Strozzi
Graduate Poster
How about those convicted when police lab techs tampered with evidence, testing, or results?
Continuation Part 12: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito
- Thread starter LondonJohn
- Start date
- Status
Desert Fox
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,147
It seems more common that exonerating evidence is not allowed by the judge or is buried by prosecution but there is some of that as well.
With Italy, at this point, I would not be surprised if they tried to doctor the knife. . . .They do tend to be inept.
Their doctoring of the knife would likely be inept and likely the forensic team taking apart would liekly notice something wrong.
Last edited:
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
Machiavelli said:
I've got a "list of lies" which Harry Rag drew up a couple of years ago, and comment-bombed news sites with them. I poked around and found four more from various guilter-blogs, which have long since disappeared.
I can repost the list of lies if you want. To me, it really helps to have a guilter-confirmation bias to call them "lies". I mean, if I'm told we're having ham for dinner tomorrow night, and then someone asks me, in turn, what we're eating, and I say "ham", but we end up having turkey, am I a liar?
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
.............. and it looks like Machiavelli will simply ignore the issue of, "Did Micheli not say that the Halloween ritual as a motive was fantasy or not?"
One can tell a lot about other posters by the issues they ignore once asked.
One can tell a lot about other posters by the issues they ignore once asked.
codyjuneau
Muse
.
Does anyone know if Amanda had a translator when the police interviewed her before the night of the interrogation?
If so, was it Anna Donnino or someone else?
Cody
.
Does anyone know if Amanda had a translator when the police interviewed her before the night of the interrogation?
If so, was it Anna Donnino or someone else?
Cody
.
Desert Fox
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 6,147
In many cases, you cannot answer everything so I cut a little slack.
AmyStrange
Philosopher
-
oh ok about the Dutch.
Strozzi does have a point, but I honestly don't see Steffy as badly as some do. I mean come on, if she was as bad as that, they would have found Amanda's DNA in Meredith's room.
I'd still like to see the test done anyway,
d
-
-
oh ok about the Dutch.
Strozzi does have a point, but I honestly don't see Steffy as badly as some do. I mean come on, if she was as bad as that, they would have found Amanda's DNA in Meredith's room.
I'd still like to see the test done anyway,
d
-
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
For the umpteenth time, here is Harry Rag's list of lies....
This is a reconstruction from two sources, first Peter Quennell's page, post by The Machine aka. Harry Rag.
Lie one. Raffaele Sollecito first claimed in an interview with Kate Mansey from the Sunday Mirror that he and Amanda Knox were at a friend’s party on the night of the murder. It would have been obviously a tad difficult for Sollecito to find any witnesses who had attended an imaginary party to provide him and Knox with an alibi. This alibi was predictably abandoned very quickly.
Lie two. Sollecito then claimed that he was his apartment with Amanda Knox. This alibi is flatly contradicted by a silent witness: forensic evidence. According to the scientific police, there are six separate pieces of forensic evidence, including an abundant amount of his DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp, that place him in the cottage on Via della Pergola on the night of the murder.
Lie three. Sollecito then came up with a third alibi. He claimed that he was alone at his apartment and that Knox had gone out from 9pm to 1am. Both Sollecito and Knox gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they doing on the night of the murder. These weren’t small inconsistencies, but huge, whopping lies.
Lie four. Sollecito and Knox told the postal police that he had called the police before the postal police had turned up at the cottage and were waiting for them. Sollecito later admitted that this was not true and that he had lied because he had believed Amanda Knox’s version of what had happened.
Lie five. He said he went outside “to see if I could climb up to Meredith’s window” but could not. “I tried to force the door but couldn’t, and at that point I decided to call my sister for advice because she is a Carabinieri officer. She told me to dial 112 (the Italian emergency number) but at that moment the postal police arrived. He added: “In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda’s version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies.” (The Times, 7 November, 2007).
Lie six. Knox and Sollecito said they couldn’t remember most of what happened on the night of the murder, because they had smoked cannabis. It is medically impossible for cannabis to cause such dramatic amnesia and there are no studies that have ever demonstrated that this is possible.
