Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

There are people in this world who have the impression that you can reverse a court decision just by hiring a PR firm.

First let me say that many injustices are corrected through the use of the media and public attention, and a lawyer that doesn't pay attention to public opinion in a high profile case is not a very good lawyer. PR is just a tool, the result can be on the side of truth or not. In this case, it helped to correct an injustice, in my opinion.

Let me ask you what you think may have occurred if this case did not get the public scrutiny and involvement of many people who came to realize an injustice had occurred. Would the court have rubber stamped this decision, rather than giving Raffaele and the Knox girl a fair trial? It is hard to say but I believe that without being under a microscope, the injustice may have continued.

 

[snook1]

The following question was asked on .org. I think the answer is not obvious for many of us(incl me, of course)so can someone help with that one?

I have this question. If the Court of Cassation reviews the dossier in the case and comes to the conclusion that the acquittal is not well motivated, can it, based on its own review of the file, conclude that there is no credible interpretation of the facts consistent with innocence, and in essence re-instate the judgment of guilt as a final judgment, or must it always return the case to the appellate court for proceedings consistent with its (Cassation's) opinion in any event?

 

[Diocletus]

The crime of publishing acts from a proceeding is the art. 684 administrative violation. This is committed by the journalist who publishes, not by a source who just makes the file available.

The crime of revealing acts covered by secret (art. 326) instead is more serious and committed also by the source.
The acts can covered by secret because they are secret for anyone external to the office.
But they can also be secretive because classified by decree, such as occurs on material involving minors or sexual content or showing violent gory content related to victims. This may also be a reason for a violation of art. 684 if such classified material is published.
Lastly, there could be a violation of privacy, another administrative violation.
Note that in art. 684 the crime of publishing anyway has to occur within the jurisdiction (the UK in this case is out of jurisdiction) and complaint must be filled within 90 days.

We have a case of crime scene photos (the "house of horrors," etc.) being released in the midst of a trial.

If the police did this as an official act, then the act can be designed only to infringe the defendants' right to a fair trial.

If an individual public official released "personal" photos of a crime scene, then the motivation was money.

Which one was it? Why is either one acceptable? Why hasn't there been an investigation of this misconduct?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

PR firm and Duke lacrosse

RoseMontague,

Here is a link to a story about a PR firm's possibly helping the three defendants. There might be something in the book, "Until Proven Innocent," but I am not sure. The new pro-guilt talking point seems to be that innocent people don't hire PR firms or mortgage their houses to pay legal costs, and it is pure bologna. Frank Esposito's family mortgaged their house, and it still was not enough money to pay their legal bills for his arson trial.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Liestoppers

I agree. Perhaps something as simple as that email from Prof. Halkides contributed to her change of opinion on that bathroom photo.

RoseMontague,

I think that Judy Bachrach changed her opinion long before I sent her an email. However, she is not the only person who got taken in by the red bathroom photo. The early pages of the discussion of this case at the Liestoppers forum show that one person was fooled by it, and one might have supposed that this site (which included many veteran observers of the Duke lacrosse case) would have their critical faculties on high alert. I am sure we could find many more examples. The release of this photo came after the three defendants were already incarcerated. Under most circumstances there is no legitimate reason for releasing material to the public at this point, even if it were not misleading.

 

[RoseMontague]

RoseMontague,

Here is a link to a story about a PR firm's possibly helping the three defendants. There might be something in the book, "Until Proven Innocent," but I am not sure. The new pro-guilt talking point seems to be that innocent people don't hire PR firms or mortgage their houses to pay legal costs, and it is pure bologna. Frank Esposito's family mortgaged their house, and it still was not enough money to pay their legal bills for his arson trial.

Thank you sir. The Lacrosse players were smart, their lawyers as well. I recall the comment that Nifong was playing the media like a banjo in the early stages of this case. That 60 Minutes piece helped turn that around. I don't think anyone can argue the media and public opinion did not play an important role in that one.

 

[smkovalinksy]

The following question was asked on .org. I think the answer is not obvious for many of us(incl me, of course)so can someone help with that one?

One would think the case would still have to go through the Appellate court. Cannot be sure; maybe someone else is. However, even if this could occur (SC decide Hellman judgement was poorly motivated, and uphold original convictions), I think Hellman is a brilliant judge, and there is not a snowball's chance in hell that his motivation will not be solid, robust, well-reasoned, and superbly argued. As usual, pmfers are spinning out their wish-fulfillment theories.

 

[snook1]

One would think the case would still have to go through the Appellate court. Cannot be sure; maybe someone else is. However, even if this could occur (SC decide Hellman judgement was poorly motivated, and uphold original convictions), I think Hellman is a brilliant judge, and there is not a snowball's chance in hell that his motivation will not be solid, robust, well-reasoned, and superbly argued. As usual, pmfers are spinning out their wish-fulfillment theories.

