Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[HumanityBlues]

I suppose that would depend on the context... If you're simply attempting to insult/show frustration with person A, then I suppose it could be considered simply an insult. However, when calling Person A crazy in an attempt to influence public opinion...that's pretty much dictionary definition of slander.


(note, I used the 2nd listed definition as the first refers to "defame" and "defamatory" which would, given this venue, require further definitions to clarify )

You have to remember Slander has a legal definition that is usually protected if something is mere subjective opinion. If I say someone is crazy, even if they aren't a public person, that probably won't rise to the level of slander since that is more of a subjective proclamation. If I say, person "A" cheated on his wife, and he actually did not cheat on his wife, then that would be actual slander. Maybe Italy defines it differently. It sounds like you get in trouble for even insulting public officials there, but I obviously don't have the statutes right in front of me.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

You have to remember Slander has a legal definition that is usually protected if something is mere subjective opinion. If I say someone is crazy, even if they aren't a public person, that probably won't rise to the level of slander since that is more of a subjective proclamation. If I say, person "A" cheated on his wife, and he actually did not cheat on his wife, then that would be actual slander. Maybe Italy defines it differently. It sounds like you get in trouble for even insulting public officials there, but I obviously don't have the statutes right in front of me.

The first of the two definitions I posted is listed as the "legal" definition. There's obviously an intent part to it that's required for it to be slander. I believe, in the case of Mignini, there is plenty of evidence of intent...

 

[HumanityBlues]

The first of the two definitions I posted is listed as the "legal" definition. There's obviously an intent part to it that's required for it to be slander. I believe, in the case of Mignini, there is plenty of evidence of intent...

Well, all I can do is give you a primer for basic American defamation law that I remember off the top of my head. The problem with one sentence legal definitions is they don't tell you much. It's like saying, we have the right to free speech. Yes, that sentence is very simple, but it's much more complicated than that.

Defamation requires a false statement of fact, intent, publication to a third party, and actual damages. Damages are presumed for unchastity, notorious criminal allegations, injuries to trade and practice. Defenses to defamation are truth, express or implied consent, mere subjective opinion and something else I can't remember. Then there is the issue of whether the person being defamed is an actual public figure and the level of negligence required. I believe, but I'm not 100% sure off the top of my head, that defamation for a public figure you must show act actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth. For a nonpublic figure, but concerning a public issue, you have to show beyond ordinary negligence. For a private person and a private matter, you need only show negligence.

Realize I'm rambling a little there, but i just wanted to see how much I could remember off the top of my head. Thanks for indulging!

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Well, all I can do is give you a primer for basic American defamation law that I remember off the top of my head. The problem with one sentence legal definitions is they don't tell you much. It's like saying, we have the right to free speech. Yes, that sentence is very simple, but it's much more complicated than that.

Defamation requires a false statement of fact, intent, publication to a third party, and actual damages. Damages are presumed for unchastity, notorious criminal allegations, injuries to trade and practice. Defenses to defamation are truth, express or implied consent, mere subjective opinion and something else I can't remember. Then there is the issue of whether the person being defamed is an actual public figure and the level of negligence required. I believe, but I'm not 100% sure off the top of my head, that defamation for a public figure you must show act actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth. For a nonpublic figure, but concerning a public issue, you have to show beyond ordinary negligence. For a private person and a private matter, you need only show negligence.

Realize I'm rambling a little there, but i just wanted to see how much I could remember off the top of my head. Thanks for indulging!

Not a problem


A quick google search for "Mignini defamation" comes back with plenty of articles quoting the defamatory statements made in the West Seattle Herald (the first defamation lawsuit Mignini brought). Given what is included in those statements, that it's a major (local) publication, and the statements have no basis in truth nor are merely subjective opinions, I would therefore argue that Mignini had every right to sue for defamation. And while he might not win monetary restitution, the goal is more likely to protect his reputation from Amanda Knox's supporters.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I've just checked again, and yes, that is a direct quote from Ghirga. Via Nick Pisa in Italy.

