Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

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.

And this could very well happen, especially if Hellmann's court believes that it's possible that Knox was involved in the murder but that she should be correctly acquitted on the murder charge because of insufficient proof. However, I think that Hellmann's court will tend to believe that Knox (and Sollecito) very likely weren't involved in the murder. And if they believe that, then it's very hard to frame the accusation of Lumumba as anything other than the result of improper police coercion. After all, why would an innocent Knox just accuse Lumumba out of thin air? It potentially makes some - but not much - sense (even though it's not what happened) if one thinks that Knox participated in the murder. But it's very hard to even conceive of a reason why an innocent Knox would want to divert or deflect a police investigation.

Therefore, my view - on balance - is that acquittal on the murder charge will be accompanied by acquittal on all other charges, including the Lumumba criminal slander charge.

 

[Dougm]

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.

Just watch the current fight for the GOP nomination. Each of the campaigns will have hired major PR consultants and/or firms, and each will have multi-millions of dollars to work with. Every day, these PR "spinners" are going to be contacting local and national media and trying to get the story reported in the way they want it reported. To use the trite phrase, "at the end of the day", the media will report either what they think is the true story, or what is in their best interests to print (ideally, these are the same, but not always). It won't even be the same in each market. Will some of the "talking points" get into the stories? Of course, but the ones that do are the ones that are most convincing, or seem to match what other people are saying and make sense. Not saying the media is always right, and don't follow which way the wind is blowing, but the idea that a guy who was a reporter for the local CBS affiliate 35 years ago can make a story be reported the same way all over the media and on the internet is bizarre, frankly.

Now of course, in the Knox case the claim is that the PR campaign is only being waged on one side. However, even if that is the case, the PR supertanker assertion relies on the assumption that all of the US media outlets are on the take, and are accepting bribes to report the story as the 'Friends of Amanda" want it reported. It's silly, and a bit insulting. It's even weird to assume that reporters wait to see who will pay for the nicest lunch each day, and then report whatever that person wants. Not sure if anyone has thought this through, but the deeper you drill, the less sense it makes, just like the criminal case.

 

[Dougm]

And this could very well happen, especially if Hellmann's court believes that it's possible that Knox was involved in the murder but that she should be correctly acquitted on the murder charge because of insufficient proof. However, I think that Hellmann's court will tend to believe that Knox (and Sollecito) very likely weren't involved in the murder. And if they believe that, then it's very hard to frame the accusation of Lumumba as anything other than the result of improper police coercion. After all, why would an innocent Knox just accuse Lumumba out of thin air? It potentially makes some - but not much - sense (even though it's not what happened) if one thinks that Knox participated in the murder. But it's very hard to even conceive of a reason why an innocent Knox would want to divert or deflect a police investigation.

Therefore, my view - on balance - is that acquittal on the murder charge will be accompanied by acquittal on all other charges, including the Lumumba criminal slander charge.

Good point. If Knox is not guilty of the murder, why would she accuse Lumumba? I was just saying that it is still conceivable that the jury could say, well, there is no proof she committed the murder, and we don't have a clue as to why she accused Lumumba, but she did.

Your analysis is logical, and I am hoping the court is equally logical.

 

[AmyStrange]

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.

-

Grinder,

and of this I sincerely appreciate your patience. I know I can be an annoying source of diarrhea mouth sometimes (or so my you know who keeps telling me hehehe) and all I can say is thank you and everyone else too,

Dave

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

When was she found guilty of the criminal slander charges relating to the police "cuffing" acusations? She wasn't either charged or found guilty on this issue in Massei's court: the only additional criminal charge she faced (and was found guilty of) different to Sollecito in Massei's court was the criminal slander against Lumumba. The charges and verdicts from Massei's court can be found on pages 10-12 and 396 respectively of the Massei Report (English trans).

So I'm confused about where and when Knox's criminal slander case vis-a-vis the police might have been heard or determined. I'm perfectly willing to be shown to be wrong, but I think that the criminal element of this particular slander case has yet to be heard.

