Very good. I still think some spinoff articles would be justified because many believe that the MK article should be reduced to an overview, but readers have requested even more extensive details, such as what has Knox said about the first call to her mother. I was thinking of emphasizing all the crime experts who have gone to Perugia, talked with police, and interviewed the students or friends over there. Hence, create "Investigations of the Kercher murder" as a broader article, noting the prosecution/police viewpoint is just one investigation, then add Paul Ciolino, Joe Tacopina (ABC News "20/20": SeattleT-77), Steve Moore, etc. In that article, we would jump into the forensic details, and highlight the controversial evidence (or lack of motives) as noted in each investigation. That would allow for answering those reader questions about the details. Also, we need a separate article "Amanda Knox" because, unless that bio can be presented in a well-rounded way, she is inherently branded (for all of 2010) with the murder of MK. She is also notable for "most-watched person on Italian TV" and the other lawsuits, not just the MK case. This is like the reverse of "Separate but equal": Knox cannot be described in neutral terms, unless separated from the title & intro of the "Murder" article, where she is listed as one of the "convicted". In this situation, "not separate is inherently tainted by the crime article, as equal to murderer" and cannot present an NPOV view of a person. Since "separate is unequal" then not separate is equal. By extension, everyone still on trial (in a notable case) should be granted their own NPOV-neutral bio article, with their trial as only 1 section in their bios. So, if I formed a "WikiProject Legal Cases" then I would recommend separate articles for all "presumed innocent" who, later, could be merged back into the crime article when the typical appeals had ended. Things to ponder. -Wikid77