Lie seven. Sollecito claimed that he had spoken to his father at 11pm. Phone records show that there was no telephone conversation at this time. Sollecito’s father called him a couple of hours earlier at 8.40pm.
Lie eight. Sollecito claimed that he was surfing the Internet from 11pm to 1am. The Kercher’s lawyer, Franco Maresca, pointed out that credible witnesses had shattered Sollecito’s alibi for the night of the murder. Sollecito still maintains he was home that night, working on his computer, but computer specialists have testified that his computer was not used for an eight-hour period on the night of Meredith’s murder
Lie nine. Sollecito claimed that he had slept until 10pm the next day. However, he used his computer at 5.32am and turned on his mobile phone at 6.02am. The Italian Supreme Court remarked that his night was “sleepless” to say the least.
Lie ten. When Sollecito heard that the scientific police had found Meredith’s DNA on the double DNA knife in his apartment. He told a cock and bull story about accidentally pricking Meredith’s hand whilst cooking at his apartment. “The fact that Meredith’s DNA is on my kitchen knife is because once, when we were all cooking together, I accidentally pricked her hand." Meredith had never been to Sollecito’s apartment. Sollecito could not have accidentally pricked her hand whilst cooking. (Note: this is the one, and only one, bona fide lie Sollecito told. It was remarkable as an awkward lie - yet still, it was plucked out of his diary not something he said to anyone else!)
Now from the blog there are.....
Lie eleven. - Finally, a lie from Amanda, about how Knox gave a spontaneous confession to Mignini in interrogation, a lie about Patrick Lumumba.
Repeat of lie 1. Just two days after the murder, Raffaele Sollecito gave an interview to Kate Mansey of the UK’s Sunday Mirror in which he explained his first version of the events. “It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends.”
Lie twelve. - from Amanda, about the spot of blood she saw in the bathroom - "At first I thought they had come from my ears. But then when I scratched the drops a bit, I saw they were all dry, and I thought ‘That’s weird. Oh well, I'll take my shower.’” After that, she dried her hair, got dressed and calmly returned to Raffaele’s apartment.
Lie thirteen. “…Then he came out and we made breakfast, and while we were preparing it and drinking coffee, I explained to him what I had seen, and I asked him for advice, because when I went into my house, everything seemed in order, only there were these little weird things, and I couldn't figure out how to understand them.” This is hardly the panicked girl that Raffaele described. (Note: So this is a lie attributed to Raffaele?)
Repeat of lie #2, although the blog calls it a "change of story". - Raffaele told police that he and Knox stayed at his flat the entire night of November 1, 2007 (night of the murder)
Repeat of lie #3, although the blog calls it a "change of story". - During his November 5, 2007 interrogation and subsequent arrest, Sollecito wanted to come clean, and he told police that his previous version to them was “un sacco di cazzate” (a load of rubbish). “In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda’s version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies.” (The Times, 7 November, 2007). He said he and Knox returned to his flat at approximately 8:30pm, and that Knox left his apartment, while he stayed there, and she returned at around 1:00am. He claimed that he believed that she went to see if she had to work that evening. This was clearly an attempt to exonerate himself from any culpability, as Knox had received a text message from her then boss, Patrick Lumumba, at 8:19pm that evening informing Knox that it was slow at the bar and she would not be needed to work that evening.
Variation of lie #3, although the blog calls it a "change of story". - after his arrest, Raffaele wrote several letters to his father while in prison. This was written under no duress. In the letter, Raffaele explains to his father that he and Knox had arrived at his flat at about 8 – 8:30 pm on the night of the murder. “Amanda had [then] left for work,” he writes, but he could not remember how long she was gone—but he writes that he is “certain” that Knox had stayed with him the “entire night.”
Variation of lie #3. - Then, he shows uncertainty whether or not Knox had committed the murder (or knew something about it) and blatantly calls her a liar...Raffaele writes to his father: “I try to understand what Amanda's role was in this event. The Amanda that I know is an Amanda who lives a carefree life. Her only thought is the pursuit of pleasure at all times. But even the thought that she could be a killer is impossible for me. I have read her version of events. Some of the things she said are not true, but I don't know why she said them.” (Note: this says precisely the OPPOSITE of what the blogger claims it says.)
