Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[platonov]

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.

If you were asking whether 'litigation' denotes civil proceedings, the answer is no. There is criminal and civil litigation. If you were asking something else I did not understand. Why not just ask what you want to know?

So it's no longer incomprehensible

It seems that for all their old fashioned ways Little Joe and co are still faster and more accurate than google!

 

[carbonjam72]

I think it was Pope who gave us the wise aphorism: "a little learning is a dangerous thing". It applies nicely to people who think they understand the meaning of the term "litigation" from TV shows and an incomplete understanding of law, then make a point of "correcting" someone else's perfectly good usage of the word

Happens with people watching CSI TV shows too, and then thinking they can contradict FBI experts and international renown DNA scientists.

 

[acbytesla]

But it's critically important to take into account the relative risk - legal and (to a lesser degree) reputational - here. I don't doubt that the Mail invented huge chunks of that Seattle party story. But their target - Knox - was at the time a mere private citizen who was sitting in a prison cell in Italy under suspicion of murder. That's a wholly different kettle of fish from printing serious, within-quotes accusations of physical and racial abuse by Perugia law enforcement personnel.

I personally know (and work with) plenty of people within the UK media industry (though most of them are in broadcast media or higher-end printed media), and even during the worst excesses of the British tabloid press (and 2007 was probably in the middle of the worst period), they simply would not lay themselves open to high-profile defamation cases by the likes of the police and prosecutors in Italy. And it's a given that printing untrue accusations of physical and racial abuse by such individuals would carry a very high likelihood of just such an outcome. So I feel hugely confident that any media outlet - including the Mail - at any time - including 2007 - would have absolutely checked at the very least that Lumumba really had spoken those words before printing them. And as I also just said, I wouldn't be surprised if they also double-checked with Lumumba that he stood behind those words before putting them into print.

Maybe this is all accurate, Still, my experience is not to trust the accuracy of that ragl

 

[LondonJohn]

My understanding with the Daily Fail is that they accept being sued as part of doing business and that they will often just try to settle and pay out. I suspect that they make enough money that it does not really matter to get sued on occasion.

Hahaha! The Mail has a legal team of around 5 lawyers and 15 paralegals, whose primary job is to minimise the chance of the publisher getting sued. Trust me, they absolutely do not accept being sued as a part of doing business.

Sometimes they will decide that the potential risk of being sued - which also involves the potential ramifications of any legal action, the cost of fighting that action, the potential damages payable etc - is outweighed by the potential commercial benefit of running a story (or a quote etc). In the case of running quotes accusing the Perugia police of physical and racial abuse in a world-profile murder case, I am massively confident that any such risk assessment would have come down conclusively on the side of excluding the quotes and the accusations, unless the Mail's lawyers were certain that Lumumba had indeed said those words.

There's a very good reason why in the vast majority of defamation actions against the press, the plaintiffs are private citizens - and not the machinery of government or the state (or for that matter famous or powerful individuals).

 

[codyjuneau]

Innocent people will get accused, and cops are sometimes corrupt and cops sometimes get it wrong, and prosecutors are sometimes ego-maniacs with satanic sex orgy obsessions and possibly have some deep seated issues.
Seems like almost every week someone is in the news for being released after 15 or 39 yrs in prison, for a crime they didnt commit because some prosecutor was a ego-maniac, or the evidence was withheld, or the evidence was tainted, or some witness was found to have been coerced, or a corrupt deal made, or some ignorant interrogation gained the wrong results.

John Kercher asked for Rudy to talk, Maresca objected in court for Rudy to talk.
Thats a fact.

.
Re the highlighted part.

I agree, and that is why courts have rules, and judges who are supposed to act like referees and enforce the rules impartially as is done in sporting contests.

IMO, Judges Massei and Nencini acted as if they considered themselves referees in a contest between the prosecuting home team and the guilty visiting team.

BTW, kudos to ALL the judges who had the common sense, courage, and honour to be honest referees and make the correct decisions in this case.

Cody
.

 

[Desert Fox]

Hahaha! The Mail has a legal team of around 5 lawyers and 15 paralegals, whose primary job is to minimise the chance of the publisher getting sued. Trust me, they absolutely do not accept being sued as a part of doing business.

