Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

Does he still have jurisdiction over the calunnia charge filed by the police? I thought that had moved on to Matteini who refused to recuse herself, that's the last I recall hearing about it. Can he stifle that even now, because it was a result of the Massei court?

No, he doesn't have direct jurisdiction over that charge. That's why he can't direct an acquittal on that charge. But he can inform prosecutors that it would be unwise for them to pursue charges on that issue. Ultimately, it will be for the prosecutors and the judge in the police slander case to decide what happens. But Hellmann can most definitely issue an opinion, since it's an issue that is related to the case he's hearing. Of course, prosecutors can completely disregard anything Hellmann says, and plough on regardless with the case against Knox. But ultimately it's the trial judge in Knox's slander trial who will have the influence over what happens next. I strongly suspect that this judge will order a directed acquittal on this case once Knox/Sollecito are acquitted - for reasons that are both judicial and political (not in the sense of national politics, but in the sense of the politics of the justice system).

 

[Dougm]

I happen to think it very well does.
I have good reason to so think.

I do not think that because you do not believe as I do that this shows any ignorance of anything.

ETA:
If you say in a later post that this topic annoys you so, may I suggest you do not read much less reply twice about it.
....eh....?

It was the lunch topic that annoyed me, but your advice is correct.

I guess we can agree to disagree, but the reason I use the word "ignorance" (meaning, not having information or knowledge of), is that I know how that business works, and I know it does not work as you say. Although I am not in the PR business, in the past I have worked in the news gathering area of a newspaper, also (in a different capacity) for a large US network, and have worked closely with several US PR professionals, all of whom would find the current "PR Supertanker" analysis way off base, to the point of absurdity.

It is simply not possible for a lower middle class family to hire a PR firm, which then manages to get major US networks, newspapers, etc. to fall into lockstep with whatever that PR firm decides they want them to report, especially if, as claimed on the PG side, that reporting contradicts the facts. Why would all these media people put their jobs on the line to report some bogus story, just because a PR firm in Seattle (hardly the hub of US media activity) tells them to?

Now, is it possible that a PR firm, working on a small amount of money, but mostly because they believe in the cause, to convince media outlets to report a story a certain way because the facts they are arguing are compelling, are proven true after some investigation by said media outlets, and are bound to bring readership/viewership to said media outlets? Especially because, the more the reporters learn about the case, the more it looks like what the PR folks told them is true?

In a word, yes.

 

[pilot padron]

Foxy Knoxy Mom's Boy Toy's T shirt.

I recall reading of PMF.org's member H9 calling Chris, Amanda's step dad, this: "Foxy Knoxy Mom's Boy Toy".

With that in mind, some of my surfer bros who dig younger gals might imagine Mignini saying this during an intimate encounter: "Who's your Daddy"!
Hahaha

Sorry for the black humor, as AmyStrange calls it, but, ah, the pro-guilt folks have ben pickin' on Chris Mellas age difference for so long that when I found out Mignini also has a much younger spouse, well...

See ya,
RW

Hi RW.

Just to keep things factual.

Isn't it really unfair to criticize h9 for calling Mellas "Foxy Knoxy Mom's Boy toy"??
Someone as well informed and as well read on the case as yourself surely knows that Mellas proudly wore a T shirt in Seattle that had :"Foxy Knoxy Mom's Boy Toy" emblazoned across the front.
This just may be one of the reasons Marriott was so hesitant, and why it took so long for Marriott to ever trust him enough to allow him to appear on any of the the Marriott managed Dog and Pony morning mommie type TV interviews.

 

[AmyStrange]

It's impossible to assign any meaningful odds in the way you're suggesting. But it's also not necessary. The general (and well-reasoned) rule on this issue is as follows: if investigators took all reasonable steps to minimise the chance of contamination of evidence, then it's entirely incumbent on the defence to prove any claim of contamination with exact and precise details of how, where and when the contamination occurred. If, however, it can be shown that investigators did not take reasonable care to minimise contamination, then the defence can successfully (although not automatically) argue contamination without needing to prove exactly how, where and when such contamination occurred.

-

maybe not LJ,

but a rational person could make a good arguement that the odds are not as great (or even as close) as the odds of a meteor hitting the courthouse,

Dave

 

[Grinder]

Patrick's case is a civil lawsuit. The Calumnia charge is for Amanda accusing the police of striking her, which she did in court.

The first two statements are allowed in under the civil suit of Lumumba.

If she was charged with calumnia somehow by Lumumba she must have been found not guilty because she received 1 year for calumnia charge from the police calumnia charge.

 

[RoseMontague]

RoseMontague,

The argument that non-blood items that would cause a reaction with luminol were excluded does not work for me for a couple of reasons. One of them is something that you brought up with respect to Rep. 199. Based on my understanding of Diastole's comments, this sample was positive by TMB but negative by a confirmatory test. Why would they even bother with a confirmatory test if they had ruled out other substances?

This one she gets a positive TMB and does a confirmation test on it as if she was thinking the TMB is a pretty good indicator of blood. Looking at this from the standpoint of the Luminol prints, the negative TMB must have convinced her that they were not from blood and that is why no confirmatory test was done. LOL. Yes, it makes no sense to me either.

