Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Strozzi]

Yes SN, Barbi, and CH have posted some increadably evil and obviously out of date rants in the last week: I am amazed that their editors, if they have any, allow them to continue with these zombie dances.

A US magazine, Rolling Stone, published a poorly researched and poorly edited article in December claiming that members or pledges at a fraternity at University of Virginia gang-raped a female student a few years ago. Police investigated and found no evidence of a crime. Individuals cited in the article deny they were contacted by the magazine as claimed or have stated that what they told Rolling Stone's writer was badly distorted. Due to the article, the fraternity was targeted by students for vandalism and shame. An independent investigation of the article and how Rolling Stone editors edited and approved the article for publication has just been released and is highly critical of the magazine. The fraternity has just announced that they are filing suit against the magazine to hold it accountable for it's false and inflammatory story.

 

[analemma]

A US magazine, Rolling Stone, published a poorly researched and poorly edited article in December claiming that members or pledges at a fraternity at University of Virginia gang-raped a female student a few years ago. Police investigated and found no evidence of a crime. Individuals cited in the article deny they were contacted by the magazine as claimed or have stated that what they told Rolling Stone's writer was badly distorted. Due to the article, the fraternity was targeted by students for vandalism and shame. An independent investigation of the article and how Rolling Stone editors edited and approved the article for publication has just been released and is highly critical of the magazine. The fraternity has just announced that they are filing suit against the magazine to hold it accountable for it's false and inflammatory story.

Peter discussed this story today on TJMK, as an example of bad journelism.

 

[acbytesla]

Eventually I will give up! I had something to post just this minute but forgot what it was....

Exactly!!!! The war is over. There really is nothing left to discuss. We will ALL fade away. Who really cares any more? Everyone is tired and sick of this case. The articles in the press will disappear. We few left posting are just hard core.There are a few things we are still interested about. But we are the very very few.

Harry just doesn't know what to do with himself. If he has any real sanity, he'll give it up after a while, when he realizes that no one is listening any more. But if he's still hanging on and tweeting about Knox in a year....more koo koo than we thought.

I suspect that there will be a few more blasts of media attention for the motivation and a ECHR decision..but that will be it. I'd bet sociologists and lawyers will continue to go over this case in the future but they won't be discussing their guilt or innocence.

 

[Bill Williams]

The conspiracy garbage would be a lot more compelling if it was said BEFORE the acquittals. I.E., I have been informed that there was a deal with the embassies and there will be an acquittal. Telling everyone there was no chance of an acquittal and then claiming you have inside info that there was a conspiracy once you have egg on your face is just not convincing. If he has "inside info" it doesn't amount to squat.

HB - it's the link in your tag line which is compelling, the one about "confirmation bias". I am now wavering......

 

[anglolawyer]

Not sure it's quite all over yet, tesla. There is still the calumny application to the ECHR, the (much to be hoped for) possibility of investigations of this corrupt prosecution, compensation claims and who knows how many defamation law suits. I find the prospect of all that quite alluring. It's like waiting to see who's next in the village stocks.

 

[acbytesla]

Not sure it's quite all over yet, tesla. There is still the calumny application to the ECHR, the (much to be hoped for) possibility of investigations of this corrupt prosecution, compensation claims and who knows how many defamation law suits. I find the prospect of all that quite alluring. It's like waiting to see who's next in the village stocks.

There is a little left...but I wouldn't really expect a serious investigation to this farce even though I think there should be one. I'm not expecting Amanda filing any defamation suits any time soon. Raffaele may be another story since Italy is a different animal. There are of course those other charges out there, but I think they will be dropped... but hey, what do I know? I thought thestablished best the defense could hope for was the court ordering another trial.

 

[anglolawyer]

There is a little left...but I wouldn't really expect a serious investigation to this farce even though I think there should be one.

I guess it's too much to hope for an independent, public-spirited investigation, yes. Everything in Italy seems to get subsumed in intrigue and dietrologia. Maybe it's the same here but just less obvious.

 

[GreyFox]

Machiavelli seems to have access to detailed technical information. I assume he is in direct contact with sources within the scientific police and prosecutor offices. For this, he is a valuable contributor to this discussion. I just had to discount many of his assumptions (spin) as to the evidentiary value of the information and conclusions he made about the defendants based on Machiavelli's "analysis" of their behavior.