 

[Darth Rotor]

She was convicted of all of the above but not all of theft charges. She was not convicted of the money and credit card thefts only the cell phones.

I don't think she was charged with obstruction except that the simulating a burglary is, as you say, very similar. So by staging they were trying to cover up a crime. It seems an odd charge when they were convicted of much more serious crimes.

It seems a possible out for the court to keep the simulated burglary and false accusation (not on your table) but find her not guilty of the murder. Time served and the Italians wouldn't have to pay her a fortune.

May I ask what you are getting at?

I was actually thinking along the lines of "time served" for various offenses if she is acquitted of murder when this appeal is over. If there is a re trial, for example, which charges would need to be tried again? Beyond the murder charge, if she's serving concurrent sentences, then IF the appeal overturns the murder conviction, odds are she's a short timer or out of jail pretty soon.

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[pilot padron]

Nope

When was she found guilty of the criminal slander charges relating to the police "cuffing" acusations? She wasn't either charged or found guilty on this issue in Massei's court: the only additional criminal charge she faced (and was found guilty of) different to Sollecito in Massei's court was the criminal slander against Lumumba. The charges and verdicts from Massei's court can be found on pages 10-12 and 396 respectively of the Massei Report (English trans).

So I'm confused about where and when Knox's criminal slander case vis-a-vis the police might have been heard or determined. I'm perfectly willing to be shown to be wrong, but I think that the criminal element of this particular slander case has yet to be heard.

You are indeed wrong

Since the charge of slandering Police by Knox has not even been heard in Court yet, it is impossible to have been found guilty as you state.

That Court hearing has been rescheduled for 15nov2011.

Pretty easy Google isn't it ? ? ?

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Late...ering-Italian-police-adjourned-until-November

 

[Grinder]

When was she found guilty of the criminal slander charges relating to the police "cuffing" acusations? She wasn't either charged or found guilty on this issue in Massei's court: the only additional criminal charge she faced (and was found guilty of) different to Sollecito in Massei's court was the criminal slander against Lumumba. The charges and verdicts from Massei's court can be found on pages 10-12 and 396 respectively of the Massei Report (English trans).

So I'm confused about where and when Knox's criminal slander case vis-a-vis the police might have been heard or determined. I'm perfectly willing to be shown to be wrong, but I think that the criminal element of this particular slander case has yet to be heard.

Never like to be wrong but in this case I certainly am - page 12.

 

[AmyStrange]

Good point. If Knox is not guilty of the murder, why would she accuse Lumumba? I was just saying that it is still conceivable that the jury could say, well, there is no proof she committed the murder, and we don't have a clue as to why she accused Lumumba, but she did.

Your analysis is logical, and I am hoping the court is equally logical.

WOW! That is just so true Doug and LJ,

using the same logic as the Massei court to convict them, if she and Raffaele are acquitted of murder, then can't they (someone) charge Rudy and Barbie ("True Story of Student Killer Amanda Knox", shouldn't the title include "alleged" especially considering it was released before the verdict) and so many other people of slander and thus Calumnia.

It's interesting (to me anyhow) that when you take this logic and use it to critically analyze just how you can possibly convict Amanda of falsely accusing Lumumba when it has never been proven in a court of law that he is innocent, especially considering (someone here posted a month or two earlier in part 2 of this thread, whose name I can't recall sorry) that the ToD change to a later time invalidates Patrick's alibi.

I'm not saying Patrick's guilty, just find the coincidental circumstances resulting from Amanda's "accusation" interesting as a whole.

As always this is just my opinion,

Dave

 

[pilot padron]

I was actually thinking along the lines of "time served" for various offenses if she is acquitted of murder when this appeal is over. If there is a re trial, for example, which charges would need to be tried again? Beyond the murder charge, if she's serving concurrent sentences, then IF the appeal overturns the murder conviction, odds are she's a short timer or out of jail pretty soon.