Sometimes they will decide that the potential risk of being sued - which also involves the potential ramifications of any legal action, the cost of fighting that action, the potential damages payable etc - is outweighed by the potential commercial benefit of running a story (or a quote etc). In the case of running quotes accusing the Perugia police of physical and racial abuse in a world-profile murder case, I am massively confident that any such risk assessment would have come down conclusively on the side of excluding the quotes and the accusations, unless the Mail's lawyers were certain that Lumumba had indeed said those words.

There's a very good reason why in the vast majority of defamation actions against the press, the plaintiffs are private citizens - and not the machinery of government or the state (or for that matter famous or powerful individuals).

In that case, it is as likely as not but the police report of the party is almost nothing like the Daily Fail reported.

 

[Planigale]

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’.

This is false.

If you go through what was said Guede never actually accused them in court. He never stood up and said I saw Knox and Sollecito murder. I suspect this was so that in the event of their being found innocent he would not be charged with calunnia. There is a letter he wrote in which he said that they were guilty. He said in court he wrote the letter. He refused to testify as to what occurred.

In the letter he wrote, "I hope that sooner or later the Judges become aware of my complete innocence in what was a horrible murder of a splendid beautiful girl that was Meredith by Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox"

When asked if he wishes to testify about what he happened he says "Can I respond? Right, as the letter was read out I think I am here today to respond as in the penal proceedings toward the statements, the false statements made by Mario Alessi and accordingly, like it is written in the letter, everything that I had to say I already told the Judges, the Public Prosecutor and my lawyers, therefore I have no intention to answer on this point."

He describes what he says as "this is a thought which is always been in my mind," which is very different from saying this is what I saw.

 

[anglolawyer]

So it's no longer incomprehensible

It seems that for all their old fashioned ways Little Joe and co are still faster and more accurate than google!

I don't get this reference to Bonanza. If it means anything relevant to this thread, do please explain.

 

[carbonjam72]

About Mignini and his satanic orgies...

I remember all the back and forth regarding use of the word Satan. Mr. Grinder was involved heavily in that challenge if I remember correctly. I followed a similar path on my knowledge of the case. I always look back to my very early days and I traded a couple posts with Harry Rag. Very quickly I replied to him - me still getting my feet on the ground with the basics, and he a full fledged guilter - that he would make his case better if every time a novice like me received a "pointer" from him, if I didn't very quickly realize that he was only putting out partial truths. And I pointed out something. He curtly dismissed me as being brainwashed by Bruce Fisher. So I looked up Bruce....

Anyway... the Satan thing. I always wanted to point out that from a secular person's viewpoint, and I think this many of us here, we don't have a well developed system of ideals concerning Satanism. When I hear about Halloween rituals with Celtic (Mignini said something else, I don't remember right now) that to me is all the same thing. Weird hocus pocus superstition stuff. Go ahead and use the "S" word as far as I am concerned. Machiavelli could go on and on differentiating the origins and meanings of various esoteric philosophies. And this was also part of the appeal and quite frankly amazement for me of these people who could manufacture in their minds a BARD scenario of these accused 3 conspiring together. Medieval thinking right in front of us to examine! Oh well, why not? AK was away from home so why not just cut loose a little bit and have fun... Right.

Some food for thought along these lines, if you're interested.

On Ground Report -

The Italian Judiciary, and Why I believe Amanda and Raffaele Will Now Be Exonerated - http://groundreport.com/?p=5118013

Italian Judiciary Part 2: The Satanic Fairy Tales of Michele Giuttari; How the Devil Came to Florence, and How to Send Him Back to Hell - http://groundreport.com/?p=5106292

In short, Mignini didn't pull satan out of a hat, like a sideshow magician. It was part of a continuing fraudulent hoax originated by Michele Giuttari, and furthered with Mignini's support in their Narducci trail cases, attempting to capitalize on the Monster of Florence serial murders. They did this for the purposes of personal aggrandizement and commercial profits. Amanda and Raf were only the two latest, and probably the last of scores of victims.

 

[acbytesla]

This is false.

If you go through what was said Guede never actually accused them in court. He never stood up and said I saw Knox and Sollecito murder. I suspect this was so that in the event of their being found innocent he would not be charged with calunnia. There is a letter he wrote in which he said that they were guilty. He said in court he wrote the letter. He refused to testify as to what occurred.