This is a reconstruction from two sources, first Peter Quennell's page, post by The Machine aka. Harry Rag.
Lie one. Raffaele Sollecito first claimed in an interview with Kate Mansey from the Sunday Mirror that he and Amanda Knox were at a friend’s party on the night of the murder. It would have been obviously a tad difficult for Sollecito to find any witnesses who had attended an imaginary party to provide him and Knox with an alibi. This alibi was predictably abandoned very quickly.
Lie two. Sollecito then claimed that he was his apartment with Amanda Knox. This alibi is flatly contradicted by a silent witness: forensic evidence. According to the scientific police, there are six separate pieces of forensic evidence, including an abundant amount of his DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp, that place him in the cottage on Via della Pergola on the night of the murder.
Lie three. Sollecito then came up with a third alibi. He claimed that he was alone at his apartment and that Knox had gone out from 9pm to 1am. Both Sollecito and Knox gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they doing on the night of the murder. These weren’t small inconsistencies, but huge, whopping lies.
Lie four. Sollecito and Knox told the postal police that he had called the police before the postal police had turned up at the cottage and were waiting for them. Sollecito later admitted that this was not true and that he had lied because he had believed Amanda Knox’s version of what had happened.
Lie five. He said he went outside “to see if I could climb up to Meredith’s window” but could not. “I tried to force the door but couldn’t, and at that point I decided to call my sister for advice because she is a Carabinieri officer. She told me to dial 112 (the Italian emergency number) but at that moment the postal police arrived. He added: “In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda’s version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies.” (The Times, 7 November, 2007).
Lie six. Knox and Sollecito said they couldn’t remember most of what happened on the night of the murder, because they had smoked cannabis. It is medically impossible for cannabis to cause such dramatic amnesia and there are no studies that have ever demonstrated that this is possible.
Lie seven. Sollecito claimed that he had spoken to his father at 11pm. Phone records show that there was no telephone conversation at this time. Sollecito’s father called him a couple of hours earlier at 8.40pm.
Lie eight. Sollecito claimed that he was surfing the Internet from 11pm to 1am. The Kercher’s lawyer, Franco Maresca, pointed out that credible witnesses had shattered Sollecito’s alibi for the night of the murder. Sollecito still maintains he was home that night, working on his computer, but computer specialists have testified that his computer was not used for an eight-hour period on the night of Meredith’s murder
Lie nine. Sollecito claimed that he had slept until 10pm the next day. However, he used his computer at 5.32am and turned on his mobile phone at 6.02am. The Italian Supreme Court remarked that his night was “sleepless” to say the least.
Lie ten. When Sollecito heard that the scientific police had found Meredith’s DNA on the double DNA knife in his apartment. He told a cock and bull story about accidentally pricking Meredith’s hand whilst cooking at his apartment. “The fact that Meredith’s DNA is on my kitchen knife is because once, when we were all cooking together, I accidentally pricked her hand." Meredith had never been to Sollecito’s apartment. Sollecito could not have accidentally pricked her hand whilst cooking. (Note: this is the one, and only one, bona fide lie Sollecito told. It was remarkable as an awkward lie - yet still, it was plucked out of his diary not something he said to anyone else!)
Now from the blog there are.....
Lie eleven. - Finally, a lie from Amanda, about how Knox gave a spontaneous confession to Mignini in interrogation, a lie about Patrick Lumumba.
Repeat of lie 1. Just two days after the murder, Raffaele Sollecito gave an interview to Kate Mansey of the UK’s Sunday Mirror in which he explained his first version of the events. “It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends.”
Lie twelve. - from Amanda, about the spot of blood she saw in the bathroom - "At first I thought they had come from my ears. But then when I scratched the drops a bit, I saw they were all dry, and I thought ‘That’s weird. Oh well, I'll take my shower.’” After that, she dried her hair, got dressed and calmly returned to Raffaele’s apartment.
