Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

The same reason you can call George Zimmerman and Casey Anthony a murder even though they are acquitted. I don't have time to go into a full explanation of defamation law and why that's just not going to work here, but suffice it to say, free speech is a lot more free in the United States (for better or worse).

The issue is four-fold. One, would the court view your statements as an opinion and two, iis Amanda Knox considered a public or private citizen. Three, can and would Amanda want to prove again in a US court not just that she wasn't convicted of murder but that there is a preponderance of evidence that confirms her innocence. And 4 and probably most important can she convince the court that she is a private citizen..not a public citizen. Look carefully at NY Times v Sullivan. This is the court case that says public citizens must prove in a libel case that not only must public citizens prove that the offender had made libelous statements, but theyear also must prove that they were malicious. That theyou knew that they were wrong. Tough standards for the plaintiff.

 

[Strozzi]

I don't really understand. I was of the belief that it is indeed potentially defamatory to (e.g.) call Zimmerman a murderer under US libel laws (in most states), but that those who do so are merely taking the calculated risk that he won't bring action, given the groundswell of public opinion against him.

This site states that in most US states, falsely accusing someone of a criminal act is defined as defamation per se:

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/what-defamatory-statement

And since if one is acquitted of a crime (such as murder), one is legally to be considered innocent of that crime, I find it hard to see how accusing an acquitted person of the crime for which they were tried and acquitted does not constitute defamation per se.

I thought I (broadly) understood the ramifications of the free speech amendment in US federal law, and how it impacts upon state defamation laws. But I'd be interested to learn how and why I'm getting it wrong,

That is not how it works in the US. If it did work that way, OJ would sue and win defamation cases against many who refer to him as a murderer.

I believe the determining factor is if the one speaking believes it to be the truth (even if a court found otherwise).

 

[Dan O.]

A reporter covering the Mark Lundy case wrote, "A forensic pathologist says the doctor who examined the bodies of Amber and Christine Lundy did the right thing by not testing the bodies at the scene. Dr Martin Sage, who has more than 30 years experience in forensic pathology, was asked to review the forensic pathology methods used in the investigation. Dr James Pang earlier told the court he decided not to test the bodies for their temperature or rigor mortis in fear of disturbing key evidence. Sage said that was a good move, as the murder was a "whodunnit". 'The priority was finding trace evidence samples, then extract the bodies from the scene.' Taking body temperature involved inserting a probe into the rectum, which could disturb trace evidence if the victim had been sexually assaulted, Sage said. 'There is always a whiff of anxiety with females that there could have been a sexual assault.'"

A similar prioritization occurred in this case IIUC. For once the forensic police and PM Mignini probably made the right call, at least if the information above is valid. MOO.

They wouldn't want to disturb say a semen stain in the vicinity.

The opinion stated above is from the dishonest prosecutor's perspective. Establishing a time of death can be exculpatory where the prosecution is going after the wrong person.

 

[anglolawyer]

Oh yes - I'm strictly talking about people making false accusations against Knox and Sollecito. And I also agree (and hope) that neither Knox nor Sollecito could give a "fig" about nutters on the internet calling them murderers - as I wrote in a previous post. But as I also wrote, I suspect that if that sort of accusation becomes more of a coordinated, concerted campaign, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Knox's and Sollecito's legal teams - who, I imagine, are very probably keeping a casual eye on things like twitter and certain websites - might swing into action.

No, neither would I. You can push people too far, as one persistent libeller of the McCanns has discovered in the course of being well and truly flattened in the courts. The law does grind exceedingly small.

 

[HumanityBlues]

The issue is four-fold. One, would the court view your statements as an opinion and two, iis Amanda Knox considered a public or private citizen. Three, can and would Amanda want to prove again in a US court not just that she wasn't convicted of murder but that there is a preponderance of evidence that confirms her innocence. And 4 and probably most important can she convince the court that she is a private citizen..not a public citizen. Look carefully at NY Times v Sullivan. This is the court case that says public citizens must prove in a libel case that not only must public citizens prove that the offender had made libelous statements, but theyear also must prove that they were malicious. That theyou knew that they were wrong. Tough standards for the plaintiff.

All good points. And as they constantly in law school, "it depends". So I should have qualified my answer by saying it is almost impossible under the facts. Also, I believe the standard is higher for public figures: clear and convincing evidence, not a preponderance.