In the letter he wrote, "I hope that sooner or later the Judges become aware of my complete innocence in what was a horrible murder of a splendid beautiful girl that was Meredith by Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox"

When asked if he wishes to testify about what he happened he says "Can I respond? Right, as the letter was read out I think I am here today to respond as in the penal proceedings toward the statements, the false statements made by Mario Alessi and accordingly, like it is written in the letter, everything that I had to say I already told the Judges, the Public Prosecutor and my lawyers, therefore I have no intention to answer on this point."

He describes what he says as "this is a thought which is always been in my mind," which is very different from saying this is what I saw.

Excellent Panigale. Maybe, Platano will admit his mistake. I doubt it though.

 

[carbonjam72]

Maresca will indeed probably drop the Kerchers tout-de-suite. They cannot in any way afford to pay even a fraction of the fees they owe him already (on paper at least), let alone the costs of any future legal representation.

That (to me and, I think, to many/most other pro-acquittal commentators) is one of the additional tragic factors in this sorry case. If Maresca has any decency, he will write off the entirety of his work for the Kercher family.

I think appearing on TV for them has promotional value for the 'Maresca (gag) brand'.

 

[moije2]

From this post-complete-exoneration vantage point, I am still unclear of the status of these two screen-shots I got from a since-deleted YouTube video on something loosely titled, "Satanism and the Law".

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_53971526aa87b315e7.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_53971526af3cd3ec23.jpg[/qimg]​

If there are any hardcore guilters left, even they have to admit the optics of this look bad. Like the kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar, the kid says to his mom, "Who are you going to believe: me, or your lying eyes?"

Machiavelli gave an explanation, including a claim of a more precise definition of what this thing even was. I don't want to use the excuse of his absence from here to misquote him (!!) but he also said (I potentially stand to be corrected) that Mignini's part of this presentation was to admit that perhaps Satanism is something a prosecutor should look into if appropriate...

.... but that in his experience he's never seen it or used it in a case.

Like I say, the optics of that YouTube video, complete with audio in Italian (that I never got translated) could not have been worse for someone fighting what he fought in the Monster of Florence thing, and what is alleged to have been brought-forward into the Kercher-murder prosecution..... I hope it is right to translate the text on one of the slides as, "In the name of Satanism".

Yes that was the discussion I recall. And yes that was a bad photo op for Mignini in light of the Satan allegation re this case. My point was so what, Halloween or Satan what difference does it make? it all strikes me as something weird cultish thought pattern and all in effort to suggest a CRAZY motivation for murdering your roommate in a conspiracy with your one week boyfriend and local almost completely unknown basketball player. That type of thinking is truly fascinating to me. It gives walking down the medieval streets of central Italy new depth!

BTW, my superficial scan of headlines has a lot of "Amanda Knox" and relatively few "Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito". Poor guy. Still an after thought.

BTW#2: The news articles have been indelibly ingrained to describe MK as being found "half naked". My little pet peeve. My theory is it actually sexes up the story to say it that way and is somehow more erotic. IMO being naked from the neck or shoulders down is sort of, er, naked.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think appearing on TV for them has promotional value for the 'Maresca (gag) brand'.

I'm afraid that from about tomorrow onwards, the Kerchers will not be on TV* ever again.

For all the high-moral-ground "remember the real victim" stuff, that's simply (maybe sadly) not the way the general public or the media think about cases like this. Those who think that Kercher and her family should remain front and centre in the coverage of this case should perhaps stop for a moment and think of virtually every single high-profile case of this sort in recent history. Do they remember, for example, the name of the victim(s) in the Norfolk Four case, or the Lindy Chamberlain case, or the West Memphis 3, or the Lockerbie (not)Bomber?


* in terms of news coverage, that is. There may be documentaries made about the case in which they might appear.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes that was the discussion I recall. And yes that was a bad photo op for Mignini in light of the Satan allegation re this case. My point was so what, Halloween or Satan what difference does it make? it all strikes me as something weird cultish thought pattern and all in effort to suggest a CRAZY motivation for murdering your roommate in a conspiracy with your one week boyfriend and local almost completely unknown basketball player. That type of thinking is truly fascinating to me. It gives walking down the medieval streets of central Italy new depth!

