• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 26

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
TJMK is reporting that Sollecito and Gumbel have been forced to issue an 'apology' (= in the publishing world this means 'pay damages' and issue a written statement in correction of the erroneous matter).
Click to expand...


Do you even understand the difference between a civil case (plaintiff A vs defendant B, with the court adjudicating) and a criminal case (the State vs the defendant)?

Sollecito and Gumbel were charged with criminal defamation. It was not Mignini bringing action against them; it was the Italian State, with Mignini as the (alleged) victim.

In a criminal case such as that, mediation is not a possibility. The charges are either withdrawn by the state, or the case is tried by the court.

Your ludicrous claims that Mignini was probably paid damages in some form of out-of-court settlement by Gumbel and Sollecito (with the attendant implication that Gumbel and Sollecito were indeed in the wrong), and that gagging clauses are preventing that fact from coming out, are utterly nonsensical and invented out of whole cloth.

This was a criminal case, which the judge threw out. Plain and simple. Ask yourself why that might be, Vixen.......
 
When the ECHR rules that the police beat a statement out of Knox Vixen will be like

Another great day for Mignini!
 
toto said:
You quote the word "apology" but I can't find it in the box heading. Am I looking for it in the wrong place? I am sure that is the meaning they would like us to infer by the words "statement publishable" "admit" and "lies", but I am mildly surprised the Italian media make no references to Sollecito having to pay damages. As a casual reader I would have inferred that they were aquitted of defaming the police and that Mignini has dropped the law suit. I suppose we might find out if RS and AG have to withdraw one or two points made in the book.
Click to expand...


As Vixen and other pro-guilt commentators have been so very fond of pointing out to all and sundry in the past: if allegations of criminal behaviour are made, then they MUST be investigated by a PM and then adjudicated by a court if charges are brought.

Even if (as is almost certainly not the case here, incidentally) Gumbel and Sollecito settled the civil portion of the case out of court, that in itself would have zero bearing on the criminal case. That criminal case would be heard and adjudicated by the court entirely on its own merits - and remember, the party bringing that action would be the Italian State: nothing to do with Mignini personally, other than him being the alleged victim. One cannot buy one's way out of a criminal charge by paying the (alleged) victim money. Not in a civilised country, anyhow..........
 
LondonJohn said:
Do you even understand the difference between a civil case (plaintiff A vs defendant B, with the court adjudicating) and a criminal case (the State vs the defendant)?

Sollecito and Gumbel were charged with criminal defamation. It was not Mignini bringing action against them; it was the Italian State, with Mignini as the (alleged) victim.

In a criminal case such as that, mediation is not a possibility. The charges are either withdrawn by the state, or the case is tried by the court.

Your ludicrous claims that Mignini was probably paid damages in some form of out-of-court settlement by Gumbel and Sollecito (with the attendant implication that Gumbel and Sollecito were indeed in the wrong), and that gagging clauses are preventing that fact from coming out, are utterly nonsensical and invented out of whole cloth.

This was a criminal case, which the judge threw out. Plain and simple. Ask yourself why that might be, Vixen.......
Click to expand...


It was both a criminal case and a civil case. The civil case party (Mignini) having notified the judge he was 'satisfied', the criminal law judge then dismissed the case.

Clear now?
 
Vixen said:
https://twitter.com/truejusticeorg/status/923254340281864192
Click to expand...


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Quennell really is quite a piece of work, isn't he?

A certain Nazi propaganda minister would himself be proud of presenting a definitive judge-directed acquittal in a criminal case as a "false claim" of victory! And I guess we'll just see, won't we, whether Sollecito and Gumbel are "forced to publish that (they) lied in (their) book". I think I already know the answer to that one, somehow..........
 
LondonJohn said:
As Vixen and other pro-guilt commentators have been so very fond of pointing out to all and sundry in the past: if allegations of criminal behaviour are made, then they MUST be investigated by a PM and then adjudicated by a court if charges are brought.

Even if (as is almost certainly not the case here, incidentally) Gumbel and Sollecito settled the civil portion of the case out of court, that in itself would have zero bearing on the criminal case. That criminal case would be heard and adjudicated by the court entirely on its own merits - and remember, the party bringing that action would be the Italian State: nothing to do with Mignini personally, other than him being the alleged victim. One cannot buy one's way out of a criminal charge by paying the (alleged) victim money. Not in a civilised country, anyhow..........
Click to expand...

If Sollecito and Gumbel have agreed to issue a statement they lied and an apology, it is well within the range of a criminal law judge's power to dismiss the criminal case, as the injured party has achieved full recompense and notified the court accordingly.

In fact, an Italian paper was reporting back in July that the court had opened the way for the parties to come to a settlement.

I read this as Andrew Gumbel offering substantial damages, to avoid further prosecution.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
It was both a criminal case and a civil case. The civil case party (Mignini) having notified the judge he was 'satisfied', the criminal law judge then dismissed the case.

Clear now?
Click to expand...


No, I'm not clear now. Criminal cases simply don't work that way. Read up on the law.

(As a first step, you may want to consider once again which party brings a criminal action. Hint: in this instance, it's not Mignini)
 
Vixen said:
If Sollecito and Gumbel have agreed to issue a statement they lied and an apology, it is well within the range of a criminal law judge to dismiss the criminal case as the injured party has achieved full recompense and notified the court accordingly.
Click to expand...


Once again: criminal cases don't work this way.

