Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Antony]

Its over guys and girls..... Now let the wrongful arrest and incarceration and slander and lying to the court to illegally arrest and detain law suits begin against Italy, Mignini, Flying Squad, Giobbi, Stefanoni, and all the rest of the lying liars.....

I'm somewhat surprised that we haven't seen this already. How is it that it's possible for hate-sites for example, still to exist on the internet? Do we have to wait for a final Supreme Court ruling?

Elsewhere on JREF people have been asking why the Amanda Knox threads still continue after the appeal court decision - well yes, AK and RS are free, but there are any number of loose ends to be tied up; not least the question of impunity for all of the corrupt and incompetent elements of the Perugia police and judiciary. This whole sorry story won't be over as long it is possible for the pro-guilt brigade to deny the truth of the case.

 

[Didaktylos]

This is something that many of us pointed out repeatedly at the time. Guede's rulings simply had zero relevance to the trial process of Knox and Sollecito. Anyone with any knowledge of law and jurisprudence should have known this. The apparent fact that Mignini and his cohorts tried to argue otherwise - and that various "legal luminaries" among the pro-guilt commentator group tried to do likewise - is mystifying to me and very embarrassing to them.

Indeed - because if it were so that the verdict in Guede's trial process did constrain that in Knox and Sollecito's, this would mean that allowing Guede an abbreviato process would have infringed their right to a fair trial and thus been a clear violation of natural justice.

From what was said previously, I understand that in Guede's trial the Prosecution took the position that Guede committed the crime in concert with others and noted in passing that Knox and Sollecito were also facing charges in connection with the offence. Since Guede's legal team did not controvert this position the trial court took it as read, and Cassazione then ruled that this decision was procedurally sound.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Aaand........ Nadeau once more illustrates her ignorance and low intelligence, with a totally misguided and misjudged "argument" on the Supreme Court issue. Terrifically embarrassing once again. My bolding:



http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ial-publishes-reasoning-behind-acquittal.html


Bye bye Barbie! Good luck with those travel and culture pieces though.......

She really does not seem to grasp it, does she? I wonder if it is wishful thinking, or if she is only saying this to give hope to those who are still hanging onto this SC as their last refuge? I cannot believe she could be so ignorant at this juncture, but one never knows....

 

[smkovalinksy]

In these excerpted snippets from pmf, I have to wonder at the level of denial. I think Hellmann has been very clear, very robust in his judgments and in the logic which supports these judgments, and I think it is also clear that he has reason, and the ethics of reason, on his side. Not to mention empirical facts and evidence which support the acquittals wholly:

Hellmann almost seems to be inviting his judgement to be overturned, especially since he has made the very blatant omission of not saying whether the acquittal was paragraph 1 or 2. It seems like he started with a not guilty verdict, then resorted to convoluted and dubious logic (which he doesn't even believe himself) in order to justify it, but he is actually hoping it will be overturned.

He is not a man who is comfortable with his own verdict, and we have to ask why.

Is it possible that Hellman has had to write a motivation for a verdict he did not agree with, but which was decided by a majority of the other judges?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Hampikian interview

Possibly Greg Hampikian.

Draca,

Dr. Hampikian was interviewed by Joey Ortega for blogtalkradio yesterday, and the audio is available. There is some discussion of discovery and also of other aspects of DNA profiling, such as mitochondrial DNA.

I think that Ms. Vogt was taking a subtle dig at some of the supporters.

 

[LondonJohn]

Hehehe. Some idiotic "argument" elsewhere has attempted to refute my post about the defence lawyers' climb of the wall under Filomena's window. According to this "rebuttal argument"(!), the fact that the cottage was sealed as a crime scene should have been of no matter to the lawyers performing the test climb, since there were two instances of unlawful breaking and entering while the cottage was sealed, and the front door was photographed open during this time too.

So, this "rebuttal argument"(!) seems to actually be suggesting that the defence lawyers should have ignored the police/prosecution sealing of the scene, and that they presumably should have unlawfully broken open the exterior shutters (and possibly also Filomena's window itself) in order to carry the test through to a conclusion. This "rebuttal argument"(!) seems also to be implying that just because a) the police were so incompetent that they didn't secure the front door locked shut, and b) some local kids decided to break into the cottage, this should somehow give the defence lawyers a carte blanche to enter the cottage unlawfully.

Quite extraordinarily poor reasoning, and it would be embarrassing if it wasn't so worthy of ridicule.......