BTW, my superficial scan of headlines has a lot of "Amanda Knox" and relatively few "Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito". Poor guy. Still an after thought.
.

Raffaele is still rich though..and maybe being an afterthought is really a good thing.

 

[Desert Fox]

I'm afraid that from about tomorrow onwards, the Kerchers will not be on TV* ever again.

For all the high-moral-ground "remember the real victim" stuff, that's simply (maybe sadly) not the way the general public or the media think about cases like this. Those who think that Kercher and her family should remain front and centre in the coverage of this case should perhaps stop for a moment and think of virtually every single high-profile case of this sort in recent history. Do they remember, for example, the name of the victim(s) in the Norfolk Four case, or the Lindy Chamberlain case, or the West Memphis 3, or the Lockerbie (not)Bomber?
* in terms of news coverage, that is. There may be documentaries made about the case in which they might appear.

Do you have a link which argues for their innocence?

 

[moije2]

Some food for thought along these lines, if you're interested.

On Ground Report -

The Italian Judiciary, and Why I believe Amanda and Raffaele Will Now Be Exonerated - http://groundreport.com/?p=5118013

Italian Judiciary Part 2: The Satanic Fairy Tales of Michele Giuttari; How the Devil Came to Florence, and How to Send Him Back to Hell - http://groundreport.com/?p=5106292

In short, Mignini didn't pull satan out of a hat, like a sideshow magician. It was part of a continuing fraudulent hoax originated by Michele Giuttari, and furthered with Mignini's support in their Narducci trail cases, attempting to capitalize on the Monster of Florence serial murders. They did this for the purposes of personal aggrandizement and commercial profits. Amanda and Raf were only the two latest, and probably the last of scores of victims.

Thanks carbonjam72 for directing me to those. I had actually already come across them and unfortunately didn't even scan them. Too many things to do! But I will now read them more carefully. I have also had it on my list to re-read Monster of Florence, so this will fit in perfectly.

Yes, this is part of the fascination, this obsession with the occult. Who needs the DaVinci Codes?

 

[Strawberry]

I'm afraid that from about tomorrow onwards, the Kerchers will not be on TV* ever again.

For all the high-moral-ground "remember the real victim" stuff, that's simply (maybe sadly) not the way the general public or the media think about cases like this. Those who think that Kercher and her family should remain front and centre in the coverage of this case should perhaps stop for a moment and think of virtually every single high-profile case of this sort in recent history. Do they remember, for example, the name of the victim(s) in the Norfolk Four case, or the Lindy Chamberlain case, or the West Memphis 3, or the Lockerbie (not)Bomber?


* in terms of news coverage, that is. There may be documentaries made about the case in which they might appear.

Christopher Byers, Steven Branch and Michael Moore. I think anyone who's followed that case remembers the victims very well.

 

[moije2]

So Nadeau tweets that Raffaele will have a press conference at noon on Monday and wishes to be left alone until then. Which led me to peak - as a general rule I try not to give her clicks - at Andrea Vogt's page. Turns my stomach a little. Sort of like when I saw Nadeau on CNN (?) giving her report on the case!

Interestingly, Vogt states: "The judges upheld her calumny conviction for accusing Patrick Lumumba, but reduced her sentence to three years."

I thought that the calunnia charge was a finally adjudicated matter and was not before this recent Supreme Court for a decision. Am I mistaken?

 

[Sonia]

We don't have sororities or fraternities. It would be considered seriously uncool to belong to one if they existed. Oxford, Cambridge and Durham have colleges, but they are parts of the university.

Are there not private dining clubs and drinking clubs at UK universities, with secret or not-so-secret initiation rites? Members profit from their association with these private clubs at uni and in their later lives. Practically the same thing.

 

[acbytesla]

So Nadeau tweets that Raffaele will have a press conference at noon on Monday and wishes to be left alone until then. Which led me to peak - as a general rule I try not to give her clicks - at Andrea Vogt's page. Turns my stomach a little. Sort of like when I saw Nadeau on CNN (?) giving her report on the case!

Interestingly, Vogt states: "The judges upheld her calumny conviction for accusing Patrick Lumumba, but reduced her sentence to three years."

I thought that the calunnia charge was a finally adjudicated matter and was not before this recent Supreme Court for a decision. Am I mistaken?

That'she what I thought as well.