Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[HumanityBlues]

How many people from the Seattle area are spending a lot of time in Italy?

I don't understand your argument at all. You don't think there are tons of British people in Italy right now?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

apology to Patrick

Could just be that sueing the Daily Mail is expensive? They will undoubtedly have much deeper pockets then Lumumba.


Nope, she apologized to someone who wasn't lumumba... i seem to recall that it was in a letter/statement to a Judge.

She did apologize to Lumumba on 30 November 2007.

 

[Fiona]

No - the linked article clearly says that "the police" as an entire entity cannot sue - in the way that "The Daily Telegraph Group plc" or "BP plc" can sue.

The article also explicitly states that police officers can sue individually. But if you're interpreting the article as saying that police officers cannot take part as plaintiffs in group actions, then I think you're misreading the article.

So do you have the actual law to show that public servants such as the police qua police are not exluded? That is what I was asking for because much hangs on it. Individuals can certainly sue: but that is in their capacity as individuals. So for example in the salesmen/women case the sales men could sue because there were few enough of them to argue that each indivdiaul had been defamed by the statement against the group: but the sales women could not because of their numbers. What is at issue is whether a group action is available where that group is made up of individuals who as a group are public servants excluded from the provision. I do not know. Do you?

The point here is that the UK High Court would almost certainly accept that Lumumba's claims of being punched and kicked by "the police" during his interrogation could only apply to those specific officers who had been involved in his interrogation, and not the "the police" in general.

Yes

So either each individual officer could sue simultaneously but separately (since the assault claims clearly could have been directed at him/her)

No. They could only do that if they were named

or the interrogating officers could sue as a group, claiming joint and separate defamation. The "class size" of the plaintiffs in this instance (4-8 officers, I'd guess) would easily pass the legal test regarding group claims.

That is the question. I do not know how many officers might have been involved (the 25 cut off is not absolute in any case): I do not know if they are identifiable from all of the police who work in that police station or that jurisdiction: as Patrick did not name anyone I do not see how that could be done. Nor do I know how many work there or how many were involved in Patrick's arrest and interrogation. I do not even know how many were local and how many (if any) were from Rome.

The problem as I see it is that the test is not about numbers per se: that is a guide to how one might determine whether there was in fact defamation (assumng the statments to be defamatory, which I think they were). The test is whether they can be sufficiently identified to suffer defamation in the terms I listed above. I do not think it is at all clear that they can. If it can be shown that they can; then it has to be shown that they did indeed suffer defamation. And that is a second hurdle.

To re-iterate, police officers CAN sue in the UK.

They can certainly sue as individuals

And they can sue even if they are not mentioned by name in the statements being judged for libel - provided that the potential plaintiff class size is not too large.

Not sure about that for reasons given. But you may be right. Even if you are right can you show that there is sufficient in the statements made to demonstrate who is being defamed (within the limits of a group action) and that they have in fact suffered damage ?

 

[Fulcanelli]

She did apologize to Lumumba on 30 November 2007.

No, she did not.

 

[christianahannah]

No, she did not.

Did Amanda make an apology before the court as to the trouble she had caused Patrick but not to Patrick himself?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

How many people in Italy read the West Seattle Herald?

Just one person, Mignini

 

[Bruce Fischer]

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.

I don't buy Massei's theory of the prints coming from traces of blood left on freshly washed feet. There are no bare footprints, set in blood, in the murder room. Not one. There is no evidence of any clean up in Meredith's room. All of the prints found in Meredith's room are attributed to Rudy Guede.

I know that you stopped talking about it because you were wrong but it is very clear that investigators walked all over the cottage without changing shoe covers. Most of the investigators put the shoe covers on outside and then walked into the cottage. The luminol stains are not reliable evidence.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Slight digression. In reading back over some (but not all, so far) of this thread and the previous one, it appears that the single fundamental dispute is whether or not Knox and Sollecito participated in the murder of Meredith Kercher. Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that Rudy Guede participated in her murder? In other words, is the key dispute over whether Guede killed her alone, or whether he was helped by Knox and Sollecito? Or does anybody think that Guede was falsely convicted? (I'm having some trouble separating undisputed facts from speculations, allegations and misconceptions. Pinning down the Guede matter seems like a good place to start.) If we are certain that Guede was involved, what evidence is there that Knox and Sollecito (or even just one of them) knew him before the night of the murder? (Personally, I find it impossible to believe that two college students with no criminal pasts plotted murder with a stranger.)

Rudy and Amanda had met before, according to Amanda's courtroom testimony.

As for plotting, I don't believe this murder was a result of a plot to murder. Rather, it was a prank/argument gone wrong. Unfortunately, I doubt we'll ever know exactly what happened that night - but if we assume that all 3 incorporated some bits of what actually happened into their statements/writings, I think we get a pretty good, general, idea of what happened.

To everyone else: I know that will be disputed. I know that's based on speculation - however, that does nothing to free Amanda, so don't bother arguing with me on it, I won't respond.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

She did apologize to Lumumba on 30 November 2007.

No, she did not.