 

[LondonJohn]

-

pilot,

before you do that, maybe you could start by explaining how CBS (an American broadcasting medium) has sway over SBS (an Australian broadcasting medium) which are the originators of the interview that started this whole discussion fiasco,

Dave

Yes. Who'd have thought that a man who heads up a small PR/Communications company in Seattle (one that had all of 12 employees in its last filing in 2008!) exerts such incredible power and influence over not only the behemoth US television networks, but also the public service broadcaster of Australia? This Marriott guy must be some sort of genius national and international operative, who's simply creating the diversionary cover story of being nothing more than a local/regional PR guy covering the Pacific Northwest.

Who'd 'a' thunk it?!

 

[LondonJohn]

Hi RW.

Just to keep things factual.

Isn't it really unfair to criticize h9 for calling Mellas "Foxy Knoxy Mom's Boy toy"??
Someone as well informed and as well read on the case as yourself surely knows that Mellas proudly wore a T shirt in Seattle that had :"Foxy Knoxy Mom's Boy Toy" emblazoned across the front.This just may be one of the reasons Marriott was so hesitant, and why it took so long for Marriott to ever trust him enough to allow him to appear on any of the the Marriott managed Dog and Pony morning mommie type TV interviews.

Oh, this is a new one on me. I'm sure you wouldn't write something like this if it wasn't provably correct, so it must be just me that is ignorant of this interesting little fact. Would you be so kind as to furnish us here with the evidence that you obviously hold to support this claim: a photo of Mellas wearing the t-shirt would be ideal, but failing that, a reliable news account or published work mentioning the claim would be fine. As I said, I'm not disputing that you're being truthful and accurate here, but I'd just like to see the proof for my own interest. Thank you.

 

[Dougm]

Yes. Who'd have thought that a man who heads up a small PR/Communications company in Seattle (one that had all of 12 employees in its last filing in 2008!) exerts such incredible power and influence over not only the behemoth US television networks, but also the public service broadcaster of Australia? This Marriott guy must be some sort of genius national and international operative, who's simply creating the diversionary cover story of being nothing more than a local/regional PR guy covering the Pacific Northwest.

Who'd 'a' thunk it?!

Well, when you have millions and millions of dollars to work with, even a small regional player can pay off those big network guys!! Even public broadcasters in Austrailia like money, right? And all of these people are corrupt, and on the take. None of the them care about the truth, they will just put out whatever story the PR guy gives them, as long as he will dole out those millions. It's a good thing that the Knox family found that sunken pirate ship with the treasure chest in it, so they could give all that cash to Marriott so he could build the supertanker!!

 

[Grinder]

No, he doesn't have direct jurisdiction over that charge. That's why he can't direct an acquittal on that charge. But he can inform prosecutors that it would be unwise for them to pursue charges on that issue. Ultimately, it will be for the prosecutors and the judge in the police slander case to decide what happens. But Hellmann can most definitely issue an opinion, since it's an issue that is related to the case he's hearing. Of course, prosecutors can completely disregard anything Hellmann says, and plough on regardless with the case against Knox. But ultimately it's the trial judge in Knox's slander trial who will have the influence over what happens next. I strongly suspect that this judge will order a directed acquittal on this case once Knox/Sollecito are acquitted - for reasons that are both judicial and political (not in the sense of national politics, but in the sense of the politics of the justice system).

I believe you are confusing the civil case of the police with the calumnia charge and conviction. Currently 9 of the 12 police have sued Amanda and her parents for damages. Those case have been put back until after this one is done. Are you saying there is a separate appeal for just the calumnia charge, if so please provide a cite.

Hellman will not be able to stop the police or Lumumba from pursuing their civil cases.

It will be much more likely that the police drop the case and if free and making big media deals Amanda may well settle with Patrick.

 

[Grinder]

Oh, this is a new one on me. I'm sure you wouldn't write something like this if it wasn't provably correct, so it must be just me that is ignorant of this interesting little fact. Would you be so kind as to furnish us here with the evidence that you obviously hold to support this claim: a photo of Mellas wearing the t-shirt would be ideal, but failing that, a reliable news account or published work mentioning the claim would be fine. As I said, I'm not disputing that you're being truthful and accurate here, but I'd just like to see the proof for my own interest. Thank you.

Actually I remember it. Early days.

 

[Kaosium]

No, he doesn't have direct jurisdiction over that charge. That's why he can't direct an acquittal on that charge. But he can inform prosecutors that it would be unwise for them to pursue charges on that issue. Ultimately, it will be for the prosecutors and the judge in the police slander case to decide what happens. But Hellmann can most definitely issue an opinion, since it's an issue that is related to the case he's hearing. Of course, prosecutors can completely disregard anything Hellmann says, and plough on regardless with the case against Knox. But ultimately it's the trial judge in Knox's slander trial who will have the influence over what happens next. I strongly suspect that this judge will order a directed acquittal on this case once Knox/Sollecito are acquitted - for reasons that are both judicial and political (not in the sense of national politics, but in the sense of the politics of the justice system).

