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

[Loss Leader]

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.

See what you did there? You changed the audience from everyone on the entire internet to the very person you're threatening. Probably, this would not be a specific enough threat for the words alone to form the basis for any legal action, however we don't have to reach that issue. Why? Because you are not arguing with Amanda Knox. She's not reading what you write and you are not addressing her.

Also, we've firmly left Incitement to Violence and entered the Harassment arena.

 

[Grinder]

As for incitement I think in general the anti-choice groups have escaped being charged when one of their followers kills a doctor - there be some exception but not the rule.

Sarah Palin had crosshairs on her web site where the Congressman that was shot was from - no charges.

As for suing in the UK, I have less knowledge but certainly there must be some nexus to sue there. A Canadian posting in Canada on a web site hosted by a US citizen doesn't seem to be open to a UK suit.

As much as it irritates people here, people have protected speech and overcoming that requires clearing high hurdles not to mention significant expense.

Perhaps those stating that she can sue could give some case histories of similar circumstances..

 

[Katody Matrass]

Steamray, welcome to the forum!

You're known for some brilliant commentary about the case

 

[smkovalinksy]

See what you did there? You changed the audience from everyone on the entire internet to the very person you're threatening. Probably, this would not be a specific enough threat for the words alone to form the basis for any legal action, however we don't have to reach that issue. Why? Because you are not arguing with Amanda Knox. She's not reading what you write and you are not addressing her.

Also, we've firmly left Incitement to Violence and entered the Harassment arena.

................

 

[Katody Matrass]

In case some of you missed it, thoughtful at PMF have provisionally translated a few parts of Hellmann report already:
Callunia
Murder Weapon
Quintavalle
Alibi

Interesting trivia: thoughtful revealed, that her source close to Quintavalle in Perugia is no other but the Giornale dell’Umbria reporter Antioco Fois, named in Massei motivation as the one who talked Quintavalle into telling his story.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Sorry, still unclear

• Were Knox and Sollecito cleared as "not proven" (which I would hold equivalent to the US Not Guilty by reasonable doubt )?
• or, as having not committed the crimes (as Hellmann said when he read the verdict, "because these defendants have not committed these crimes" )?
• Why is this so unclear and why is it now said that the only choice was actually "not proven"? due to Italy having adopted reasonable doubt jurisprudence standard in 2006?
• and why did Hellmann speak aloud in court with that precise wording as he read the verdict if the above is true?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

and I don't even play a lawyer on TV

See what you did there? You changed the audience from everyone on the entire internet to the very person you're threatening. Probably, this would not be a specific enough threat for the words alone to form the basis for any legal action, however we don't have to reach that issue. Why? Because you are not arguing with Amanda Knox. She's not reading what you write and you are not addressing her.

Also, we've firmly left Incitement to Violence and entered the Harassment arena.

There is nothing to stop Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito from reading what is on the internet; in fact, we cannot be certain that they are not reading it. Quite the contrary, if I were in their shoes, I would be monitoring the internet for threats of any kind. Are you saying that a threat has to be directed specifically at the accused? If not, can you clarify what you are saying? I am not a lawyer...

 

[Loss Leader]

There is nothing to stop Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito from reading what is on the internet; in fact, we cannot be certain that they are not reading it. Quite the contrary, if I were in their shoes, I would be monitoring the internet for threats of any kind. Are you saying that a threat has to be directed specifically at the accused? If not, can you clarify what you are saying? I am not a lawyer...

First of all, the original question was about incitement to violence. So, harassment, threats, assault and the like were outside the scope of what I was talking about.

Second, a threat generally has to be addressed to the intended victim. If the threat is not made to the victim directly, it must at least have been intended for the victim to learn about it.

Third, I don't know of anyone who has threatened Amanda Knox. The original question was about some sort of possible vigilantism spurred by people on the internet insisting she was guilty. Saying Knox is guilty is not a threat.

(Some exceptions apply for threats against the public order, such as threats against the President, but they are very narrowly construed.)

 

[Katody Matrass]

• Were Knox and Sollecito cleared as "not proven" (which I would hold equivalent to the US Not Guilty by reasonable doubt )?

No, they were cleared because from the elements provided by the prosecution that had any reliability (most had none) the case for guilt was not possible to be made, let alone proven.

from Frank's recent post:

In re-examining the many elements of guilt presented by the previous Court, this Court only found the material nonexistence of said elements and their ambiguity.

and

The construction of guilt built by the previous Court falls down not only because of different collocation of the single “bricks”, but also because there are no “bricks” left. When there are no elements, we certainly are not allowed to give a judgement of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

 

[LondonJohn]

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

That's a very bald, declarative statement. What would you base it on?

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.

The UK high court regularly handles libel cases where both the plaintiff and the defendant are not UK citizens. It's known here as "libel tourism". The only requirement is that the allegedly defamatory claims have been "published" (i.e. available in a written or broadcast form) within the jurisdiction of the UK courts. In one of the most well-known cases, a Saudi national successfully used UK courts to sue a US citizen, Rachel Ehrenfeld, over claims made by her in a book which was published in the US and never even published in the UK, but which was available for online purchase in the UK (23 copies of the book had been bought in the UK when the action was bought!). So you might want to reconsider your view on this issue.

As for "not showing up", you're aware that even if I, a UK citizen, were sued in a civil case in a UK court, there would be no compulsion for me to turn up? It's likely that the judgement would automatically go against me if I disrespected the court by refusing to attend. And court orders can be enforceable across international borders, depending on the case and the countries involved. Oh, and you might want to tip off Perugian prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, who brought civil action in Italy against a US reporter for something he's written in a Seattle local newspaper. As it happened, the action was totally without merit to start with and went nowhere as a result (sabre-rattling by Mignini), but Mignini might be interested to hear your stance on the futility of bringing civil actions in a certain country against someone who's resident in another country....

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

I'm almost certain that you're wrong to assert that I'm wrong. In UK libel law, the accusation that is the subject of the suit is assumed to be untrue unless the defendant can prove its truth (or certain other narrowly-defined defences). So in this case, Knox would not have to say a single word in regard to whether or not she was a "murderer", and nor would she have a single discovery requirement. The judge would essentially turn to the defendant (or his/her legal representative), and say words to the effect of: "Now, you've make an accusation against Miss Knox. I now invite you to supply a defence regarding that accusation. You must now prove to this court that the statement is factually true, or that it meets certain other narrow criteria constituting a proper defence. Over to you". Knox and her team would sit there silently while the defendant attempted to supply a defence. It's another of the reasons why plaintiffs love UK courts for libel actions.

 

[LondonJohn]

See what you did there? You changed the audience from everyone on the entire internet to the very person you're threatening. Probably, this would not be a specific enough threat for the words alone to form the basis for any legal action, however we don't have to reach that issue. Why? Because you are not arguing with Amanda Knox. She's not reading what you write and you are not addressing her. Also, we've firmly left Incitement to Violence and entered the Harassment arena.

I can't see how this is strictly relevant whatsoever. If it were, I could walk into my local pub, and loudly announce to everyone in the bar that I wanted to see (say) the man who runs the local newsagents' shop be violently killed. You seem to be suggesting that if that particular man were not in the pub at the time I made the pronouncement, it would somehow "not matter". Similarly, if I wrote a post on the internet that "I hate [insert name of famous professional footballer here] and would like someone to hunt him down and kill him in front of his family in a horrific way", I guarantee that this would constitute a potential criminal offence, regardless of whether or not the subject of my hatred ever read what I'd written.

I might also refer you to the real (although perhaps slightly apocryphal) case of King Henry II and Thomas Becket*, the then Archbishop of Canterbury. Henry fell out with Becket over the latter's continuing excommunication of his opponents, and Henry uttered the now infamous phrase "Will no-one rid me of this turbulent priest?" Whether Henry said these precise words will long be debated, but what is generally agreed is that Henry gave an incitement to those around him to murder Becket, which of course is exactly what happened. Had Henry been an ordinary citizen in modern times, he would likely have been charged with incitement to murder.


* As an aside, a pure accident of history has led to this person being incorrectly referred to - almost as the norm by now - as "Thomas à Becket". However this misnaming started, it's totally erroneous.

 

[steamtray]

Steamray, welcome to the forum!

You're known for some brilliant commentary about the case

Thank you kind sir, you’re not too shabby yourself.

I must say though that it’s not everyone who can run afoul of the moderators on their very first post. I’m not sure I have the self-discipline to keep myself out of hot water here. And the irony is not lost on me that in my post addressing Internet defamation, I was apparently censored for…..Internet defamation. Or, in any event, some JREF version of it. Just to be clear, I called out no individuals and mentioned no names - the deleted section concerned another group that I’m just now learning apparently enjoys protected status here. So be it.

As to Grinder’s point about the involuntary public figure doctrine, I’m almost certain it would not apply to Amanda’s situation. The case which established that doctrine, Dameron v. Washington Magazine, has been heavily criticized in many of the circuits. But the more relevant distinguishing factor is that it was applied where the subject of the case was a public controversy, i.e., a matter that affected the public at large. Specifically, the Dameron case dealt with the culpability of an air traffic controller for his role in an airline crash. It is a far different thing to invoke the doctrine in an individual murder case, except where the suspect is already a public figure. As one court said, “We are hesitant to rest involuntary public figure status upon "sheer bad luck."” And another: “Most involuntary public figures achieve their status by assuming roles of prominence in the affairs of society.”

I am doubtful that the 9th Circuit would apply the doctrine to Amanda. It is far more likely she would be analyzed according to the “limited public figure” test described in my first post.

 

[Antony]

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.

Whether or not that's true, it doesn't alter the point I was making: your example of someone inciting violence against Nazi demonstrators doesn't have much bearing on the quite different situation of Amanda Knox.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I can't see how this is strictly relevant whatsoever. If it were, I could walk into my local pub, and loudly announce to everyone in the bar that I wanted to see (say) the man who runs the local newsagents' shop be violently killed. You seem to be suggesting that if that particular man were not in the pub at the time I made the pronouncement, it would somehow "not matter". Similarly, if I wrote a post on the internet that "I hate [insert name of famous professional footballer here] and would like someone to hunt him down and kill him in front of his family in a horrific way", I guarantee that this would constitute a potential criminal offence, regardless of whether or not the subject of my hatred ever read what I'd written.

I might also refer you to the real (although perhaps slightly apocryphal) case of King Henry II and Thomas Becket*, the then Archbishop of Canterbury. Henry fell out with Becket over the latter's continuing excommunication of his opponents, and Henry uttered the now infamous phrase "Will no-one rid me of this turbulent priest?" Whether Henry said these precise words will long be debated, but what is generally agreed is that Henry gave an incitement to those around him to murder Becket, which of course is exactly what happened. Had Henry been an ordinary citizen in modern times, he would likely have been charged with incitement to murder.


* As an aside, a pure accident of history has led to this person being incorrectly referred to - almost as the norm by now - as "Thomas à Becket". However this misnaming started, it's totally erroneous.

Yes, my sister works in the mental health field, and had a client who was arrested for "making terroristic threats"---believe me, it was only words, nothing more, but what a heap of legal trouble he fell into. Love your Henry/ Becket story.

 

[Paninaro]

• Were Knox and Sollecito cleared as "not proven" (which I would hold equivalent to the US Not Guilty by reasonable doubt )?
• or, as having not committed the crimes (as Hellmann said when he read the verdict, "because these defendants have not committed these crimes" )?
• Why is this so unclear and why is it now said that the only choice was actually "not proven"? due to Italy having adopted reasonable doubt jurisprudence standard in 2006?
• and why did Hellmann speak aloud in court with that precise wording as he read the verdict if the above is true?

There is no such difference. You are either found guilty or not guilty, just as in the U.S.

As Frank Sfarzo explains:

Ha! you guys are becoming Italians!
Italians are always projected towards the past. As for sentences, they think the old formula of acquittal “per insufficienza di prove” still survives in the paragraph 2 of the article 530…

In truth that law can’t survive because it was illegal, since it was saying “you are guilty but we acquit you only because there’s no proof”. A modern law could never say that. A modern law can only say you are guilty, you are innocent, you made the fact but you are not punishable (because, for instance, you are not able to understand and will), or you made the fact but the fact is not a crime (because, for instance, the law was changed), etc,

You are not more or less not guilty depending on the turn of phrase used by a judge. Knox and Sollecito are not more innocent than others who have found not guilty. Even in Italy. It's in fact probably boarding on illegal to suggest in a Motivation that someone probably is guilty after all and only got of because there was no proof. Otherwise it would be a violation of the presumption of innocence according to the European Convention article 6, which is also Italian law. http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html#C.Art6

 

[TruthCalls]

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’m a bit confused on this. It was the decision of the prosecution during the first trial, and by request of Guede to use the fast track trial process, that resulted in separate trials. Consequently, the appeals were also handled independent from one another. Hellmann was tasked with the appeal of the Knox/Sollecito verdict. He played no role in 'separating' Knox/Sollecito from Guede. As for the "well disposed youngsters” versus the “career criminal” comment -- what specifically is wrong with it or, more importantly, what is factually in error? Maybe some feel the “well disposed” description is too prim and proper and “career criminal” is to overly harsh, but within the context of the statement, they are accurate descriptions of the three of them.

 

[Bill Williams]

I am on the search for the point of convergence between those who believe in guilt for AK and Rs, and those who do not. I have run smack into a point somewhat beyond the point of convergence - proof is, that I said something that I consider patently obvious, ie. that the police also at random somehow miraculously settled early on AK as if she had something to do with the crime, but me saying that creates a rather strongly worded backlash from a guilter.

I've given up trying to convince a guilter that their position is wrong - it simply annoys them. Seriously! This is evidence that the point of convergence is somewhat prior to me saying, "when the police mysteriously settled on Knox as a suspect." To me it IS a mystery. How does Giobbi, a well respected investigator, settle on a case closed scenerio - ie. that Knox did it - because of her crying unpredictably, her saying "hoopla", and her eating a pizza with Raffaele.

I mean, that was Giobbi's observation, he's the one saying it. And he considered the case closed before ANYONE knew about Guede, other than Guede himself.

So I ask again, where is the point of convergence? When I say, "the police mysteriously settle on Knox," that is obviously for some well-past where we've already converged.

I'd like to rewind the tape for the last time we could agree on something.

 

[komponisto]

Hellmann-Zanetti translation update:

Part 03: Ruling concerning Rudy Guede. (Why the previous verdict against Rudy Guede, which assumed the participation of Knox and Sollecito in the crime, presents no legal obstacle to finding Knox and Sollecito innocent.)

 

[smkovalinksy]

There is no such difference. You are either found guilty or not guilty, just as in the U.S.

As Frank Sfarzo explains:

You are not more or less not guilty depending on the turn of phrase used by a judge. Knox and Sollecito are not more innocent than others who have found not guilty. Even in Italy. It's in fact probably boarding on illegal to suggest in a Motivation that someone probably is guilty after all and only got of because there was no proof. Otherwise it would be a violation of the presumption of innocence according to the European Convention article 6, which is also Italian law. http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html#C.Art6

Oh, OK, thank you for clearing that up. So I see now that Hellmann's wording it as , "because these defendants did not commit these crimes" was actually meaningless, though many attributed great meaning to it, implying that he had gone beyond not guilty by reasonable doubt to "did not commit". I wish they hadn't done that, because it made me think that there was in fact a distinction of great import, while you have shown there is not.

 

[Grinder]

One of the areas of interest for me right now is the number of "facts" used against AK and RS that have proven to be untrue, exaggerated or greatly discounted.

The mop and bucket that were used to clean the cottage - no blood or DNA or bleach were detected in either the bucket or on the mop.

The washing machine was found running - untrue it wasn't even warm only damp.

The police surprised them and they called the Carabinieri only after the Postal Police showed up - both courts ruled that Raffaele called them before.

Amanda was seen at a laundromat in the middle of the night - just a rumor.

Samples of mixed blood of MK and AK were found - no such evidence was produced.

The murder weapon was found at Raf's - the DNA was unreliable, the shape didn't match the bloody outline, the knife couldn't have made the fatal wound.

Luminol disclosed bloody footprints that were compatible with AK and RS - they tested negative for blood and at least one of the prints wasn't even compatible with AK.

Raffaele stopped giving Amanda an alibi - he recanted his police interrogation statement and told the judge she was with him.

The break in was staged - split decision but no evidence that if it was it was done by RS and AK.

Bra clasp showed RS's DNA - besides the bad collection it apparently shows the DNA of half the residents of Perugia.

They cleaned the place of their evidence and left Rudy's - no evidence of such a cleanup or any significant cleaning at all.

Amanda had been fired by Patrick - at worst she had been converted into a flier girl but was still scheduled to work that night. Meredith had been asked to do a one night Mojito special.

What is most troubling is that the PGP still repeat many of these on their sites and in comments across the web.

Last note, I think the british tabs continuing to feature Amanda living her life serves no purpose and is unnecessarily in the face of the Kerchers.