 

[anglolawyer]

I saw this morning that JohnQ revealed that the US gave Italy two aircraft to throw the case. That was supposed to be a secret. I guess this is the last time the US Secretary of the Air Force will go out for a beer with JohnQ. He told me he is going to put JohnQ on the "No Fly" list!

Two aircraft? Cheapskates! Two aircraft carriers more like. How far a great nation has fallen when justice can be bought for a couple of clapped out bi-planes.

 

[kwill]

ANALYSIS
writer Jon Ronson taking on internet shamers. Good luck.

I've been listening to his latest book. It's quite good & there are lots of moments when it made me think of this case.

I want more than anything for A & R to realize that in spite of all the noise, most people will eventually understand the nature of what happened . . . and be knocked out, as I am, by how courageously they stood up for themselves and how easily innocent people can lose their freedom.

I think that's what Amanda meant in her letter this morning. Once you've lived that, you can't exactly un-live it. She's uniquely qualified to do something about systemic injustice in the legal systems of both Italy and the USA. She's got both a voice and a megaphone if she wants to use them, and I hope she will.

The guilter world is looking more and more crazy by the hour; the more A & R hold their heads up, the more whacked their long-time tormentors will appear.

 

[kwill]

Three, can and would Amanda want to prove again in a US court not just that she wasn't convicted of murder but that there is a preponderance of evidence that confirms her innocence.

Wait. Does she really have to meet that standard? As a matter of law, she's as innocent as I am unless there's a conviction on her record.

 

[Bill Williams]

Two aircraft? Cheapskates! Two aircraft carriers more like. How far a great nation has fallen when justice can be bought for a couple of clapped out bi-planes.

 

[Desert Fox]

Two aircraft? Cheapskates! Two aircraft carriers more like. How far a great nation has fallen when justice can be bought for a couple of clapped out bi-planes.

To be honest, the US would throw Amanda under the bus for the price of two F-35s and Italy would make Mignini the permanent servant of Amanda for a single F-35 fighters. Their government would pass a new law for that to occur

 

[LashL]

Libel laws pertaining to Internet defamation do not depend upon where the defendant posts from, and actions for libel can be brought essentially anywhere that the posts are read, which means that a variety of venues are available for such a pursuit. Someone posting libellous material online, even if they are physically situated in the U.S. when they post it, for example, is not protected by U.S. libel laws if that material is available to be read in, for instance, the U.K. and a libel action is brought in the U.K.

Just saying.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

That is not how it works in the US. If it did work that way, OJ would sue and win defamation cases against many who refer to him as a murderer.

I believe the determining factor is if the one speaking believes it to be the truth (even if a court found otherwise).

-

I believe you're right, but as far as the last (hilited) statement is concerned (especially since OJ was found guilty in a civil trial), which should be the standard, the verdict of a civil trial or a criminal trial?

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Libel laws pertaining to Internet defamation do not depend upon where the defendant posts from, and actions for libel can be brought essentially anywhere that the posts are read, which means that a variety of venues are available for such a pursuit. Someone posting libellous material online, even if they are physically situated in the U.S. when they post it, for example, is not protected by U.S. libel laws if that material is available to be read in, for instance, the U.K. and a libel action is brought in the U.K.

Just saying.

-

Makes sense to me.

But, if the action can only result in a civil trial, and the person you are suing has no money, what's the point?

You can, maybe, sue the owners of the servers that the libelous material resides on, but I wonder if that's even feasible,

d

-
ETA: Of course, I'm only talking about suing individuals and not newspapers or the like. If any newspaper, or the like, was stupid enough to call them murderers, I say go after 'em like they did that monkey in the "Faces of Death".

-

 

[Samson]

Libel laws pertaining to Internet defamation do not depend upon where the defendant posts from, and actions for libel can be brought essentially anywhere that the posts are read, which means that a variety of venues are available for such a pursuit. Someone posting libellous material online, even if they are physically situated in the U.S. when they post it, for example, is not protected by U.S. libel laws if that material is available to be read in, for instance, the U.K. and a libel action is brought in the U.K.

Just saying.

