Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fulcanelli]

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.....?

But it's all been settled, long long ago. He didn't need to sue them because he himself solved the problem.

 

[capealadin]

I just read a quote from John Lennon " How can I go forward when I don't know which way I'm facing?". It made me think of the door locking

 

[christianahannah]

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.

I find this explanation plausible (with the exception it would be suit brought by the police rather than Mignini).

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

I'd agree that this is a feasible scenario. However, you can't play the game that Lumumba would have had to have played in order for this scenario to work.

To take my David Beckham example again: suppose that the Mail was looking for a bit of spice, and persuaded me to say (dangling a few extra carrots in front of me) that Beckham punched me in the face during dinner (when this had not in fact happened). After the story appeared in the paper, and after David Beckham's lawyer had given me a friendly phone call, I might go on television to announce that I hadn't in fact said these things. "Sorry David", I might say to camera, "I didn't tell the Mail that you punched me in the face, and in fact you didn't punch me in the face. Hope that makes everything OK".

But it wouldn't make everything OK. For a start, I could accuse the Mail all I liked of making up quotes from me, but if the Mail didn't apologise and retract unilaterally, then the public (and the media) would be entitled to believe that I was lying in accusing the Mail of making up the quote - unless and until I successfully challenged it in a court of law. "Publish and be damned" and all that.

Secondly, and more importantly in this scenario, there would still be the issue of the Mail accusing David Beckham of punching me - via my quoted accusation. It's not a defence for a newspaper to claim that they were merely quoting a third party. So, in this instance, David Beckham's lawyers would be onto the Mail in a shot to demand a retraction and apology for printing the quote - with all that it implied about Beckham's character. If the Mail refused, I would be fairly confident in predicting swift legal action.

Has the Mail ever printed a full retraction of the original story? The retraction would look something like this: "We would like to state that Mr Lumumba now says that he never made these accusations against the Perugia police (or "Mr Lumumba now says that he was incorrect in his accusations against the Perugia police"), and that the original article should therefore in no way imply that the Perugia police ever engaged in any malpractices towards Mr Lumumba."

I might be wrong, but I don't think that such a retraction has ever been offered by the Mail. So why isn't the Perugia police force suing the Mail? At this point, it's important to note that not only would Lumumba have had to retract his accusations: the Mail itself would also have had to print a retraction based on Lumumba's retraction in order to immunise itself against legal action from the police.

 

[Fiona]

it is not possible for "the police" to sue for defamation or for libel in the uk

http://www.independentproducerhandbook.co.uk/55/5a-defamation/who-can-sue.html

Government bodies, which include for example local authorities, the police, state schools and NHS hospitals cannot bring libel claims.

No individual was named in the article and so there is no individual route to sue either.

Lumumba is an individual and so could sue if he had been defamed: but he wasn't

This whole argument falls unless I am missing something

 

[Amazer]

I'd agree that this is a feasible scenario. However, you can't play the game that Lumumba would have had to have played in order for this scenario to work.

To take my David Beckham example again: suppose that the Mail was looking for a bit of spice, and persuaded me to say (dangling a few extra carrots in front of me) that Beckham punched me in the face during dinner (when this had not in fact happened). After the story appeared in the paper, and after David Beckham's lawyer had given me a friendly phone call, I might go on television to announce that I hadn't in fact said these things. "Sorry David", I might say to camera, "I didn't tell the Mail that you punched me in the face, and in fact you didn't punch me in the face. Hope that makes everything OK".

But it wouldn't make everything OK. For a start, I could accuse the Mail all I liked of making up quotes from me, but if the Mail didn't apologise and retract unilaterally, then the public (and the media) would be entitled to believe that I was lying in accusing the Mail of making up the quote - unless and until I successfully challenged it in a court of law. "Publish and be damned" and all that.

Secondly, and more importantly in this scenario, there would still be the issue of the Mail accusing David Beckham of punching me - via my quoted accusation. It's not a defence for a newspaper to claim that they were merely quoting a third party. So, in this instance, David Beckham's lawyers would be onto the Mail in a shot to demand a retraction and apology for printing the quote - with all that it implied about Beckham's character. If the Mail refused, I would be fairly confident in predicting swift legal action.

Has the Mail ever printed a full retraction of the original story? The retraction would look something like this: "We would like to state that Mr Lumumba now says that he never made these accusations against the Perugia police (or "Mr Lumumba now says that he was incorrect in his accusations against the Perugia police"), and that the original article should therefore in no way imply that the Perugia police ever engaged in any malpractices towards Mr Lumumba."

I might be wrong, but I don't think that such a retraction has ever been offered by the Mail. So why isn't the Perugia police force suing the Mail? At this point, it's important to note that not only would Lumumba have had to retract his accusations: the Mail itself would also have had to print a retraction based on Lumumba's retraction in order to immunise itself against legal action from the police.

Might have something to do with the fact that it is UK based paper and not an Italian paper. The resource wasted in getting a retraction printed which nobody (outside Lumumba, The Mail, and ILE) is likely to read, nor care much about, could well have promted the decision to let things stand as they are.

 

[Fiona]

The Mail is not noted for retracting unless ordered to do so by a court: there is no court process available

 

[LondonJohn]

But it's all been settled, long long ago. He didn't need to sue them because he himself solved the problem.

No. He didn't solve the problem (particularly so far as the Perugia police and the Mail would be concerned).

If Lumumba says he didn't say those things to the Mail, then he could and should sue the Mail for making up statements attributed directly to him which are defamatory to other people (by extension, this would make the Mail's actions defamatory to Lumumba too). He might have solved (partially) any potential problem between himself and the Perugia police, but that's about it.

The Mail would still be liable to libel action from the Perugia police unless it too printed Lumumba's retraction and then retracted any implications arising from the original article. But it didn't do that*. So the police still could and should sue the Mail if they (the police) think that Lumumba didn't say those things to the Mail. And they should instead still sue Lumumba if they think Lumumba did say those things to the Mail. After all, I don't think Lumumba is now admitting that he said those things (but for other reasons, e.g. money). Instead, Lumumba is currently claiming that he didn't say those things at all.

* And I believe the Mail might be standing its ground against printing any form of retraction because it has proof that Lumumba said those things. And if Lumumba did say those things, then the Mail also would know that he was lying around the circumstances of his retraction. If Lumumba were to ever come out and say something like "I did say those things to the Mail, but they were lies", then I suspect the Mail would quickly publish a retraction of any implication that the Perugia police misbehaved. But not until and unless that happened.

 

[Fiona]

Nice theory destroyed by ugly little facts, I am afraid

 

[LondonJohn]

Might have something to do with the fact that it is UK based paper and not an Italian paper. The resource wasted in getting a retraction printed which nobody (outside Lumumba, The Mail, and ILE) is likely to read, nor care much about, could well have promted the decision to let things stand as they are.

But a) isn't Lumumba a bit short of money at the moment; and b) didn't Guede's lawyers previously threaten legal action against a US-based paper over the "drug dealer" epithet?

 

[LondonJohn]

Nice theory destroyed by ugly little facts, I am afraid

Riiiiiiight. Solid counter-argument there.

 

[christianahannah]

But a) isn't Lumumba a bit short of money at the moment; and b) didn't his lawyers previously threaten legal action against a US-based paper over the "drug dealer" epithet?

I thought that was attributed to Guede but I could be wrong.

 

[LondonJohn]

The Mail is not noted for retracting unless ordered to do so by a court: there is no court process available

Of course there's a court process available. It's called a libel action brought in the High Court, London.

And the Mail (along with most of the UK media) is known to retract - if its lawyers judge that it will most likely lose a case in court. And if the Mail has no proof of Lumumba's quoted statements, I suggest it would retract immediately upon request.

 

[LondonJohn]

I thought that was attributed to Guede but I could be wrong.