She stated to a Judge that she was sorry, but never to Lumumba. At least, not that has been evidenced.

I do believe this is quite the key distinction, as I pointed out the last time this was discussed.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Did Amanda make an apology before the court as to the trouble she had caused Patrick but not to Patrick himself?

She did.

 

[LondonJohn]

So do you have the actual law to show that public servants such as the police qua police are not exluded? That is what I was asking for because much hangs on it. Individuals can certainly sue: but that is in their capacity as individuals. So for example in the salesmen/women case the sales men could sue because there were few enough of them to argue that each indivdiaul had been defamed by the statement against the group: but the sales women could not because of their numbers. What is at issue is whether a group action is available where that group is made up of individuals who as a group are public servants excluded from the provision. I do not know. Do you?

ere named



That is the question. I do not know how many officers might have been involved (the 25 cut off is not absolute in any case): I do not know if they are identifiable from all of the police who work in that police station or that jurisdiction: as Patrick did not name anyone I do not see how that could be done. Nor do I know how many work there or how many were involved in Patrick's arrest and interrogation. I do not even know how many were local and how many (if any) were from Rome.

The problem as I see it is that the test is not about numbers per se: that is a guide to how one might determine whether there was in fact defamation (assumng the statments to be defamatory, which I think they were). The test is whether they can be sufficiently identified to suffer defamation in the terms I listed above. I do not think it is at all clear that they can. If it can be shown that they can; then it has to be shown that they did indeed suffer defamation. And that is a second hurdle.

Not sure about that for reasons given. But you may be right. Even if you are right can you show that there is sufficient in the statements made to demonstrate who is being defamed (within the limits of a group action) and that they have in fact suffered damage ?

I still believe that a group of police officers from the Perugia police department could bring a libel action against the Daily Mail in the High Court in London if they so wished - even though no specific officer was named in the statements under examination.

However, regardless of the London situation, the Perugia police most definitely could have brought a libel action against the Daily Mail in an Italian court if they had wanted to. This is because - as many others have also pointed out - the Mail article in question was (and is) freely available online in Italy (and there are many such precedents for online newspaper editions). But of course the Perugia police haven't instigated any libel action - whether in London or Italy - against the Daily Mail.

I'm bemused by the part of your post where you talk about proof of defamation. The Mail article - as it stands today - clearly places allegations into the public domain of serious malpractice by a group within the Perugia police force. If these allegations are false, then it's easy to show how they are defamatory for the officers in question isn't it?

I also take on board (but am similarly bemused by) your argument surrounding the potential difficulty of identifying the personnel involved in the Lumumba interrogations. After all, the Perugia police managed to easily identify all the officers involved in the interrogation of Amanda Knox, when they decided to pursue a slander case against her, didn't they? So I'd argue that it would be pretty simple for the police to do exactly the same thing if they wanted to bring a similar action against the Mail. In fact, it would be even easier to identify the relevant officers, since Lumumba was only ever interrogated under arrest, so his interviews must have been tape recorded (mustn't they....???).

Oooh - and that leads me towards a potentially VERY significant thing:

Firstly, can we all agree that the police should have tape recorded all of Lumumba's interrogations? After all, they were required by law to do so.

Second, it might be reasonable to assume that the tapes of the interrogation were still in existence when Lumumba gave his interview to the Mail on the 25th November, might it not?

Third, if the police knew that the accusations were reported in the Mail were false, why could they not have issued proceedings against both Lumumba and the Mail pretty immediately (even prior to any subsequent retraction by Lumumba)? After all, wouldn't they know for certain that the tapes proved that no malpractice occurred.....?

Fourth: Isn't it possible that the tapes might have indicated something very different - something that tended to support Lumumba's accusations in the Mail? Or isn't it also possible that the police might have "forgotten" to press the record button at certain times? Unless anyone hears the tapes in full, we'll never know the answers to those questions. But I'd suggest that if the police were armed with proof positive that no abuse took place, they'd probably want to get that proof into the legal (or even public) arena to fight their corner....

Fifth: What has happened to these tapes of the Lumumba interrogations?? They might have been destroyed - and possibly quite within the law. Wouldn't it be a shame if they no longer existed....?

 

[Moss]

To quote my dear M. R. James:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Dots are believed by many writers of our day to be a good substitute for effective writing. They are certainly an easy one. Let us have a few more......[/FONT]

While the possibility is there that Mr. Lumumba may have been the victim of police brutality, the fact is that we do not know. And neither do we know his motives nor the police's about whether or not to sue the Mail. Trying to insinuate otherwise is IMO just another attempt at spin.

 

[Fiona]

I still believe that a group of police officers from the Perugia police department could bring a libel action against the Daily Mail in the High Court in London if they so wished - even though no specific officer was named in the statements under examination.

Perhaps

However, regardless of the London situation, the Perugia police most definitely could have brought a libel action against the Daily Mail in an Italian court if they had wanted to. This is because - as many others have also pointed out - the Mail article in question was (and is) freely available online in Italy (and there are many such precedents for online newspaper editions). But of course the Perugia police haven't instigated any libel action - whether in London or Italy - against the Daily Mail.