Thanks for the explanation.

Your thinking is exactly the detailed explanation about "time served" that was given long ago by Some Alibi 'elsewhere'.
You know the poster who previously argued here so incredibly effectively, but because he believed in guilt is now often derided here in absentia as a "solicitor or para legal"

The above 'explanations' before your post do little other than confuse a pretty straightforward outcome if acquitted of murder by Judge Hellmann

 

[LondonJohn]

Someone who claims to be a trial lawyer has just made the following amazing statement on .org (my bolding):

An acquittal has zero legal effect in any subsequent legal action arising out of the events that gave rise to the criminal charges. And if someone wants to sue someone for saying that person actually committed the crime, that person better be able to prove that the statement was false.

In other words, this alleged trial lawyer is actually suggesting the following: If I accuse Mr B of a crime of which Mr B has been acquitted, and Mr B sues me for libel or slander, then Mr B would need to prove that my statement was false (i.e. prove that he hadn't committed the crime) in order to stand a chance of winning the case against me.

This is so wrong that it's laughable. The burden of proof in a civil defamation case is entirely upon the defendant (the person being sued for the defamation) to prove that the accusation is true (or that the defendant had overwhelmingly strong reason to believe that the accusation is true), otherwise the court will generally rule that the statement is false by elimination. There is absolutely no burden of proof upon the plaintiff (i.e. the person who is the subject of the alleged defamation) to prove that the accusation is false.

Therefore, once Knox and Sollecito are acquitted, anyone who writes or speaks publicly accusing either of them of being murderers is liable to being sued for defamation. And anyone making this sort of accusation will lose such a case, since they will be clearly unable to prove the truth of the accusation that Knox or Sollecito are murderers. And of course Knox or Sollecito would have no problem meeting the burden of proof of the second element of a civil defamation case: that a false accusation of being a murderer is injurious to their reputation and good standing.

Sometimes you start to worry about whether people are being entirely up-front about their own credentials......

 

[AmyStrange]

You are indeed wrong

Since the charge of slandering Police by Knox has not even been heard in Court yet, it is impossible to have been found guilty as you state.

That Court hearing has been rescheduled for 15nov2011.

Pretty easy Google isn't it ? ? ?

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Late...ering-Italian-police-adjourned-until-November

-

How is LJ wrong pilot?

He actually wrote what you just wrote:

Originally Posted by LondonJohn
"When was she found guilty of the criminal slander charges relating to the police 'cuffing'. acusations? She wasn't either charged or found guilty on this issue in Massei's court: the only additional criminal charge she faced (and was found guilty of) different to Sollecito in Massei's court was the criminal slander against Lumumba. The charges and verdicts from Massei's court can be found on pages 10-12 and 396 respectively of the Massei Report (English trans).

"So I'm confused about where and when Knox's criminal slander case vis-a-vis the police might have been heard or determined. I'm perfectly willing to be shown to be wrong, but I think that the criminal element of this particular slander case has yet to be heard."

 

[Justinian2]

As the time for the verdict approaches, I get increasingly angry at Mignini and his cohorts.

I want a verdict of not guilty so that my anger can RIP. I want the part of me that is angry to live again.

 

[Kaosium]

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

The civil lawsuit was not concurrent.

I think you have the Patrick Lumumba calunnia charge heard in the Massei Court mixed up with the charges that were filed on Amanda for telling her side of the story on the stand, notably that she was whupped a couple times. That has its own trial, which I read was hung up over Matteini refusing to recuse and the Supreme Court backing that, but I guess that got worked out, as Amanda's answering questions from a different judge about it now.

Thus Amanda faces two separate charges for calunnia, one against Patrick which is being heard by this court as it was assumed into it in a curious decision by Massei in '09. The other arose during the trial and is more serious, potentially netting Amanda six years in jail, that was for saying she was hit during the interrogation. That's the other one she has to go to court for, the one being reported on in those links.

