Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Dougm]

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.

Concur!

 

[carbonjam72]

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!)



I've been unable to find it by searching Google News for articles published between January 2014 and December 2014.(CJ72: I'll see if I can find it. Grateful if anyone gets it first)


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.

I think you have to cut Frank some slack. Just because he's writing from Perugia, and IIUC, has already been charged for writing and expressing his views on the case.

My impression is Frank was trying to build an architecture for the judges at cassation to have a face-saving way to rectify the case and find innocence again, and most particularly, without openly insulting the judiciary any further by calling them out as corrupt idiots who believe in magical clean-ups.

I'm not arguing your views on Chieffi, or criticism of the arguments Frank has expressed. I'm saying its uncertain to what degree Frank has the latitude to freely express an opinion at all, and what is expressed is not necessarily argued wholeheartedly. Have you read Franks piece (I think its on Wrongful Conviction news site?)?

 

[acbytesla]

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.

What are you saying? Can you elaborate.

 

[Strozzi]

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 understand your thinking that Amanda may not have much appetite for going into court again, but if she were to file suit to demand respect for her improperly-damaged reputation and millions of dollars compensation she may feel vindicated. This time around she would not be the defendant, she would be the aggrieved party victimized by the journalists, trashy media, and bloggers who defamed her - some of it done to hinder her defense. The courts in the U.S. and U.K. will be impartial rather than biased and dishonest towards her. There is also a lot of good that Amanda will be able to do in life if she is more financially secure, and judgements for her can help give her that firm financial footing.

Same goes for Raffaele, although I sense that he may be more naturally combatative and ready to go after those who harmed him.

 

[carlofab]

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?).

The book is irrelevant to anything in Italy. It is published in the U.S.

And, arguable, because the book is still on the market the offense is on-going. For example it is available from Amazon for $11.40.

Barbi's snarky Daily Beast columns could be used to prove malicious intent. And lack of sources would prove she knew the statements were untrue, unless by coincidence.

The suit would seek withdrawal of the book from the market and damages.

This looks like a no-brainer to me. If I were Amanda, I would want this book off the market.


http://www.amazon.com/Angel-Face-Mu...TF8&qid=1428367704&sr=1-1&keywords=angel+face

 

[acbytesla]

I understand your thinking that Amanda may not have much appetite for going into court again, but if she were to file suit to demand respect for her improperly-damaged reputation and millions of dollars compensation she may feel vindicated. This time around she would not be the defendant, she would be the aggrieved party victimized by the journalists, trashy media, and bloggers who defamed her - some of it done to hinder her defense. The courts in the U.S. and U.K. will be impartial rather than biased and dishonest towards her. There is also a lot of good that Amanda will be able to do in life if she is more financially secure, and judgements for her can help give her that firm financial footing.

Same goes for Raffaele, although I sense that he may be more naturally combatative and ready to go after those who harmed him.

Actually, my position has very little do with Amanda's appetite for suing. It actually is more about how difficult it is to win libel cases. While I believe that she was defamed and deserving of a large damage award, I just think it is a fools errand for her to sue.

 

[Grinder]

Actually, my position has very little do with Amanda's appetite for suing. It actually is more about how difficult it is to win libel cases. While I believe that she was defamed and deserving of a large damage award, I just think it is a fools errand for her to sue.

By any chance do you have some data on how hard it is to win libel cases?

Also coming back to damages it would seem that most of the damage was done years ago by the PLE and not the media per se. As mentioned before the bloody bathroom picture was the most egregious but as Anglo pointed out - statute of limitations most certainly have run out on it. It seems most publications since acquittal have been far more circumspect.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

pretext

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

SNIP

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".

komponisto,

I don't disagree with anything you wrote. I do want to point out that the results of the test were favorable to the defense, yet Nencini convicted them anyway. That makes me doubt the quality of thinking of both the Chieffi court and the Nencini court.

 

[acbytesla]

By any chance do you have some data on how hard it is to win libel cases?