Too bad his firm prejudice prevents him from celebrating that Knox and Sollecito are innocent. He should be happy to learn that they were not involved in the murder. He should be disappointed that the police, scientific police, prosecutors, and courts made such terrible elementary errors in investigating the murder.

I hope Machiavelli will write a book. I want to read it.

I lost all respect for mach when we asked him years ago....What if she was found innocent and set free. In which he replied something along the lines of maybe Italy would'nt be so willing to turn over terrorist to the US and how would we feel about that ? His interest didn't appear to be justice for Merideth as much as a deep desire to use Knox as a (naughty)voo doo doll to irratate those defending her and Raff.

 

[toto]

What I am still interested in

I am still interested in, if Peter Quennell is right on TJKM, about what happens with regard to the following:

Sollecito is due back in court in Florence on false claims in his book on 30 April. Knox’s calunnia trial is due to resume again shortly in Florence with expanded charges targeting false claims in her book. The Oggi trial for quoting false claims in Knox’s book has a testimony session 16 June.​

I am also interested in any possible ECHR ruling, (if it happens, on the Amanda Knox callunnia issue).

And I am of course interested in the motivations report of the SC.

I am not particularly interested in Yummi's comments about a week ago now, as outlined in the thread above. I do not see much value in hoping for certain posters to return, because I think they help to obscure as much as they illuminate.
If anything major is said about some of the main protagonists, such as Guede, Mignini et al then that too may be fascinating.
I think this thread will slow down, but I will still be interested in how some of the events above turn out.

 

[Numbers]

There is a little left...but I wouldn't really expect a serious investigation to this farce even though I think there should be one. I'm not expecting Amanda filing any defamation suits any time soon. Raffaele may be another story since Italy is a different animal. There are of course those other charges out there, but I think they will be dropped... but hey, what do I know? I thought thestablished best the defense could hope for was the court ordering another trial.

I have no knowledge of whether Amanda Knox will be filing any suits regarding libel, but there are laws (2005 RCW, Revised Code of Washington) in the State of Washington defining libel and even criminal punishments for libel. See:

http://law.justia.com/codes/washington/2005/title9/9.58.html

2005 Washington Revised Code RCW 9.58.010: Libel, what constitutes.

Every malicious publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, sign[,] radio broadcasting or which shall in any other manner transmit the human voice or reproduce the same from records or other appliances or means, which shall tend: --

(1) To expose any living person to hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy, or to deprive him of the benefit of public confidence or social intercourse; or

(2) To expose the memory of one deceased to hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy; or

(3) To injure any person, corporation or association of persons in his or their business or occupation, shall be libel. Every person who publishes a libel shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

[1935 c 117 § 1; 1909 c 249 § 172; 1891 c 69 § 3; Code 1881 §§ 1230, 1231; 1879 p 144 § 1; 1869 p 383 §§ 1, 2; RRS § 2424.]

Note: there may be more recent revisions to the RCW

2005 Washington Revised Code RCW 9.58.080: Furnishing libelous information.

Every person who shall wilfully state, deliver or transmit by any means whatever, to any manager, editor, publisher, reporter or other employee of a publisher of any newspaper, magazine, publication, periodical or serial, any statement concerning any person or corporation, which, if published therein, would be a libel, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

[1909 c 249 § 179; RRS § 2431.]

 

[carbonjam72]

I have no knowledge of whether Amanda Knox will be filing any suits regarding libel, but there are laws (2005 RCW, Revised Code of Washington) in the State of Washington defining libel and even criminal punishments for libel. See:

http://law.justia.com/codes/washington/2005/title9/9.58.html

2005 Washington Revised Code RCW 9.58.010: Libel, what constitutes.

Every malicious publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, sign[,] radio broadcasting or which shall in any other manner transmit the human voice or reproduce the same from records or other appliances or means, which shall tend: --

(1) To expose any living person to hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy, or to deprive him of the benefit of public confidence or social intercourse; or

(2) To expose the memory of one deceased to hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy; or

(3) To injure any person, corporation or association of persons in his or their business or occupation, shall be libel. Every person who publishes a libel shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

[1935 c 117 § 1; 1909 c 249 § 172; 1891 c 69 § 3; Code 1881 §§ 1230, 1231; 1879 p 144 § 1; 1869 p 383 §§ 1, 2; RRS § 2424.]