 

[LondonJohn]

Glad to see these many aspects covered, as they now stand on record by this court Judge's motivation remarks:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/15/amanda-knox-verdict_n_1150932.html

I'm personally less interested in the remarks on Knox's/Sollecito's characters - since these aren't really of true probative value either way. What I'm interested in is the piece-by-piece demolition of every single piece of evidence that Mignini - and, inexplicably, Massei - had tried to use to "prove" Knox's and Sollecito's participation in the murder.

Another area of excellent reasoning from Hellmann's court was on the knife. Hellmann reasons - totally correctly - that the wound evidence actually tends to support the use of a single smaller knife (or at the most the use of two similar smaller knives). The only wound that was ever argued to be "compatible" with Sollecito's kitchen knife was the product of multiple knife entries to the same depth - and the surface bruising clearly suggested that whatever knife caused this wound was plunged in up to the hilt. And the depth of these multiple knife entries was some 8cm, vs the 17cm blade length of Sollecito's kitchen knife.

Yet Mignini and Massei managed to form the dreadfully illogical judgement that this wound had been caused by someone inserting Sollecito's 17cm kitchen knife several times to an identical partial depth of 8cm, and at the same time somehow causing bruising around the wound that's associated with the hilt hitting the skin. However, Hellmann correctly deduced that the large knife wound was almost certainly caused by a knife with an 8cm blade - a blade profile that's entirely consistent with the other wounds and the imprint on the bedsheet. Hellmann also explicitly mentions the additional fact that had Sollecito's kitchen knife indeed been one of the murder weapons, it would have been perverse and illogical for Knox/Sollecito not to dispose of it, given that it was a generic cheap kitchen knife that was either easily replaceable or accountable for by some other story (e.g. "Oh, that knife: I broke its blade while trying to cut some frozen meat a month ago, so I threw it away": totally unfalsifiable, and utterly plausible).

Here's the truth: only one knife was used to kill Meredith Kercher. It was not Sollecito's kitchen knife. It was almost certainly not one of Sollecito's hunting/whittling knives. It was almost certainly owned and wielded by Rudy Guede, and Guede disposed of it either somewhere in Perugia or on his flight to Germany.

 

[LondonJohn]

There also appears to be mass ignorance in the pro-guilt community about the nature of the Supreme Court process in this case. Knox will not be required to be present, whether or not she or the prosecutors lodge an appeal. Nor, in fact, will any of the lawyers be required to be present. The Supreme Court judges will consider any appeal in camera, which is to say that they will consider written submissions behind closed doors. They will then issue their verdict. Of course, the parties who are appealing will almost certainly have representatives present at the Supreme Court building in order to communicate the ruling, but nobody except the Supreme Court judges themselves will be participating in the hearing itself.

So that's another misconception/misdirection cleared up.

Oh and it bears repeating that the case of Knox's former cellmate Angela Biriukova ("The Black Widow") does not stand as some sort of predecessor for Knox to be "re-convicted" by the Supreme Court. A certain pro-guilt commentator has repeatedly asserted (and not without bluster and righteousness) that Biriukova was convicted in the first trial, acquitted on appeal, then "re-convicted" by the Supreme Court. This, the commentator suggests, serves as a pointer for what might happen to Knox.

But the commentator has of course got the facts completely wrong. In fact, Biriukova was acquitted in the first trial, then convicted in the appeal, and this appeal conviction was confirmed by the Supreme Court. This all seems eerily reminiscent of the bogus assertions regarding the photos of disco buses on "1st November 2010", the doctoring of photos to fit an agenda, the total misjudgement of a certain Sig Curatolo, and the "millimetre-accuracy" fiasco.

 

[Grinder]

There has been much kvetching about Hellmann using the arguments of defense as being something untoward and evidence that he was in the FOA camp or in some other way corrupt.

Here in the US it common, certainly in civil cases, for the judge to use rulings written by one side or the other. In fact, they take an order written by the winning side, make some changes if needed and sign it.

What do the PGP think that the judge would do? Do they think that if the defense or prosecution makes a reasonable argument that the judge can't use them because that would make him look corrupt, lacking in imagination or what?

Of course, Hellmann agreed with the defense in much of their theories, that's why he found them not guilty.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I'm personally less interested in the remarks on Knox's/Sollecito's characters - since these aren't really of true probative value either way. What I'm interested in is the piece-by-piece demolition of every single piece of evidence that Mignini - and, inexplicably, Massei - had tried to use to "prove" Knox's and Sollecito's participation in the murder.

Granted. I still think it is excellent that Hellmann rendered judgment on these "character issues" involving Knox and Sollecito, as it mattered a great deal in the court of public opinion, and I admire him for boldly and publicly addressing them.