Woops, my mistake! But it still illustrates that people involved in this trial might care about what's printed about them half way round the world.

 

[Fiona]

Since the police cannot sue, that is a complete counter argument to that part of your speculation, LondonJohn

For Lumumba to sue he has to meet the following:

2. The statement must be in a form of words which would tend to:

* lower the claimant in the estimation of ‘right thinking members of society generally’;
* expose the claimant to hatred, contempt or ridicule; or
* cause the claimant to be shunned or avoided.

This would require a two stage demonstration. He would have to show that the paper got the facts wrong and that the outcome was to cause him damage. You have suggested that he could meet that because people would think he was the kind of person who told lies about the police: and this would damage his reputation. Since this is in the uk and the pubication is the Daily Mail I think that would be quite hard to show. Given his very public statement that he did not say those things most people here would assume the paper lied. It is also difficult to see how his reputation could be damaged because it would have to be shown that he had a reputation to lose in the UK: or that the daily mail has enough influence to damage it in italy. It is at least not straightforward in the way you suggested: and it is certainly not cheap if you lose. Can't see any reason why Lumumba would take that chance

 

[capealadin]

Well, yes, LondonJohn. I guess the police involved in this trial DO care about what's printe about them half way around the world.

 

[Fiona]

Of course there's a court process available. It's called a libel action brought in the High Court, London.

The police cannot sue for libel. I have already cited for this.

And the Mail (along with most of the UK media) is known to retract - if its lawyers judge that it will most likely lose a case in court. And if the Mail has no proof of Lumumba's quoted statements, I suggest it would retract immediately upon request.

As to Lumumba: you have yet to show any damage or defamation within the meaning of the law

 

[LondonJohn]

it is not possible for "the police" to sue for defamation or for libel in the uk

http://www.independentproducerhandbook.co.uk/55/5a-defamation/who-can-sue.html



No individual was named in the article and so there is no individual route to sue either.

Lumumba is an individual and so could sue if he had been defamed: but he wasn't

This whole argument falls unless I am missing something

Oh dear. Here's a rather massive irony for you:

Which individuals did Amanda Knox identify in her claims that she was hit during her interrogation? Isn't she currently standing trial for slander in relation to those claims? Who are the plaintiffs in this slander trial? Can you see how this directly contradicts your argument?

Of course "the police" can't sue you. But even if individuals are not named in the potential libel/slander, a defined group of people (here, those police officers who took part in the interrogation) most definitely can form a plaintiff group. And that's what could and would happen if the Perugia police similarly decided to bring an action in the Lumumba/Mail case.

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing..........

 

[Amazer]

But a) isn't Lumumba a bit short of money at the moment; and b) didn't Guede's lawyers previously threaten legal action against a US-based paper over the "drug dealer" epithet?

I'm open to the very good possibility that Lumumba did say those things in his interview with the Mail. And if they have proof of that... then on what grounds is he going to sue?

My argument ran more against your conclusion that the fact that Lumumba didn't sue The Mail could only (or very likely) mean that he was in fact beaten while he was interrogated.

I provided you with an alternative scenario which is just as likely and which explains why none of the parties involved (The Mail, Lumumba and ILE) is following this up.

 

[Amazer]

Oh dear. Here's a rather massive irony for you:

Which individuals did Amanda Knox identify in her claims that she was hit during her interrogation? Isn't she currently standing trial for slander in relation to those claims? Who are the plaintiffs in this slander trial? Can you see how this directly contradicts your argument?

Of course "the police" can't sue you. But even if individuals are not named in the potential libel/slander, a defined group of people (here, those police officers who took part in the interrogation) most definitely can form a plaintiff group. And that's what could and would happen if the Perugia police similarly decided to bring an action in the Lumumba/Mail case.

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing..........

I think you are mixing up things a little. The suit against the Mail (either by Lumumba or ILE) would have to go through the courts in the UK.

The Knox slander suit plays out in Italy.

So it's quit possilbe that ILE can't sue in the UK, while they can Italy.