Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

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).

What would they sue Winterbottom for? Portraying Knox/Sollecito as innocent?

 

[Dougm]

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.

Much as I think Barbie N is a poor excuse for a journalist, I don't see how any of these would result in a judgement for defamation in a US court. Some are debatable opinions, some are false, but things that were being said around Perugia at the time the book was written (I suspect she was misled by the PLE, or some other reporter in an evening session at the bar). It looks like what she did was report rumor. And this was at a time when Amanda and Raffaele were in jail, arrested for the murder. Even if she says in her book that she thinks they are guilty, I don't see a case.

 

[carbonjam72]

What would they sue Winterbottom for? Portraying Knox/Sollecito as innocent?

No, for pretending there is any ambiguity in the case and promoting the canard that, "we'll never know the truth".

Winterbottom is another pee stained carnival barker luring the yokels to a fake freak show, imo.

YMMV

 

[NancyS]

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.

I'd like to see Nadeau sued - her book is still being advertised on Twitter, with a new title (no longer The Student Killer).

I would hope that Amanfa would have very little to do with suing anyone - but that some clever lawyers would quietly be settling out of court and sending out warnings to the worst of the websites, newspapers etc., that have written the most obvious lies.

 

[Numbers]

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

In Washington State, 2 years. But I have a question: must this be from 1st publication, or if there is a book or internet site continually available, does the statute of limitations have relevance?

 

[platonov]

She’s not a sex killer – she is a wonderful human and purty too.

I'd like to see Nadeau sued - her book is still being advertised on Twitter, with a new title (no longer The Student Killer).

I would hope that Amanfa would have very little to do with suing anyone - but that some clever lawyers would quietly be settling out of court and sending out warnings to the worst of the websites, newspapers etc., that have written the most obvious lies.

Something of a disconnect here, who would be instructing these lawyers.

But to be serious - As the prospect of any civil action by AMANDA seem remote it would be remiss of me not to inquire about progress on the YT video.
If there is no legal recourse surely the moral argument must be made. And circulated to as wide an audience as possible.

 

[NancyS]

Instruct them to get on with it, but otherwise remain mostly uninvolved

I remember reading this article, which was an interview with Vanessa Perroncel who was rumoured to have had an affair with John Terry - and was then vilified by the press in not a dissimilar way to Amanda - and I remember she was slowly suing everybody who had written a damaging story. Not sure what the outcome was and she was possibly quite involved.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/aug/22/john-terry-vanessa-perroncel-sex-scandal

 

[carbonjam72]

Something of a disconnect here, who would be instructing these lawyers.

But to be serious - As the prospect of any civil action by AMANDA seem remote it would be remiss of me not to inquire about progress on the YT video.
If there is no legal recourse surely the moral argument must be made. And circulated to as wide an audience as possible.

Do you regret all the pro-guilt posts you've made? Just out of curiosity, does the full and final acquittals change anything for you?

Please, go easy on the undecipherables if you choose to reply.

 

[Numbers]

In Washington State, 2 years. But I have a question: must this be from 1st publication, or if there is a book or internet site continually available, does the statute of limitations have relevance?

This may provide more information:

Washington Defamation Law



Note: This page covers information specific to Washington. For general information concerning defamation, see the general Defamation Law section of this guide.

Elements of Defamation

According to Washington law, defamation claims have four elements:
1.falsity;
2.an unprivileged communication;
3.fault on the part of the defendant; and
4.damages.

These elements of a defamation claim in Washington are for the most part similar to the elements listed in the general Defamation Law section. However, in Washington, the elements of a defamation claim have two characteristics that differ slightly from the general section's description of defamation law.
Public and Private Figures
Washington courts rely heavily on the "vortex" notion of a limited-purpose public figure. See Camer v. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 723 P.2d 863 (Wash. 1986). The definition of a limited-purpose public figure is covered in the general Actual Malice and Negligence section of this guide under the limited-purpose public figures discussion (scroll down to the topic heading "limited-purpose public figures"). The guide states a person becomes a limited-purpose public figure only if he voluntarily "draw attention to himself" or uses his position in the controversy "as a fulcrum to create public discussion." Wolston v. Reader's Digest Association, 443 U.S. 157, 168 (1979). He must, therefore, "thrust himself into the vortex of [the] public issue [and] engage the public's attention in an attempt to influence its outcome." See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 352 (1974).