 

[LondonJohn]

There seems to be another received misconception among many pro-guilt commentators, and it's this: Hellmann's court only considered a very small subset of the whole body of evidence/testimony in reaching its verdicts.

This is in fact totally and utterly untrue, and it belies the lack of knowledge of what was actually happening in the appeal trial. Hellmann's court actually considered every single last piece of evidence. Firstly, the Hellmann judicial panel read all the evidence and testimony from Massei's trial. Secondly, Hellmann then made rulings (following submissions from the various parties) as to what additional evidence/testimony he would allow to be introduced - I suspect that this is the source of much of the ignorance and confusion. And thirdly, all the parties made totally fresh arguments based on the totality of the evidence and testimony: that introduced into Massei's court, plus the additional stuff introduced into Hellmann's court.

So Hellmann's court in fact examined all the evidence and testimony. It ordered additional new evidence and testimony where it thought that new evidence/testimony could assist the reasoning of the court. But this was only supplementary evidence/testimony, and was simply added to the existing evidence/testimony for the purposes of arguments and deliberation. People should therefore be in no doubt that Hellmann's court's verdict was based on the totality of the evidence, and upon arguments that were themselves based on the totality of the evidence.

 

[LondonJohn]

More clarification appears to be required to correct anyone who thinks that referring to Knox or Sollecito as "murderers" (or similar) since the Hellmann verdict is not defamatory:

1) In law (both in Italy and in the rest of the modern democratic world), Knox and Sollecito are innocent of the criminal charges until any conviction is confirmed. Therefore, technically speaking, referring to them as murderers would have been potentially defamatory at any time, since no verdict has ever been confirmed by the Supreme Court of Italy. However, having said that, it's likely that most civil courts would have accepted that the Massei findings would have been a sufficient defence against libel/slander - at any time between 5th December 2009 and 3rd October 2011. However, since the Hellmann acquittals, it's highly unlikely that any court would accept any defence based on Italian judicial verdicts which have now been set aside and overturned. In other words, any court would accept that neither Knox nor Sollecito should be reasonably considered as "murderers" (or suchlike) - until and unless the Supreme Court orders a retrial on those charges and the new appeal trial finds for guilt. And since the moniker of "murderer" is therefore both untrue and injurious, it constitutes defamation.

2) Some people seem extremely ignorant of the burden of proof in civil defamation trials. Here's an example to aid comprehension. If Mr A were to write an article accusing [insert name of living former US president here] of raping and killing a ten-year-old immigrant girl while in office, and the former president were to sue for defamation, here's what would happen: the plaintiff (the former president) would sue Mr A. The court would require that Mr A prove to a civil standard that his accusation were either true, or that it fell into certain narrowly-defined exclusion areas such as fair comment. If Mr A could prove that the accusation were true, then the former president would by definition lose the case. However, if Mr A couldn't prove the veracity of the allegations, then the court would ask the former president to show that the false accusations were injurious to his reputation or good standing. Clearly in this example, that would be easy to demonstrate, and therefore the former president would win the case.

Therefore, if Mr B were to accuse Amanda Knox in writing in December 2011 of being a "murderer", and Knox were to sue Mr B, it would be entirely incumbent upon Mr B to prove the veracity of the accusation. In other words, it's quite wrong to suggest that in any defamation action, Knox herself would have to prove that she "wasn't a murderer". And since Mr B would be unable to prove the accusation (also by definition, unless Mr B was party to some secret information as yet made unavailable to the Italian courts), and since Knox would easily be able to prove the injurious nature of the accusation, Mr B would lose the defamation action.

In summary then, calling Knox (or Sollecito) a "murderer" at any time from October 3rd onwards is potentially a very bad idea. If such accusations are subjected to defamation action by Knox (or Sollecito), it's very likely that those making the accusations will lose any resultant court case. Their call though........

 

[LondonJohn]

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 0. Do not attempt to circumvent moderation by bringing in quotes from other boards without attribution.

 

[LondonJohn]

*sigh* Another correction required to counter ignorant and/or biased commentary elsewhere:

Steve Shay did not accuse Perugia prosecutor Mignini of corruption of any sort. In fact, Shay wrote an article in a local Seattle newspaper in which he repeated other people's opinions that Mignini might have certain mental health issues. It was on these grounds that Mignini sued. It was nothing whatsoever to do with accusations of corruption of a public official, which would indeed have been a far more serious potential defamation - indeed, it could be a criminal offence in Italian law.

I would hope that all of those merrily insinuating that Hellmann might have been corrupted/bribed, or for that matter those calling Knox (or Sollecito) a "murderer" right now, might have the intelligence to recognise the implication of the Mignini vs Shay case (not to mention taking the time to do some basic research into defamation law). But by the looks of things, it appears not. Ah well, tant pis!

