Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Bruce Fischer]

But if he was up close and personal with Meredith from the start, why didn't he have blood on the soles of his shoes from the get go?

Also, you claim he went to so much trouble to wash his shoe (yet with blood on his shoe he left no prints)...then immediately proceeded to go and step right in a puddle of blood. That makes no sense. Nor does it make sense that he'd have gone near Meredith again, he wouldn't of needed to.

There are many unanswered questions at any murder scene. You make the giant leap that any question with regard to Rudy that cannot be answered automatically points to the guilt of Amanda and Raffaele. This is simply not the case.

All of the prints, set in blood, belong to Rudy. The bathmat is inconclusive. The luminol prints were never proven to be blood. In fact, we now know that they were tested and they all came up negative for blood.

Have you ever used luminol? I know I haven't, but I have spoken to members of law enforcement that have. I have been repeatedly told that there is no way that those bare footprints were cleaned in any way. Why? Because they would no longer look like footprints. The shapes would be altered. They would look like smears. This is a point that will be brought up on appeal.

By the way, there were cleaning products in the cottage that contained bleach. That's another point that will be brought up on appeal.

 

[RoseMontague]

Will we have to take communion at the altar of PMF before we can hear the sacred scriptures of Massei read to us from the pulpit....?

It is not what we are being told but I am not privy to the master plan. Just wait for the Epifania.

 

[RWVBWL]

So, I'd ask again: why has Lumumba not sued the Daily Mail? And why have the Perugia police not sued either the Daily Mail or Lumumba?

If Lumumba really did never say these things, then he could make an awful lot of money (and protect his reputation) in a libel lawsuit against the Daily Mail. After all, there are serious words that the Mail has put into his mouth. They are direct quotes, set within quotation marks, where Lumumba states clearly that the police punched and beat him.

Lumumba has already shown his propensity for protecting his reputation by suing Amanda Knox for slander (and correctly so). Why would he not then sue the Daily Mail for printing very serious lies? He may have gone on national television to deny making those claims, but he's never tried to say the same thing in a court, has he? That's the only place where he could properly protect his reputation, as well as getting monetary damages. But yet he hasn't taken the Mail to court. I wonder why not......?

I'll give you a clue: Maybe....just maybe....the Mail has got a tape recording in which Lumumba says exactly those things which are quoted within quotation marks. Maybe Lumumba knows this. Maybe Lumumba is very keen to give the impression that he didn't actually say these things, because he needs to get along with the Perugia police for business and personal reasons. Maybe both Lumumba and the Perugia police both know that they would never have a chance of winning a libel/slander suit, since the words are on a tape in a safe in the Daily Mail offices.

I think only one scenario can be deduced from the legal silence over this Daily Mail Article:

1) Lumumba said all those things quoted in the Mail article
2) Lumumba knows that the Mail can prove he said those things
3) The Perugia police probably also know that the Mail can prove Lumumba said those things.
4) There's a benefit to Lumumba from denying he said those things - even though he knows he would lose any legal action.
5) The Perugia police won't bring any action against Lumumba, because they think they'd lose
6) The Perugia police most likely did therefore punch and beat Lumumba during his interrogation

By the way, I'm loving the dismissive "we've dealt with this before" argument. Very classy!

Hi LondonJohn,
Nice post written as I was contemplating and then typing my own response 1 finger atta time!
Interesting this:

I think only one scenario can be deduced from the legal silence over this Daily Mail Article:

1) Lumumba said all those things quoted in the Mail article
2) Lumumba knows that the Mail can prove he said those things
3) The Perugia police probably also know that the Mail can prove Lumumba said those things.
4) There's a benefit to Lumumba from denying he said those things - even though he knows he would lose any legal action.
5) The Perugia police won't bring any action against Lumumba, because they think they'd lose
6) The Perugia police most likely did therefore punch and beat Lumumba during his interrogation

I wonder what Fulcanelli has to say?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[RWVBWL]

It can only lead to one conclusion (in my mind), and it's nothing to do with money: Patrick Lumumba did say those things, and I think he also knows that the Mail can prove he said those things.

