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

[Grinder]

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.

I know who the defendant is.

Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth)

This is another higher hurdle and very difficult to prove. What you seem to miss is that one prove damages from the libel. What percentage of people do you think read PMF and TJMK combined in the UK? When I Google "Foxy KnoxY" and UK, I get over 400,000 hits. If I were to run a survey in britain I'm sure that a very significant percentage of those having an opinion think she either did it or had something to do with it.

The section prior to your highlight 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.

I'd certainly argue that a reasonable person could hold the opinion that she was a murderer. Reasonable doesn't mean they needed to spend a thousand hours studying this.

The cost of bringing the case would be high just to get to the point of finding out who owns the ISP and then one would need to prove who using that ISP said what.

Perhaps, if Amanda gets enough of a deal from books and movies she will pick out a couple people to go after but doubt it. Maybe some publications that have deep pockets but commenters, not so much.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I would say, emphatically, "No.":

Does A Perverse Fear Factor Account For The Hellman Jury Breaking The Way It Did?

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

 

[Paninaro]

In a comment to his latest piece: http://perugiashock.com/2011/12/17/...of-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-part-2/ Frank Sfarzo explains that the concept of two different forms of acquittal is outdated and obsolete. To me it's clear that he's absolutely right and that Machiavelli has lead us on a wild goose chase with his 530.1 and 530.2.

With the introduction of the concept of reasonable doubt in Italian law in 2006 you can't really make a difference between different kinds of guilt. It's a binary condition where you are either guilty or innocent of a crime. Even in Italy there is no in-between. The incorporation of The European convention underlines this fact.

It is in the light of this we should see Hellmann's explanations after the verdict. All we can say is that the evidence simply isn't there and that the defendant therefore must be viewed as innocent. The building stones of bricks to make a case for guilt are not there. What really happened and is not for the court to say and to seek the real truth is an impossible task.

But with that said it's perfectly clear that in the eyes of the court the the evidence is not only insufficient, but deeply flawed. So, in a way, this verdict is after all more than just a formal exconeration, even if all exconerations are and must be, ecqual.

I can't help wonder if the talk about bricks isn't a nod to Conan Doyle.

"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay".

 

[smkovalinksy]

Just an addendum to my mentioning of the Lindy Chamberlain case, and the mass of people who believed her guilty and still clung to disproven rumors and outlandish theories, even when she had been set free by the court: I see a clear parallel to the attitude of many toward Knox (and Sollecito).

A reporter, writing 23 years after the disappearance of the child Azaria (for which the parents were deemed culpable) said this:

Indeed, towards the end of the royal commission, a lawyer was asked by friends what his thoughts were about the Chamberlains' guilt or innocence. He replied: "I wouldn't care if Azaria walked into the courtroom now alive and well. I'd still say the bitch [Lindy] was guilty."

I have no doubt that to this day that lawyer may not be alone.

In other words, even if the child were found alive and well, this attorney would still deem the mother guilty of murder. There is no winning with such people.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Forgot to post link

Here is the link I forgot to provide RE the report on the Chamberlain case:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/09/1089000354658.html

 

[Antony]

The section prior to your highlight 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.

I'd certainly argue that a reasonable person could hold the opinion that she was a murderer. Reasonable doesn't mean they needed to spend a thousand hours studying this.

"A view that a reasonable person could have held" surely means a view held with a knowledge of the facts. Just because a view is widely held by people who are misinformed, doesn't make that view one that "a reasonable person could have held" - particularly not as a legal excuse for putting about the same false information that has led to the widespread mistaken view in the first place.

 

[smkovalinksy]

In a comment to his latest piece: http://perugiashock.com/2011/12/17/...of-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-part-2/ Frank Sfarzo explains that the concept of two different forms of acquittal is outdated and obsolete. To me it's clear that he's absolutely right and that Machiavelli has lead us on a wild goose chase with his 530.1 and 530.2.
With the introduction of the concept of reasonable doubt in Italian law in 2006 you can't really make a difference between different kinds of guilt. It's a binary condition where you are either guilty or innocent of a crime. Even in Italy there is no in-between. The incorporation of The European convention underlines this fact.

It is in the light of this we should see Hellmann's explanations after the verdict. All we can say is that the evidence simply isn't there and that the defendant therefore must be viewed as innocent. The building stones of bricks to make a case for guilt are not there. What really happened and is not for the court to say and to seek the real truth is an impossible task.