For example, a businessman who was involved in a commercial real-estate development project was considered a limited-purpose public figure in a defamation lawsuit against a newspaper which had printed articles about the development project that stated he was a tax felon. The court reasoned the businessman was a limited-purpose public figure because he “thrust himself into the vortex of [the] public issue” when he sent letters to residents of the real-estate development area telling the residents about the development project and advising them he would be updating them on its progress. Clardy v. Cowles Pub. Co., 912 P.2d 1078 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986).
Actual Malice and Negligence
Washington courts apply a negligence standard to defamation claims brought by private figures seeking compensatory damages when the allegedly defamatory statement makes substantial danger to reputation apparent.

Public officials, all-purpose public figures, and limited-purpose public figures must prove that the defendant acted with actual malice, i.e., knowing that the statements were false or recklessly disregarding their falsity. See the general page on actual malice and negligence for details on the standards and terminology mentioned in this subsection.

Failure to investigate is not sufficient to prove actual malice. You should be aware that when you do investigate and facts come to light that either do not support or rebut your factual assertion, the jury may infer recklessness and thus find actual malice if you go ahead and publish the information and it turns out to be false and defamatory. See Herron v. KING Broad. Co., 776 P.2d 98, 106 (Wash. App. Ct. 1989).

Privileges and Defenses

Washington courts recognize a number of privileges and defenses in the context of defamation actions, including substantial truth, the opinion and fair comment privileges, and the fair report privilege.

The status of the neutral reportage privilege is unclear and CMLP has not identified any cases in Washington concerning the wire service defense.

There also is an important provision under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that may protect you if a third party – not you or your employee or someone acting under your direction – posts something on your blog or website that is defamatory. We cover this protection in more detail in the section on Publishing the Statements and Content of Others.

Most of the privileges and defenses to defamation can be defeated if the plaintiff proves that the defendant acted with actual malice. The fair report privilege is the exception to this rule; it cannot be defeated by a showing of actual malice. Alpine Indus. Computers, Inc. v. Cowles Pub. Co., 57 P.3d 1178, 1188 (Wash. App. Ct. 2002).

Fair Report Privilege

Washington recognizes the fair report privilege. The privilege extends to accurate reports of court proceedings, as well as documents filed in those proceedings. See Mark v. Seattle Times, 635 P.2d 1081 (Wash. 1981). A plaintiff cannot defeat the fair report privilege by a showing othat the defendant acted with actual malice. Alpine Indus. Computers, Inc. v. Cowles Pub. Co., 57 P.3d 1178, 1188 (Wash. App. Ct. 2002).

Neutral Reportage Privilege

It is unclear whether the neutral reportage privilege exists in Washington.

The Washington Supreme Court noted the existence of the neutral reportage doctrine and that there was a "modern" trend towards rejecting it, but declined to rule on the privilege as neither party had raised the issue. Herron v. Tribune Publ'g Co., 736 P.2d 249, 260 (Wash. 1987).

However, at least one lower court recognized the neutral reportage privilege in a case involving a newspaper publishing defamatory allegations concerning a businessman made by anonymous union sources. Senear v. Daily Journal American, 8 Media L. Rep. 2489, 2492-93 (Wash. Super Ct. 1982).

Wire Service Defense

CMLP has not identified any cases in Washington concerning the wire service defense. If you are aware of any cases, please contact us.

Statute of Limitations for Defamation

The statute of limitations for defamation in Washington is two (2) years. See Wash. Rev. Code sec. 4.16.100.

The Washington Supreme Court has adopted the single publication rule. Herron v. KING Broad. Co., 746 P.2d 295 (Wash. 1987). For a definition of the "single publication rule," see the Statute of Limitations for Defamation section.

The CMLP could not locate any cases in Washington that apply the single publication rule in the context of a statement published on the Internet. If you are aware of any Washington cases that acknowledge the single publication rule in the Internet context, please notify us.

Source: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/washington-defamation-law


RCW 4.16.100

Actions limited to two years.


Within two years:

(1) An action for libel, slander, assault, assault and battery, or false imprisonment.

(2) An action upon a statute for a forfeiture or penalty to the state.



[Code 1881 § 29; 1877 p 8 § 29; 1869 p 9 § 29; 1854 p 363 § 5; RRS § 160.]

Source: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=4.16.100

 

[Numbers]

...
Statute of Limitations for Defamation

The statute of limitations for defamation in Washington is two (2) years. See Wash. Rev. Code sec. 4.16.100.

The Washington Supreme Court has adopted the single publication rule. Herron v. KING Broad. Co., 746 P.2d 295 (Wash. 1987). For a definition of the "single publication rule," see the Statute of Limitations for Defamation section.