I agree LondonJohn...
RWVBWL

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

Apologies can and will be held against you in a lawsuit.
Sez so right on the back of my proof of auto insurance card.
It's probably best to wait until any threat of litigation has passed and then apologize.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

It is like quoting from the bible, but in this case only the "insiders" have the bible. The rest of us just have to take it on faith. We see through that glass darkly but when the translated report is released it will all become clear. At present we have only the dark and dreaded google glass of misunderstanding. Us outsiders are just poor unfortunate souls.

Then again, there is always Frank to fall back on. If anything reads like a good old King James version of the case, it is his place.

I was happy to see Frank back to his normal self with his last article.

We have sections of the report along with the appeals that were filed from Amanda and Raffaele.

We can see what points will be argued on appeal. If these points are addressed, Amanda and Raffaele will be fully exonerated.

I don't need the judge's report translated in full to see the flaws in this case.

When PMF is finished with their translation, it will only enhance our position. I have a feeling that they are seeing this as they are translating. This could be what is leading to the delay. I also believe that the report was written in a fashion that is hard to follow. I think this is intentional. This is all my own personal opinion of course.

 

[Fulcanelli]

So, I'd ask again: why has Lumumba not sued the Daily Mail? And why have the Perugia police not sued either the Daily Mail or Lumumba?

If Lumumba really did never say these things, then he could make an awful lot of money (and protect his reputation) in a libel lawsuit against the Daily Mail. After all, there are serious words that the Mail has put into his mouth. They are direct quotes, set within quotation marks, where Lumumba states clearly that the police punched and beat him.

Lumumba has already shown his propensity for protecting his reputation by suing Amanda Knox for slander (and correctly so). Why would he not then sue the Daily Mail for printing very serious lies? He may have gone on national television to deny making those claims, but he's never tried to say the same thing in a court, has he? That's the only place where he could properly protect his reputation, as well as getting monetary damages. But yet he hasn't taken the Mail to court. I wonder why not......?

I'll give you a clue: Maybe....just maybe....the Mail has got a tape recording in which Lumumba says exactly those things which are quoted within quotation marks. Maybe Lumumba knows this. Maybe Lumumba is very keen to give the impression that he didn't actually say these things, because he needs to get along with the Perugia police for business and personal reasons. Maybe both Lumumba and the Perugia police both know that they would never have a chance of winning a libel/slander suit, since the words are on a tape in a safe in the Daily Mail offices.

I think only one scenario can be deduced from the legal silence over this Daily Mail Article:

1) Lumumba said all those things quoted in the Mail article
2) Lumumba knows that the Mail can prove he said those things
3) The Perugia police probably also know that the Mail can prove Lumumba said those things.
4) There's a benefit to Lumumba from denying he said those things - even though he knows he would lose any legal action.
5) The Perugia police won't bring any action against Lumumba, because they think they'd lose
6) The Perugia police most likely did therefore punch and beat Lumumba during his interrogation

By the way, I'm loving the dismissive "we've dealt with this before" argument. Very classy!

Because the Daily Mail have committed no crime. As far as I'm aware, you can't sue a paper simply for misquoting you. And he wouldn't be eligible for for any damages because he has suffered no damage. He already set the record straight in several television interviews and the story didn't say anything bad about 'him' anyway. the only people who may have been damaged would be the police, so it would be down to them rather then Patrick. But again, since he has publicly said he didn't make that statement and that he wasn't mistreated by the police they wouldn't have a case either.

The 'we've dealt with this before' is not an argument, it's a fact.

 

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by RWVBWL
Hi Fulcanelli,
I KNEW that you would respond and say this regarding LondonJohn's question.
However, you haven't answered the question he wrote, so I will ask it of you, sir:

How come the Perugia police have not pursued Patrick Diya Lumumba or The Daily Mail for slander or libel with regards to the newspaper article that stated that Mr. Lumumba was hit?