Note: there may be more recent revisions to the RCW

2005 Washington Revised Code RCW 9.58.080: Furnishing libelous information.

Every person who shall wilfully state, deliver or transmit by any means whatever, to any manager, editor, publisher, reporter or other employee of a publisher of any newspaper, magazine, publication, periodical or serial, any statement concerning any person or corporation, which, if published therein, would be a libel, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

[1909 c 249 § 179; RRS § 2431.]

Does this law pre-date the internet?

 

[komponisto]

...it is not clear 100% that Section 1 in 2013 was ordering a directed verdict from what turned out to be the Nencini court in Florence.

What could they possibly have done to make it clearer?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The 2013 report from the SCC was shocking

What could they possibly have done to make it clearer?

komponisto,

When I first heard about the verdict, I hoped that it might be for some obscure legal reason. When I read the concluding section, it sounded to me like a directed verdict. When I read the sections on biochemical forensics, I knew that they did not know much about DNA profiling or luminol and did not care to learn.

 

[carlofab]

I have been arguing on IIP that Amanda should bring suit against Daily Beast (publisher of Angele Face) and its author Barbi Nadeau.

Barbi makes a number of statements in the book that are not confirmed by court documents or any other source I've seen. Examples --

(1) "Meredith was so mortified by the pink 'Rampant Rabbit' vibrator on display in their shared bathroom that she felt compelled to point it out to everyone who visited and explain that it wasn't hers." (pp. 29-30)

[The girls laughed about it after Meredith pointed it out to them in a transparent bag on the floor under the sink of Amanda/Meredith's bathroom. None said Meredith explained with embarrassment that it wasn't hers.


(2) "[Amanda's roommates] worried that Amanda would bring home someone who would rob or rape them." (p. 31)

(3) "... Police computer experts would determine that Raffaele did not download anything [the night of the murder]" (p. 37)

(4) "[Postal police] found Amanda and Raffaele standing outside the house. A mop and bucket stood propped against the tiny porch at the front of the house." (P. 42).

(5) "From their position in the back of the crowd, there was no way Amanda or Raffaele could have seen Meredith's position inside the room [when the bedroom door was kicked in and body discovered]. A few hours later, though, Amanda told police and onlookers outside the house that Meredith had been found in front of her closet." (p 45)

(6) "Amanda and Raffaele did not go to the vigil [for Meredith]. Instead, they waited until it was over before visiting the boutique near the duomo to buy underwear for Amanda." (P.60) [Amanda writes she did not attend the memorial because Raffaele was not home that night and she did not want to go alone. It was not the night they bought underwear.]

(7) "Meredith's British friends ... all agreed that Amanda's behavior was oddly detached from this violent murder. One by one, they told the police that Amanda's behavior was suspicious." (p. 63)

[Burleigh says none of the girls had a bad word to say about Amanda until a month after she had been arrested and slandered in the press. This was at a meeting with Mignini in northern Italy.

* *

This would be a lawsuit in the U.S., not Italy. Amanda should sue Daily Beast to have the book removed from the market, and sue the publisher and author for damages.

 

[Bill Williams]

What could they possibly have done to make it clearer?

komponisto,

When I first heard about the verdict, I hoped that it might be for some obscure legal reason. When I read the concluding section, it sounded to me like a directed verdict. When I read the sections on biochemical forensics, I knew that they did not know much about DNA profiling or luminol and did not care to learn.

The thing which moves the needle slightly off of 100% is that they actually did ask for retesting/rediscovery on three items.

They pretty much had to ask for initial-testing on 36I. However, their problem with 36I was not necessarily the DNA-forensics, it was (as they stated) that Hellmann in effect allowed Conti & Vecchiotti to make the judicial decision for him.

Luciano Lucia Aviello accused his/her own brother of the murder. At the Massei trial he/she had accused Antonio Aviello, then retracted and got charged with perjury. Then at the Hellmann trial Lucia Aviello returned to the original accusation. At the 2013 Nencini trial Lucia Aviello offered no change, despite the March 2103 ISC's implication that there was some new evidence to be mined. I presume they were trying to set-up the new prosecutor with the scenario that the Sollecito's had paid off Aviello - but Crini never uttered one peep about that at the Florence trial: so that about settles that.

What was the third item? Oh yes, a return to considering the sex-game gone-wrong - which neither Crini in prosecuting nor Nencini in provisionally-convicting did.