The CMLP could not locate any cases in Washington that apply the single publication rule in the context of a statement published on the Internet. If you are aware of any Washington cases that acknowledge the single publication rule in the Internet context, please notify us.

Source: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/washington-defamation-law


RCW 4.16.100

Actions limited to two years.


Within two years:

(1) An action for libel, slander, assault, assault and battery, or false imprisonment.

(2) An action upon a statute for a forfeiture or penalty to the state.



[Code 1881 § 29; 1877 p 8 § 29; 1869 p 9 § 29; 1854 p 363 § 5; RRS § 160.]

Source: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=4.16.100

Source: http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/single-publication-rule/

Single publication rule is a principle that a plaintiff in a libel suit against a publisher has only one claim for each mass publication, not a claim for every book or issue in that run. It is the general rule that each communication of the same defamatory matter by the same defamer, whether to a new person or to the same person, is a separate and distinct publication, for which a separate cause of action arises. The single publication rule is an exception to this general rule.

As to any single publication: (1) only one action for damages can be maintained; (2) all damages suffered in all jurisdictions can be recovered in the one action; and (3) a judgment for or against the plaintiff upon the merits of any action for damages bars any other action for damages between the same parties in all jurisdictions. [Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (U.S. 1984)]

 

[Numbers]

Source: http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/single-publication-rule/

Single publication rule is a principle that a plaintiff in a libel suit against a publisher has only one claim for each mass publication, not a claim for every book or issue in that run. It is the general rule that each communication of the same defamatory matter by the same defamer, whether to a new person or to the same person, is a separate and distinct publication, for which a separate cause of action arises. The single publication rule is an exception to this general rule.

As to any single publication: (1) only one action for damages can be maintained; (2) all damages suffered in all jurisdictions can be recovered in the one action; and (3) a judgment for or against the plaintiff upon the merits of any action for damages bars any other action for damages between the same parties in all jurisdictions. [Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (U.S. 1984)]

Statute of Limitations

"Statute of Limitations" is a term used by courts to describe the maximum amount of time plaintiffs can wait before bringing a lawsuit after the events they are suing over have occurred. This time limit is typically set by state statute and is intended to promote fairness and keep old cases from clogging the courts.

Each state sets it own time limits for bringing a lawsuit and a court will typically apply the appropriate statute of limitations of the state in which the suit is filed. A relatively short limitations period is an acknowledgment of the importance of free speech principles, since a short time period reduces the potential chilling effects of speech-challenging lawsuits.

Because each state has its own statute of limitations for defamation claims, which vary between one and three years, you should refer to the State Law: Defamation section to find out what the specific statute of limitations is in your state.

Determining When the Statute of Limitations Period Begins

Generally speaking, the limitations period begins to run when a defamatory statement is "published" (i.e., communicated to someone other than the plaintiff).

This rule is relatively easy to apply when a defamatory statement is spoken to a third person. But what about situations where publication is to a mass audience, such as on the Internet? In these situations, could the statute of limitations begin anew at the time of each publication, such that the statute of limitations could restart every time someone reads a blog post or finds an archive copy of a newspaper in a library, even if the original material was published years ago?

Single Publication Rule

Most states have adopted the so-called "single publication rule," which states that the statute of limitations period begins to run when a defamatory statement is first published. For example, if a magazine is distributed to thousands of news stands, only "one publication" is deemed to have occurred for purposes of the statute of limitations. As a result, the limitations period begins when the magazine was initially made available, not when an extra copy of it left over on the news stand is sold two weeks later.

However, the single publication rule is not absolute. If the purported defamatory content is re-published to a substantially different audience or is altered in a substantial way, a new statute of limitations period may begin to run. For example, if the material in a magazine is incorporated into a book, a new statute of limitations period will likely begin when the book is published.

Most states have applied the single publication rule to the Internet. Generally, the statute of limitation period begins when a defamatory statement is first made available online. Courts will likely find re-publication has started a new statute of limitations period only when online material is altered in a significant way: be careful to consider this if you are thinking of substantially editing or rewriting old material. See your individual state section for information on whether the state recognizes the single publication rule.

Source: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/statute-limitations

 

[acbytesla]

I know that this going to sound like I'm being a jerk. Nevertheless I'm going to express what I think is an unpopular opinion. But I think that in a way, this talk about the Barbi or Andrea or Mignini facing some kind of reckoning is delusional. More hope than reality.

