Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Diocletus]

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.

So there can't be an investigation about who did this . . . because you don't know who did it? LOL. That sounds about right, though.

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.

You should consider getting such a law. It's quite a nice thing to have a right to a fair trial. Unfair trials suck.

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.

Oh, so the Procura decides everything. And if the Procura decides that it is satisfied with the leak, then it's all like: "please disperse, there is nothing to see here." Sorry to treat this like a joke, but, well, it is.

But the state will never pursue a publishing of information just because prejudicial.

Yes, that seems obvious. And we know why.

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.

Nobody really cares about the journalists--they obviously shouldn't be charged with a crime for publishing what the cops released to them. Time for the crooked cops and Procura to man up and face responsibility for this outrage.

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

So you're OK with the authorities releasing crime scene photos in order to prejudice a defendant on trial? How do you think that jives with the European Human Rights Convention?

 

[Machiavelli]

....
Yummy/Mac....Lalli was fired by Mignini why? It couldnt be that he had an opinion that the attack was likely to have occured between 9 and 10 PM and was carried out most probably by a single attacker would it?

No, because he testified at the trial and he didn't state such things.
He was dropped by the Procura because he released information to the press before the issue of his autopsy report.

And since we now know there is nothing in the murder room that indicates involvement by any other persons I guess Lalli was right all along.

You guess wrongly, in my opinion there is the indication of the opposite. There is proof of the involvement of other persons.

And why is the possible semen stain untested? I know he already answered that but I just love when someone tries to explain the absurd with some reason even dumber.

Why don't you ask Hellmann? He too refused to test it, didn't he?

 

[Machiavelli]

So there can't be an investigation about who did this . . . because you don't know who did it? LOL. That sounds about right, though.

Why don't you stop twisting and changing what I say.
There can't be an investigation because there an't be an investigation initiative just on the fact that someone released a file.

 

[Diocletus]

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.

I'm mystified. What is this great evidence of multiple attackers? She had a bunch of bruises and cuts? So what?

 

[Machiavelli]

Nobody really cares about the journalists--they obviously shouldn't be charged with a crime for publishing what the cops released to them. Time for the crooked cops and Procura to man up and face responsibility for this outrage

.

You are not going to make up the law based on your ideas and your convenience.

So you're OK with the authorities releasing crime scene photos in order to prejudice a defendant on trial? How do you think that jives with the European Human Rights Convention?

Dear, you have to demonstrate that the source is an "authority" and not one of a hundred(+) individuals, and you have to demonstrate that a picture published in a UK tabloid is affecting a free trial in Perugia.

 

[Machiavelli]

I'm mystified. What is this great evidence of multiple attackers? She had a bunch of bruises and cuts? So what?

I have explained this quite thoroughly a few weeks ago in a post on PMF.

 

[smkovalinksy]

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.

Yes, I agree. They would appear to be working overtime in trying to spin Hellman as some kind of incompetent, green judge. But it is far from the truth. And yes, he will make sure to be thorough, as he is well aware of the high profile nature of his ruling, and the multitude of nay-sayers and cranks who are awaiting his Motivation report.

 

[Machiavelli]

Nobody really cares about the journalists--they obviously shouldn't be charged with a crime for publishing what the cops released to them. Time for the crooked cops and Procura to man up and face responsibility for this outrage.

So you're OK with the authorities releasing crime scene photos in order to prejudice a defendant on trial? How do you think that jives with the European Human Rights Convention?

Recall: in Italy there is a crime of defamation. Defamation is a criminal offense. If false information is released which is prejudicial to the reputation of an individual, the individual can sue for defamation.
A picture with false caption is prejudicial? You sue the site. Very simple. Frank Sfarzo was shut down on this ground. This is the option the law provides against prejudice. There are no other options.

 

[Diocletus]

.
Dear, you have to demonstrate that the source is an "authority" and not one of a hundred(+) individuals, and you have to demonstrate that a picture published in a UK tabloid is affecting a free trial in Perugia.

Well, the authorities create and have custody of the photos/investigation file. So, how about if I assume that the photos came from them unless they want to prove that somebody like Maresca is the leaker? That sounds fairer to me.

As for actual prejudice, since the photos were published in a UK tabloid and available on the internet, I think that I'll assume that they had prejduicial effect in Italy unless someone proves otherwise. Just like Mignini assumed that the words of Knox's parents, as printed in a UK tabloid, had a defamatory effect in Italy.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Opinion piece posted on pmf claiming to destroy the C & V report, but I do not see it:

About DNA, we hear another bell

A proposito di DNA, sentiamo l'altra campana - Gruppi Usenet

Irecenti developments regarding the process and the sentence for the murder of Meredith Kercher have generated among the public the belief that the biological evidence, especially based on the analysis of DNA, could lead to opinions diametrically opposed to each specialist. It is not true. In recent years, in all countries of the world, based on the techniques of forensic DNA have become often crucial for the identification of those responsible, and the acquittal of the innocent.