Also coming back to damages it would seem that most of the damage was done years ago by the PLE and not the media per se. As mentioned before the bloody bathroom picture was the most egregious but as Anglo pointed out - statute of limitations most certainly have run out on it. It seems most publications since acquittal have been far more circumspect.

No, I don't. I've read and been told that they are difficult to win and the plaintiff needs deep pockets and the stomach for the fight. There always is that issue about being a public citizen. But Jesse Ventura won 1.8 million dollars suing Chris Kyle of American Sniper fame. But that case is being appealed. I would think it's a good case to keep an eye on for Amanda's lawyers. I mean if Ventura can win that much money in a suit against a widow of a genuine war hero...then maybe Amanda has a chance.

 

[carbonjam72]

No, I don't. I've read and been told that they are difficult to win and the plaintiff needs deep pockets and the stomach for the fight. There always is that issue about being a public citizen. But Jesse Ventura won 1.8 million dollars suing Chris Kyle of American Sniper fame. But that case is being appealed. I would think it's a good case to keep an eye on for Amanda's lawyers. I mean if Ventura can win that much money in a suit against a widow of a genuine war hero...then maybe Amanda has a chance.

Here's a quote from a NY Times article on a possible libel claim, to show some of the elements discussed here. Pretty interesting I thought, and funny coincidence to come across it after reading these threads -

Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/07/b...-go-after-rolling-stone-for-rape-article.html

The fraternity would have to allow a public examination of its social activities, said Charles D. Tobin, who heads the national media practice for the law firm Holland & Knight, which might include potentially embarrassing details from parties it has held. It would also be required to show that the claims made in the article were “of and concerning it” as an entity. And if the fraternity was deemed legally to be a public entity instead of a private one, as legal experts said was likely, Mr. Tobin said it would have to “establish actual malice — not that Rolling Stone committed bad journalism but that it knowingly committed a falsehood.”

Mr. Tobin said, “It would be colossally difficult for them to make a successful claim.”

 

[Strozzi]

Kaosium might normally be here posting but he is excused right now as he is glued to his TV watching his hometown team, University if Wisconsin Badgers, hold a two point lead over the Duke University basketball team for the US intercollegiate NCAA basketball championship.

To keep this comment relevant, I will point out that in 2006 a North Carolina prosecutor, Mike Nifong, concealed exculpatory DNA evidence while he prosecuted 6 members of the Duke U. Lacrosse team for a group sex crime that they did not commit. He was convicted for it, fired, disbarred, lost his public pension benefits, spent a token night in jail, declared bankruptcy, and subsequently found a job driving a bus. Which causes me to ask: Does Mignini by chance have a commercial vehicle driver's license?

 

[Numbers]

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.]

Several US states, including Washington, have criminal penalties for libel. There would also be the opportunity to file a law suit at the state level (civil suits are for "torts" not criminal offenses). There is no Federal criminal penalty for libel; it is strictly a civil issue between parties in a civil suit. In Washington State, a county attorney (not the US Attorney, who represents the Federal government) would bring criminal charges for libel. Here are the penalties for gross misdemeanors and misdemeanors in Washington:

RCW 9.92.020
Punishment of gross misdemeanor when not fixed by statute.


Every person convicted of a gross misdemeanor for which no punishment is prescribed in any statute in force at the time of conviction and sentence, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a maximum term fixed by the court of up to three hundred sixty-four days, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of not more than five thousand dollars, or by both such imprisonment and fine.

[2011 c 96 § 10; 1982 1st ex.s. c 47 § 6; 1909 c 249 § 15; RRS § 2267.]

Source: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.92.020

RCW 9.92.030
Punishment of misdemeanor when not fixed by statute.


Every person convicted of a misdemeanor for which no punishment is prescribed by any statute in force at the time of conviction and sentence, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a maximum term fixed by the court of not more than ninety days, or by a fine in an amount fixed by the court of not more than one thousand dollars or both such imprisonment and fine.

[1982 1st ex.s. c 47 § 7; 1909 c 249 § 14; Code 1881 § 785; RRS § 2266.]