Mellas and Shay or Ghirga and Pisa. Hmmm....

Who does Ghirga work for?

Pisa got it wrong. It will be corrected.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Of course it's for money. And of course Mellas is denying it. 'That' part was meant to be a secret and it leaked. Mellas is now terrified the future judge will deny permission for the interview if the judge believes cash is changing hands. Hence, why Mellas rushed out so fast (and that was lightening fast) to deny it. Too late, Pisa'a already got all the info from Ghirga and Mediaset and the secret's out. I'm willing to bet the Chris Mellas household is not a happy one tonight.

Fulcanelli, your speculation is completely incorrect. You have no idea what you are talking about. This is nothing new of course. Your attacks on Amanda's family are pretty disturbing. You need to find another hobby.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Not a problem


A quick google search for "Mignini defamation" comes back with plenty of articles quoting the defamatory statements made in the West Seattle Herald (the first defamation lawsuit Mignini brought). Given what is included in those statements, that it's a major (local) publication, and the statements have no basis in truth nor are merely subjective opinions, I would therefore argue that Mignini had every right to sue for defamation. And while he might not win monetary restitution, the goal is more likely to protect his reputation from Amanda Knox's supporters.

Yes but the problem is, the West Seattle Herald isn't the entity that defamed him, presuming legal defamation. Steve Shay quoted what other people said and attributed it to them. Mignini sued the wrong entity.

Mentally unstable probably would follow under mere subjective opinion though, and given the fact that he's a public figure, he would have even less protection. I can look up some case law on it to see how courts here have handled similar insults. Could be kind of interesting.

Edit: Personally, I think Mignini knew he had no case whatsoever and was making more of a political move and trying to create a chilling effect. I think that's what all the other defamation suits are about too. I think the argument can be made he just fed into the "mentally unstable" label by suing the Herald in the first place and asking for it to be shut down, but I'm sure others will defend it no matter what.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Exactly. That is certainly one possible reason. It seems to me that the question of the sweatshirt was dropped when the sweatshirt was "found". Yet the process of that finding seems to me to be still important.

Matteini cited this alleged missing sweatshirt in a her November 2007 report as evidence that Amanda was involved in the murder. But police video and photos showed that it was on her bed, right where she said she'd left it, on November 2, which is where it remained until March 2008 when it was taken by the police. To the best of my knowledge, it was never subjected to any forensic testing.

You may draw your own conclusions as to why the police waited so long to retrieve this garment. Certainly Amanda had no reason to mislead anyone about it. On the contrary, it bears out her story that she took a shower, changed into clean clothes, and left the clothes she had previously worn on her bed.

 

[Mary_H]

Sadly, those like Mary H. feel that trying the case in the "Court 'o' Public Opinion" is a fair tactic only when the information/evidence being presented is in favor of Amanda's Innocence. On the contrary, any negative effect of the Public Opinion on the case should be grounds for a mistrial. Quite duplicitous/hypocritical.

The ideal is that the public has all the information, both positive and negative, before forming an opinion. In Perugia, they had only one side.

 

[Mary_H]

Of course it's for money. And of course Mellas is denying it. 'That' part was meant to be a secret and it leaked. Mellas is now terrified the future judge will deny permission for the interview if the judge believes cash is changing hands. Hence, why Mellas rushed out so fast (and that was lightening fast) to deny it. Too late, Pisa'a already got all the info from Ghirga and Mediaset and the secret's out. I'm willing to bet the Chris Mellas household is not a happy one tonight.

What would be wrong with accepting money for an interview?

 

[capealadin]

Bruce: I belive Amanda was not traumatized by Meredith,s death. They have been noted on this thread before. Maybe you would like to show how Amanda was traumatized?

 

[Amazer]

What would be wrong with accepting money for an interview?

If you are innocent and not in jail... nothing wrong.