Your reply would be appreciated Fulcanelli.
Thanks, RWVBWL
_________________________________________________________________


_________________________________________________________________

Hi Fulcanelli,
Thanks for the partial answer to my question.
Your answer makes it clear why Mr. Lumumba was not prosecuted for slander as Amanda Knox is.

But my other question begs for an answer:
The fact that Mr. Lumumba has made it "clear" that he has never said those things would not, in my opinion, get The Daily Mail newspaper off the hook for a libel lawsuit, would it?

If that is so, how come Mr. Mignini did not bring forth a lawsuit against The Daily Mail newspaper,
since it has not been mentioned anywhere that I have read that The Daily Mail newspaper brought forth a retraction also? Do you know if it did?

Personally, it seems like Mr. Mignini is trying to further punish Amanda Knox for not caving in and giving him what he wants, a retraction as Mr. Lumumba has done.
If she would, I bet Mr. Mignini might drop the charges.
But it would definately make Amanda Knox a liar.

Amanda is hardcore, sticking with the truth however much it hurts her now.
My hope is that someday, the truth comes out and sets her, and Raffaele Sollecito, free...
RWVBWL

Hi RW

I agree with your argument here. After all, regardless of what Lumumba may have subsequently said by way of "retraction", the Mail has still printed an un-retracted article in which the Perugia police are accused of grave misconduct in public office.

As you might have read, the part I find most puzzling (if Lumumba didn't say those things) is why Lumumba himself hasn't brought a libel action against the Daily Mail. If he's claiming that he said no such things in the first place, then clearly the quotes attributed to him in the Mail could be regarded as highly defamatory and libellous. The other possibility of course is that he did say those things - then it all kind of slots into place....

 

[Fulcanelli]

There are many unanswered questions at any murder scene. You make the giant leap that any question with regard to Rudy that cannot be answered automatically points to the guilt of Amanda and Raffaele. This is simply not the case.

All of the prints, set in blood, belong to Rudy. The bathmat is inconclusive. The luminol prints were never proven to be blood. In fact, we now know that they were tested and they all came up negative for blood.

Have you ever used luminol? I know I haven't, but I have spoken to members of law enforcement that have. I have been repeatedly told that there is no way that those bare footprints were cleaned in any way. Why? Because they would no longer look like footprints. The shapes would be altered. They would look like smears. This is a point that will be brought up on appeal.

By the way, there were cleaning products in the cottage that contained bleach. That's another point that will be brought up on appeal.

Great, because Massei does not claim the bare luminol prints were cleaned.

As for the bleach, I'll believe it when I see it.

And continuously repeating that the bath mat print is inconclusive doesn't make it so.

 

[LondonJohn]

Because the Daily Mail have committed no crime. As far as I'm aware, you can't sue a paper simply for misquoting you. And he wouldn't be eligible for for any damages because he has suffered no damage. He already set the record straight in several television interviews and the story didn't say anything bad about 'him' anyway. the only people who may have been damaged would be the police, so it would be down to them rather then Patrick. But again, since he has publicly said he didn't make that statement and that he wasn't mistreated by the police they wouldn't have a case either.

The 'we've dealt with this before' is not an argument, it's a fact.

This may be the most ridiculous attempt at an "argument" yet.....

You can't sue a paper for misquoting you??????????

So suppose the Mail interviewed me, and I said "I had dinner with David Beckham last night. It was a very pleasant meal, and I left at 11pm". Suppose the Mail then "misquoted" me in its article as saying "I had dinner with David Beckham last night. Midway through the main course, he got to his feet, came over to my chair, and started punching me repeatedly in the face while screaming swearwords at me. I left at 11pm in an ambulance".

Do you think I'd have no legal redress against the Mail? Do you think David Beckham would have no legal redress against the Mail?

Astonishing.........