These successes are mainly due to the evolution of the techniques that now allow, in the great majority of cases, objective interpretations, objectivity, certain. And equally certain are the traces of Knox's DNA found on the knife and Raffaele Sollecito on the hook of the bra . To determine the invalidity of such evidence, in the process, have been invoked improbable and absurd phenomena (contamination), devoid of scientific legitimacy. While it is understandable that this represents the last resort for the defenders in an attempt to delegitimize the value of the evidence, the other is unacceptable is also blindly supported by expert non-partisan appointed by the court. We believe that there is no need to prepare a geneticist to understand the absolute unsustainability of such claim.

In particular it was argued that the bra clasp on the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito comes from a contamination. This hypothesis is pure fantasy. It is clear that the contamination must have an origin and a destination. The destination is the hook of the bra, but the source? If the hook in the room of Meredith had been contaminated with DNA from Sollecito, then it means that the DNA of Sollecito was present in that room, representing an additional incriminating evidence. But remember that was never found another trace of Sollecito in that room. In the laboratories of forensic science has never been a contamination in those days (hundreds of specimens were analyzed and none of them was the suspect DNA, negative controls performed exclude this hypothesis), no experiment has ever produced a profile Sollecito's DNA, which appears only in this finding.

 

[RoseMontague]

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?

Of course not, it was a very vague statement, not unlike Amanda's:

Sì, mi pare che quella sera il locale fosse chiuso. Io verso le 19 sono uscito di casa e mi sembra che il portone del 'Le Chic' fosse chiuso. Fino a quando? Non so. Non mi ricordo cosa ho fatto quella sera"

 

[Diocletus]

I have explained this quite thoroughly a few weeks ago in a post on PMF.

Perhaps you could copy it to this board? It's no fun to read opinion and not be able to express disagreement.

 

[Diocletus]

Recall: in Italy there is a crime of defamation. Defamation is a criminal offense. If false information is released which is prejudicial to the reputation of an individual, the individual can sue for defamation.
A picture with false caption is prejudicial? You sue the site. Very simple. Frank Sfarzo was shut down on this ground. This is the option the law provides against prejudice. There are no other options.

A defamation prosecution is no remedy if you are sitting in jail wrongfully convicted as a result of prejudicial pretrial publicity.

 

[Diocletus]

Dear

It's "Mr. Diocletus" for you.

 

[Machiavelli]

Well, the authorities create and have custody of the photos/investigation file. So, how about if I assume that the photos came from them unless they want to prove that somebody like Maresca is the leaker? That sounds fairer to me.

As for actual prejudice, since the photos were published in a UK tabloid and available on the internet, I think that I'll assume that they had prejduicial effect in Italy unless someone proves otherwise. Just like Mignini assumed that the words of Knox's parents, as printed in a UK tabloid, had a defamatory effect in Italy.

But it is not true that "authorities" have a responsibility of custody of the investigation file: large portions of the file may well be accessible to parties (and they are).

Mignini did sue the allegedly defamatory content, and did so within 90 days. Whilst Knox did not. So the basis for the claim is totally different.
And anyway Mignini may even fail in his attempt to demonstrate the content is defamatory (false and offensive) and that falls within the jurisdiction.
So, by all principles law, you shall instead assume the opposite of what you claim: you should acknowledge that the publishing of picture is not an offense unless proven otherwise.

 

[Machiavelli]

A defamation prosecution is no remedy if you are sitting in jail wrongfully convicted as a result of prejudicial pretrial publicity.

That someone was sitting in jail as a result of publicity caused by the photo published on the Daily Mirror, is a statement slightly unproven and not corroborated by any element.

 

[davefoc]

I have explained this [evidence of multiple attackers] quite thoroughly a few weeks ago in a post on PMF.

I greatly appreciate you patience and willingness to answer questions here. I also understand that you may not want to spend time discussing issues that you have written about extensively other places.

Is it possible that when something like this occurs you could copy your post here or provide a link to it?

 

[Diocletus]

Mignini did sue the allegedly defamatory content, and did so within 90 days. Whilst Knox did not. So the basis for the claim is totally different.
And anyway Mignini may even fail in his attempt to demonstrate the content is defamatory (false and offensive) and that falls within the jurisdiction.
So, by all principles law, you shall instead assume the opposite of what you claim: you should acknowledge that the publishing of picture is not an offense unless proven otherwise.

LOL. You just spent the last week telling us that the publication of this picture couldn't be prejudicial because it was published in a UK tabloid and no one in Italy would ever consider such a foreign thing. And yet, Mignini's whole defamation case is based on a publication in a UK tabloid.

So, it's your belief that Knox might have been hit by the police and that even if she wasn't, that the alleged "defamatory" publication wasn't even published in Italy.

So, tell us what you think of Mignini's case against Knox's parents? Bogus, isn't it?

 

[RoseMontague]

Opinion piece posted on pmf claiming to destroy the C & V report, but I do not see it:

A proposito di DNA, sentiamo l'altra campana - Gruppi Usenet

Seems to be the comments of Novelli in a statement given to Mignini and presented in court during the appeal. Nothing that hasn't been reported that I can see, although the comments via google are pretty funny.

 

[Diocletus]

That someone was sitting in jail [That the cops were harmed] as a result of publicity caused by the photo [a statement by Knox's parents] published on the Daily Mirror, is a statement slightly unproven and not corroborated by any element.

This sounds good, too.