Lie thirteen. “…Then he came out and we made breakfast, and while we were preparing it and drinking coffee, I explained to him what I had seen, and I asked him for advice, because when I went into my house, everything seemed in order, only there were these little weird things, and I couldn't figure out how to understand them.” This is hardly the panicked girl that Raffaele described. (Note: So this is a lie attributed to Raffaele?)
Repeat of lie #2, although the blog calls it a "change of story". - Raffaele told police that he and Knox stayed at his flat the entire night of November 1, 2007 (night of the murder)
Repeat of lie #3, although the blog calls it a "change of story". - During his November 5, 2007 interrogation and subsequent arrest, Sollecito wanted to come clean, and he told police that his previous version to them was “un sacco di cazzate” (a load of rubbish). “In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda’s version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies.” (The Times, 7 November, 2007). He said he and Knox returned to his flat at approximately 8:30pm, and that Knox left his apartment, while he stayed there, and she returned at around 1:00am. He claimed that he believed that she went to see if she had to work that evening. This was clearly an attempt to exonerate himself from any culpability, as Knox had received a text message from her then boss, Patrick Lumumba, at 8:19pm that evening informing Knox that it was slow at the bar and she would not be needed to work that evening.
Variation of lie #3, although the blog calls it a "change of story". - after his arrest, Raffaele wrote several letters to his father while in prison. This was written under no duress. In the letter, Raffaele explains to his father that he and Knox had arrived at his flat at about 8 – 8:30 pm on the night of the murder. “Amanda had [then] left for work,” he writes, but he could not remember how long she was gone—but he writes that he is “certain” that Knox had stayed with him the “entire night.”
Variation of lie #3. - Then, he shows uncertainty whether or not Knox had committed the murder (or knew something about it) and blatantly calls her a liar...Raffaele writes to his father: “I try to understand what Amanda's role was in this event. The Amanda that I know is an Amanda who lives a carefree life. Her only thought is the pursuit of pleasure at all times. But even the thought that she could be a killer is impossible for me. I have read her version of events. Some of the things she said are not true, but I don't know why she said them.” (Note: this says precisely the OPPOSITE of what the blogger claims it says.)
AmyStrange
Philosopher
-
No, I don't believe you are liar.
If I remember correctly, you were the one with the list, I think. Now I'm confused.
Now, am I a liar?
If you can repost them that would be awesome. Thank you in advance Bill,
d
-
-
No, I don't believe you are liar.
If I remember correctly, you were the one with the list, I think. Now I'm confused.
Now, am I a liar?
If you can repost them that would be awesome. Thank you in advance Bill,
d
-
AmyStrange
Philosopher
Thank you for responding.
I was trying to limit discussion to one point. Knox's DNA on the knife found in Sollecito's kitchen. Not entering into discussion about MK's DNA on the blade result. Nencini uses the Knox DNA to say he thinks Knox struck the fatal blow. You argue that this is the evidence that puts Knox in the room at the time of the murder. (I know that you would argue she is equally culpable even if she was present but not an active participant but this is not the prosecution case nor the court ruling). I am saying even if one starts from the assumption this knife was used to stab MK, the interpretation that Knox's DNA arose from her wielding the knife is obviously wrong. I am not going to argue that the test for Knox's DNA was done badly, that may or may not be true, but accept that Knox's DNA was on the handle.
I accept that you are reluctant to accept any alternative interpretation of the evidence, having committed to a particular view it is very difficult for any person to step back and re-assess the case. This is a well established feature of human psychology.