But with that said it's perfectly clear that in the eyes of the court the the evidence is not only insufficient, but deeply flawed. So, in a way, this verdict is after all more than just a formal exconeration, even if all exconerations are and must be, ecqual.

I can't help wonder if the talk about bricks isn't a nod to Conan Doyle.

"Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay".

Very well put, and I am glad this distinction has been cleared up, as it had confused me - I understood the distinction, of course, but not the mystery as to why Hellmann had not been clear concerning which lay at the core of his ruling.

In the US, though , no defendant is spoken of as being "Innocent" of a crime. They are only viewed as having been found not guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law, by a jury of their peers; this rests on the prosecution having not met its burden of proof of guilt (beyond reasonable doubt).

Yet, because there is the presumption of innocence, until proven guilty, that should actually lead back to the view of "innocent" of the crime. But it is never spoken of this way.

 

[Grinder]

"A view that a reasonable person could have held" surely means a view held with a knowledge of the facts. Just because a view is widely held by people who are misinformed, doesn't make that view one that "a reasonable person could have held" - particularly not as a legal excuse for putting about the same false information that has led to the widespread mistaken view in the first place.

Even if you are correct in this analysis, the damages would be minuscule because of the widespread misinformation existing.

In order to pursue a defamation/libel case the plaintiff (LJ that would be Amanda ) would be subject to interrogatories, depositions and most likely having to testify in court. I don't believe that the prosecution made their case, but if I was on the jury for the defamation case I would have a hard time ruling that someone calling her a murderer is not within the bounds of a reasonable person.

That doesn't mean that those currently calling her names are reasonable people.

 

[bri1]

I would say, emphatically, "No.":

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

This guy, Picozzi, is citing Novelli's request for another independent forensic review as evidence that the jury couldn't follow the science in this case.

The science in this case is fairly straightforward, once presented correctly.

The clasp was contaminated before or during collection- Prof. Novelli has no particular expertise in evidence collection, and simply by comparing the crime scene video to all published guidelines for forensics collection, any lay person can see the liklihood of contamination.

The knife DNA was not probative, because of the clear guidelines required for processing LCN DNA, i.e. ultra-clean lab and proper procedure and documentation of amplication.

Not complicated.

When asked whether the perceived problem of juries' parsing of scientific evidence and whether it's widespread, Picozzi also talks of an extraneous issue - juries and scientific evidence related to responsibility (moral and criminal). This isn't directly related, and Picozzi comes off as a hack by connecting the two.

There is a very straightforward response to this rubbish... the issue of scientific evidence probative to the responsibility of defendants is one which needs closer engagement with the philosophical issues. The issue of general evidence probative to the facts of the case is a separate one, which boils down to this:
If there are guidelines for a particular process (for forensic scientists and collectors / technicians) , and they don't follow them, it's not evidence. It has no probative value. These protocols and guidelines are there for a reason, and anyone arguing that it doesn't matter that they weren't followed does not grasp these reasons... including Novelli.

I'm still of the opinion that Novelli's institution's ethics comittee need to look closely at Novelli's involvement with this trial, as he has made some statements which appear to imply either ignorance / stupidity / incompetence or an attempt to mislead the jury and the public.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I would say, emphatically, "No.":

Does A Perverse Fear Factor Account For The Hellman Jury Breaking The Way It Did?

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

It would also seem that they are attributing fear or confusion to the jury, rather than the fact that they were convinced by the independent experts.

I disagree, wholly: This is just their own interpretation of the lay judges and Hellmann not feeling the need for a further study: In their opinion, the jury was not competent to continue contemplating the evidence. Where is the proof of this?

Corriere: A controversy has diverted attention from the crime on a technicality?

“Reducing everything to a technical debate has created confusion that the jury was unable to handle. Often even [court] presidents, judges and magistrates are not as competent technically as the progress of science should require.

The prosecution’s DNA advisor Professor Novelli is a forensic geneticist at the international level. When he challenged the findings of the experts and proposed to the judge a third study, the president of the jury said “No thanks, we have enough.’”

 

[Grinder]

Over PMF there is a nice demo of the feet - probably Kermit's? Well I showed it to my SO (she hates the case) and she looked and said (without which foot belonged to whom) that it was Rudy's that matched. And apparently Hellmann was right (amazing) he has a toe that doesn't touch.

