Talk:Amanda Knox

Lede

"...Patrick Lumumba. Knox and Sollecito were initially accused of murdering Kercher while acting in concert with Lumumba, but Lumumba was soon released, and the known burglar Rudy Guede was arrested, after Guede's bloodstained fingerprints were found on Kercher's possessions. [...] However, Knox's conviction for committing calunnia (calumny) against Lamumba was upheld by all courts. On January 14, 2016, Knox was acquitted of calunnia for saying she had been struck by policewomen during the interrogation.[1]" I don't think Lumumba (whose legal given name is not Patrick) should be mentioned by name 4 times in the lead, because it is skewing the lede with a peripheral issue of lesser notability. If the conviction of Knox for calunnia against Lumumba is mentioned in the lead it only seems balanced to also mention the way his civil suit against Knox for defamation (in addition to the criminal charges of committing calunnia against him) being heard contemporaneously by the same jury as the murder charge allowed his lawyer to say in front of that same jury what in America was thought outrageously prejudicial things about Knox, such as she was "dirty inside and out and a demonic she devil" See here. "However" is argumentative language advised against in the style manual. The acquittal of Knox for calunnia against the police is related to the fact that she claimed they had improperly mentally and physically pressured her into committing calunnia against Lumumba. As already discussed in above in Talk, Calunnia should be linked in the first use. Lumunba should be named in the main body of the article, at most once in the lede, and there should be balance to the two related allegations of calunnia Knox faced. It should also be made clearer she did not, according to Italian justice, lie about being struck while the police were questioning her about Lumumba (as the Italian courts have found in acquitting her of calunnia against the police). Her conviction for calunnia against Lumumba stands nonetherless. She served actual time for a murder she was innocent of and not a single day for calunnia, so the emphasis on calunnia against Lumumba is on a purely technical point especially in view that the courts ultimately declined to find her guilty of lying about being smacked by policewomen trying to get her to accuse Lumumba.

Also in the lede is this "and the known burglar Rudy Guede was arrested, after Guede's bloodstained fingerprints were found on Kercher's possessions". The above text in the lede is point of view because it is suggesting that Guede just broke in and murdered Ms Kercher. At the time he committed the murder Guede was not known as a burglar. He was known to Kercher as an acquaintance of her boyfriend, and had socialized with her in the boys' walk-in basement of the house (though he did not tell them his real name). No one knows how Guede got in to the girls' apartment, but he may well have knocked on the entry door and had it opened to him by Ms Kercher while she was alone there, killed her, and faked a burglary as a red herring . Knox has her own website and it's linked to I believe. Details of her latest activities should not be added to the lede, although suppose there is no harm in putting such things on the end of the main article. Overagainst (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The reason that I restored the lead is seen at Talk:Amanda Knox/Archive 3#The lead is meant to adequately summarize the article per WP:Lead. Peaceray added to it after I restored it. You keep unnecessarily cutting the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

As for words like "however," per WP:Editorializing, they are words to watch; they are not banned. If something can be worded better without "however," it is an easy fix. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

This article has woefully incomplete information about the crime. I don't know if it is the purpose of this article is to talk about the crime because it is titled "Amanda Knox." However the article does delve into the crime but leaves out many important details of the crime. For instance when Sollecito was called to the police station the police told Amanda they did not want her to come but they just wanted to talk to Sollecito-she went anyway. He was a potential suspect but she was not. They were interviewing Sollecito and when he changed his story during his interview and did not support Amanda's alibi she had given before then that's when they wanted to ask her a few questions. They waited for an interpreter. When the interpreter arrived within an hour an a half Amanda had written a statement that she was actually at the scene during the murder. This is different than what she had told police before. To this day and most people don't know this Sollecito has not supported her alibi. During this interview she also fingered Patrick Lumumbra and let him sit in jail for two weeks knowing he had nothing to do with any of this. This is how police investigate murders. They ask people for their alibis. When their alibis don't stand up it makes police suspicious. This is not rocket science. (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Citations? Peaceray (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2019

The "Personal and professional life" section is woefully incomplete and misrepresentative of Ms. Knox's actual current personal and professional life. Right now, it has a few sentences about her memoir, then some tabloid junk about her upcoming wedding. May I suggest some additions and deletions.

Things to add: Knox produced and hosted 2 seasons of a TV show, The Scarlet Letter Reports, for VICE and Facebook Watch, in which she interviewed other women who've been publicly shamed. (https://www.facebook.com/TheScarletLetterReports/) Many of those episodes have millions of views. Seems noteworthy to include in a section about her professional life.

Knox writes, produces, and hosts a podcast for Sundance TV / AMC called The Truth About True Crime, which just wrapped it's 4th season. (https://art19.com/shows/the-truth-about-true-crime).

Knox has an extensive publication record, writing essays for Broadly, The LA Times, USA Today, Medium, and Crime Story. (links to all those articles are easily found on her website: http://www.amandaknox.com/selectedwork/).

Knox is now a sought-after keynote speaker, especially for fundraising events for nonprofits. There are testimonials on her website, but here are some direct source links to places she has been a keynote speaker.