 

[Dougm]

I know that this going to sound like I'm being a jerk. Nevertheless I'm going to express what I think is an unpopular opinion. But I think that in a way, this talk about the Barbi or Andrea or Mignini facing some kind of reckoning is delusional. More hope than reality.

I agree with you. Especially when it comes to Barbie or Andrea.

Mignini could potentially face some issues, but I doubt it. It will depend on what it says in the motivation from the ISC, and what happens in Italy after that.

 

[Bill Williams]

No, for pretending there is any ambiguity in the case and promoting the canard that, "we'll never know the truth".

Winterbottom is another pee stained carnival barker luring the yokels to a fake freak show, imo.

YMMV

It does. It's not defaming to suggest ambiguity.

The film doesn't even do that. It may not win any Academy Awards, but Mignini is more likely to sue than the students. The film accomplishes the impossible. It makes Sfarzo seem like the Oracle at Dephi.

 

[carbonjam72]

It does. It's not defaming to suggest ambiguity.

The film doesn't even do that. It may not win any Academy Awards, but Mignini is more likely to sue than the students. The film accomplishes the impossible. It makes Sfarzo seem like the Oracle at Dephi.

Well Bill, putting the film's merits aside, Winterbottom and his cast have been promoting their effort by saying they are not concerned with guilt or innocence, and they are unable to sort it out. And I'm sorry to disagree with you, but I think that stinks.

I think Winterbottom is deliberately furthering a miscarriage of justice to sell tickets at the expense of promoting the lie of "uncertainty". By playing on the lie of Amanda's supposed "double nature", without which there is no movie, at least not the movie he wanted to make. All based on a tabloid slander, from start to finish.

This movie was planned well in advance of its release date, and from this side of the acquittals, it looks like 'no harm no foul'. What difference does it make if he produces an intellectually pretentious and boring movie that flops at the box office? But what if the convictions had stuck, as most observers expected? He lobbed this fiasco into an ongoing legal drama that could very well have had a very different conclusion.

I understand your position that the movie is probably leaning pro-innocent. I'm sorry, in my view it is an exploitative pieceOS. And no amount of icing is going to make it look good to me, thank you very much.

But I'm glad you liked it, I truly am. It's great to get enjoyment out of a movie, you'll never hear me bashing someone's taste or their experiences in a theater. I just think this movie is one more exploitation of innocent people's tragic experiences. (I like all kinds of movies, including some that are guilty pleasures).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

just vague enough to avoid being completely false

I know that this going to sound like I'm being a jerk. Nevertheless I'm going to express what I think is an unpopular opinion. But I think that in a way, this talk about the Barbi or Andrea or Mignini facing some kind of reckoning is delusional. More hope than reality.

I have read Barbie's articles for some time. Particularly in her more recent articles, she says things that are slanted, but there is some hint of truth in them. That may be by design. For example, "In one of her initial interrogations after the murder, she accused her pub boss Patrick Lumumba of Kercher’s murder. Lumumba was arrested and spent two weeks in jail before he was cleared.

During that interrogation and in a diary she wrote afterwards, Knox said that she was in the house when Kercher was killed but that Sollecito was not. Sollecito’s lawyers argued that while the so-called false-confession and the subsequent diary should not be admissible, if the court was to believe them, they should then consider that she effectively cleared Sollecito."

 

[Samson]

I know that this going to sound like I'm being a jerk. Nevertheless I'm going to express what I think is an unpopular opinion. But I think that in a way, this talk about the Barbi or Andrea or Mignini facing some kind of reckoning is delusional. More hope than reality.

They can always say it is a tie at 2 all.

 

[komponisto]

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."

What I'm saying is, that's exactly what happened.

(Of course they ordered for 36I to be tested; it was one of Galati's requests!)

Also apologies to Kompo, for not fishing out the article where Judge Hellman states he regrets not acquitting Amanda on the Calunnia charge as well as on the other charges. But that would have been either right after the Nencini conviction, or right after Nencini's motivation was released

I've been unable to find it by searching Google News for articles published between January 2014 and December 2014.

Frank's view also sees the two cassation panels in 2013 and 2015 as of a single united mind, working through a consistent methodology of careful review.

With all due respect to Frank, this view is crazy. No one who has read the Chieffi report can possibly think that that decision was about being "careful". They thought the Hellmann verdict was wrong, and did what they could to "correct" it, pure and simple.

The guilters are basically right when they say that an acquittal isn't compatible with the Chieffi decision. Hellmann's arguments are basically the right ones; to reasonably motivate an acquittal, therefore, you basically have to use Hellmann's arguments; which is precluded by Chieffi.

