Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

It depends on the claimant and the nature of the libel. How much is the case worth and how clear are the issues? Also, an indigent defendant will not be able to afford a professional defence and will be easy prey. There are plenty of people who own a house with equity in it even if they have little else and it's easy to research that. That could be enough by itself to make a claim worthwhile and at the same time to put the fear of God (losing one's home being a mighty threat after all) into all but the most demented nutcases, precipitating an early apology and settlement.

I think this is a key point is the costs inflicted on the litigant.

While the burden of proof is much higher for proving libel in the US, the tradition is that each side bears the cost of their own legal fees, in all but the most egregiously ill founded claims. Whereas in the UK, IIUC, the loser picks up the legal fees for all parties.

So in the US, even a prevailing party is likely to pay their own legal fees. Just getting sued, is itself a potentially significant penalty to a defendant. Most people would prefer to avoid if at all possible.

So what is the object of the litigation? To recover cash compensation? Or to get them to stop a behavior?

The mere threat of litigation itself, can be a powerful deterrent, anywhere I imagine. But in the US, it a much more affordable, cost effective strategy. It costs next to nothing to file a complaint, and the only costs are ones own fees. If you have people working pro bono, but I'm not sure their are many pro bono lawyers willing to do defamation suits, but maybe in this case.

 

[andreajo]

Wow. So I tried to engage a few people on twitter over the Knox case. It's weird to see, you just get descended upon by people that just deplore her and the same few people start re-tweeting and favoring the same silly retorts. Quite the experience.

Did they call you a sock puppet and call you out on your PR spin?

They have developed hunting patterns over the years. They let you think you are talking to someone rational, and then they drown you with a series of True Facts which Prove that Amanda Knox is an Evil Murderer. Then they pat each other on the back and congratulate each other on their cleverness. It's a bit like that True Wiki of theirs is a Holy Book and they are Spreading the Word.

There is not much point engaging hard core pro guilt tweeters one on one. The tweets that IIP and other pro-innocence tweeters put out with links to news stories and informational sites are a good idea, as they are likely to reach the open-minded and general public.

Peggy G just tweeted, noting the irony that AK should speak for the wriongly accused, since AK wrongly accused PL of murder. She missed out on the irony that she is not the best person to speak out against people wrongly accusing others of murder, as she has been wrongly accusing AK of murder for years.

 

[Strozzi]

Your constitutional right to claim that another person is guilty of a criminal offence that he or she did not commit, however, runs smack up against libel laws, even in the U.S., and although it might give you a wee bit more coverage in the U.S. than elsewhere, the U.S. constitution will not protect you if a libel action is brought against you in another jurisdiction where the libel was published.

Just saying.

There is an important distinction in the US between saying OJ murdered two people (constitutionally protected speech if I believe it is true), and OJ is a convicted murderer (libelous if I know it is wrong, but protected speech if I think it is right). I have a constitutional right to free speech, even if what I say is factually wrong as long as I sincerely believe what I said is accurate.

 

[carbonjam72]

There is an important distinction in the US between saying OJ murdered two people (constitutionally protected speech if I believe it is true), and OJ is a convicted murderer (libelous if I know it is wrong, but protected speech if I think it is right). I have a constitutional right to free speech, even if what I say is factually wrong as long as I sincerely believe what I said is accurate.

Yes, in the US, we have the right to speak, and also the right to be as dumb as a bag of hammers. God Bless America.

 

[Grinder]

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.

This has most likely been covered by now, but the real issue in suing the PG sites is proving damages. If the Seattle Times came out with a headline calling the kids murderers now that could be judged to be significantly damaging but for JohnQ or Hugo or SA or any of them to make a post just isn't that damaging and could result in a verdict in favor of the kids for $1.

What a lawsuit could accomplish here would be getting the names of the offenders, which probably isn't worth it.

 

[Grinder]

It depends on the claimant and the nature of the libel. How much is the case worth and how clear are the issues? Also, an indigent defendant will not be able to afford a professional defence and will be easy prey. There are plenty of people who own a house with equity in it even if they have little else and it's easy to research that. That could be enough by itself to make a claim worthwhile and at the same time to put the fear of God (losing one's home being a mighty threat after all) into all but the most demented nutcases, precipitating an early apology and settlement.

Dear dear Ozil Anglo - in England must damages be be proven? Could someone sued there just admit the post and claim that no significant damage occurred and throw himself to the mercy of the court. PMF might have 100 readers at any time and probably no more than 500 see any post, so how much would that damage Amanda?

 

[acbytesla]

Freedom of speech wins out time and again, as long as the speaker believes what he says is correct. It is irrelevant if a criminal or civil case was decided one way or the other. If I believe something is true, I can say it per my constitutional right of free speech.

ONLY if the person you are defaming is a public citizen. This is the tricky part of the law. If you publish something that is false and you were reckless, (took no actions to ensure that you had reasons to believe it was accurate) and they are a private citizen you could very well lose a libel suit.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't see Amanda as wanting to have any additional conflict.

I think Raf is spoiling for a fight, having taken this crap for over 7 years. I'm guessing they are audibly preying for some idiot to make an example out of, so the rest of them get the message.

By the way, where's Mach? Have the masons finally caught up with him?

Raf wants one of these idiots to pay for the new £105,000 BMW he has his eyes on

 

[analemma]

Found this from Jim Edwards from last week, although I think it is a reprint of an earlier article
http://www.businessinsider.com/amanda-knoxs-epic-legal-nightmare-2015-3

 

[Grinder]

ONLY if the person you are defaming is a public citizen. This is the tricky part of the law. If you publish something that is false and you were reckless, (took no actions to ensure that you had reasons to believe it was accurate) and they are a private citizen you could very well lose a libel suit.

What are the elements of a defamation claim?

The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are:

a publication to one other than the person defamed;
a false statement of fact;
that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.
​

I don't think proving malice will be an issue for the people we have been discussing. The long history of their malice towards the kids is clear. The bigger question remains what damage is done by posting at a site like .org or .net. In my opinion a survey showing that not one in million people have ever heard of the site (most certainly the members of the jury) would minimize any verdict.

 

[moije2]

Found this from Jim Edwards from last week, although I think it is a reprint of an earlier article
http://www.businessinsider.com/amanda-knoxs-epic-legal-nightmare-2015-3

I scanned the linked article which looks good. My impression is that it is "all about the pctures". As taught many years ago, it isn't news if you can't get pictures. This media event was sustained by youthful good looks, in particulaAK. Too bad she can't get royalties for all those pics!

 

[analemma]

The very recent Huffington post Article
Amanda Knox Vows To Help Fight For Those Wrongly Convicted
Seemed to be very short and sweet
I noticed that the Post has stopped referencing articles by the "hater journalists", as they did in the article about the court declaring her innocent

 

[Strozzi]

Found this from Jim Edwards from last week, although I think it is a reprint of an earlier article
http://www.businessinsider.com/amanda-knoxs-epic-legal-nightmare-2015-3

This article has two serious errors. It says blood was found on the bra clasp. No, that is not true. No blood was found on the bra clasp.

It says Knox accused Lumumba of being the murderer. That is actually false. The police told Knox that the person (Lumumba) on the other end of the text messages is the killer. The police told her, Knox did not originate it - she did not know the alleged connection until the police told her that that person is the killer, eliciting a shocked and frightened "It's him! It's him!" reply from Knox. (Don't believe it? Just listen to the police's recording of the interrogation.)

 

[Grinder]

This article has two serious errors. It says blood was found on the bra clasp. No, that is not true. No blood was found on the bra clasp.

It says Knox accused Lumumba of being the murderer. That is actually false. The police told Knox that the person (Lumumba) on the other end of the text messages is the killer. The police told her, Knox did not originate it - she did not know the alleged connection until the police told her that that person is the killer, eliciting a shocked and frightened "It's him! It's him!" reply from Knox. (Don't believe it? Just listen to the police's recording of the interrogation.)

According to record from the police she brought his name into the conversation, at least how I remember it. There is no doubt in my mind that the police led her to her statement in most every element. Do you have your account handy from a neutral/reliable source?

 

[acbytesla]

What are the elements of a defamation claim?

The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are:

a publication to one other than the person defamed;
a false statement of fact;
that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.
​

I don't think proving malice will be an issue for the people we have been discussing. The long history of their malice towards the kids is clear. The bigger question remains what damage is done by posting at a site like .org or .net. In my opinion a survey showing that not one in million people have ever heard of the site (most certainly the members of the jury) would minimize any verdict.

It isn't really the posts on PMF, that should be a concern but their comments on websites with millions of readers and you should also consider the Twitter campaign. Just read for example what is written under the #amandaknox. Whole other kettle of fish.

 

[Strozzi]

What are the elements of a defamation claim?

The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are:

a publication to one other than the person defamed;
a false statement of fact;
that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.
​

I don't think proving malice will be an issue for the people we have been discussing. The long history of their malice towards the kids is clear. The bigger question remains what damage is done by posting at a site like .org or .net. In my opinion a survey showing that not one in million people have ever heard of the site (most certainly the members of the jury) would minimize any verdict.

