very little about " verified details of her public image". To summarise it:-

1) 'Supporters of Knox' complained about how she was portrayed

2) She called herself Foxy Knoxy on myspace

3) The subject has a big PR firm looking after her public image.

4) She is rated in a sexist magazine poll by the 'readership' of Maxim (WP:BLPSOURCES), and a TV presenter joked about whether men would want to have sex with her. See Public image. I suppose it's possible a model celebrity type BLP subject might reasonably be assumed to have no objection to this. But AK can't be.

5) Spaced so it stands alone (which can only have been a deliberate attempt to highlight it) is gossip about money from a book deal, being stated as fact in Misplaced Pages's voice "Knox signed a book deal worth US$4 million", although the source actually just says "The deal is reportedly worth $4m". Which may well be very misleading about her current financial situation, as can be seen HERE: "There was an outcry when it was reported that she had received a £2.8m advance. I asked if the book would make her rich. No, she said. The family were in huge debt because of lawyers' bills; they had had to remortgage the family house, and even with the advance she might not have sufficient funds to get through college." (The long time text suggesting that her father is vice president of finance at 'Macy's', instead of the local branch was corrected by me).

The section is not about the subject's public image. It consists of things that negatively influence the reader's perception of the subject. Mosfetfaser, Rodericksilly and BabbaQ are prolific celebrity BLP authors. But they don't go to other articles and add a 'Public image section' to mention and specify which PR firm has been hired or repeat gossip giving a partial and misleading account of a person's current financial situation. The context in which AK came to be notable enough for a book when counter-posed with the sum she allegedly received produces a negative impression, if not outrage. This 'Public image section' effectively is a WP:COATRACK section for tendentious information that holds a BLP subject up to contempt.Overagainst (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• I inserted, reported in the press to be in an attempt to resolve your comment. Overagainst's claim that I am a prolific celebrity BLP author is nothing less than a lie, a falsehood. Mosfetfaser (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

It is correct you are not a prolific celebrity BLP author, as it's not habit causing you to treat AK as something other than a person known for only one event, it must be quite deliberate. Anyway, BLP noticeboard is the venue for this now._Overagainst (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Stop your lies about me. I have no opinion at all about Amanda Knox, you are clearly obsessed about her, you have an article in your userpage about her. https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Overagainst - I am a simple WP:npov passer-by wikipedia contributor making a single addition to the article .Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Rodericksilly, prolific British celebrity BLP editor has linked minor British celebrity Matthew Wright (to explain who he is) then went on to mention his 'controversal comment' via a quoting from a flippant opinion piece that is only mentioning Knox tangentally. I thought it was established at BLP noticeboard that recounting of Wright's sexist joke or other trivial references to rating of sexual attractiveness of the subject of this BLP did not merit a mention, being undue weight, So how come all this is going back in slightly different guise?Overagainst (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It was established "by you". You seem to think you own the article and are much better than other editors, hence your repeated "celebrity editor" nonsense to try and demean anyone else. The information I added was neither an attack nor a defense of Knox, it fits perfectly well with information about how Knox has been portrayed in the media. Rodericksilly (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with editing Brit celeb BLPs I have done it myself. However I would not consider Wright someone to be linked to this article, but at least you dropped the link to his TV show you had before. I thought it was established at BLP noticeboard that recounting of Wright's sexist joke or other trivial references to rating of sexual attractiveness of the subject of this BLP did not merit a mention, being undue weight. You are pting it back in slightly different guiseOveragainst (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

References to Knox's appearance, her sexuality and her "pretty face" have already been made in your edits, since you presumably acknowledge that this is a significant element of how Knox has been covered. I'm not criticizing you for your edits, nor attempting to change them, so I don't see why you could possibly have a problem with my addition. Rodericksilly (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

One obscure Brit TV celeb hitting the wrong note while trying to be funny is not notable, or enlightening as to anything not better covered and sourced already in the article about an American woman. Wright made a silly remark and a Guardian journalist in disapproving of the remark mentioned Knox only tangentally and flippantly. Editors other than myself said at BLP noticeboard it was inappropriate weight on trivia to mention Wright or similar stuff about Knox. I can't help wondering if you are finding a way to insert a link to the Matthew Wright article (which you just edited) in a more popular page, irrellevance notwithstanding.Overagainst (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not been my motivation, but I have removed a direct link to the Matthew Wright page to avoid any misunderstanding there. Wright is reasonably obscure, but his comments on Knox were widely reported and criticized, so I would say they are notable. Rodericksilly (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Notable for his page, perhaps. Yet you have not used what Groskop said in The Observer about him on his page. It does look like you think that naming and quoting Viv Groskop columnist in The Observer wriing about Wright (mainly), is not relevant to Wright's page, as you have not added it there. But you have put it on the AK page, though Groskopot refers to Knox tangentally to talking about other matters, and expresses flippantly prejudiced views about Knox's status at that time. By my way of thinking it does not merit inclusion in the AK article on the grounds of relevance, weight, tone or NPOV.Overagainst (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, Wright's were not "controversial comments" as even he did not defend them. The source you ref says he apologised almost immediately. Groskop was not "Referring to salacious coverage of Knox, in particular focusing on a British television presenter's controversial comments regarding Knox on UK television", she mentioned Wright's remark only, once at begining and tangentally at the end, and hardly discusses Knox at all. When she talks about Knox it is by way of assessing the viewers of Wright's show actually in in the hypothetical situation Wright apologised for posing, and she used carefully phrased innuendo about AK being a woman previously implicated in murder. It refers to Knox obliquely, but inappropriately; it's not summary style to use it, and I don't think it belongs in this article. Take it off please.Overagainst (talk) 11:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

.