But back to my thought experiment. Assume this knife was used to stab someone in the neck, it cuts a major artery, the knife has the victims blood, epithelials, on the blade, it certainly is far more likely to have the victim's blood on the handle than the wielder's. Blood is sticky it gets in to cracks and gaps. Blood carries lots of DNA. This knife (assuming it was used), was so thoroughly cleaned that no blood could be found on it (neither the victim's nor the wielder's), tests for blood are about the same order of sensitivity as DNA testing. There are several papers in forensic journals making the point that you can detect blood at such low levels hat you may not be able to extract any DNA. So this is pretty thorough cleaning. Haemoglobin is more resistant to cleaning than DNA, so cleaning is more effective at removing DNA than blood (haemoglobin). In theory for the purposes of this discussion I will accept that the cleaning left a trace of MK DNA on the blade, the amount extracted and measured was around 40pg. Any cleaning so thorough must remove the far smaller quantity and less adherent epithelials of the wielder. The Knox DNA on the knife cannot be attributed by any honest professional forensic scientist as arising as a consequence of the use of the knife for stabbing. It would indicate handling of the knife after cleaning. On this basis, on the assumption we make, the presence of a knife with MK DNA on the blade in Sollecito's kitchen may be evidence against Sollecito but not Knox.
The claim that some of Knox's DNA may originate from Knox's blood is literally fantasy. One cannot identify the origin of DNA from a PCR typing test. No blood was detected on the knife.There is nothing to preclude this being touch DNA.
The discussion of the finding of MK's DNA on the blade has been discussed previously. I do not wish to go through this again. My view is that this was the result of in laboratory contamination. There are other explanations related to irregularities in its collection and transport.
Stefanoni gave an unprofessional and biased interpretation of her laboratory findings in relation to the presence of Knox's DNA on the knife. Stefanoni said that the DNA indicated that Knox held the knife in a stabbing grip. This is nonsense. She went beyond her professional competence as an expert witness in to fantasy. There is no scientific grounds for her statement, it is said solely to bolster the prosecution case. A professional witness in the UK making such an extravagant claim would be liable to disciplinary action, and would likely be banned from giving evidence in court in future.
Essentially cleaning cannot selectively remove the far greater amount victim's DNA and blood whilst leaving the smaller component of the wielder. In this case the amount of Knox's DNA was found was significantly greater than the amount of MK DNA detected. It could only originate post cleaning if this was the murder knife.
Last edited:
Kauffer
Master Poster
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,382
In quoting my post, you cut off my last paragraph. What I was interested in doing is simply to consider the procedural rather than substantive aspects, without the distracting nature of competitive claims of innocence from my point of view and guilt from yours.
I do not believe that Ms Knox lied to the police as a means to avoid arrest and leave, no. I do not believe she lied at all. But that is not the discussion I have started.
Indeed, what you state to be your own possible response to the situation Ms Knox found herself in, seems eminently sensible. But would it have helped you? So, with reference to my second paragraph (the one you cut off) in my first post, which suggests a strategy Ms Knox could have availed herself of, very similar to the one you, yourself posit, I ask you again, what would have happened?
I remind you of your earlier assertion that a non-co-operating witness is immediately arrestable. I also remind you that the police in this instance did not inform Ms Knox she was suspected of any crime, so your own claim that you might ask for the assistance of a lawyer if you thought you were a suspect even though the police in this hypothesis would not have explained that to you, is interesting. What would the response have been?
What would have happened to you, if you had followed your own advice, or to Ms Knox if she had done similarly, as I suggested? Was she really free to leave? When Donnino was imploring her to remember and following the assertion made to Ms Knox that Mr Sollecito had withdrawn as her alibi witness, could she have just got up and left?
Last edited:
How are these alleged statements linked to the defamation case by Mignini relating to statements made in the book Honor Bound by Raffaele Sollecito with Andrew Gumbel? According to the Andrea Vogt information posted previously, IIUC certain statements on certain pages of the book were alleged to be defamatory to Mignini. (Or are the statements alleged to be defamatory to the judiciary and Mignini is prosecutor for them?)
BTW, here's a legal (US) definition of:
DEFAMATION
An act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Such defamation is couched in 'defamatory language'. Libel and slander are defamation.
Source: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d021.htm
ETA: Defense against defamation (which is solely a civil matter in the US) includes truth of the statement; the context of the alleged defamatory statement and the audience may also be considered. (This is not intended as a thorough explanation.)
ETA2: According to Wikipedia, although there is no US Federal criminal defamation, and most US States also do not have criminal defamation, a few do have such a law.