I think that there is a legal route in Italy certainly

I'm bemused by the part of your post where you talk about proof of defamation. The Mail article - as it stands today - clearly places allegations into the public domain of serious malpractice by a group within the Perugia police force. If these allegations are false, then it's easy to show how they are defamatory for the officers in question isn't it?

I believe the statements are defamatory, as I said. That does not make them damaging, of itself. To prove defamation in this country I think you have to prove they have had one of the effects I outlined above. I do not see how that can be done because of the next part

I also take on board (but am similarly bemused by) your argument surrounding the potential difficulty of identifying the personnel involved in the Lumumba interrogations. After all, the Perugia police managed to easily identify all the officers involved in the interrogation of Amanda Knox, when they decided to pursue a slander case against her, didn't they? So I'd argue that it would be pretty simple for the police to do exactly the same thing if they wanted to bring a similar action against the Mail. In fact, it would be even easier to identify the relevant officers, since Lumumba was only ever interrogated under arrest, so his interviews must have been tape recorded (mustn't they....???).

This is where we differ. I am not arguing that the police could not identify them. That is not the issue. I am arguing that I do not know that the public could identify them. I know the names of some of those who were involved with the AK slander case: not because they brought the slander case but because they were known to have been involved in her questioning throught the murder trial. I do not know any of those said to have been involved with Lumumba. That may well be my own failing and perhaps you do know their names or at least the units concerned so that local people might be able to identify them. Do you?

Oooh - and that leads me towards a potentially VERY significant thing:

Firstly, can we all agree that the police should have tape recorded all of Lumumba's interrogations? After all, they were required by law to do so.

Second, it might be reasonable to assume that the tapes of the interrogation were still in existence when Lumumba gave his interview to the Mail on the 25th November, might it not?

Third, if the police knew that the accusations were reported in the Mail were false, why could they not have issued proceedings against both Lumumba and the Mail pretty immediately (even prior to any subsequent retraction by Lumumba)? After all, wouldn't they know for certain that the tapes proved that no malpractice occurred.....?

Fourth: Isn't it possible that the tapes might have indicated something very different - something that tended to support Lumumba's accusations in the Mail? Or isn't it also possible that the police might have "forgotten" to press the record button at certain times? Unless anyone hears the tapes in full, we'll never know the answers to those questions. But I'd suggest that if the police were armed with proof positive that no abuse took place, they'd probably want to get that proof into the legal (or even public) arena to fight their corner....

Fifth: What has happened to these tapes of the Lumumba interrogations?? They might have been destroyed - and possibly quite within the law. Wouldn't it be a shame if they no longer existed....?

All speculation so far as I can see. Fact is Lumumba has sued the police for wrongful detention claiming psychological and financial damage. So he is not too cowed to take action against the police. He has brought no accusation of brutality and he has denied there was any. There is nothing standing against that at present except your notion about what various people should have done on various what if scenarios.

 

[Mary_H]

I apologize if I missed where someone cited the actual Mail article. Is it the same article that contains the interview about Patrick wanting to fire Amanda and hire Meredith? Because nothing in that article is true.

 

[Mary_H]

Excuse me, but how did everyone let this slip by?

Originally Posted by christianahannah

Amanda's 5:45 statement (which she signed) contains in the first paragraph that it is a spontaneous declaration.

Fulcanelli - were there transcripts (questions and answers) available of the 1:45 interrogation and were they submitted during trial?

Well, they weren't read out in open court. They would have been in the case file and the judges saw them.

Fulcanelli, it looks to me like you are implying to christianahannah that transcripts of the interrogation that ended at 1:45 exist. That would certainly break this whole slander case wide open, wouldn't it, along with answering everyone's questions about what happened during the interrogation that led Amanda to accuse Patrick.

Why would you want to imply such a thing? Or do you know something we don't know?

 

[Mary_H]

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.

Awesome phrase of the day: "dark and dreaded google glass of misunderstanding."

 

[Moss]

Regarding things not in the public: I may have missed it, but has anything come forth as evidence of the Waterbury "Rudy as police informant" theory or of Rudy's alleged other crimes displaying a certain MO?

 

[RoseMontague]

Awesome phrase of the day: "dark and dreaded google glass of misunderstanding."

Thanks Mary, it is the Rosé. The article about Patrick that you said was not true. Is this the one you were talking about ►

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Lumumba-reveals-framed-Merediths-murder.html

All lies?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Regarding things not in the public: I may have missed it, but has anything come forth as evidence of the Waterbury "Rudy as police informant" theory or of Rudy's alleged other crimes displaying a certain MO?

You will probably have to wait until the fall to read about this. It will come out eventually. I am speaking of the crimes committed by Guede as well as the information about him being an informant.

 

[RoseMontague]

Regarding things not in the public: I may have missed it, but has anything come forth as evidence of the Waterbury "Rudy as police informant" theory or of Rudy's alleged other crimes displaying a certain MO?

Other than a satire article on the police non-investigation of this crime spree, I have seen nothing.