There remains the slim possibility that Section 1 of ISC was at the end of the Nencini trial thinking that Nencini had exhausted all the remaining issues and ended up being as dumbfounded as anyone else when Nencini found them guilty.

Slim possibility. The thing which would have pegged the needle clearly at 100% would have been to send the thing back down to the appeals' level, simply because Cassazione had no authority to convict after a lower-level second-grade acquittal.

Section 1 could have said, "Here - fill out this form and get it back to us."

However, I'm not sure how far I want to argue this.

 

[anglolawyer]

I have been arguing on IIP that Amanda should bring suit against Daily Beast (publisher of Angele Face) and its author Barbi Nadeau.

Barbi makes a number of statements in the book that are not confirmed by court documents or any other source I've seen. Examples --

(1) "Meredith was so mortified by the pink 'Rampant Rabbit' vibrator on display in their shared bathroom that she felt compelled to point it out to everyone who visited and explain that it wasn't hers." (pp. 29-30)

[The girls laughed about it after Meredith pointed it out to them in a transparent bag on the floor under the sink of Amanda/Meredith's bathroom. None said Meredith explained with embarrassment that it wasn't hers.


(2) "[Amanda's roommates] worried that Amanda would bring home someone who would rob or rape them." (p. 31)

(3) "... Police computer experts would determine that Raffaele did not download anything [the night of the murder]" (p. 37)

(4) "[Postal police] found Amanda and Raffaele standing outside the house. A mop and bucket stood propped against the tiny porch at the front of the house." (P. 42).

(5) "From their position in the back of the crowd, there was no way Amanda or Raffaele could have seen Meredith's position inside the room [when the bedroom door was kicked in and body discovered]. A few hours later, though, Amanda told police and onlookers outside the house that Meredith had been found in front of her closet." (p 45)

(6) "Amanda and Raffaele did not go to the vigil [for Meredith]. Instead, they waited until it was over before visiting the boutique near the duomo to buy underwear for Amanda." (P.60) [Amanda writes she did not attend the memorial because Raffaele was not home that night and she did not want to go alone. It was not the night they bought underwear.]

(7) "Meredith's British friends ... all agreed that Amanda's behavior was oddly detached from this violent murder. One by one, they told the police that Amanda's behavior was suspicious." (p. 63)

[Burleigh says none of the girls had a bad word to say about Amanda until a month after she had been arrested and slandered in the press. This was at a meeting with Mignini in northern Italy.

* *

This would be a lawsuit in the U.S., not Italy. Amanda should sue Daily Beast to have the book removed from the market, and sue the publisher and author for damages.

Leaving the merits entirely to one side, what does the statute of limitations say?

 

[carbonjam72]

I have been arguing on IIP that Amanda should bring suit against Daily Beast (publisher of Angele Face) and its author Barbi Nadeau.

Barbi makes a number of statements in the book that are not confirmed by court documents or any other source I've seen. Examples --

(1) "Meredith was so mortified by the pink 'Rampant Rabbit' vibrator on display in their shared bathroom that she felt compelled to point it out to everyone who visited and explain that it wasn't hers." (pp. 29-30)

[The girls laughed about it after Meredith pointed it out to them in a transparent bag on the floor under the sink of Amanda/Meredith's bathroom. None said Meredith explained with embarrassment that it wasn't hers.


(2) "[Amanda's roommates] worried that Amanda would bring home someone who would rob or rape them." (p. 31)

(3) "... Police computer experts would determine that Raffaele did not download anything [the night of the murder]" (p. 37)

(4) "[Postal police] found Amanda and Raffaele standing outside the house. A mop and bucket stood propped against the tiny porch at the front of the house." (P. 42).

(5) "From their position in the back of the crowd, there was no way Amanda or Raffaele could have seen Meredith's position inside the room [when the bedroom door was kicked in and body discovered]. A few hours later, though, Amanda told police and onlookers outside the house that Meredith had been found in front of her closet." (p 45)

(6) "Amanda and Raffaele did not go to the vigil [for Meredith]. Instead, they waited until it was over before visiting the boutique near the duomo to buy underwear for Amanda." (P.60) [Amanda writes she did not attend the memorial because Raffaele was not home that night and she did not want to go alone. It was not the night they bought underwear.]

(7) "Meredith's British friends ... all agreed that Amanda's behavior was oddly detached from this violent murder. One by one, they told the police that Amanda's behavior was suspicious." (p. 63)

[Burleigh says none of the girls had a bad word to say about Amanda until a month after she had been arrested and slandered in the press. This was at a meeting with Mignini in northern Italy.