Thank you, I certainly hope he issues that opinion, because I'm kinda afraid the police in Perugia might be hoping to use that as a 'face-saver' as in 'she's still guilty, got off on a technicality, but we know she did it and we 'won' this case against her 'lying' to us and 'causing' all of our screw-ups.'

 

[LondonJohn]

Actually I remember it. Early days.

As I said, I'm not disputing it. I just wanted to see it in the proper context and so on. I can't seem to find any information about it aside from some guy named stint7 writing about it on another forum......

 

[LondonJohn]

I believe you are confusing the civil case of the police with the calumnia charge and conviction. Currently 9 of the 12 police have sued Amanda and her parents for damages. Those case have been put back until after this one is done. Are you saying there is a separate appeal for just the calumnia charge, if so please provide a cite.

Hellman will not be able to stop the police or Lumumba from pursuing their civil cases.

It will be much more likely that the police drop the case and if free and making big media deals Amanda may well settle with Patrick.

There are parallel criminal and civil trials in these cases. If the slander involves someone accusing another person of a criminal act, this is a criminal offence in Italy. Since Knox accused the police of assault - a criminal act - she is being charged with criminal slander as well as being sued by the police officers concurrently.

 

[Dougm]

Thank you, I certainly hope he issues that opinion, because I'm kinda afraid the police in Perugia might be hoping to use that as a 'face-saver' as in 'she's still guilty, got off on a technicality, but we know she did it and we 'won' this case against her 'lying' to us and 'causing' all of our screw-ups.'

I hope LJ is right also, but it does seem logical to me that they could acquit her of the murder charges, and the staging, but convict on the calumnia against Patrick. Because if they don't, they are going to have to explain why, and that has to be either because a) what she said was just that she had visions, not that he actually killed MK, and the police ran with it; or b) the police coerced her. They might not want to go that far on either of those -- it seems easier to me for them to say, yes she falsely accused Patrick, but there is not evidence that she committed the murder.

 

[AmyStrange]

Patrick's case is a civil lawsuit. The Calumnia charge is for Amanda accusing the police of striking her, which she did in court.

The first two statements are allowed in under the civil suit of Lumumba.

If she was charged with calumnia somehow by Lumumba she must have been found not guilty because she received 1 year for calumnia charge from the police calumnia charge.

-

Thank you Grinder,

with all the above being written and considered, what's the major difference between a civil trial and criminal trial in Italy.

My only reference is the US where civil trials very rarely (if ever) result in prison time. Also most civil trials are separate from criminal trials although they are not required to be by law. I think one of the reasons there can be no prison time as a result of a civil trial is because of the double jeopardy laws (due to constitutional legal precedent and legislative law).

The standards of proof are different also. In the US, jurors deciding criminal trials have to meet a "reasonable doubt" standard, while jurors in civil trials have a lower standard to meet which goes something like (paraphrasing) they only have to consider whether the totality of the evidence is indicative of guilt.

In short, civil case jurors only have to decide on the likelihood of guilt and not beyond reasonable doubt like criminal trials.

Are civil and criminal trials conducted the same way in Italy?

Dave

 

[Grinder]

Yes. Who'd have thought that a man who heads up a small PR/Communications company in Seattle (one that had all of 12 employees in its last filing in 2008!) exerts such incredible power and influence over not only the behemoth US television networks, but also the public service broadcaster of Australia? This Marriott guy must be some sort of genius national and international operative, who's simply creating the diversionary cover story of being nothing more than a local/regional PR guy covering the Pacific Northwest.

Who'd 'a' thunk it?!

Well they are really a pretty powerful local PR company, albeit getting a little long in the tooth. They operate with consultants instead of full time staff in that they are project oriented. They also have a relationship with GSM Mercury a somewhat mysterious advertising company. One of the principals there is a top consultant to our mayor and his wife is the chief of staff of the mayors office.

They have a long history and handled national accounts.

Having said all that they clearly don't have a significant influence on how the national, much less the international press and media report this story.

Doug has it right.

 

[RoseMontague]

Chris Halkides has an article on the mixed blood (not) at Ground Report.

http://www.groundreport.com/World/Amanda-Knox-Raffaele-Sollecito-and-the-complete-la/2941544

 

[Grinder]

There are parallel criminal and civil trials in these cases. If the slander involves someone accusing another person of a criminal act, this is a criminal offence in Italy. Since Knox accused the police of assault - a criminal act - she is being charged with criminal slander as well as being sued by the police officers concurrently.

She was convicted of the calumnia charge for her accusations against the police she made in court.

The civil lawsuit was not concurrent.

I've been providing cites for Dave much of the day. Please do me the courtesy of providing a cite if believe I'm incorrect.

 

[Kaosium]

This one she gets a positive TMB and does a confirmation test on it as if she was thinking the TMB is a pretty good indicator of blood. Looking at this from the standpoint of the Luminol prints, the negative TMB must have convinced her that they were not from blood and that is why no confirmatory test was done. LOL. Yes, it makes no sense to me either.

I missed or forgot that you unearthed this! It makes me wonder even more about that second trip to the crime scene. If they didn't do confirmatory tests, then that suggests to me it might be because she knew they'd fail...