 

[RoseMontague]

As the time for the verdict approaches, I get increasingly angry at Mignini and his cohorts.

I want a verdict of not guilty so that my anger can RIP. I want the part of me that is angry to live again.

Not too much longer to go Justinian2. A lot of good things may happen as a result of this case.

 

[Grinder]

Your thinking is exactly the detailed explanation about "time served" that was given long ago by Some Alibi 'elsewhere'.
You know the poster who previously argued here so incredibly effectively, but because he believed in guilt is now often derided here in absentia as a "solicitor or para legal"

The above 'explanations' before your post do little other than confuse a pretty straightforward outcome if acquitted of murder by Judge Hellmann

The only person to mention this character since I joined has been you. You seem quite smitten! I know you have a dossier on these things and you will pull out a mention deep in a post, but really he's not subject of interest.

The time served concept is really pretty obvious.

 

[LondonJohn]

You are indeed wrong

Since the charge of slandering Police by Knox has not even been heard in Court yet, it is impossible to have been found guilty as you state.

That Court hearing has been rescheduled for 15nov2011.

Pretty easy Google isn't it ? ? ?

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Late...ering-Italian-police-adjourned-until-November

Huh? I'm not wrong. That's the point. Not that I was in some sort of "right or wrong" battle of facts with grinder anyhow, it was nothing more than a clarification of the issue. I guess you might have wanted to believe I was wrong about something - maybe that led to you making an incorrect argument about my having been wrong.

And since you're around, are you going to address any of the other questions that I and others put your way over the past couple of hours, or should I assume that you were wrong in those arguments as well? Thanks in advance, etc.

 

[pilot padron]

Hope this helps

Dave
L J said: she was found guilty
She was not even tried on the charge yet and will not be until a month and a half from now
Therefore....She was *not* found guilty.

It may not be in L J's nature to admit this error for you, but trust me...he is wrong
Grinder says as much in different words.
As does Kaosium when he explains the misunderstandings very well (again)

-

How is LJ wrong pilot?

He actually wrote what you just wrote:

Originally Posted by LondonJohn
"When was she found guilty of the criminal slander charges relating to the police 'cuffing'. acusations? She wasn't either charged or found guilty on this issue in Massei's court: the only additional criminal charge she faced (and was found guilty of) different to Sollecito in Massei's court was the criminal slander against Lumumba. The charges and verdicts from Massei's court can be found on pages 10-12 and 396 respectively of the Massei Report (English trans).

"So I'm confused about where and when Knox's criminal slander case vis-a-vis the police might have been heard or determined. I'm perfectly willing to be shown to be wrong, but I think that the criminal element of this particular slander case has yet to be heard."

 

[Grinder]

I think you have the Patrick Lumumba calunnia charge heard in the Massei Court mixed up with the charges that were filed on Amanda for telling her side of the story on the stand, notably that she was whupped a couple times. That has its own trial, which I read was hung up over Matteini refusing to recuse and the Supreme Court backing that, but I guess that got worked out, as Amanda's answering questions from a different judge about it now.

Thus Amanda faces two separate charges for calunnia, one against Patrick which is being heard by this court as it was assumed into it in a curious decision by Massei in '09. The other arose during the trial and is more serious, potentially netting Amanda six years in jail, that was for saying she was hit during the interrogation. That's the other one she has to go to court for, the one being reported on in those links.

Yes, yes I was wrong about which calumnia charge was heard and which is being heard.

But you can get a full lunch at Morton's for $29.95

 

[Grinder]

Dave
L J said: she was found guilty
She was not even tried on the charge yet and will not be until a month and a half from now
Therefore....She was *not* found guilty.

It may not be in L J's nature to admit this error for you, but trust me...he is wrong
Grinder says as much in different words.
As does Kaosium when he explains the misunderstandings very well (again)

Dear Dog,

Grinder was wrong on this and LJ had it right.

Please forgive me.