Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[shuttlt]

Have the Sollecito/Knox families?

Is what they said not technically slander in Italian law? I'd have to start looking on Wiki's for definitions of slander.

Does it come down to the prosecution claiming they knew what they said was untrue? After checking I see I may be wrong about that, the claim just has to be false and negative, assuming they use the Wikipedia definition. Given that the cops claim that they didn't hit her, surely it is potentially slander?

 

[LondonJohn]

2nd things first. You know my opinion (see my earlier response to Rolfe) on the attacks on everyone, including the victim herself - you should see the rape fantasy London John posted on, IIRC, the anniversary of her death - associated with this case. I think you give this vicious nonsense credibility by responding to it at length and implying a certain equality with MK's family's statements which does not exist but again YMMV. Feel free to tell me to get lost but .......

I can't let this one pass. This is, in my opinion, a disgusting and loaded argument based on willful misrepresentation and flat-out lies. Shame on you.

I posted my opinion on what happened in that cottage that night. That is extremely germane to this case. And it is in no way an attack on the victim. It was not a "rape fantasy". It was a description of what I thought happened. Do you think that one can do a coherent description of what happened that night without using words like "vagina", "penetration" and "stab"? Would you rather I had used nebulous euphemisms such as "furry front bottom"?

And regarding your crap about "attack on the victim", I presume that you feel the same about Mignini and the prosecutors for their graphic animation showing their version of events? And I presume you condemn Mignini for his "imagining" of the dialogue spoken by Knox to Meredith: "You are always behaving like a little saint. Now we will show you, now we will make you have sex!"

You have really shown your true colours with this nasty little slur, in my view. Disgusting.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Thank you to all of those who pointed out my error regarding the release of the court appointed experts report.

 

[shuttlt]

Kaosium,

Are you really going to argue that some people don't read Amanda's words/hear her speak and come away with the sincere impression that she isn't being truthful?

 

[Rolfe]

Guede also had his friend working against him in the early days while he was in Germany. It was Guede's friend who tipped off the police that RG may be involved in the murder. The police often get credit for at least figuring out it was Rudy in the end but that's untrue. It was Rudys friend who went to police first.

If this "friend" hadn't come forward to the police, is it likely Guede would ever have been identified as involved in this crime at all?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

Been away most of the day and see everybody is on other subjects. Anyway, the Graham-Mignini interview (43 pages) has been posted on my docstoc page. If anyone is interested.

http://www.docstoc.com/profile/rosemontague

It's an extremely interesting interview (sorry, Sig. Mignini: "chat" ), which in my view is illustrative of the gradual descent of Mignini into semi-incoherent self-justification. Quite apart from the fact that the lead prosecutor from the first trial - who is also apparently involved in the prosecution of the first appeal trial - should not be shooting his mouth off to all and sundry about anything to do with this case (at least as long as the trial process is ongoing), his attempts at self-preservation are looking increasingly contradictory and confused.

I believe that Mignini might have been told not to speak about this case (per the line in the NYT article after the DNA report was leaked). I believe that the "unnamed prosecutor" quoted in that article was likely Mignini: it seems that of all the prosecutors involved in this case, he's the only one who has a seemingly-uncontrollable urge to justify himself to the media. I think that things like the CNN interview and the Bob Graham chat interview have angered other members of the judiciary, who have consequently issued a blanket muzzling (rather, perhaps, than censure Mignini individually). I think that Mignini possibly defied this order to speak with the NYT. I think that this may have further angered senior judicial figures. I would not therefore be surprised to see further internal action taken against Mignini once the trial process is over (I doubt that any action could take place before that time, for obvious reasons).

My personal view is that Mignini is resorting to increasingly desperate measures in a bid to salvage his career in the judiciary. I think he knows that the writing is on the wall from several angles: chiefly the confirmation of his conviction for abuse of office (and his consequent sacking as a prosecuting magistrate), and the very visible damage to any "legacy" from his horrendous work on the Knox/Sollecito case. Goodbye Sig. Mignini. Thanks for stopping by.

 

[Mary_H]

Is what they said not technically slander in Italian law? I'd have to start looking on Wiki's for definitions of slander.

Does it come down to the prosecution claiming they knew what they said was untrue? After checking I see I may be wrong about that, the claim just has to be false and negative, assuming they use the Wikipedia definition. Given that the cops claim that they didn't hit her, surely it is potentially slander?

As far as I know, Amanda's parents reported that she had told them the cops had hit her. Even if what Amanda said turned out to be untrue, her parents were merely repeating her claims, not themselves claiming that the cops had hit Amanda.

 

[ForTruth]

If this "friend" hadn't come forward to the police, is it likely Guede would ever have been identified as involved in this crime at all?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Rolfe.

That is a good question. One we may never know the answer to.
My assumption is that they didn't identify the hand print until after Rudy's friend came forward. Would they even have done a search on the hand-print had his friend not come forward. Were they that uninterested in identifying the real culprit that they wouldn't have opened up the search to a broader database than just comparing it against the suspects they've directly identified? Somehow from the track record I see... I'm not sure they would have figured out Rudy was involved without the help of his friend. And maybe Lamumba would be in jail to this day. They would have just found a way to blow off or discredit the witeness who said he was at the bar that night.

 

[Mary_H]

Kaosium,

Are you really going to argue that some people don't read Amanda's words/hear her speak and come away with the sincere impression that she isn't being truthful?

Has Kaosium argued that? I don't see where.

 

[LondonJohn]

If this "friend" hadn't come forward to the police, is it likely Guede would ever have been identified as involved in this crime at all?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Rolfe.

TBH, the answer is almost certainly "yes". The police had lifted the hand print off Meredith's pillowcase by November 6th, and they knew very early that it didn't match Knox, Sollecito or anyone else that they were looking at. They therefore passed it over for comparison to all prints held on the various databases. Guede's prints were on file owing to his immigration applications, and it was there that a positive match was made. So I think that even in the absence of the friend coming forward, Guede would have been identified within a matter of weeks.

 

[shuttlt]

As far as I know, Amanda's parents reported that she had told them the cops had hit her. Even if what Amanda said turned out to be untrue, her parents were merely repeating her claims, not themselves claiming that the cops had hit Amanda.

I can or course tell the difference. As I've said, I don't know Italian libel law. Either its technically libel or it isn't. I guess they caused her potentially libelous claim to be published. Perhaps you could quote me the Italian definition of libel that they are accused of falling foul of.

 

[LondonJohn]

BTW, I forgot to say: thanks, Rose, for getting the Bob Graham/Mignini interview up, and thanks to komponisto for the bulk of the translation effort

 

[Mary_H]

I can or course tell the difference. As I've said, I don't know Italian libel law. Either its technically libel or it isn't. I guess they caused her potentially libelous claim to be published. Perhaps you could quote me the Italian definition of libel that they are accused of falling foul of.

Here is the latest news.

You might be able to find what you're looking for in the thread Just In: Amanda Knox Parents Must Stand Trial for Libel.

 

[LondonJohn]

I can or course tell the difference. As I've said, I don't know Italian libel law. Either its technically libel or it isn't.

I don't think that in most countries a defence against libel can take the form of "I was only repeating what someone else said". If this were a possible defence, then anyone could employ this sort of approach up-front. For example, if I wanted to print that Mr A was a conman, I could print something along the lines of "I was talking to a friend in the pub, and he says that Mr A is a conman".

So I think that, technically speaking, the Knox parents have indeed committed a potential libel. And, what's more, the burden of proof is upon them to prove their accusation - which I think they would be unable to do. But (as I've written before), I think that a court would take into account whether the defendants' ability to provide proof has been willfully hampered by the plaintiffs themselves (i.e. did the police likely have video or audio recordin of the interview, which they have subsequently hidden or destroyed?).

I think there's a very good reason why this calunnia action has been kicked into the long grass at today's hearing (adjourned until January 2012). My view is that Knox and Sollecito will be acquitted, and that the calunnia cases against Knox and her parents will consequently be dropped. I don't think that the authorities will want to be seen pursuing these cases in the light of acquittals in the murder trial, and nor will they want uncomfortable questions being asked in court about the recording of the interrogations.

As a footnote, I still think that the authorities might continue to pursue the case against the Sollecito family and Telenorba regarding the leak of the crime scene video footage, regardless of what happens in the murder appeal. We'll see.....

 

[LondonJohn]

Here is the latest news.