It's interesting that bringing what we all know to be true about Rudy's recent history (break ins, knife possession, drug dealing etc.) into the case has Mach calling him a racist. This from those that thought even a mention of anti-Americanism (which I didn't believe) was ridiculous in the Italian judiciary. The fact that Hellmann asks the basic question of why would these two college kids team up with this petty criminal to murder a roommate and then keep a pact for 4 years not to tell the truth.

I'm with PMF on this: tell the truth Rudy, tell it now!

 

[smkovalinksy]

This is taken from TJMK site, from their translation of Milan's Corriere Newspaper Report On The Hellman Motivation Document:

Although I would agree that the actual evidence, or lack thereof, has supremacy over any character judgments, I still believe this aspect - since the Corriere and TJMK site makes so much of it - is important, and was always a burning question for many of us.

To my thinking , Hellmann is asserting an important point about there being no precedent in the behaviors of Knox and Sollecito, nor any reason why Guede would suddenly be important to them in a sudden and insane act of derangement.

But this is being viewed by some as weak reasoning, as jumping to unfounded conclusions, and as mere speculation on Hellmann's part - if not outright influenced by Marriot and "FOA" :

The appeal court: “There is no proof of offence” : Amanda and Raffaele are good kids

The report contradicts the first instance judgment: “The motive - of an unplanned choice of evil without purpose by two good youngsters, who were well-disposed towards others - is improbable”

GOOD KIDS - “The unplanned choice, by two good young folk, who were well-disposed towards others, of evil for evil’s sake, without any other purpose, is even more incomprehensible because it was aimed at upholding the criminal acts of another youth, Rudy Guede, with whom they had no relations, and is unlike their own personal histories, character and human condition.”

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

 

[smkovalinksy]

Addendum: I forgot to add to my post regarding the Milan newspaper piece and the translated quotes from Judge Hellmann's Motivation report, that some PG posters are accusing him of being openly racist and prejudiced, regarding his separation of Knox/Sollecito from Guede and his history: The "well disposed" youngsters versus the career criminal.

Although I agree with Hellmann's thinking, because of other cases, I will admit I can almost see why this would strike some as such. Any thoughts?

 

[smkovalinksy]

From TJMK's translation of the Corriere piece, from Hellmann's report on Guede: Hellmann appears to be going with the Lone Wolf scenario:

RUDY GUEDE - The judges set out these considerations, reflecting briefly on Rudy Guede’s definitive sentence to 16 years of incarceration for his participation in Meredith Kercher’s murder. In the reasoning report, they explain that the hypothesis of the participation of several people in carrying out the crime had been set out in the Ivorian’s appeal-court conviction [which had] “basically upheld all the arguments put forward by the prosecutor”.

According to the judges who acquitted Sollecito and Knox, however, “an analysis of every single element on which the hypothesis of joint contribution [to carrying out the crime] leads one, at the least, to doubt the necessary participation of several people in perpetrating the crimes in question”. The Assizes court of appeal therefore stated that they could “concur with” the appeal court conviction with regard to Guede’s responsibility, without “assuming that this conviction has any probatory relevance” as far as determining the responsibility of Sollecito and Knox is concerned.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

 

[smkovalinksy]

This guy, Picozzi, is citing Novelli's request for another independent forensic review as evidence that the jury couldn't follow the science in this case.

The science in this case is fairly straightforward, once presented correctly.
The clasp was contaminated before or during collection- Prof. Novelli has no particular expertise in evidence collection, and simply by comparing the crime scene video to all published guidelines for forensics collection, any lay person can see the liklihood of contamination.

The knife DNA was not probative, because of the clear guidelines required for processing LCN DNA, i.e. ultra-clean lab and proper procedure and documentation of amplication.

Not complicated.

When asked whether the perceived problem of juries' parsing of scientific evidence and whether it's widespread, Picozzi also talks of an extraneous issue - juries and scientific evidence related to responsibility (moral and criminal). This isn't directly related, and Picozzi comes off as a hack by connecting the two. There is a very straightforward response to this rubbish... the issue of scientific evidence probative to the responsibility of defendants is one which needs closer engagement with the philosophical issues. The issue of general evidence probative to the facts of the case is a separate one, which boils down to this:
If there are guidelines for a particular process (for forensic scientists and collectors / technicians) , and they don't follow them, it's not evidence. It has no probative value. These protocols and guidelines are there for a reason, and anyone arguing that it doesn't matter that they weren't followed does not grasp these reasons... including Novelli.

