Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[sept79]

None, really?
Just as well you didn’t disclose this earlier in these threads – it would have put quite a crimp in the post count and reduced forum traffic.

However, the third guy (Guede) charged with the murder openly accused them while on the stand in their 1st appeal – in an actual court.
Would that, for example, not count as a strike?

Or, at least, as 60% of a ‘strike’.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he refused to be cross examined. Right? Was this at the insistence of the Kercher family lawyer, Maresca? Do you not see a problem here?

 

[anglolawyer]

Nor apparently was PL – see uppage.
Who knew that Italian cops went so hard on rich Italian kids and purty American gals and so easy on black African immigrants.

The things one learns on this thread.

Lumumba said he was beaten up and called 'dirty black'. He was denied access to a lawyer and not even told why he had been detained for many hours. They couldn't pull the same stunt with Guede because the world was watching by the time he was returned to Italy. I don't see your point but, as usual, you cover it in so much obscurity as to allow room to beat a retreat when it turns out to be vacuous.

 

[acbytesla]

I am not overly familiar with the defamation laws of individual American States but from what I read it seems free speech is prized more highly over there than it is here. Amanda would encounter problems suing here, though. We have recently liberalised defamation law and made 'libel tourism' a bit harder too. I can't imagine that pursuing irrelevant, anonymous guilters will be high on her list of priorities. She is probably happily unaware of their pathetic activities. She surely has bigger fish to fry: getting her life back to normal and securing compensation from Italy are both much more important.

If the guilters' activities spill over into her real life and if she acquires the means and will to do so, she will be able to make an example of a few of them to discourage the others. Being ruined by litigation is not fun. Ask her family and Raffaele's. If I were a guilter I would be very careful.

If you want to learn more about US laws about defamation Anglo, I'd suggest reading about the most important case "New York Times v Sullivan. It explains in great detail why it would be extremely difficult for Amanda to win a defamation suit in the US.

 

[platonov]

I am not overly familiar with the defamation laws of individual American States but from what I read it seems free speech is prized more highly over there than it is here. Amanda would encounter problems suing here, though. We have recently liberalised defamation law and made 'libel tourism' a bit harder too. I can't imagine that pursuing irrelevant, anonymous guilters will be high on her list of priorities. She is probably happily unaware of their pathetic activities. She surely has bigger fish to fry: getting her life back to normal and securing compensation from Italy are both much more important.

If the guilters' activities spill over into her real life and if she acquires the means and will to do so, she will be able to make an example of a few of them to discourage the others. Being ruined by litigation is not fun. Ask her family and Raffaele's. If I were a guilter I would be very careful.

We were talking about PL - is he now merely a guilter?

Nope.
They were charged with, and convicted of, murder in a criminal trial.
Is litigation not usually a reference to a civil court matter, unless the guys on Bonanza are mistaken.

 

[RoseMontague]

More of the Kercher family's "dignified silence":

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...stem-has-failed-says-meredith-kerchers-family

Have they said anything? All I see is a quote from Maresca.

 

[acbytesla]

Nope.

The Guardian is HQ’d in Londonograd – the libel capital of the world.

She could have a field day.

But Amanda doesn'the live in the UK. She lives 7 thousand miles from there.

 

[Desert Fox]

I am not overly familiar with the defamation laws of individual American States but from what I read it seems free speech is prized more highly over there than it is here. Amanda would encounter problems suing here, though. We have recently liberalised defamation law and made 'libel tourism' a bit harder too. I can't imagine that pursuing irrelevant, anonymous guilters will be high on her list of priorities. She is probably happily unaware of their pathetic activities. She surely has bigger fish to fry: getting her life back to normal and securing compensation from Italy are both much more important.

If the guilters' activities spill over into her real life and if she acquires the means and will to do so, she will be able to make an example of a few of them to discourage the others. Being ruined by litigation is not fun. Ask her family and Raffaele's. If I were a guilter I would be very careful.

As well, Amanda is considered a media figure so has less recourse than I might.

 

[acbytesla]

We were talking about PL - is he now merely a guilter?

Nope.
They were charged with, and convicted of, murder in a criminal trial.
Is litigation not usually a reference to a civil court matter, unless the guys on Bonanza are mistaken.

But Pl is poor and lives in Poland. Not exactly a good person to sue.

 

[Desert Fox]

None, really?
Just as well you didn’t disclose this earlier in these threads – it would have put quite a crimp in the post count and reduced forum traffic.

However, the third guy charged with the murder openly accused them while on the stand in their 1st appeal – in an actual court. Would that, for example, not count as a strike?
Or, at least, as 60% of a ‘strike’.

Charles Boney accused David Camm as well directly in court so I would not be too caught up in that idea. If the actual perpetrator can get something out of it, they will be glad to try to spread the blame to others.

 

[RoseMontague]

They were charged with, and convicted of, murder in a criminal trial.

Only provisionally so, but you know that. Pretend all you want. The reality is they have a final ruling of innocence.

 

[moije2]

Seems to me that people here have been asking about Guede's initial interviews when he got back from Germany in December of 2007. I'll bet that's in the file and he starts out by saying what he said in the skype interview; "Amanda wasn't there", and, "Raf who?".