 

[Grinder]

There is almost no way that Amanda can win a suit for libel in the US for people on the net referring to her as a murderer. If she could she wouldn't receive much in damages.

"There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, the person first must prove that the statement was false. Second, that person must prove that the statement caused harm. And, third, they must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. In the case of a celebrity or public official trying to prove libel, they must prove the first three steps, and must (in the United States) prove the statement was made with the intent to do harm, or with reckless disregard for the truth. Usually specifically referred to as "proving malice"."

She would basically have to prove that she was innocent, not not guilty. Given the widespread coverage of this case and that many people certainly are not convinced she is innocent she'd have to prove that it damaged her. As often as we may read their tripe the world has never heard of PMF or TJMK and couldn't care less what those people say.

In the uk "Allowable defenses are justification (the truth of the statement), fair comment (whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest). An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove its truth. Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth).[citation needed] A private individual must only prove negligence (not using due care) to collect compensatory damages.[citation needed] To collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice.

She is a public figure and I doubt that a court would rule that they are in reckless disregard of the truth. Once again, it would be very hard to prove damages from their tiny web sites.

 

[LondonJohn]

And it gets better! It appears that some believe that a statement cannot be defamatory if it's expressed as an "opinion": e.g. "I think that Amanda Knox is a vicious sex killer".

This is so wrong it's laughable. To illustrate: "It's my opinion that [insert name of living former US President here] raped and killed a ten-year-old immigrant girl in the Oval Office, then he orchestrated a cover-up to conceal his crime". See? That's simply my "opinion"!! Surely that would be a perfect defence if the President in question were to sue me for libel!! Truly ridiculously poor thinking. But, as I said before, they can't say they weren't warned.

 

[Grinder]

"Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.
Opinion is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. However, some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege."

 

[LondonJohn]

There is almost no way that Amanda can win a suit for libel in the US for people on the net referring to her as a murderer. If she could she wouldn't receive much in damages.

"There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, the person first must prove that the statement was false. Second, that person must prove that the statement caused harm. And, third, they must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. In the case of a celebrity or public official trying to prove libel, they must prove the first three steps, and must (in the United States) prove the statement was made with the intent to do harm, or with reckless disregard for the truth. Usually specifically referred to as "proving malice"."

She would basically have to prove that she was innocent, not not guilty. Given the widespread coverage of this case and that many people certainly are not convinced she is innocent she'd have to prove that it damaged her. As often as we may read their tripe the world has never heard of PMF or TJMK and couldn't care less what those people say.

In the uk "Allowable defenses are justification (the truth of the statement), fair comment (whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest). An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove its truth. Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth).[citation needed] A private individual must only prove negligence (not using due care) to collect compensatory damages.[citation needed] To collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice.

She is a public figure and I doubt that a court would rule that they are in reckless disregard of the truth. Once again, it would be very hard to prove damages from their tiny web sites.

See highlighted part (for clarity, the "defendant" is the person who made the accusation, and who is the one being sued by the person against whom they made the accusation). Actions could easily be brought in the UK.

 

[HumanityBlues]

*sigh* Another correction required to counter ignorant and/or biased commentary elsewhere:

Steve Shay did not accuse Perugia prosecutor Mignini of corruption of any sort. In fact, Shay wrote an article in a local Seattle newspaper in which he repeated other people's opinions that Mignini might have certain mental health issues. It was on these grounds that Mignini sued. It was nothing whatsoever to do with accusations of corruption of a public official, which would indeed have been a far more serious potential defamation - indeed, it could be a criminal offence in Italian law.

Let's not forget that Mignini didn't "win" his suit as claimed on that site.

 

[JREF2010]

And yet Maresca is being reported as saying that he's actively engaged in writing the appeal to the Supreme Court right now. As I understand the legality of this, I don't see how he is allowed to appeal, if Costaglioli doesn't. And I have a crawling suspicion that Costaglioli is not going to appeal. That the only appeal likely to go forward is Dalla Vedova (mmmmm.....) appealling the calunnia conviction.

Rolfe.

Costaglioli....don't read that name often.
I recall the deflated FOA comments when Hellman allowed Migninni and Commodi to sit-in on his trial. As if it was all a Perugia Courtroom setup, a deflated start with expectation of a corrupt move almost.

Girgha was quoted saying something similar to never having seen this allowed in his entire career, or something of that meaning.

Maresca he's the only one who finds Rudy credible.

You never know whats going to happen in this case, thats all I know...