Do you think that, for example, in a rape case, if the alleged perpetrator agreed to pay the alleged victim a bunch of money and the alleged victim informed the criminal court that she was now "satisfied", that the criminal court would then direct an acquittal on the criminal rape charge?
 
Stacyhs said:
So, no evidence. Just a tweet from TJMK editors. I see.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't be at all surprised if Mignini is playing Quennell like a puppet in this one too. Heaven forbid that Mignini would put misleading spin on the outcome though!!
 
LondonJohn said:
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Mignini is playing Quennell like a puppet in this one too. Heaven forbid that Mignini would put misleading spin on the outcome though!!
Click to expand...

Probably gives too much credit to the voices in PQs head.
 
Has it occurred to TJMK/Vixen that IF Mignini did withdraw his civil suit that it may be due to knowing an acquittal was likely? I can't see Mignini backing down from getting a conviction after the history of the case for him. However, I can see him trying to avoid another embarrassing acquittal.
 
LondonJohn said:
Once again: criminal cases don't work this way.

Do you think that, for example, in a rape case, if the alleged perpetrator agreed to pay the alleged victim a bunch of money and the alleged victim informed the criminal court that she was now "satisfied", that the criminal court would then direct an acquittal on the criminal rape charge?
Click to expand...

You are not getting it. A judge has the power to dismiss a case. Full stop.

This does not mean this will happen in every case or even most cases, or half of the cases. Each case is determined on its merits.

From the news, I intuit that Gumbel offered to pay his way out and Mignini accepted, given Gumbel is a US citizen. No, it is not in Mignini's hands as to whether the criminal side will proceed. However, he has made a submission to the criminal court he is satisfied with the settlement and the criminal court judge determined it was prudent to dismiss the case.
 
Vixen said:
You are not getting it. A judge has the power to dismiss a case. Full stop.

This does not mean this will happen in every case or even most cases, or half of the cases. Each case is determined on its merits.

From the news, I intuit that Gumbel offered to pay his way out and Mignini accepted, given Gumbel is a US citizen. No, it is not in Mignini's hands as to whether the criminal side will proceed. However, he has made a submission to the criminal court he is satisfied with the settlement and the criminal court judge determined it was prudent to dismiss the case.
Click to expand...



Erm...... I think you (and/or Quennell) are simply making all of this up. But there ya go.
 
Stacyhs said:
Has it occurred to TJMK/Vixen that IF Mignini did withdraw his civil suit that it may be due to knowing an acquittal was likely? I can't see Mignini backing down from getting a conviction after the history of the case for him. However, I can see him trying to avoid another embarrassing acquittal.
Click to expand...

If it was going to be an acquittal, Gumbel's lawyers would not have advised him to settle.

In law, some things are certain. If you are parked illegally and you get a parking ticket, your lawyer will advise you to pay the fine.

Likewise, the calumny is there: 'Mignini put pressure on me [Sollecito] to withdraw my alibi for Amanda'.


This is a demonstrable lie. The lawyers will have advised Gumbel to 'just settle'. The law says he is in the wrong. Full stop.
 
Vixen said:
If it was going to be an acquittal, Gumbel's lawyers would not have advised him to settle.

In law, some things are certain. If you are parked illegally and you get a parking ticket, your lawyer will advise you to pay the fine.

Likewise, the calumny is there: 'Mignini put pressure on me [Sollecito] to withdraw my alibi for Amanda'.


This is a demonstrable lie. The lawyers will have advised Gumbel to 'just settle'. The law says he is in the wrong. Full stop.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that Gumbel's lawyers advised him to settle. Even you said you "intuited" that bit. This is just your theory. Full stop.
 
LondonJohn said:
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Mignini is playing Quennell like a puppet in this one too. Heaven forbid that Mignini would put misleading spin on the outcome though!!
Click to expand...

Although there's no evidence, not really, of a direct link between the two, it is amazing how quickly Quennell simply parrot's talking points beneficial to Mignini's position on things.

Indeed, reading Mignini's "case against Maori for defamation" all the talking points Vixen cites as factual are there (and few other places, if any).

Those of us on this side of the fence would dance with glee if a Mignini-Quennell link was proven. How sad would that be?

The only entity willing to undertake Mignini's theories is an **English language** one run by a nutcase.
 
Stacyhs said:
Has it occurred to TJMK/Vixen that IF Mignini did withdraw his civil suit that it may be due to knowing an acquittal was likely? I can't see Mignini backing down from getting a conviction after the history of the case for him. However, I can see him trying to avoid another embarrassing acquittal.
Click to expand...


It's utter nonsense to present it any other way. As Vixen simply cannot apparently understand, a criminal offence is an offence against the State (and, by extension, the people). One cannot buy one's way out of a criminal charge. Either there is sufficient evidence to prove the charge BARD - resulting in a conviction - or there is insufficient evidence to prove the charge BARD - resulting in acquittal. Full stop.

In this particular case, the criminal charge before the court was pretty straightforward. It was not a muddy instance of one person's words against another's (as, for example, so often happens in rape cases), where the withdrawal of cooperation by the alleged victim might cause very real problems to the potential success of any prosecution. In this case, there were words in a book, which the (criminal) court had assess as to whether they constituted criminal defamation within its jurisdiction.

I'm sure plenty of people - particularly wealthy people - would love to be able to influence the judgement of criminal courts by paying off their (alleged) victims first.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom