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

[Bill Williams]

I understand that From Nov 2 to 5th, the police suspected and interviewed many people to do with the crime. There are reports of a "28 year old chef" who was intitally suspected, and who did not have an alibi. His phone number was in Meredith's mobile. There was also a report that they suspected that the perp might have had an Islamic background, given the way the body was covered for modesty.

Does anyone know of the existence of a list of who was suspected until the police miraculously zeroed in on Knox and Sollecito?

 

[Grinder]

Public Figure The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.
In addition to the above from expertlaw.com Amanda's PR efforts and the coming book and movie deals make her a public figure. Regardless of the PF aspect she needs to prove damages if she wants to get any money from the suit.

A much better approach IMO is for the family members and other associated people to sue. Chris, Edda, Curt, the sisters (they would be sympathetic), the Moores, the various PHDs et al could sue these people to bring them out into the open which would be reward enough. Things said about so many of the above seem over-the-top and possibly libelous.

 

[Antony]

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

I guess my understanding of "reasonably" is not the same as yours.

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

No, I mean that a written article stating "Amanda is a murderer" is as damaging as one saying the same about you or me - arguably more so, as there are many people already primed to believe the accusation.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

For my final word on this particular issue, I think that Knox would have a strong case, if she chose to proceed. I have proposed many times (as have others) that Knox may simply not bother to take action against a small collection of obsessive pro-guilt internet commentators, but I still firmly believe that if she did for whatever reason decide to pursue actions, she'd stand a good chance of success, particularly if she brought cases in UK courts (hint to Knox: request Justice Eady ).

Some have suggested that were Knox to bring defamation actions, she would be deposed to defend accusations on justification (i.e. that she was indeed a murderer). This however is certainly not the case in UK courts. The burden of proof would entirely vest with the defendant in the action, not the plaintiff. The claim that Knox is a "murderer" would be assumed to be false unless the defendant could prove it to be true, or could prove fair comment. I don't think that a UK court would accept a defence in either of these areas. And Knox would never have to say or write a single word as part of that process. All that Knox would have to do would be to show that the accusations were injurious to her reputation. I don't think she'd have any problem with that either.

Lastly, some have brought up things such as Vincent Bugliosi's books on OJ Simpson and George W Bush, where Bugliosi directly accuses both men of murder (albeit the Bush book is somewhat of a deliberately parenthetical "what-if" scenario and would probably pass as fair comment). But the truth here is that technically both these books were probably actionable. In fact, IIRC, the OJ book was not published in the UK for quite some time after its US publication, because the publishers were seriously concerned about libel actions being brought in UK courts. But the overarching factor in both these cases was that the author and publisher gambled that the books' subjects would not choose to instigate defamation actions, owing to the fact that a) any victory would be pyrrhic, and b) neither person wanted public attention being drawn further towards the issues discussed in the books. In addition, of course, in Simpson's case he has a civil judgement against him over the killings, so it's not entirely unlikely that a judge would have accepted that as justification in itself.

In summary: I remain of the opinion that if Knox wanted to being actions against anyone calling her a "murderer" (plus embellishments) in print, she would have a good chance of success, particularly in UK courts. And just to be clear: that's not meant in any way to be a threat, or even a veiled threat. It's purely a discussion point. To be perfectly honest, I personally don't really care what certain people choose to call Knox (and Sollecito). But Knox and Sollecito themselves might. As, for that matter, might Judge Hellmann.

 

[LondonJohn]

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?

Yes, I can see how certain elements of the Hellmann court's report might leave the judicial panel (not just Hellmann himself, remember) open to accusations of racial/demographic bias. But I don't believe that thoas accusations would have any merit.

It's important to remember that Hellmann's court was trying Knox and Sollecito. It was therefore only tasked with assessing whether there was sufficient proof of the charges against Knox and Sollecito to find them guilty on those charges (additionally, under Italian law as it currently stands, if the verdicts were not guilty, the court was also tasked with differentiating between finding non-guilt on reasonable doubt or non-guilt because of no evidence).

