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

[Grinder]

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.

And I'm almost certain it would apply. Even if you were correct that on release from prison she would not have met the standard of PF the fact that she has hired a broker to sign a book deal and more and that broker specializes in PFs would move her into the category. It would be interesting how her PR efforts while in prison would affect her PF status.

The PF category only adds an element to prove. Even without that element she would have a tough row to hoe. As I've said before other members of her family and those that assisted her would have a better shot.

Clearly england would offer the best laws for her. She would be subject to interrogatories and depositions unless their system is drastically different than ours. That could be rather tedious.

 

[Diocletus]

Look what Hellmann has done on the callunia:

[Thoughtful translates]: This Court holds, thus, that there are no objectively relevant elements to prove that Amanda Knox, when she gave the spontaneous declarations and the memorandum, was not merely in a situation of significant psychological pressure and stress, but actually in a condition to not want or intend it [i.e. to be doing it against her will, translators’ note].

In other words, Hellmann has placed the burden on the defense to demonstrate involuntariness, even though he has already decided that Knox was in fact subject to severe psychological pressure and stress at the hands of the police.

This appears to me to reverse the standard of proof that applies in most countries. Ordinarily, the prosecution must prove voluntariness, particularly where the defense has a made an initial showing of coercive and illegal police conduct.

Would the police be able to prove voluntariness under these circumstances, i.e., where Hellmann has already decided as a matter of fact that the accusation was the product of severe psychological stress induced by the police? I think not. And, I think that Hellmann knows that.

Let's see what the Supreme Court has to say about all of this.

 

[smkovalinksy]

From Paninaro's quoting of Frank Sfarzo, Perugia Shock:

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,

Our modern law in the US DOES in fact say you are not guilty as there was insufficient proof. And it never declares anyone innocent; just not guilty by reasonable doubt. I actually do not know what Frank is saying here.

 

[LondonJohn]

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

This is probably not quite such a cut-and-dried issue as you are presenting it here. The elephant in the room here is the Scottish criminal justice system (which operates totally autonomously from that in England & Wales), where two different acquittal verdicts are possible: not guilty and not proven. As a rough (but only a rough) comparison, these correspond to 530.1 and 530.2 in Italian criminal justice as it is currently written.

There has long been a debate in Scottish jurisprudence circles about exactly what you were writing about: whether these two different acquittal verdicts are compatible with an overarching presumption of innocence, and the axiom of "innocent until proven guilty". Personally, I can see no place in an adversarial justice system for two different levels of acquittal verdict. Like you (and Frank), I believe that the verdict should be a black-and-white result: either guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or the defendant is pronounced not guilty and acquitted (and remains presumed innocent as a result).

 

[LondonJohn]

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..

There has to be explicit incitement against either a well-defined group of people or against a named individual (or individuals) in order for criminality to be established. Thus, if I were to write: I hate all [insert defined group here], and wish that someone would find a way to make them go away", that would not in law constitute an explicit incitement to violence. However, if I were to write: "I hate [insert name of famous sportsperson here], and wish someone would shoot him to death on his own doorstep", that would be a criminal offence of incitement to murder.

On the libel issue, the internet has certainly muddied the waters regarding jurisdiction. But UK courts certainly now recognise that if a website is visible in the UK, that is sufficient for anyone who feels they have been libelled on that website to bring an action in the UK - regardless of whether the plaintiff or the defendant are UK residents.

As a very visible example of this issue, the gossip website TMZ.com blocked UK IP addresses from accessing its site for about a month around a year ago, because it realised that it urgently needed to examine the potential for people to bring libel actions against it in the UK (even if the plaintiff were a US citizen, and even given that TMZ.com is run and hosted out of the US). By removing access to UK viewers, TMZ.com immediately removed the threat of UK High Court actions. The site unblocked access to UK IP addresses about a month or so later, but it's understood that this coincided with a new editorial line that was much more careful about making potentially-defamatory accusations against celebrities (or whomever). TMZ.com seems to be under little illusion that it is vulnerable to civil actions in UK courts, even when writing something about - say - Lindsey Lohan. And given that libel suits are substantially more plaintiff-friendly in the UK than in the US and most other countries, that was a risk that TMZ.com felt worthy of urgent addressing.

http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/54584680.html

 

[Grinder]

Another false story was the bleach receipts - big story no receipts

Then there was the prank Amanda played - two comments on the SLOG and no victim ever came forward.

The wild party that needed many police - one lone cop was able to handle it and it only was a ticket easily paid by mail.

Marriott's control of CBS because he once was a reporter for the local affiliate - enuf said on that.

They both turned their phones off at the same time - Amanda told the police she turned off her phone and there was no way to determine if Raf did or didn't.

She went home to a cold house to shower - she wouldn't have known that the house was cold if in fact it was. The low that night was around 50.

Raf's car was parked in the driveway - looks like it was Kokomani's.

Curatolo is just a guy that lives in a park and therefore sees a lot - he was a heroin dealer and user.