Also, I've seen the idiots claiming this was Hellmann's first "DNA ruling" trial(or something like that) and it will most probably be argued at the Supreme Court by the prosecution that his credibility is highly questionable.

I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that Hellmann will deliver a brilliant report, filled with good points and that it will be near flawless. He's got to deliver something very good in order to make sure his judgement on this case won't be seen as a part of conspiracy theory or other, impossible, scenarios that the idiots are trying to prove.

 

[Kaosium]

First let me say that many injustices are corrected through the use of the media and public attention, and a lawyer that doesn't pay attention to public opinion in a high profile case is not a very good lawyer. PR is just a tool, the result can be on the side of truth or not. In this case, it helped to correct an injustice, in my opinion.

Let me ask you what you think may have occurred if this case did not get the public scrutiny and involvement of many people who came to realize an injustice had occurred. Would the court have rubber stamped this decision, rather than giving Raffaele and the Knox girl a fair trial? It is hard to say but I believe that without being under a microscope, the injustice may have continued.

What I am wondering is what role do you think everyone else involved in this had? David Marriott and crew did what exactly? Compared to say:

Jim Lovering
Paul Ciolino
Bruce Fisher
Steve Moore
Steve Shay
Candace Dempsey
Frank Sfarzo
Chris Halkides
Greg Hampikian
Beth Johnson
David Anderson
Rocco Girlanda
Frank Shiers
Peter Popham
Ray Turner
Jimbo Wales
Joe Bishop
Ron Hendry
Michael Krom
Vanessa Sollecito
Doug Bremner
Mario Spezi
Douglas Preston
John Douglas
Francesco Sollecito
Michelle Moore
Giangavino Sulas
Francesca Bene
Michael Heavey
Ann Bremner


All of these people also had an effect on raising awareness in media, conventional or otherwise, and some of them are media. Some of them actually suffered consequences, two even received delightful tours of the backroom of the police station in Perugia, complete with the tender mercies of real Perugian police, others also were 'investigated' or charged with crimes. None of them to my knowledge had anything to do with David Marriott, nor would they need to as most could command media attention themselves if they so wished and have on other issues not related to Amanda Knox. Even some of the ones who were involved with Marriott such as Madison Paxton, the family members and others could have and would have received that attention simply as a result of media attention due them as a result of the high profile of the case.

So how much of the media presence was actually due to David Marriott's efforts compared to the ones who volunteered or on their own brought attention to the issue? What percentage would you assign to the Marriott crew, and how much do you suppose was above and beyond what those people and outlets influenced by him would have done regardless? What does it really take to come up with 'There is no evidence, she never laid eyes on him, Mignini's a kook and the Italian Court System sucks like a blast furnace?' How long do you suppose it took for them to call up friends and family and tell them not to talk to the tabloids when they had torches and kerosene in hand? How many e-mails do you suppose they sent, and how many did any good?

I dunno, I'm sure they made Curt Knox's life easier, as well as the Mellas' and it sounds like they appreciated the efforts, but I think in the long run there were a lot more people who didn't get paid for their efforts, some of whom were more influential on the media that David Marriott and company. He didn't create the issue, it existed of it's own accord, as such it was due media attention and that too has to be taken into account in my opinion. So I don't think this PR campaign is solely responsible for the media interest in this case, and while it may have made the lives of Amanda's family and friends easier it didn't do everything for them either, it just helped.

 

[RoseMontague]

What I am wondering is what role do you think everyone else involved in this had? David Marriott and crew did what exactly? Compared to say:

Jim Lovering
Paul Ciolino
Bruce Fisher
Steve Moore
Steve Shay
Candace Dempsey
Frank Sfarzo
Chris Halkides
Greg Hampikian
Beth Johnson
David Anderson
Rocco Girlanda
Frank Shiers
Peter Popham
Ray Turner
Jimbo Wales
Joe Bishop
Ron Hendry
Michael Krom
Vanessa Sollecito
Doug Bremner
Mario Spezi
Douglas Preston
John Douglas
Francesco Sollecito
Michelle Moore
Giangavino Sulas
Francesca Bene
Michael Heavey
Ann Bremner


All of these people also had an effect on raising awareness in media electronic or otherwise, and some of them are media. Some of them actually suffered consequences, two even received delightful tours of the backroom of the police station in Perugia, complete with the tender mercies of real Perugian police, others also were 'investigated' or charged with crimes. None of them to my knowledge had anything to do with David Marriott, nor would they need to as most could command media attention themselves if they so wished and have on other issues not related to Amanda Knox. Even some of the ones who were involved with Marriott such as Madison Paxton, the family members and others could have and would have received that attention simply as a result of media attention due them as a result of the high profile of the case.