Last edited:
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
Defamation—also calumny, vilification, and traducement—is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual person, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal action to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. It is usually regarded as irrational unprovoked criticism which has little or no factual basis and can be compared to hate speech, which can also be taken to encompass discrimination against a particular organisation, individual, nation, corporation or other political, social, cultural or commercial entity which has often but not always been entrenched in the practitioner by old prejudices and xenophobia.
Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and have been made to someone other than the person defamed.[1] Some common law jurisdictions also distinguish between spoken defamation, called slander, and defamation in other media such as printed words or images, called libel.[2]
....
In some civil law jurisdictions, defamation is treated as a crime rather than a civil wrong.[4] The United Nations Commission on Human Rights ruled in 2012 that the criminalization of libel violates freedom of expression and is inconsistent with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.[5]
ITALY
In Italy, there are different crimes against honor. The crime of injury (Article 594 of the Penal Code) refers to offending one's honor and is punished with up to six months in prison or up to 516 Euros in fine. If the offense refers to the attribution of a determined fact and is committed before many persons, penalties are doubled to up to a year in prison or up to 1032 Euros in fine. In addition, the crime of defamation (Article 595, Penal Code) refers to any other situation involving offending one's reputation before many persons, and has a penalty of up to a year in prison or up to 1032 Euros in fine, doubled to up to two years in prison or a fine of 2065 Euros if the offense consists of the attribution of a determined fact. When the offense happens by the means of the press or by any other means of publicity, or in a public demonstration, the penalty is of imprisonment from six months to three years, or a fine of at least 516 Euros.[68]
Finally, Article 31 of the Penal Code establishes that crimes committed with abuse of power or with abuse of a profession or art, or with the violation of a duty inherent to that profession or art, lead to the additional penalty of a temporary ban in the exercise of that profession or art.[69][70]
US
The origins of US defamation law pre-date the American Revolution; one famous 1734 case involving John Peter Zenger sowed the seed for the later establishment of truth as an absolute defense against libel charges. The outcome of the case is one of jury nullification, and not a case where the defense acquitted itself as a matter of law. (Previous English defamation law had not provided the defense of truth.) Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the Supreme Court neglected to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional common law of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, dramatically altered the nature of libel law in the United States by elevating the fault element for public officials to actual malice—that is, public figures could win a libel suit only if they could demonstrate the publisher's "knowledge that the information was false" or that the information was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases dismissed the claim for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous to be clearly not true, or that involve opinionated subjects such as one's physical state of being. Recent cases have addressed defamation law and the internet.
Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries. In the United States, a comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander is difficult, because the definition differs between different states, and under federal law. Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws. Criminal libel is rare or nonexistent, depending on the state. Defenses to libel that can result in dismissal before trial include the statement being one of opinion rather than fact or being "fair comment and criticism". Truth is always a defense.
However, American writers and publishers are protected from foreign libel judgments not compliant with the U.S. First Amendment, or libel tourism, by the SPEECH Act, which was passed by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2010. It is based on the New York State 2008 Libel Terrorism Protection Act (also known as "Rachel’s Law," after Rachel Ehrenfeld who initiated the state and federal laws). Both the NYS as well as the federal law were passed unanimously.
Defamation—also calumny, vilification, and traducement—is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual person, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal action to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. It is usually regarded as irrational unprovoked criticism which has little or no factual basis and can be compared to hate speech, which can also be taken to encompass discrimination against a particular organisation, individual, nation, corporation or other political, social, cultural or commercial entity which has often but not always been entrenched in the practitioner by old prejudices and xenophobia.
Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and have been made to someone other than the person defamed.[1] Some common law jurisdictions also distinguish between spoken defamation, called slander, and defamation in other media such as printed words or images, called libel.[2]
....