I'm still of the opinion that Novelli's institution's ethics comittee need to look closely at Novelli's involvement with this trial, as he has made some statements which appear to imply either ignorance / stupidity / incompetence or an attempt to mislead the jury and the public.

Yes. You have a strong grasp of the technical and legal aspects. In my other posts, I have looked at Hellmann's response to motive an psychological character, which in the end is not terribly important vis a vis the science of the case.

 

[Antony]

Even if you are correct in this analysis, the damages would be minuscule because of the widespread misinformation existing.

In order to pursue a defamation/libel case the plaintiff (LJ that would be Amanda ) would be subject to interrogatories, depositions and most likely having to testify in court. I don't believe that the prosecution made their case, but if I was on the jury for the defamation case I would have a hard time ruling that someone calling her a murderer is not within the bounds of a reasonable person.

That doesn't mean that those currently calling her names are reasonable people.

I'm not convinced by your thinking. I do not agree that the factor of a wrong perception being widespread, makes it in itself a "reasonable view".

As has been pointed out here, everyone is entitled to his own opinion; no-one is entitled to to his own facts. The statement "X is a murderer" is one of fact, not of opinion. A defendant seeking to justify this statement against AK and RS, using factoids that have been shown to be false, would fail for the same reason that the Mignini prosecution ultimately failed.

As for damages being "miniscule", that would depend upon the context. I don't think it would be difficult to show that defamatory statements in a featured news article were as damaging as they would be if made against someone who had never previously been accused of the crime. Individual bloggers adding a comment to a web article might not be worth pursuing, but if the defamation laws are to mean anything, then website owners who allow such comments to remain online should also be held responsible - as they already are, morally.

 

[Grinder]

I'm not convinced by your thinking. I do not agree that the factor of a wrong perception being widespread, makes it in itself a "reasonable view".

As has been pointed out here, everyone is entitled to his own opinion; no-one is entitled to to his own facts. The statement "X is a murderer" is one of fact, not of opinion. A defendant seeking to justify this statement against AK and RS, using factoids that have been shown to be false, would fail for the same reason that the Mignini prosecution ultimately failed.

As for damages being "miniscule", that would depend upon the context. I don't think it would be difficult to show that defamatory statements in a featured news article were as damaging as they would be if made against someone who had never previously been accused of the crime. Individual bloggers adding a comment to a web article might not be worth pursuing, but if the defamation laws are to mean anything, then website owners who allow such comments to remain online should also be held responsible - as they already are, morally.

I'm shocked . The debate here as I understand it has centered around individual posters not web sites. But even in the case of the sites they are just not significant. The DailyMail is 124th worldwide while TJMK is 250,000th. I just don't see the damage done to Amanda by the web sites of the PGP as adding up to an amount that is worthwhile pursuing. Imagine what a survey of people in the US and the UK would show as to where people were informed on this issue. I doubt that more than one in a thousand that had an opinion would say that either PMF or TJMK had an impact.

It seems clear that people can reasonably believe someone convicted is innocent and vice versa.

I don't understand the second highlite. Do you mean that a story now about Amanda is just as damaging as the early stories?

It is more likely that Chris Mellas or Curt might sue Peggy or maybe Peter Q but stilicho is not going to be sued.

Edited, breach of rule 0; do not change member names with intent to insult.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[smkovalinksy]

I'm not convinced by your thinking. I do not agree that the factor of a wrong perception being widespread, makes it in itself a "reasonable view".

As has been pointed out here, everyone is entitled to his own opinion; no-one is entitled to to his own facts. The statement "X is a murderer" is one of fact, not of opinion. A defendant seeking to justify this statement against AK and RS, using factoids that have been shown to be false, would fail for the same reason that the Mignini prosecution ultimately failed.

As for damages being "miniscule", that would depend upon the context. I don't think it would be difficult to show that defamatory statements in a featured news article were as damaging as they would be if made against someone who had never previously been accused of the crime. Individual bloggers adding a comment to a web article might not be worth pursuing, but if the defamation laws are to mean anything, then website owners who allow such comments to remain online should also be held responsible - as they already are, morally.

I would agree with all that you say here. Is calling an acquitted person a murderer that different from calling an innocent person such? You are correct: This goes beyond opinion, into the realm of empirical fact. If I say falsely that you took 10 thousand dollars from me, and publicly post in on a blog, Google can take it down, and I can be sued. Suppose I got it into my head to accuse someone of being a pedophile, publicly? If unfounded, surely I would be held accountable?