At this point, there is a marked difference between inquisitorial justice and adversarial justice. In the former, the court is essentially tasked with finding "the truth" from all the evidence, and then assessing whether those on trial are guilty within that finding of "truth". But in an Anglo-Saxon-style adversarial system, the court is not required to reconstruct the crime, especially where it finds the defendant(s) not guilty. It merely has to state that there are alternative explanations for the known evidence that are not consistent with the guilt of the defendant(s). Whether there is one or several alternative explanations is unimportant.

To take one example from this case, Hellmann's report addresses the partial print on the bathmat. His court concluded that the print cannot be linked to Sollecito with anything near a high probability. He then states that the print is consistent with Guede and that it probably belonged to Guede. Some pro-guilt commentators have accused Hellmann's court of a double standard here: how can it say that "probably" is improper and inadmissible when it concerns Sollecito, but seemingly fine where it concerns Guede. The answer to this, of course, is that Hellmann's court was not trying Guede. It was trying Sollecito. Therefore, in order to conclude that the bathmat print is not probative evidence against Sollecito, the court was only required to conclude that a) the print could not be specifically matched to Sollecito (or even "probably" matched), and b) there is a plausible alternative explanation for the print (i.e. that it probably belonged to Guede). In other words, Hellmann's court was not required to prove that the print belonged to Guede in order to throw it out as evidence against Sollecito.

This leads to a fundamental issue regarding the verdicts and motivations report. The overwhelmingly most important factor in both is that there's no evidence tying Knox or Sollecito to the murder. Hellmann's court's speculation on alternative explanations for much of the evidence is of secondary importance - there may be multiple possible explanations, of which the court selected one. I happen to disagree with some of Hellmann's court's alternative explanations, but that's actually fairly unimportant. The important thing is that I totally agree with Hellmann's court that the totality of the evidence - when assessed objectively and critically - not only cannot prove the guilt of Knox/Sollecito in the murder, but actually is not even an indicator of their guilt. This was clear to many of us from the moment the Massei report was available.

 

[Supernaut]

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 by Locknar: 

Edited, breach of rule 0.

Apart from the issue of defamation, the shrill accusations which continue to be made agasint AK and RS could be seen as incitement, and of putting them at risk of physical harm.

And I also agree with Antony and smkovalinsky - I cannot see how Amanda can be regarded legally as a "public figure", she did nothing to seek out fame or notoriety - she is a middle-class Seattle university student.

Damages awarded in a libel suite might well be "puny" in the greater scheme of things but would still be 'punitive' - most of the prolific guilters, I'm pretty sure, are not exactly 'people of means' - and serve as a deterrent.

 

[Grinder]

Does anybody have a list of the major PG talking points that have been disproved or cast aside?

The mop and bucket were used to clean the cottage ---- No DNA or blood found on either

The Double DNA murder knife---------------------------No murder weapon found

Bloody Bathroom as represented by DM photo------------Youtube video shows clean bathroom.

Mixed blood---------------------------------------------No mixed blood only MK's blood and AK DNA.

Raffaele's car parked in drive-----------------------------Kokomani's instead

Washing machine warm and running when PP arrived------Not running and only moist.

Amanda seen at laundromat in middle of night-------------Didn't pan out

Raffaele stopped backing AK alibi and never changed-------Raf told judge they were in fact together

Luminol prints in blood------------------------------------Tested negative for blood (luminol hits on techs boots?)

Seen from 9:30 - til just before midnight in Plaza-----------Witness junky and dealer - times seen changed at will to fit each new theory.

Raffaele called after PP arrived----------------------------Both courts ruled he called before.

They changed their stories multiple times------------------Basically they only told a different story under court acknowledged stress by police.

Amanda never recanted Patrick story---------------------She began recanting within hours and by the 7th stated clearly (yes Bill, clearly) that she couldn't have seen him because she wasn't there.

That's all folks, for now.

 

[Loss Leader]

For my final word on this particular issue, I think that Knox would have a strong case, if she chose to proceed.

Knox would stand almost no chance of winning a libel case against anyone under any circumstance.

I still firmly believe that if she did for whatever reason decide to pursue actions, she'd stand a good chance of success, particularly if she brought cases in UK courts (hint to Knox: request Justice Eady ).

I'm not sure how Knox, an American citizen living in the US, could sue anybody but a UK citizen in a UK court. Even if she somehow did, the person just wouldn't show up.

And Knox would never have to say or write a single word as part of that process.

I don't know UK discovery laws, but I'm almost certain that this is wrong.

Apart from the issue of defamation, the shrill accusations which continue to be made agasint AK and RS could be seen as incitement, and of putting them at risk of physical harm.

Absolutely, completely and totally impossible.


IAAL

 

[smkovalinksy]

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.

Yes, you are correct. People are jumping to the conclusion that Hellmann is saying, "Knox and Sollecito, being white college kids, could not have conspired with this black druggie." What he is actually saying is that, as you state, there was no prior connection to Guede at all; Moreover, Guede had had criminal arrests in Italy, and they had not. Again, as you say, Guede might have been a blue-eyed blonde, and it would still hold true. I would assume the SC will be able to see the truth of Hellmann's surmisings, as you have.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Yes, I can see how certain elements of the Hellmann court's report might leave the judicial panel (not just Hellmann himself, remember) open to accusations of racial/demographic bias. But I don't believe that thoas accusations would have any merit.

It's important to remember that Hellmann's court was trying Knox and Sollecito. It was therefore only tasked with assessing whether there was sufficient proof of the charges against Knox and Sollecito to find them guilty on those charges (additionally, under Italian law as it currently stands, if the verdicts were not guilty, the court was also tasked with differentiating between finding non-guilt on reasonable doubt or non-guilt because of no evidence).

At this point, there is a marked difference between inquisitorial justice and adversarial justice. In the former, the court is essentially tasked with finding "the truth" from all the evidence, and then assessing whether those on trial are guilty within that finding of "truth". But in an Anglo-Saxon-style adversarial system, the court is not required to reconstruct the crime, especially where it finds the defendant(s) not guilty. It merely has to state that there are alternative explanations for the known evidence that are not consistent with the guilt of the defendant(s). Whether there is one or several alternative explanations is unimportant.

To take one example from this case, Hellmann's report addresses the partial print on the bathmat. His court concluded that the print cannot be linked to Sollecito with anything near a high probability. He then states that the print is consistent with Guede and that it probably belonged to Guede. Some pro-guilt commentators have accused Hellmann's court of a double standard here: how can it say that "probably" is improper and inadmissible when it concerns Sollecito, but seemingly fine where it concerns Guede. The answer to this, of course, is that Hellmann's court was not trying Guede. It was trying Sollecito. Therefore, in order to conclude that the bathmat print is not probative evidence against Sollecito, the court was only required to conclude that a) the print could not be specifically matched to Sollecito (or even "probably" matched), and b) there is a plausible alternative explanation for the print (i.e. that it probably belonged to Guede). In other words, Hellmann's court was not required to prove that the print belonged to Guede in order to throw it out as evidence against Sollecito.

This leads to a fundamental issue regarding the verdicts and motivations report. The overwhelmingly most important factor in both is that there's no evidence tying Knox or Sollecito to the murder. Hellmann's court's speculation on alternative explanations for much of the evidence is of secondary importance - there may be multiple possible explanations, of which the court selected one. I happen to disagree with some of Hellmann's court's alternative explanations, but that's actually fairly unimportant. The important thing is that I totally agree with Hellmann's court that the totality of the evidence - when assessed objectively and critically - not only cannot prove the guilt of Knox/Sollecito in the murder, but actually is not even an indicator of their guilt. This was clear to many of us from the moment the Massei report was available.

Yes. It is the evidence which fails to link Knox and Sollecito to the crime.

Whether they are white, or college educated, or sweet, or nice, or in love, is all secondary, as you say. Supposing he were a black drug dealer, and she, an Indian prostitute, both close to Guede for many years: If they didn't do it with Guede, they didn't do it with him. Would it be fair in this scenario to find them falsely guilty due to their social status and ties to Guede?