If you have been convicted and are in jail... lots wrong. Because that would mean that a convicted criminal is still benefiting of his or her crime. Most sane people disapprove of that.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Who does Ghirga work for?

Pisa got it wrong. It will be corrected.

My understanding is that Ghirga works for Amanda. Is this not the case?


Do you have evidence that Pisa got it wrong, or is this another of your "just you wait, more information will be coming out any day now" (otherwise known colloquially as the: "just around the bend" or "just over the next hill" fallacy) arguments?

 

[Mary_H]

If you are innocent and not in jail... nothing wrong.

If you have been convicted and are in jail... lots wrong. Because that would mean that a convicted criminal is still benefiting of his or her crime. Most sane people disapprove of that.

I thought under the Italian system, the defendant is considered innocent until the result of the final appeal. Besides, it's not Amanda who would be getting paid, it's her family. They should be entitled to generate income.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I thought under the Italian system, the defendant is considered innocent until the result of the final appeal. Besides, it's not Amanda who would be getting paid, it's her family. They should be entitled to generate income.

Ahhh, I think I'll convince my brother to commit murder in Italy so I can reap the benefits by selling his interview... (not fond of my brother...jail time would do him good anyway). You don't see how this could be problematic?

 

[Mary_H]

Ahhh, I think I'll convince my brother to commit murder in Italy so I can reap the benefits by selling his interview... (not fond of my brother...jail time would do him good anyway). You don't see how this could be problematic?

That might be relevant if it had any similarity to Amanda's situation, but it doesn't.

Nonetheless, Amanda is considered innocent until the third verdict.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

That might be relevant if it had any similarity to Amanda's situation, but it doesn't.

Nonetheless, Amanda is considered innocent until the third verdict.

How does that have no similarity to the current situation?

Amanda has been convicted of committing the murder, the evidence points to her involvement. You may claim that she's not guilty, but that's because you choose to defy what the evidence indicates.

Regardless, my reaping the benefit of a family member's incarceration is, well, exactly the same situation as we're discussing with Amanda's interview being sold.

 

[Mary_H]

How does that have no similarity to the current situation?

Amanda has been convicted of committing the murder, the evidence points to her involvement. You may claim that she's not guilty, but that's because you choose to defy what the evidence indicates.

Regardless, my reaping the benefit of a family member's incarceration is, well, exactly the same situation as we're discussing with Amanda's interview being sold.

If you wanted it to be the same, you should have left out the part about telling your brother to commit murder specifically so you could profit from it. That scenario bears no relationship to this alleged crime. It would be impossible to tie Amanda's family into the allegations against her.

Again, if she is still considered "offically" innocent by the Italian legal system, there would have to be some specific law against prisoners making money in order to prevent her from doing it. I doubt there is any law against a family doing it, though.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

If you wanted it to be the same, you should have left out the part about telling your brother to commit murder specifically so you could profit from it. That scenario bears no relationship to this alleged crime. It would be impossible to tie Amanda's family into the allegations against her.

Again, if she is still considered "offically" innocent by the Italian legal system, there would have to be some specific law against prisoners making money in order to prevent her from doing it. I doubt there is any law against a family doing it, though.

Ok, simplicity:

Me:Brother::Mellas/Knox family:Amanda

See how that works? My brother commits a murder in Italy, goes to jail, I make money from the interview. Amanda commits a murder in Italy, goes to jail, her family makes money from the interview.

You really don't see a problem with that? You don't see a problem with anyone (other than the Kercher family) benefiting from the incarceration of Amanda?

 

[Mary_H]

Ok, simplicity:

Me:Brother::Mellas/Knox family:Amanda

See how that works? My brother commits a murder in Italy, goes to jail, I make money from the interview. Amanda commits a murder in Italy, goes to jail, her family makes money from the interview.

You really don't see a problem with that? You don't see a problem with anyone (other than the Kercher family) benefiting from the incarceration of Amanda?

If there were a problem with it, nobody would ever write any books about anything unfortunate, because they would all be seen as profiting from someone else's hardship.