Chieffi et al didn't just say "go back and test 36I"; they took every one of Galati's sophistic objections to Hellmann's reasoning -- on all parts of the case, including the "staged" burglary, Curatolo, Quintavalle, you name it -- and said "yep, that's right; Hellmann is wrong". They even implied that Hellmann should have adhered to "facts" stated in the Guede ruling, for goodness' sake. No judge with the slightest sense of how justice is supposed to work could possibly make a ruling like that -- violating as it does the very concept of a "fair trial" -- unless, perhaps, they thought that said "facts" were actually true, and were taking it upon themselves to exceed their technical purview and do "justice" in the case at hand.

 

[komponisto]

I know that this going to sound like I'm being a jerk. Nevertheless I'm going to express what I think is an unpopular opinion. But I think that in a way, this talk about the Barbi or Andrea or Mignini facing some kind of reckoning is delusional. More hope than reality.

I agree.

In the case of Mignini, I of course wish that he (and Comodi, and the police, including Stefanoni) would face some kind of legal sanction for their conduct in this case. But that's simply a pipe dream.

In the case of Barbie and Andrea (and other tabloid-grade "journalists"), my view is different. Freedom of speech is an important value (by which I mean: more important than many non-Americans seem to think it is), and I am very uneasy with the idea of suing, or worse, prosecuting people for what they say or write. I'm not saying it should never happen, but it should be a fairly extreme step, confined to fairly narrowly-defined situations. I find all this talk of libel suits here not only uninteresting but also slightly troubling. The appropriate punishment for the likes of Barbie and Andrea is for their prestige to suffer, for people to be aware of their incompetence, and not to regard them as trusted "journalists".

It's not that I don't believe in the concept of libel, but I don't think Barbie (for example) is guilty of it. I think she's guilty of being a poseur, a dimwit who can't tell a fact from a hole in the ground but dares to present herself as a serious commentator on news events. The proper punishment for being that kind of thing is to be regarded as such.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well Bill, putting the film's merits aside, Winterbottom and his cast have been promoting their effort by saying they are not concerned with guilt or innocence, and they are unable to sort it out. And I'm sorry to disagree with you, but I think that stinks.

I think Winterbottom is deliberately furthering a miscarriage of justice to sell tickets at the expense of promoting the lie of "uncertainty". By playing on the lie of Amanda's supposed "double nature", without which there is no movie, at least not the movie he wanted to make. All based on a tabloid slander, from start to finish.

This movie was planned well in advance of its release date, and from this side of the acquittals, it looks like 'no harm no foul'. What difference does it make if he produces an intellectually pretentious and boring movie that flops at the box office? But what if the convictions had stuck, as most observers expected? He lobbed this fiasco into an ongoing legal drama that could very well have had a very different conclusion.

I understand your position that the movie is probably leaning pro-innocent. I'm sorry, in my view it is an exploitative pieceOS. And no amount of icing is going to make it look good to me, thank you very much.

But I'm glad you liked it, I truly am. It's great to get enjoyment out of a movie, you'll never hear me bashing someone's taste or their experiences in a theater. I just think this movie is one more exploitation of innocent people's tragic experiences. (I like all kinds of movies, including some that are guilty pleasures).

If Winterbottom's intention was to sell tickets, he has failed miserably on that score alone. Acc. to one source it got a limited release in England (and nowhere else that I could find) and finished 22nd on some metric I do not understand, except that it was said to have finished 22nd.

As for him, "lobb(ing) this fiasco into an ongoing legal drama that could very well have had a very different conclusion," a differing conclusion would have been the worst thing for the film. 2/3s of the people leaving the theatre (unfamiliar with the real case) left thinking that the case WAS over with the Hellmann acquittals - acc. to the film. And this is a film made subsequent to the March 2013 reversals.

It was not "leaning" towards pro-innocence. It WAS pro-innocence, which is one of the reasons the film-maker within the film abandoned the project of making a film about it, and chased Cara D. who was dancing in her underwear on a beach somewhere. The film perhaps has many demerits: but the message was clear:

If you want to discover what happened in the case itself, ask Frank Sfarzo. Read his blog. The message expressed many times in the film from Sfarzo - addressed to people who said the details of the case were impossible to secure - was, "That is because you are stupid and do not read my blog."

In short, the film DOES sort out the case. For pete's sake, W. even showed Frank Sfarzo climbing in Filomena's window to show that it could be done easily!!! What more do you want?

Mignini has more reason to sue than the Sollecitos.