If the evidence fails to convict, then you have acquittals. Character analysis is only extra stuff thrown in. I would agree with some that Knox and Sollecito were "not above Guede" in the sense that all kinds can commit murder. But where is the evidence? Lady Justice has her blindfold on to all but the evidence, ideally.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Absolutely, completely and totally impossible.


IAAL

Why so?

 

[Loss Leader]

Why so?

In general, incitement to violence must: 1) be directed at a specific person or small group of people; 2) actually state that they should commit violence; 3) have some likelihood of causing people to commit violence.

If I'm at a boisterous counter-protest against Nazi's in Skokie, Illinois, some fifteen feet from Nazis, and I yell into the mic, "There they are! Skinheads! Throw your bottles at them!" I have probably committed the act of incitement to violence.

If it's a very mellow protest three hundred feet away where people are holding signs and singing 'We Shall Overcome," I may not have committed an illegal act.

If the Nazis are on TV and I yell it to a group of people sitting in my living room, I probably haven't committed a crime.

If the Nazis are on the internet and I write, "Somebody should throw a bottle at them," I haven't done anything illegal at all.

So, no yelling about AK's guilt on the internet will ever rise to any sort of criminal level.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I'm not sure how Knox, an American citizen living in the US, could sue anybody but a UK citizen in a UK court

Incidentally one of the hate-sites is operated by a British subject in UK.

 

[smkovalinksy]

In general, incitement to violence must: 1) be directed at a specific person or small group of people; 2) actually state that they should commit violence; 3) have some likelihood of causing people to commit violence.

If I'm at a boisterous counter-protest against Nazi's in Skokie, Illinois, some fifteen feet from Nazis, and I yell into the mic, "There they are! Skinheads! Throw your bottles at them!" I have probably committed the act of incitement to violence.

If it's a very mellow protest three hundred feet away where people are holding signs and singing 'We Shall Overcome," I may not have committed an illegal act.

If the Nazis are on TV and I yell it to a group of people sitting in my living room, I probably haven't committed a crime.

If the Nazis are on the internet and I write, "Somebody should throw a bottle at them," I haven't done anything illegal at all.

So, no yelling about AK's guilt on the internet will ever rise to any sort of criminal level.

Thank you. Yes, I do see your points, and understand the distinctions. The only difference here - and it likely still does not live up to the legal standard of incitement - is that Knox, being a quasi-public figure and known to have been accused and convicted of murder - is already in more danger than say, you or I. There might be someone reading pg posts who would feel incited to attack her. But I would agree, legally, the posters would probably not be found culpable.

They oughtn't to post in some of the more extreme modes, though, if only because it is in bad taste to do so about someone who has been acquitted. ( I am speaking of those who say things such as, Knox is an evil murderer , and she is in it up to her ****** neck, or that Knox and Sollecito must have been turned on by stepping in the blood. Really bad form, and horrendously wrong and a vast mistake and failure of moral character, to my thinking. )

 

[RoseMontague]

The only place Amanda will have a chance at winning some sort of defamation lawsuit is in Italy, filed by her lawyers, in my opinion. I do think some of those Italians that are making comments about Hellmann, even on US blogs and articles, are subject to being sued.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

veiled threats?

Loss Leader,

In reference to Knox and Sollecito, suppose someone says, "There are other ways for justice to be done, besides the courts?" This is probably too vague to be considered incitement, but I would read or hear such a statement as a veiled threat, and I personally would be very concerned about it if I were the target.

 

[Antony]

In general, incitement to violence must: 1) be directed at a specific person or small group of people; 2) actually state that they should commit violence; 3) have some likelihood of causing people to commit violence.

If I'm at a boisterous counter-protest against Nazi's in Skokie, Illinois, some fifteen feet from Nazis, and I yell into the mic, "There they are! Skinheads! Throw your bottles at them!" I have probably committed the act of incitement to violence.

If it's a very mellow protest three hundred feet away where people are holding signs and singing 'We Shall Overcome," I may not have committed an illegal act.

If the Nazis are on TV and I yell it to a group of people sitting in my living room, I probably haven't committed a crime.