So how much of the media presence was actually due to David Marriott's efforts compared to the ones who volunteered or on their own brought attention to the issue? What percentage would you assign to the Marriott crew, and how much do you suppose was above and beyond what those people and outlets influenced by him would have done regardless? What does it really take to come up with 'There is no evidence, she never laid eyes on him, Mignini's a kook and the Italian Court System sucks like a blast furnace?' How long do you suppose it took for them to call up friends and family and tell them not to talk to the tabloids when they had torches and kerosene in hand? How many e-mails do you suppose they sent, and how many did any good?

I dunno, I'm sure they made Curt Knox's life easier, as well as the Mellas' and it sounds like they appreciated the efforts, but I think in the long run there were a lot more people who didn't get paid for their efforts, some of whom were more influential on the media that David Marriott and company. He didn't create the issue, it existed of it's own accord, as such it was due media attention and that too has to be taken into account in my opinion. So I don't think this PR campaign is solely responsible for the media interest in this case, and while it may have made the lives of Amanda's family and friends easier it didn't do everything for them either, it just helped.

I never said that the PR Dude was solely responsible for bringing this case to the attention of the general public, that was not the case for me, in any case. I would have to know how each of these folks became involved, what the motivation was, what continued the efforts, what fueled their involvement. I don't believe it was money for any of those that you have listed. My opinion is that Marriott played a role in many of the high profile media reports that reached a large audience and received attention in other media with large audiences.

 

[Diocletus]

The following question was asked on .org. I think the answer is not obvious for many of us(incl me, of course)so can someone help with that one?
I have this question. If the Court of Cassation reviews the dossier in the case and comes to the conclusion that the acquittal is not well motivated, can it, based on its own review of the file, conclude that there is no credible interpretation of the facts consistent with innocence, and in essence re-instate the judgment of guilt as a final judgment, or must it always return the case to the appellate court for proceedings consistent with its (Cassation's) opinion in any event?

Well, that won't happen so it's academic. But if one were to ask if the Supreme Court can reverse the calunnia conviction, as opposed to remand for a new trial, then I think that you have an interesting question.

I think that the appeal on the calunnia issue will revolve around three concepts: admissibility, burden of proof and sufficiency of proof. My sense is that Hellmann will say that the 1:45 and/or 5:45 statements are admissible, and that Knox was obligated to prove coercion by some standard of proof. The appeal argument would be that one or both statements are not admissible, that the cops were required to prove voluntariness, and that they failed to do so by sufficient evidence. It will be interesting to see how Hellmann tees these issues up.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

This is actually kinda funny when you think about it! The PR man decides to take credit for everything and his biggest promoters at PMF are overjoyed because they think they're 'vindicated!' They will no doubt choose to continue to spread the word etherwide about the Great David Marriott PR Supertanker (FOA walks the plank now!) which 'turned' the papers of three nations and created a groundswell of support which wouldn't have existed otherwise!

'Buddha, was he where it's at? Is he where you are?
Could Mohammed move a mountain, or was that just PR!'

Damn he's good!

Hrm. I suppose it's not that funny for Bruce, the PR man takes all the credit and he gets called a liar.

He's a PR man, does anyone suppose he'd minimize his involvement?

I don't mind being called a liar by PMF. If they agreed with anything I said then I would start to worry.

The article describing Marriott's involvement was written in a business publication to serve as an advertisement for Marriott. For much of the case, Marriott's efforts were done pro bono. Like many others, it didn't take long for Marriott to see that an injustice occurred.

I think it would be great to see Marroitt's work on the Amanda Knox case cause his business to flourish.

When looking at the article on Marriott as an advertisement, it is important to keep in mind that advertisements are often exaggerated. When Billy Mayes came on TV to promote a product, I figured the gadget might work but nowhere near as well as Billy claimed.

Did Marriott greatly help Amanda's family deal with the media, essentially providing a buffer between them and relentless journalists? Yes. Did Marriott single-handedly save Amanda Knox. No.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I never said that the PR Dude was solely responsible for bringing this case to the attention of the general public, that was not the case for me, in any case. I would have to know how each of these folks became involved, what the motivation was, what continued the efforts, what fueled their involvement. I don't believe it was money for any of those that you have listed. My opinion is that Marriott played a role in many of the high profile media reports that reached a large audience and received attention in other media with large audiences.

Keep in mind that some of the most influential TV segments on this case were not affiliated with Marriott. The 48 hours investigation was a major turning point with regard to public perception.

 

[snook1]

Well, that won't happen so it's academic. But if one were to ask if the Supreme Court can reverse the calunnia conviction, as opposed to remand for a new trial, then I think that you have an interesting question.