 

[LondonJohn]

Because the Daily Mail have committed no crime. As far as I'm aware, you can't sue a paper simply for misquoting you. And he wouldn't be eligible for for any damages because he has suffered no damage. He already set the record straight in several television interviews and the story didn't say anything bad about 'him' anyway. the only people who may have been damaged would be the police, so it would be down to them rather then Patrick. But again, since he has publicly said he didn't make that statement and that he wasn't mistreated by the police they wouldn't have a case either.

The 'we've dealt with this before' is not an argument, it's a fact.

PS I'd point out again that libel/slander is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. The Mail could not be accused of committing a crime. It could be accused of committing an act of libel.

 

[Fulcanelli]

But my other question begs for an answer:
The fact that Mr. Lumumba has made it "clear" that he has never said those things would not, in my opinion, get The Daily Mail newspaper off the hook for a libel lawsuit, would it?

Yes, because the misreport has been publicly cleared up by Patrick. And since the paper had made no accusations against Patrick, there's no case for slander anyway. You can't sue a paper for slander simply for misquoting you.

 

[Fulcanelli]

PS I'd point out again that libel/slander is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. The Mail could not be accused of committing a crime. It could be accused of committing an act of libel.

We are talking about Italy, not the UK. Slander in Italy is a criminal matter.

 

[Fiona]

How could they be defamatory or libellous?

 

[LondonJohn]

We are talking about Italy, not the UK. Slander in Italy is a criminal matter.

Any action against the Mail would have to be be brought in its country of publication - the UK. It would therefore be a civil matter.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Any action against the Mail would have to be be brought in its country of publication - the UK. It would therefore be a civil matter.

And why would Patrick bother doing that?

Sorry, the whole argument is just stupid.

 

[Amazer]

This may be the most ridiculous attempt at an "argument" yet.....

You can't sue a paper for misquoting you??????????

So suppose the Mail interviewed me, and I said "I had dinner with David Beckham last night. It was a very pleasant meal, and I left at 11pm". Suppose the Mail then "misquoted" me in its article as saying "I had dinner with David Beckham last night. Midway through the main course, he got to his feet, came over to my chair, and started punching me repeatedly in the face while screaming swearwords at me. I left at 11pm in an ambulance".

Do you think I'd have no legal redress against the Mail? Do you think David Beckham would have no legal redress against the Mail?

Astonishing.........

As an alternative I'd like to offer that perhaps Lumumba did tell The Mail what they did report. I can imagine that the 70.000 Euro they offered for the interview could have been a good incentive to spice things up a little. If Mignini has proof that the claims that were printed are bogus, and the Mail has proof that Lumumba did say those things... then Lumumba is stuck.

Thus the subequent public statements by Lumumba that he didn't make those claims in The Mail... that removes the threat of a slander suit by Mignini. And I doubt that The Mail would be interested in pursuing the matter unless they can earn money with it.

 

[LondonJohn]

And why would Patrick bother doing that?

Sorry, the whole argument is just stupid.

Ummmm...because he's currently accused by the Mail of saying something extremely inflammatory against the Perugia police, which he now claims he did not say. So if he really didn't say those things in the first place, his reputation has been defamed by the misleading impression currently given by the Mail that he made false accusations. Can you see why this would be defamatory to Lumumba himself? Oh, and I suspect Lumumba could win a substantial amount in damages, plus a full apology, if he won a libel action against the Mail. And he would win a libel action if the Mail couldn't prove that he'd said those things that are directly attributed to him in the article, and if it could be shown that these made-up quotes were defamatory. I'd say they were pretty good reasons why he'd "bother".

And...... "sorry, the whole argument is just stupid"? Was someone fond of using the phrase "handwaving" around here.....?

 

[capealadin]

Right, Humanity Blues. My response was meant for Halides. For GrouchMarxist. PMF was on "The trials of Amanda Knox" which featured Tara, a poster. A moderator on PMF was on a Mediaset program in Italy, and on a video that accompanied a long article in La Reppublicca. PMF was also mentioned in the article.

 

[Fiona]

Any action against the Mail would have to be be brought in its country of publication - the UK. It would therefore be a civil matter.

How does libel tourism work then?