If the Nazis are on the internet and I write, "Somebody should throw a bottle at them," I haven't done anything illegal at all.

So, no yelling about AK's guilt on the internet will ever rise to any sort of criminal level.

I don't see any real parallel between Knox's situation and a group of people at a demonstration. Once the demonstration is over, the Nazis can go home and return to anonymity; so any hatred directed against them by people watching TV or posting on the internet is highly unlikely to have any effect - unless it were to identify them individually in a way that enabled someone to pick them out at a later time.

Amanda, by contrast and through no choice of her own, is someone easily identifiable and widely known. There are many people who know where she lives, for example, and she is already being stalked by press photographers. This means that someone posting hatred against her on the internet can very easily put her in danger of harassment or worse in a way that could never be the case for your Nazi demonstrators. She is entitled to be protected against anything that could in any way be interpreted as incitement in an internet posting.

 

[Dougm]

<snip>
At this point, there is a marked difference between inquisitorial justice and adversarial justice. In the former, the court is essentially tasked with finding "the truth" from all the evidence, and then assessing whether those on trial are guilty within that finding of "truth". But in an Anglo-Saxon-style adversarial system, the court is not required to reconstruct the crime, especially where it finds the defendant(s) not guilty. It merely has to state that there are alternative explanations for the known evidence that are not consistent with the guilt of the defendant(s). Whether there is one or several alternative explanations is unimportant. <snip>

I have noticed, in some of the rantings elsewhere since the Hellmann report came out, that the many of the PG folks don't seem to understand this concept. I am wondering if much of the vehement disagreement about this case is because people hold a different view of the "inquisitorial vs. adversarial" systems, especially since Italy changed from one to the other not so long ago. One of our Italian friends in particular does not seem to grasp the idea that if there is any alternative explanation that is equally plausible, the defendants go free. This "it seems probable that X and Y happened, so it could be likely that Z happened" does not work in the adversarial system. Neither does "they gave different stories at one point, that means they must have done something". These are not adequate to prove guilt. Not to mention that the evidence does not come close to proving anything about Knox and Sollecito no matter what system you go by, but I can't help but wonder if many of our PG pals are not grasping the concept.

Of course, for the ones from countries that have been using the adversarial system for decades or more, I can't come up with an answer for why they don't get it. I have just seen so much arguing from the perspective that the defendants have to prove their innocence, rather than just show that there is no proof of guilt. This was echoed in the cries about the C&V report, where the PGers claimed that C&V had to show clearly where the contamination had occurred. This shows me that they don't understand the legal concept.

 

[Loss Leader]

In reference to Knox and Sollecito, suppose someone says, "There are other ways for justice to be done, besides the courts?" This is probably too vague to be considered incitement, but I would read or hear such a statement as a veiled threat, and I personally would be very concerned about it if I were the target.

Great. It's not illegal in any way, but you can feel concerned about it if you want to.

I don't see any real parallel between Knox's situation and a group of people at a demonstration. Once the demonstration is over, the Nazis can go home and return to anonymity; so any hatred directed against them by people watching TV or posting on the internet is highly unlikely to have any effect - unless it were to identify them individually in a way that enabled someone to pick them out at a later time.

Amanda, by contrast and through no choice of her own, is someone easily identifiable and widely known. There are many people who know where she lives, for example, and she is already being stalked by press photographers. This means that someone posting hatred against her on the internet can very easily put her in danger of harassment or worse in a way that could never be the case for your Nazi demonstrators. She is entitled to be protected against anything that could in any way be interpreted as incitement in an internet posting.

Terrific post. It has absolutely nothing to do with the law anywhere in the United States. The concepts you're talking about don't have anything whatsoever to do with the jurisprudence regarding incitement to violence. Nothing you stated would make an incitement conviction any more likely at all.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Great. It's not illegal in any way, but you can feel concerned about it if you want to.

Why not illegal in any way? Supposing I am arguing with my repairman or doctor about a bill, and I say to him, "There are more ways to deal with you than through an attorney." I think he would take that as a veiled threat, and report me. If such a thing were actually said, and I were the target, I would use all at my beck and call, legally, to check it. And fast.