* *

This would be a lawsuit in the U.S., not Italy. Amanda should sue Daily Beast to have the book removed from the market, and sue the publisher and author for damages.

I agree with you, I'd like to see Nadeau and Tina Brown sued in US court for their slanders during an active trial. I doubt Amanda wants to ever be in court again. i know I wouldn't.

What should happen, is the US attorney for state of Washington should press criminal charges against Daily Beast, Nadeau, Tina Brown, and Lifetime, on behalf of Amanda. That would be fair to all. Higher burden of proof, hard to say. It's a shame that Brown and Nadeau and their companies get away with criminal profits from this, imo.

(They could sue Winterbottom too, imo).

 

[carbonjam72]

Leaving the merits entirely to one side, what does the statute of limitations say?

Not sure off hand, but SOL may be tolled until cassation motivation report. Otherwise, suits arising fom on-going process in countries with slow courts allows miscreants to evade process (India I think takes 19 years to process a murder case?).

 

[TruthCalls]

I have been arguing on IIP that Amanda should bring suit against Daily Beast (publisher of Angele Face) and its author Barbi Nadeau.

Barbi makes a number of statements in the book that are not confirmed by court documents or any other source I've seen. Examples --

(1) "Meredith was so mortified by the pink 'Rampant Rabbit' vibrator on display in their shared bathroom that she felt compelled to point it out to everyone who visited and explain that it wasn't hers." (pp. 29-30)

[The girls laughed about it after Meredith pointed it out to them in a transparent bag on the floor under the sink of Amanda/Meredith's bathroom. None said Meredith explained with embarrassment that it wasn't hers.


(2) "[Amanda's roommates] worried that Amanda would bring home someone who would rob or rape them." (p. 31)

(3) "... Police computer experts would determine that Raffaele did not download anything [the night of the murder]" (p. 37)

(4) "[Postal police] found Amanda and Raffaele standing outside the house. A mop and bucket stood propped against the tiny porch at the front of the house." (P. 42).

(5) "From their position in the back of the crowd, there was no way Amanda or Raffaele could have seen Meredith's position inside the room [when the bedroom door was kicked in and body discovered]. A few hours later, though, Amanda told police and onlookers outside the house that Meredith had been found in front of her closet." (p 45)

(6) "Amanda and Raffaele did not go to the vigil [for Meredith]. Instead, they waited until it was over before visiting the boutique near the duomo to buy underwear for Amanda." (P.60) [Amanda writes she did not attend the memorial because Raffaele was not home that night and she did not want to go alone. It was not the night they bought underwear.]

(7) "Meredith's British friends ... all agreed that Amanda's behavior was oddly detached from this violent murder. One by one, they told the police that Amanda's behavior was suspicious." (p. 63)

[Burleigh says none of the girls had a bad word to say about Amanda until a month after she had been arrested and slandered in the press. This was at a meeting with Mignini in northern Italy.

* *

This would be a lawsuit in the U.S., not Italy. Amanda should sue Daily Beast to have the book removed from the market, and sue the publisher and author for damages.

Nadeau has been feeding from the prosecution's trough from the start. She's repeated everything fed to her by the prosecution and then embellished things to feed the fire. One has to wonder if she even knew what she was writing were lies or whether she was lazy, sloppy and all to happy to believe anything told to her that gave her book more 'zing'.

In truth, authors and bloggers from both sides have often been very loose with the truth. I would think it would be difficult to prosecute based on statements made that long ago, and I doubt Amanda would have much desire to go there. However, going forward, now that they have been acquitted... I would hope everyone consider themselves on notice.

 

[Dan O.]

Barbi makes a number of statements in the book that are not confirmed by court documents or any other source I've seen. Examples --


(4) "[Postal police] found Amanda and Raffaele standing outside the house. A mop and bucket stood propped against the tiny porch at the front of the house." (P. 42).

There was what appears to have been the handle of a mop in a bucket by the front porch of the cottage. This is almost visible in numerous images of the cottage. Filomena testified that this mop was unusable (although I pointed out in the earliest threads here that the handle could be used to open the shutters on Filomena's window). There is no indication that the outside mop was ever collected as evidence. I don't recall seeing testimony of this mop from the postal police.