How about the many accusatory posts made on Amazon's page selling Knox's and Sollecito's books? The posts accused the authors of being killers so as to discourage customers from buying their books. That had a foreseeable financial harm.

Indeed, it would be interesting if any of the pro-guilt posters ever bragged about the damage they were doing to the book sales or to Knox or Sollecito or their families.

 

[analemma]

This article has two serious errors. It says blood was found on the bra clasp. No, that is not true. No blood was found on the bra clasp.

It says Knox accused Lumumba of being the murderer. That is actually false. The police told Knox that the person (Lumumba) on the other end of the text messages is the killer. The police told her, Knox did not originate it - she did not know the alleged connection until the police told her that that person is the killer, eliciting a shocked and frightened "It's him! It's him!" reply from Knox. (Don't believe it? Just listen to the police's recording of the interrogation.)

Strozzi,
I agree with you but I can hardly think of any mainstream reporter who has been harder on the injustice of this: he has scathing articles against the Italian judiciary.
I feel that this coerced statement aspect of the police action will work its way back in the far future when the ECHR rips the slander conviction to shreds.
I bet the authorities are not looking forward to the news that will accompany that ruling.

 

[TruthCalls]

Perhaps it's just me but I'm almost feeling a sense of sadness seeing the guilter sites going away. I find many of their posts fascinating and an excellent source for pointing out the flaws in their arguments. Take this most recent post by Fast Pete;

I always felt that the circumstantial evidence was the strongest part of this murder case. Presenting that evidence alone should have led to the conviction of Ak47. I think the Prosecution got too creative with its sex orgy scenarios with all three defendants holding her down to make them seem equally guilty. I believe that this creativity hurt the Prosecution's credibility.

A correction to the claim I put in bold. The prosecution didnt just make things up, as that implied.

There was a full day of testimony on the attack by the crime scene squad from Rome in closed court. Plus much testimony by others. The closed-court testimony was extremely compelling (it had jurors in tears) and the defense and AK could only sit and watch, there was no easy comeback to that.

No credibility was hurt. A unanimous guilty verdict did follow.

This is outstanding stuff.. Ole Pete is claiming the prosecution didn't make anything up and his evidence to this is.... a full day of the prosecution making things up.

What testimony, Pete, did the prosecution present that showed there was a sex orgy with all three defendants? As far as I know, only Guede's DNA was in Meredith.. only his palm print, his shoe prints were in Meredith's room. The expert testimony was overwhelming in it's conclusion the injuries were compatible or consistent with a lone attacker. ANY reference to a sex orgy HAD to be pure fiction as there was nothing to substantiate it.

Of course there was no comeback, you idiot, how do you respond to fanciful tales unsubstantiated by a single fact?

 

[Grinder]

It isn't really the posts on PMF, that should be a concern but their comments on websites with millions of readers and you should also consider the Twitter campaign. Just read for example what is written under the #amandaknox. Whole other kettle of fish.

I still don't think damages would be significant. How much does a verdict against paper result in? Most people don't read comments and only a small % of people go to #amandaknox.

Anglo will set me straight on this fantasy but I'd ask the jury how many thought she were guilty and then ask how many thought so because a tweet or comment after the ISC ruled.

How about the many accusatory posts made on Amazon's page selling Knox's and Sollecito's books? The posts accused the authors of being killers so as to discourage customers from buying their books. That had a foreseeable financial harm.

Indeed, it would be interesting if any of the pro-guilt posters ever bragged about the damage they were doing to the book sales or to Knox or Sollecito or their families.

They would counter that it most likely increased book sales by raising interest. They would also have to demonstrate that additional sales would have profited them. What I mean by that is that they were paid an advance and they would have to prove that had these comments not been made they would have exceeded the sales that would kick in additional income to them. Since the books were written before a final verdict people if further would weaken the case.

 

[anglolawyer]

Dear dear Ozil

Stop that!

Anglo - in England must damages be be proven? Could someone sued there just admit the post and claim that no significant damage occurred and throw himself to the mercy of the court. PMF might have 100 readers at any time and probably no more than 500 see any post, so how much would that damage Amanda?

In the good ole days all libel and some specific slanders were actionable without proof of damage. Now, it must be proved that the claimant has suffered or is likely to suffer substantial harm. I think someone like Rag is capable of causing such harm just through being so prolific. Also, to call someone a murderer is such a serious libel that I would expect it to be easier to prove substantial harm than with some less odious slur. UK-based guilters should not be sleeping too easily in their beds IOW and if any of them would like to consult me for advice they will find my terms not altogether unreasonable