It's interesting to note that reporters get things wrong in Knox's favour as much (or possibly even more, when considering the US media) as they have done in favour of the prosecution. Knox didn't "win a legal victory" last week. All that happened was that evidence was introduced into the appeal court that is of potential benefit to her case. She will only "win a legal victory" when Judge Hellmann announces the court's verdict in October or November, and if that verdict (after consideration of all the evidence, of which the DNA report is only one part - albeit an important part) is acquittal.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

To add just a little to the points Kaosium has already successfully established: Meredith's family and Amanda and Raffaele's families have completely different missions. The missions of Amanda and Raffaele's families do not involve Meredith; they involve injustices of the Italian law enforcement and judicial systems. Meredith is not to be forgotten, but the reality is, her death is a separate issue.

Ideally, the identities of Meredith's killer(s) should be a separate issue from the Kerchers' mission, too. Obviously, it is usually too tall an order to ask most families to disengage from the personal feelings they have toward those they believe harmed their family member. Ideally, though, the Kerchers should be relying on Italian law enforcement and the Italian justice system to take care of business for them in terms of crime and punishment, not getting some additional help for their case from the newspapers. Likewise, ILE should not have used the media to try its case before it got to court.

The defendants' families may rely on newspapers and other media to achieve their mission because they are not speaking out against anyone who is awaiting trial in the court system. Their criticism of the police and the prosecution is an entirely different phenomenon from the police and prosecution's criticism of the defendants; it is not tit for tat.

The problem with Maresca is that, as a plaintiff's attorney, he should not even be in the picture until after the defendants are finally and fully convicted. Only then does he have the grounds to sue specific persons for damages. Counting on a conviction for the defendants he intends to sue leads him and his clients to pursue a specific outcome (conviction), when they should be pursuing blind justice.

Mary

I fundamentally disagree with your view of what Meredith’s family should or should not do. With the contacts the John Kercher is alleged to have in the UK media he could have waged a PR campaign against Raffaele and Amanda, he has not, he has written 4 or 5 articles since Meredith’s murder; in my opinion he and his family have been exemplary in their behaviour.

 

[Mary_H]

Mary

I fundamentally disagree with your view of what Meredith’s family should or should not do. With the contacts the John Kercher is alleged to have in the UK media he could have waged a PR campaign against Raffaele and Amanda, he has not, he has written 4 or 5 articles since Meredith’s murder; in my opinion he and his family have been exemplary in their behaviour.

I always agree with the concept of freedom of speech. It is not necessarily harmful for Mr. Kercher to write against Amanda in the English papers, since Amanda is not being tried in the UK or the US. It is potentially harmful, however, if the people who are serving as judges for the case read his essays.

The question is, why does Mr. Kercher (and the guilters for that matter) believe the Italian judicial system needs the media or the public's help in getting at the truth of the case?

 

[RoseMontague]

Here is the latest news.

You might be able to find what you're looking for in the thread Just In: Amanda Knox Parents Must Stand Trial for Libel.

Maybe I am missing something here. Did the defense not already argue that the judge should recuse himself and that motion was denied? Or am I thinking of one of the other libel cases? Why did this judge just decide this now, this case is not a new one?

 

[Mary_H]

Maybe I am missing something here. Did the defense not already argue that the judge should recuse himself and that motion was denied? Or am I thinking of one of the other libel cases? Why did this judge just decide this now, this case is not a new one?

You might be thinking of the one in which Claudia Matteini was asked to recuse herself and refused. I don't know which case that is -- maybe Amanda's calunnia trial?

I understand that Barbie Nadeau tweeted, "As expected judge in slander case against #amandaknox parents takes himself off case b/c he was involved in kercher prelim trial." (bolding mine)

 

[shuttlt]

Has Kaosium argued that? I don't see where.

I seem to be having two conversation. One with Chris C. about lying and the impression people should get from Amanda. And one with Kaosium where he/she seemed to also be be denying that some people get, or should get, a negative impression from her statements [post 14612]:

I could be wrong. This is the impression I get from her. What I do with that impression though is that I look about me, and acknowledge that some other people have a different impression. I find that interesting. I'm not emotionally invested in my impression of Amanda. I do think though that it would be a denial of reality to deny that there are these two different ways of seeing her.

I think there's the one colored by the tabloids and an entirely different one. I didn't endure the first one but for a few days reading through PMF and other sites, so it was easily dispelled when I boiled down the lies and realized there wasn't anything to it. I do think a vestige of that gross misrepresentation lingers amongst some though.

I must confess by this point, having had the discussion run over night, I became confused by the two similar arguments. It seems to me though that by putting the negative impression down to the tabloids Kaosium is denying that people react negatively based on her words/behaviors/actions/etc....