Source: http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9.92.030

The above information may or may not be related to the actions of any person(s) possibly resident in Washington State who may or may not be taking a hard look at what statements may or may not be present in a blog, website, or other publication.

 

[komponisto]

No Nuremberg defense for Nencini

komponisto,

I don't disagree with anything you wrote. I do want to point out that the results of the test were favorable to the defense, yet Nencini convicted them anyway. That makes me doubt the quality of thinking of both the Chieffi court and the Nencini court.

I should be very clear that my criticism of the Chieffi court is in no way intended to excuse the Nencini verdict. However clearly Chieffi et al. may have telegraphed their opinion in the case, it was still the job of Nencini and his court to be the fact-finders. If they were presented with innocent defendants, then it was still their duty to acquit, regardless of the case history. Send it back up to Cassazione and let them overturn it again, if they dare. The 36I result even gave them cover, in the event that they lacked the minimum of procedural courage that is absolutely required of those making determinations about others' liberty over a timescale of decades.

That Nencini would not only fail at this but submit a ruling so insulting to one's intelligence as to outdo even Massei is a stinging indictment not only of himself and his court but of the entire "system" in which they are allowed to operate.

 

[Desert Fox]

That Nencini would not only fail at this but submit a ruling so insulting to one's intelligence as to outdo even Massei is a stinging indictment not only of himself and his court but of the entire "system" in which they are allowed to operate.

It has been suggested a few times that he screwed it up on purpose

 

[platonov]

No, I don't. I've read and been told that they are difficult to win and the plaintiff needs deep pockets and the stomach for the fight. There always is that issue about being a public citizen. But Jesse Ventura won 1.8 million dollars suing Chris Kyle of American Sniper fame. But that case is being appealed. I would think it's a good case to keep an eye on for Amanda's lawyers. I mean if Ventura can win that much money in a suit against a widow of a genuine war hero...then maybe Amanda has a chance.

This guy went overseas and killed people and became an American hero and he still lost the case.

Not a great precedent for Britney.

 

[LondonJohn]

This guy went overseas and killed people and became an American hero and he still lost the case.

Not a great precedent for Britney.

I find the sentiments and the implications contained within this post to be unfair and unpleasant. And I find the use of the term "Britney", and its attendant implications, to be similarly unfair and unpleasant. Nasty, in fact.

 

[Desert Fox]

I find the sentiments and the implications contained within this post to be unfair and unpleasant. And I find the use of the term "Britney", and its attendant implications, to be similarly unfair and unpleasant. Nasty, in fact.

And pretty childish as well. There is definitely a nastiness with this case that I have not seen with any other case of an innocent defendant.

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium might normally be here posting but he is excused right now as he is glued to his TV watching his hometown team, University if Wisconsin Badgers, hold a two point lead over the Duke University basketball team for the US intercollegiate NCAA basketball championship.

To keep this comment relevant, I will point out that in 2006 a North Carolina prosecutor, Mike Nifong, concealed exculpatory DNA evidence while he prosecuted 6 members of the Duke U. Lacrosse team for a group sex crime that they did not commit. He was convicted for it, fired, disbarred, lost his public pension benefits, spent a token night in jail, declared bankruptcy, and subsequently found a job driving a bus. Which causes me to ask: Does Mignini by chance have a commercial vehicle driver's license?

Heh, I thought of that too, I wonder who Chris was rooting for, he may have had interest in both teams. Oh, well, we lost. Wait 'til next year!

 

[Antony]

And pretty childish as well. There is definitely a nastiness with this case that I have not seen with any other case of an innocent defendant.

It's always under the surface. There is no empathy for those wrongly accused, and little recognition of the wrong done to them. The thinking is: "how lucky for them that they turned out to be innocent!"

For many, the only purpose for judicial proceedings and punishment of those convicted, is to gratify their own vindictive impulses. So factual innocence is not a consideration, and indeed becomes another source of resentment.

 

[acbytesla]

This guy went overseas and killed people and became an American hero and he still lost the case.

Not a great precedent for Britney.

Why is it not a great precedent?