I think that the appeal on the calunnia issue will revolve around three concepts: admissibility, burden of proof and sufficiency of proof. My sense is that Hellmann will say that the 1:45 and/or 5:45 statements are admissible, and that Knox was obligated to prove coercion by some standard of proof. The appeal argument would be that one or both statements are not admissible, that the cops were required to prove voluntariness, and that they failed to do so by sufficient evidence. It will be interesting to see how Hellmann tees these issues up.

That's, actually, very interesting. I wonder how long it will take for Hellmann to release the report. It's been only what, 3 weeks, and I can't wait. It's a long way to go (max 70 days, right?).Then, the translation will take another few weeks or more...It will be interesting read.

 

[RoseMontague]

Keep in mind that some of the most influential TV segments on this case were not affiliated with Marriott. The 48 hours investigation was a major turning point with regard to public perception.

And 48 Hours became interested in the case because of....?

Beats me. I believe Curt Knox is sincere when he said hiring Marriott was the smartest thing they did. I also believe in the power of the press and of public opinion. I have my doubts that the court would have given Raffaele a fair trial without so much attention on the case.

I don't mean to diminish anyone, the truth of Marriott is somewhere between no impact and solely responsible. It was important and there is nothing wrong with hiring a PR firm. It was simply the smart thing to do.

 

[snook1]

Keep in mind that some of the most influential TV segments on this case were not affiliated with Marriott. The 48 hours investigation was a major turning point with regard to public perception.

And 48 Hours were great documents, raising the issues that were needed to be raised (incl the illegal interrogation and lack of evidence).

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Let's talk about true crime

Candace Dempsey has a new blog entry.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Who said that Patrick's bar was closed?

I seem to recall that the police found a witness to say that Mr. Lumumba's bar was closed on the night of the murder. Who is he or she? Will they be prosecuted for saying so? Will Mr. Lumumba bring a civil suit?

 

[Machiavelli]

We have a case of crime scene photos (the "house of horrors," etc.) being released in the midst of a trial.

If the police did this as an official act, then the act can be designed only to infringe the defendants' right to a fair trial.

If an individual public official released "personal" photos of a crime scene, then the motivation was money.

Which one was it? Why is either one acceptable? Why hasn't there been an investigation of this misconduct?

I have already answered why you may have not expected an investigation on any crime.
I fear you will go on and on repeating the same point as you did when you were trying to demonstrate some police misconduct on Knox's statement, against any logic.
There cant be an investigation initiative just because some (unknown) individual released photos - personal or from investigation file makes no difference, since all photos on the scene are eligible to be included in the investigation - for money.
There can't be an investigation on violation of the right to a free trial, because, first, it is just your theory that the publiching of the pictures damages the right to a free trial. But above all there is no law protecting the right to a free trial as it is seen by you on this aspect; no law establishes that the release of information or its publication is punished as affecting the right of someone to a free trial. There is no law in this terms.
The release of *secret* information can be investigatied and punished as criminal offense (art. 326); only if the information is actually secret (which was not) and only if its delease damages the office from which the information is leaked, which means if it is a threat to the work of the procura (which was not the case). The release of information cannot be investigated just because prejudicial of an individual's "right to a free trial" as you imagine it.
A law which protects the publishing (publishing, not necesarily release) of false prejudicial information exists, it is the charge of defamation; this charge can be pursued only by initiative of the offended party, not by the Procura, and this must be within 90 days. But the state will never pursue a publishing of information just because prejudicial.
The arbitrary publishing of trial files (art 625) could be pursued only by the offended party, not by the Procura, and also that crime only within the first 90 days. But only the journalist can be charged, not the source; and the journalist is in the UK.

Moreover, on the other hand, on this particular picture there is absolutely no evidence this was prejudicial to the trial nor that it was meant by someone to be prejudicial to the trial. Nor there is a proof that, even in the abstract case if meant to be prejudicial against Knox, the release publishing was illegitimate by the sources and by the media.
So I see no ground to investigate something. I don't see what is your precise claim.

 

[Machiavelli]

That wouldn't happen to be the same experts that didn't even bother to watch the autopsy tapes? Medical opinions on what logical grounds? Medical opinions should be established on facts not logic. Especially considering its completely illogical not to test the stains. So basically what your saying is the prosecutions medical experts made logical opinions based on illogical evidence gathering and withheld evidence. That doesn't sound to logical.

The number of assailants is not just a "medical opinion". It is an assessmnt of evidence. And assessment of evidence is based on logic.
The assessment about sexual violence was made by a specialist, a gynecologist. Lalli is certaily an expert of autopsies, not exactly a specialist on sexual violence. He did not rule it out, but could not confirm it with certainity. But a specialist explained the lesions were very strong indicators of sexual violence, as the option overwhelmingly more probable than any other cause.