Daily Mail seem unconcerned, there are a heap of comments like this in the last few hours


"hobnob, uk, United Kingdom, 3 hours ago
She was also jailed for blaming her boss for the murder, she has to pay him compensation and also compensation the the officers she accused of beating her ( which her attorneys told her didn't happen and she should shut up , she later retracted her story but too late) She is guilty of murder and admitted it in her handwritten letter, she also admitted to her attorneys and PR people she was present at the murder but that sollecito did the actual killing , when she learned he had changed his defense and was blaming her as well as no longer being her alibi"

votes running about 3 to 1 against Amanda

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ring-murdering-Meredith-Kercher.html#comments

 

[Desert Fox]

Libel laws do not depend upon where the defendant posts from, and actions for libel can be brought where the posts are read, which opens the door to a variety of venues for such a pursuit. Someone posting libellous material online, even though they are physically situated in the U.S. when they post it, for example, is not protected by U.S. libel laws if that material is available to be read in, for instance, the U.K. and a libel action is brought in the U.K.

The US does have a number of laws, both federal and state, to protect against libel tourism however.

Need to understand that it cost Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin books something like 2 million pounds to defend herself against David Irving in British Court and she won. Granted, the costs were reversed on him (and he went bankrupt as a result) but it can be a disaster even if you are right.

There is also where the British Chiropractic Association sued Simon Singh for what he wrote about them and their questionable cases. Again, they dropped their case once they had an unfavorable ruling but still it means one has to pony up a lot of money to defend yourself.

 

[LashL]

The US does have a number of laws, both federal and state, to protect against libel tourism however.

When you have been defamed in multiple countries and multiple continents, it is not "libel tourism" to launch an action somewhere other than in the jurisdiction in which you happen to currently reside. Ms. Knox was defamed when she was resident in Europe as well as when she was resident in the U.S. Mr. Sollecito has always resided in Europe.

Need to understand that it cost Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin books something like 2 million pounds to defend herself against David Irving in British Court and she won. Granted, the costs were reversed on him (and he went bankrupt as a result) but it can be a disaster even if you are right.

Of course, there is always a cost/benefit analysis to be conducted in any potential litigation. I would not be averse to it costing the likes of Peggy Gagnon and her guilter acolytes a boatload of money to defend themselves against a legitimate claim of defamation.

I am not clear on how a bogus lawsuit brought by Holocaust denier, David Irving, against Ms. Lipstadt and Penguin Books is relevant to the current discussion, though.

There is also where the British Chiropractic Association sued Simon Singh for what he wrote about them and their questionable cases. Again, they dropped their case once they had an unfavorable ruling but still it means one has to pony up a lot of money to defend yourself.

That was a bogus case brought by the BCA, rather than a case of personal defamation falsely accusing innocent individuals of murder. I recognize that it cost the defendant (Mr. Singh) a lot of money to successfully defend that bogus action, but I am not clear on how that is relevant to the current discussion, either.

 

[Desert Fox]

I kind of have a US opinion on libel which makes it extremely hard to prove. Have to prove that any libel is with reckless regard to the truth and has created personal harm. I would argue that 90% of the harm to him was directly from the Italian courts and prior to the final court ruling, one can argue that the courts agreed with the guilt position.

 

[Strozzi]

-
I believe you're right, but as far as the last (hilited) statement is concerned (especially since OJ was found guilty in a civil trial), which should be the standard, the verdict of a civil trial or a criminal trial?

d. -

I believe the standard in the US is what the person saying the words believes is true.

 

[LashL]

I kind of have a US opinion on libel which makes it extremely hard to prove. Have to prove that any libel is with reckless regard to the truth and has created personal harm. I would argue that 90% of the harm to him was directly from the Italian courts and prior to the final court ruling, one can argue that the courts agreed with the guilt position.

Sure, I can understand that if you're USian. However, the only cases that you cited were two that were illegitimate claims, in which you decried the defendants having to defend against them. I don't blame you for that since they were, indeed, illegitimate claims, but neither of them are even remotely similar to the legitimate claims that Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito would have against the likes of defendants such as Peggy Gagnon et al.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Sure, I can understand that if you're USian. However, the only cases that you cited were two that were illegitimate claims, in which you decried the defendants having to defend against them. I don't blame you for that since they were, indeed, illegitimate claims, but neither of them are even remotely similar to the legitimate claims that Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito would have against the likes of defendants such as Peggy Gagnon et al.

I could be wrong, but I thought the point they were trying to make is that even a successful and totally justified libel action where one is awarded costs can lead to the litigant taking a bath. Unless you have reason to believe that the other side have enough of a bankroll to cover your costs and their costs, with something left over for you to pocket at the end of it, suing them is an exercise in mutual financial destruction that enriches only lawyers.

I don't know how deep someone's pockets have to be to make them an attractive target, but I imagine that many internet trolls lack such pockets.