Just because many people hold wrong or misinformed opinions, does not lessen the degree of the expression of them as incendiary. Knox and Sollecito were acquitted, and yet one sees rampant postings on prominent sites by influential people about their being evil, that they premeditated a hazing, that they enjoyed stepping in the blood, etc. It is as if no acquittals occurred at all.

Even the Judge is being written about as corrupt , or stupid, or racist, or brain-damaged, or worse.

As Lindy Chamberlain's husband said, when she was subjected to the same: "The perception of innocence by others is important to innocent people, not to the guilty." On the other hand, one must be careful not to censor too strictly. But one would think that some boundaries should not be crossed. Of what use is it to be cleared by the courts, if still guilty in the court of public opinion? It matters, and its effects are far-reaching. This is why there exist such a things as defamation suits.

 

[steamtray]

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.

I don’t think it’s at all clear that Amanda would be deemed a “public figure” under current U.S. defamation law. The mere fact that she’s acquired widespread notoriety is not in and of itself determinative. It’s a somewhat complex analysis, but a central factor is the extent to which the individual voluntarily inserted herself into the spotlight. Public officials and public figures are seen as having chosen to expose themselves to increased risk of injury from defamatory falsehoods. But a private individual has not done so. On this one, Amanda is entirely blameless. In fact, her conduct since being released appears to me almost calculated to defeat the “public figure” defense. I’m guessing she’s getting sage legal advice, although at this point keeping a low profile has its psychic benefits as well. Another key question is whether the individual possesses some special prominence in the resolution of public questions, and here again Amanda is in a very different position than an elected official, movie star, etc. On balance, I think it’s more likely that Amanda would be viewed as a private individual.

The larger problem it seems to me is the matter of developing Internet law. Many courts view the Internet as the wild west of media, and have determined that the reckless, hyperbolic and sometimes lawless commentary that dominates certain forums is the norm, and thus subject to more limited restraints than broadcast or print. Courts are reluctant to seek the identity of an anonymous Internet user unless the threshold showing of defamatory conduct is compelling.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.

One can dream.

 

[Dougm]

Addendum: I forgot to add to my post regarding the Milan newspaper piece and the translated quotes from Judge Hellmann's Motivation report, that some PG posters are accusing him of being openly racist and prejudiced, regarding his separation of Knox/Sollecito from Guede and his history: The "well disposed" youngsters versus the career criminal.

Although I agree with Hellmann's thinking, because of other cases, I will admit I can almost see why this would strike some as such. Any thoughts?

I think it only strikes people as racist who are either racist themselves, or are hypersensitive to and looking for racism.

The essense of predjudice or bias against people of another skin color, ethnic group, etc. is to judge them based on that factor. To be truly unbiased, however one has to not flip it on it's head, and say that because Rudy has dark skin, for example, that means that he isn't more likely to commit the crime due to other factors. These people are so rampantly looking for bias in their attempts to support their own bias against Knox and Sollecito, they put the tag on them as "blaming the black guy", despite having zero objective evidence of that. For example, is Knox saying she had visions that Lumumba committed the crime, when it turned out to be Guede, evidence that Knox is racist, or is it evidence that her accusers are? When she made those statements, she didn't know Guede was the killer. It is a coincidence that both have dark skin, yet Amanda's accusers immediately assume she did that on purspose. I see that as being racist against not only blacks (they are equating the two men because of skin color), but also against Amanda (assuming a white girl would have racist thoughts, even though there is no history of that with her).

Getting back to the specific example, Hellmann is saying that Rudy had no connection to Amanda and Raffaele. This would have been true if Rudy was white, or any other race. He is saying there is no evidence they were friends, and no evidence of phone calls or other types of things they would have had to do to communicate and plan the meeting at the cottage. Rudy is an unemployed "drifter" (for lack of a better word), and AK and RS are college students from out of town. Rudy goes around breaking into buildings, they have jobs or wealthy parents and go to school. Nowhere in any of that analysis do we even need to know what skin color any of them are, and the case can be made (as Hellmann did) that it is unlikely that the three would commit a murder together, especially on the spur of the moment.

The only place I can find racism there is for those who know the skin color of each person involved, and let their own prejudices make assumptions about each person's behavior. You don't have to have any racial prejudice to tell that the prosecution theory is bogus from the get go.