For Yoga Behind Bars (https://www.thestranger.com/events/26158424/eat-drink-give) (https://yogabehindbars.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/YBB_EatDrinkGive10Year_HannahLetinich127.jpg) For The Midwest Innocence Project (https://themip.ejoinme.org/MyEvents/FacesofInnocence2018/tabid/948202/Default.aspx) For the Oregon Innocence Project (https://www.oregonlive.com/events/2019/04/amanda-knox-is-coming-to-portland-to-discuss-spending-time-in-italian-prison-for-a-murder-she-didnt-commit.html) For Roanoke College (https://www.roanoke.com/news/local/amanda-knox-talk-on-why-truth-matters-draws-crowd-at/article_9f5cebc3-0201-5703-9c86-5c49b056c90a.html) For the Florida Innocence Project, which awarded her the Frank Lee Smith Innocence Award. (https://www.facebook.com/pg/Innocence-Project-of-Florida-96600458051/photos/?tab=album&album_id=10154897142833052)

Right now, all of that is represented by the sentence "In a 2017 interview, Knox said she was devoting herself to writing and activism for the wrongfully accused." Hardly does it justice.

Knox also recently made an historic trip back to Italy for the first time, giving a keynote speech at the Italy Innocence Project's inaugural justice conference, where she spoke about trial by media and her wrongful conviction. This was world-wide news.

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/06/15/amanda-knox-tearful-return-italy-roars-against-wrongful-prosecution/)

It should definitely be included in a section about her professional life.

Regarding her personal life, I recommend deleting reference to the tabloid story about her wedding, which is hardly noteworthy and worth placement in an encyclopedia article. There are a hundred other stories like this. They start in the Daily Mail and the Sun, then get recycled by outlets like CNN (which is linked here). It's a fleeting tabloid moment that won't be remembered. It should be deleted. Regarding her personal life, I recommend one simple sentence: "Knox lives in Seattle with her fiance, the novelist Christopher Robinson, with whom she jointly writes and produces the podcast The Truth About True Crime. Geraldbostrum (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done: I've added the podcast and series, and removed the nonsense about the wedding. I haven't added the essays or a lot of the speaking events because we'd need better sources. Reliable, secondary sources are always required. NiciVampireHeart 15:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Pre-Trial Media Sensation

I think the section about the media sensation that surrounded the case is inadequate: “Knox became the subject of unprecedented pre-trial media coverage drawing on unattributed leaks from the prosecution, including a best-selling Italian book whose author imagined or invented incidents that were purported to have occurred in Knox's private life.[59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67]” I would also say this is citation overkill.

I would not characterize the pre-trial media coverage as “unprecedented” without any elaboration on how it was unprecedented. There is little information about the nature or scope of the media coverage, and how this coverage elevated the case to a much higher profile. While her nickname in the media, Foxy Knoxy, is offensive, it is not mentioned. This blurb also understates the role of the press in scrutinizing (and fabricating) details about her behaviour and personal life, and how this depiction may have lead to the presumption of guilt. Knox herself acknowledges that some her behaviour could be seen as unusual while denying the press’ most outlandish accusations: https://www.businessinsider.com/amanda-knox-explains-bizarre-behavior-2013-5 Bevhead (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bevhead: Perhaps you can read through the nine sources plus the Business Insider article, digest them, then expand what is written about the pre-trial media hype, perhaps expanding it & making it into its own section.

Additionally, you may wish to look at it:Omicidio di Meredith Kercher or Google's machine translation, https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=it&tl=en&u=https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omicidio_di_Meredith_Kercher. it:Amanda Knox redirects to :it:Omicidio di Meredith Kercher. Peaceray (talk) 05:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Knox implicated herself

Given that the murder accusation against Knox was ultimately resolved in her favor, it's not accurate to state that she "implicated herself". Rather, what she did was purportedly implicate herself. This is evidenced by the fact that the prosecutor who argued in court for her purported guilt, was ultimately determined to be wrong; Knox was definitively acquitted of the murder. Thus, it cannot be accurately said that during the interview she "implicated" herself. And given that she's been acquitted and that no proven to be true reliable source evidence exists to the contrary, Knox's denials must be taken at face value. Knox has consistently denied any guilt or involvement. Thus, the correct inference to draw from the conflicting accounts of the interview is that the interrogators had the story wrong and Knox had the story right. The interrogators may have claimed she implicated herself and until the final acquittal, that may have been an unresolved question. But the simple fact is that Knox's position, by virtue of her acquittal, has been vindicated. We should, therefore, change this sentence to read "Knox purportedly implicated herself". 98.118.62.140 (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done I used "Knox allegedly implicated herself". Peaceray (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think purported is the better word, given that we must avoid editing in hindsight. At the time of the evnts, the claims she implicated herself were taken to be true, which is what purportedly means. See this: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-purportedly-and-allegedly-and-which-carries-more-weight 98.118.62.140 (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

As a legal term, I think allege is closer to the mark than purport. Please compare these definitions from legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com:

• https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/purport
• https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/allege

Peaceray (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Given the layman's typical connotations of both, I'd still go with "purported" 98.118.62.140 (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)