In some civil law jurisdictions, defamation is treated as a crime rather than a civil wrong.[4] The United Nations Commission on Human Rights ruled in 2012 that the criminalization of libel violates freedom of expression and is inconsistent with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.[5]
ITALY
In Italy, there are different crimes against honor. The crime of injury (Article 594 of the Penal Code) refers to offending one's honor and is punished with up to six months in prison or up to 516 Euros in fine. If the offense refers to the attribution of a determined fact and is committed before many persons, penalties are doubled to up to a year in prison or up to 1032 Euros in fine. In addition, the crime of defamation (Article 595, Penal Code) refers to any other situation involving offending one's reputation before many persons, and has a penalty of up to a year in prison or up to 1032 Euros in fine, doubled to up to two years in prison or a fine of 2065 Euros if the offense consists of the attribution of a determined fact. When the offense happens by the means of the press or by any other means of publicity, or in a public demonstration, the penalty is of imprisonment from six months to three years, or a fine of at least 516 Euros.[68]
Finally, Article 31 of the Penal Code establishes that crimes committed with abuse of power or with abuse of a profession or art, or with the violation of a duty inherent to that profession or art, lead to the additional penalty of a temporary ban in the exercise of that profession or art.[69][70]
US
The origins of US defamation law pre-date the American Revolution; one famous 1734 case involving John Peter Zenger sowed the seed for the later establishment of truth as an absolute defense against libel charges. The outcome of the case is one of jury nullification, and not a case where the defense acquitted itself as a matter of law. (Previous English defamation law had not provided the defense of truth.) Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the Supreme Court neglected to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional common law of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, dramatically altered the nature of libel law in the United States by elevating the fault element for public officials to actual malice—that is, public figures could win a libel suit only if they could demonstrate the publisher's "knowledge that the information was false" or that the information was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases dismissed the claim for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous to be clearly not true, or that involve opinionated subjects such as one's physical state of being. Recent cases have addressed defamation law and the internet.
Defamation law in the United States is much less plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in European and the Commonwealth countries. In the United States, a comprehensive discussion of what is and is not libel or slander is difficult, because the definition differs between different states, and under federal law. Some states codify what constitutes slander and libel together into the same set of laws. Criminal libel is rare or nonexistent, depending on the state. Defenses to libel that can result in dismissal before trial include the statement being one of opinion rather than fact or being "fair comment and criticism". Truth is always a defense.
However, American writers and publishers are protected from foreign libel judgments not compliant with the U.S. First Amendment, or libel tourism, by the SPEECH Act, which was passed by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2010. It is based on the New York State 2008 Libel Terrorism Protection Act (also known as "Rachel’s Law," after Rachel Ehrenfeld who initiated the state and federal laws). Both the NYS as well as the federal law were passed unanimously.
Last edited:
MichaelB
Muse
- Joined
- May 27, 2013
- Messages
- 555
Yep Aida Colatone and Fabio D’Astolto was an officer who spoke English.
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,576
2013 Report from the Carabinieri on 36-I
I found the 2013 report at the pro-guilt wiki (see this link and scroll about 70% of the way down). After taking a first-pass look at the data, I would say that Ms. Knox is probably the major contributor to the consensus profile (the peaks that appear in both amplifications). If one compares the consensus profile to the composite profile (which lists all of the peaks in either run), then one observes a good bit of drop-in and drop-out. That's not surprising for a sample that is this low in quantity of DNA. The idea that the tissue origin of the DNA can somehow be surmised from the electropherogram is nonsense.
If this experiment was as decisive as the SCC indicated in 2013, then the defendants should have been released.
I found the 2013 report at the pro-guilt wiki (see this link and scroll about 70% of the way down). After taking a first-pass look at the data, I would say that Ms. Knox is probably the major contributor to the consensus profile (the peaks that appear in both amplifications). If one compares the consensus profile to the composite profile (which lists all of the peaks in either run), then one observes a good bit of drop-in and drop-out. That's not surprising for a sample that is this low in quantity of DNA. The idea that the tissue origin of the DNA can somehow be surmised from the electropherogram is nonsense.
If this experiment was as decisive as the SCC indicated in 2013, then the defendants should have been released.
Last edited:
carbonjam72
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,324
What is this? WHy is all the identifying info blocked out?
Did they investigate other sites as well? Where did this come from?
Very interesting -
Diocletus
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 3,969
Zenger's lawyer is my avatar.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
I was informed about this too some time ago, but not with this .jpg. I did not know what to make of the allegation, and frankly still do not.
- Status