PR-firm hired info

Found a detailed article which gives more insight into Marriott's role and as to when and why Knox's family hired him. Should be clarified in Knox's bio.TMCk (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

A PR man plying his trade to promote his business is not a reliable enough source to hang a section on IMO. Marriot says the effect was wholly beneficial. I don't doubt it was with US media, or that Marriot received a commensurate fee. However Knox was not in the jurisdiction of the US and there were a variety of opinions on the how PR causing the US media to cast a long shadow over the trial actually affected the case, which was being tried by 8 Italians in Perugia where in 2002 local prosecutors managed to convict the former prime minister Giulio Andreotti of murder in a verdict that even his arch enemy the head of the the communist party couldn't understand (see here) . Pre trial publicity section ref in MoMK mentions that AK's Perugian lawyer (perhaps the most effective of her defence attorneys) was against the attacks eminating from the US on the prosecutors and police, as counter productive; he thought it would alienate the judges. If we mention a PR firm's claim to have got the message that there was no evidence against Knox accepted, we would have to balance the impression given by Marriot in their puff piece that it had worked wholly to Knox's advantage. Which would involve explaining how some thought it worked against Knox with the people that happened to be deciding the case (as well as for her in the US with no-one who actually mattered; for there are people annoyed by the media attention on one story, eg Natalee Holloway). The only unchallenged impact of hiring a PR would be the cost. I don't think it's necessary to detail that the book money went to pay for PR; along with agents, the book collaborating author, taxes, and debt to her entire family who had lost all their assets in funding defence of her in English language media, and Italian courts.Overagainst (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Use of the word convicted in the lede

The lede is a condensed version of what is in the main body of the article and statements in the lede do not require refs. Here is a reliable source:_

Mirabella, Julia Grace, Scales of Justice: Assessing Italian Criminal Procedure Through the Amanda Knox Trial (January 5, 2012). Boston University International Law Journal, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2012. link. Some quotes "In adversarial systems, efforts to prevent insufficiently probative evidence and provide fair process creates an assumption that “whenever fair rules have been applied in the trial contest . . . the result is necessarily just.”155 As a result, trials in the United States can only be appealed on narrow questions of law, not fact, and claims of innocence are not considered constitutional questions.156 The adversarial system stands in stark contrast to continental systems and Italian criminal procedure, where “reopening criminal proceedings is always available after the trial. In Italy, when corte di assise cases are appealed, the criminal appellate court, the corte di assise d’appello, reviews both findings of law and fact, allowing “supervision of the trial fact-finder’s use of the evidentiary material, the rationality of his enquiry into the facts, and whether the data that his judgment is based on are complete.”158 Thus, Knox’s criminal trial was in no way her last chance to provide or contest the evidence against her; the case was not over as it might have been in the American adversarial system."

For the opening sentences the word "convicted" is misleading. There have been three trials the last two of them corte di assise d’appello, and Knox has been found guilty, then not guilty, and now guilty. Using the word "convicted" straight off in the lede without any qualification is not going to help understand, because in English the word 'convicted' denotes a certain legal status that comes with one trial and its definitive verdict, as in the US. In Italy until the appeal process has been exhausted you can't correctly speak of an unqualified conviction in the US sense. This is already touched on in the lede with mention of when a conviction becomes 'definitive' in Italy, Sure, there are sources that use the word in relation to Knox, but we give a better understanding (encyclopedic right?) of a subject than news articles can. If we use the word 'convicted' right off, the reader will not understand the context and is will be likely to understand that word in a parochial US sense, which is a misunderstanding, really. So I think the lede giving the verdicts of all her trials to date while of course mentioning she was found guilty at the latest trial is the best way.-Overagainst (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for posting. I agree that the word "convicted" is not appropriate in the first sentence, as it is not definitive. That word means something quite different in the Italian court system which allows so many appeals. Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. You are clearly denying a highly cited fact that is over sourced. You are interpreting your own views on the matter which is WP:NOR and the lead will be reverted to state the facts as they stand. 25162995 (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Additional. There is no need for any consensus on this issue due to overwhelming sources stating clearly that the conviction is in place. These sources include the BBC which is a very reputable source. Do not start an edit war over this. You have zero consensus on this issue nor facts/sources to back up your claims other than OR opinion. 25162995 (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

She is obviously "convicted", nobody doubts that. You do not need any references for that word. The problem is that the conviction is capricious, seen as impermanent, a result of the quirky Italian court system. Your insistence on that word is a statement that Knox is a murderer. However, such a fact is widely believed to be false, and her conviction, the latest crazy development, is widely believed to be transitory. So the word is not appropriate at all—it does not fit the neutral point of view. Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Your OP is OR. Please see WP:OR where it clearly states "Misplaced Pages articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Misplaced Pages to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist" 25162995 (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Find a source that says her conviction is final. Except, you won't because it's not because of how the Italian court system works. It's not like the US where appeals are based solely on questions of law. Appeals in Italy are essentially retrials where facts and evidence are reviewed. Convictions aren't, as multiple people have pointed out time and again, not seriously considered until they've gone all the way up the chain. I'm also finding the comments by 25162995 about 3RR considering they are past it at this point and liable to get blocked if reported. Ravensfire (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

1. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/26/world/europe/italy-amanda-knox-case/index.html
2. http://news.yahoo.com/italy-court-orders-amanda-knox-retrial-meredith-kercher-091550180.html

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• C-Class Washington articles
• Low-importance Washington articles
• WikiProject Washington articles
• C-Class Seattle articles
• Low-importance Seattle articles
• WikiProject Seattle articles
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Seattle
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in the United States
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class Italy articles
• Low-importance Italy articles
• All WikiProject Italy pages
• Misplaced Pages requested images of people
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English