":::::::::“Most of the cites of Massei's report relate to the determined conclusions of the case…” That is my point exactly! ""Determined conclusions"" are not facts.  The report uses its ""determined conclusions"" to justify the convictions. Thus, those “determined conclusions” are  assertions about a living person;  and as such are clearly prohibited.  No one should need to ""bring anything to the table"" in order to ask that the guidelines be respected and applied equally to everyone. WP:BLP Misuse of primary sources. Surely you must understand that this is the report the court uses to justify the guilty verdict. When you try to justify something, you are putting forth a one-sided argument. It is a biased primary source and I fail to see how anyone could consider it otherwise.
Try this on for size. It says on the injusticeinperugia.org site that: ""All of the credible evidence in this case points to Rudy Guede. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had nothing to do with this crime…""  If you don’t accept that as a RS, then will you ""bring something to the table"" and provide an alternative that says the same thing? I believe that is the same as what you are saying by demanding others provide alternatives to what you would like to use as an RS.
Now, if I am misreading you and you only want to cite Massei to say what the court concluded and you are careful to express that distinction, that is different and I don’t see a problem with that. Just please don’t try to refer to the conclusions as if they were facts from a RS. I am not interested in emotional rhetoric either and I will not attack or be drawn into a fight with you - or continue an (""IS NOT!"" - ""IS TOO!"") argument trying to have the last word. I simply say what should be obvious: the article should not contain any contentious information about any living person that uses the Massei report or other court document as a source unless it makes clear that it is only the court’s conclusion. I’ve been speaking in generalities. I’d like to see others who are more knowledgeable than myself be able to discuss specific examples without being drawn into emotional confrontations and blocked. When I’ve had the time to analyze the article more closely…  

"