Strange, I don't remember this issue of the Rudy files being discussed. And now to my knowledge Nina Burleigh raises this topic recently in a tweet also. I will note that it has commented that a lot of digging was done trying to find dirt on Amanda and Raffaele but not much interest was taken in Rudy, with the exception of Burleigh.

Why would his file be closed? His case was actively used in effort to convict so I don't see some protection argument to the integrity of the Knox/Sollecito trial. If what you speculate (hilite) to be true, then WOW! What a cover up that would be!

 

[LondonJohn]

But Pl is poor and lives in Poland. Not exactly a good person to sue.

And all courtesy of the Italian police and PM, who inexplicably kept his place of business in Perugia closed for almost six months under the ludicrous pretence that it was a "crime scene", thus virtually ensuring he went bust the evil Amanda Knox, who was improperly and unlawfully coerced into agreeing with the police's/PM's pre-determined theories cruelly and deliberately accused poor Lumumba out of the blue, much to the surprise of the kindly police officers looking on

 

[anglolawyer]

We were talking about PL - is he now merely a guilter?

Nope.
They were charged with, and convicted of, murder in a criminal trial.
Is litigation not usually a reference to a civil court matter, unless the guys on Bonanza are mistaken.

I was not talking about Patrick. He is not a guilter. He's a sort of victim himself but someone who is taking his victim hood too far and in the wrong direction. The police are far more responsible for his plight than she is.

They were acquitted, Platonov. Call them murderers and you defame them and in an extremely serious way. Luckily for you, your statements probably don't matter enough for you to get into any trouble but you never know ...

Your last sentence is incomprehensible.

ETA Ninja'd by Rose.

 

[moije2]

I agree with someone above that the Gill interview on Porta a Porta IMO carried significant weight in moving the direction of sentiment and importantly the supreme court justices. My speculation.

But I would like to add that the Newsweek cover story by Nina Burleigh characterizing this as a medial witch hunt (something to that effect) was probably felt as well. She deserves some accolades as well. IMO.

 

[acbytesla]

None, really?
Just as well you didn’t disclose this earlier in these threads – it would have put quite a crimp in the post count and reduced forum traffic.

However, the third guy charged with the murder openly accused them while on the stand in their 1st appeal – in an actual court.
Would that, for example, not count as a strike?

Or, at least, as 60% of a ‘strike’.

Actually he didn't. It was a sleazy maneuver. He testified that he wrote that in his private journal, not that the facts were actually correct. That way he didn't have to be cross examined.

 

[anglolawyer]

As well, Amanda is considered a media figure so has less recourse than I might.

True no doubt. I think it's OK (under English law) to say there was a compelling case against her (however misguided). I don't think it can be asserted as a fact that she is a murderer.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The reaction of the Kercher family

Have they said anything? All I see is a quote from Maresca.

RoseMontague,

Arline Kercher said that she was shocked. I have not seen any direct quotes from Stephanie, Lyle, or John Kercher.

 

[Myriad]

None, really?

Really really.

Just as well you didn’t disclose this earlier in these threads – it would have put quite a crimp in the post count and reduced forum traffic.

How could I? I learned it from these threads (and from the informative sources linked to herefrom).

However, the third guy charged with the murder openly accused them while on the stand in their 1st appeal – in an actual court.
Would that, for example, not count as a strike?

Or, at least, as 60% of a ‘strike’.

Counts as zero, for obvious reasons already amply discussed in these threads.

 

[platonov]

Hoss and Little Joe would understand it.

We were talking about PL - is he now merely a guilter?

Nope.
They were charged with, and convicted of, murder in a criminal trial.
Is litigation not usually a reference to a civil court matter, unless the guys on Bonanza are mistaken.

I was not talking about Patrick. He is not a guilter. He's a sort of victim himself but someone who is taking his victim hood too far and in the wrong direction. The police are far more responsible for his plight than she is.

They were acquitted, Platonov. Call them murderers and you defame them and in an extremely serious way. Luckily for you, your statements probably don't matter enough for you to get into any trouble but you never know ...

Your last sentence is incomprehensible.
ETA Ninja'd by Rose.

If you say so – you are the lawyer.

 

[moije2]

Honestly P, as with this very post I'm responding to, I still have no idea WTF you're talking about.

If you would speak straight and not in riddles, it might be possible to converse.

Your reference to "killers walking free", I think that's the first specific definitive statement I've ever seen from you as to guilt or innocence for Amanda & Raf.

So that's progress I suppose. What you haven't provided, nor am I anticipating you will, is any reason, rationale or evidence of any kind whatsoever to support that position.

But I give you a lot of credit for showing up and trading a few posts. You know, none of the other pro-guilt people have come back.

I'm heartbroken we seem to have lost Mach. Who else can explain the latest developments?

Unfortunately it does cross my mind to worry about some of these folks. There are certainly some loose screws out there and who knows. Someone up above joked about what would they do with all their files etc that they maintained in following this case. Can you imagine Mach's hard drive(s)?

Or perhaps, now that the case has finally been lost, he has lost his assignment and commissions from his handlers. It sure looked like he was arranging all his work time around the court schedule. More than a casual observer!