When Patrick was arrested he needed to account for his time between 8 and 10 because that's when they thought the murder took place. He had receipts starting at 10:30 but that wouldn't do. They moved the ToD to 11:30 to fit Nara and Curatolo.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Hellman report translation is beginning to appear

A portion of the translation of the Hellmann report is now available. It concerns the ruling by the Supreme court on Rudy Guede.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I had thought that the wording of this carried weight, moreso than the "not guilty" verdicts rendered in the US:

ACQUITS

both of the defendants of the crimes attributed to them under Charges A,B,C, and D for not having committed the act, and of the crime under Charge E because the act did not take place; rejecting the request made against them by civil party Aldalia Tattanelli;

ORDERS

the immediate release of Amanda Marie Knox and Raffaele Sollecito if not detained for other cause;

[and] indicates the term of ninety days for the submission of the motivation.

Perugia, October 3, 2011

[Signed by:]

Massimo Zanetti, assistant judge and author [Consigliere estensore]

Claudio Pratillo Hellmann, presiding judge and author [Il Presidente ed estensore]

From Hellmann-Zanetti Report - Order
The Hellmann -Zanetti Report - Contents, Pts 1,2, 3 on
Wordpress

http://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/

http://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/contents/order/

 

[el buscador]

Another false story was the bleach receipts - big story no receipts

Then there was the prank Amanda played - two comments on the SLOG and no victim ever came forward.

The wild party that needed many police - one lone cop was able to handle it and it only was a ticket easily paid by mail.

Marriott's control of CBS because he once was a reporter for the local affiliate - enuf said on that.

They both turned their phones off at the same time - Amanda told the police she turned off her phone and there was no way to determine if Raf did or didn't.

She went home to a cold house to shower - she wouldn't have known that the house was cold if in fact it was. The low that night was around 50.

Raf's car was parked in the driveway - looks like it was Kokomani's.

Curatolo is just a guy that lives in a park and therefore sees a lot - he was a heroin dealer and user.

When Patrick was arrested he needed to account for his time between 8 and 10 because that's when they thought the murder took place. He had receipts starting at 10:30 but that wouldn't do. They moved the ToD to 11:30 to fit Nara and Curatolo.

Don't forget Amanda's bloody shoe print on the pillowcase, the one that was, of course, a partial of rudy's shoe print.

 

[smkovalinksy]

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.

I agree. It just surprised me to see certain postings calling Hellmann a blatant racist, and his motives, the same. I thought perhaps I was missing something. ........I meant "separating" them within his motivation report: It would seem certain PG posters see his inability to place Knox and Sollecito with Guede at the murder scene as simply KKK thinking. The more I reflect on it, the more absurd is the charge of "racism".

 

[smkovalinksy]

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.

IS there any point of convergence???

 

[LondonJohn]

A portion of the translation of the Hellmann report is now available. It concerns the ruling by the Supreme court on Rudy Guede.

Thanks. As anyone with any reasonable understanding of the law knew right from the start, the findings of fact in Guede's trial process - up to and including the Supreme Court affirmation - had zero impact upon the findings of fact or the verdict in the Knox/Sollecito trial process. It's an absolutely fundamental tenet of jurisprudence that a person must only be judged upon evidence, testimony and argument that is produced at his/her trial. In this particular instance, the argument is even more obvious that in many other cases: in Guede's trials, there was an unusual situation whereby both the prosecution and the defence wanted the court to rule that there were multiple assailants! The simple fact is that as a result there was never any attempt whatsoever to challenge the "multiple assailant" theory, and it was consequently accepted by every court in the Guede case. In addition, of course, it was only of very marginal consequence in Guede's trials: Guede was found guilty of murder with aggravating circumstances, and whether or not there were other participants was of almost no relevance to Guede's verdict and sentence.

Of course, once the "multiple assailant" theory was properly held up to the light, it was found severely wanting. Indeed, not only was there no evidence that Knox or Sollecito were members of a participating "murder group", but in fact there was no decent evidence that anyone at all apart from Guede was either present or responsible. And that's why all the evidence points unequivocally towards Guede as the sole assailant. He had the means and the opportunity to commit the crime (forget the arrant nonsense about "Meredith must have been restrained by two or more people" - it's plain wrong). And these types of sexually-motivated murders are far more often the work of one deviant individual that a group - and it's vanishingly rare that in those scenarios where a group is involved, the members of the group barely know each other nor belong to a common tribal grouping (e.g. a gang).

It was embarrassing to find Mignini and Comodi arguing the relevance of the Guede Supreme Court report, and it was almost as embarrassing to find pro-guilt commentators who purport to have criminal law expertise doing the same. It was always abundantly clear that the Guede rulings were totally irrelevant and inapplicable to the trial process of Knox and Sollecito. Hellmann's ruling and logic on this issue is correct and unassailable.

 

[LondonJohn]

Another false story was the bleach receipts - big story no receipts

Then there was the prank Amanda played - two comments on the SLOG and no victim ever came forward.

The wild party that needed many police - one lone cop was able to handle it and it only was a ticket easily paid by mail.

Marriott's control of CBS because he once was a reporter for the local affiliate - enuf said on that.

They both turned their phones off at the same time - Amanda told the police she turned off her phone and there was no way to determine if Raf did or didn't.

She went home to a cold house to shower - she wouldn't have known that the house was cold if in fact it was. The low that night was around 50.

Raf's car was parked in the driveway - looks like it was Kokomani's.

Curatolo is just a guy that lives in a park and therefore sees a lot - he was a heroin dealer and user.

When Patrick was arrested he needed to account for his time between 8 and 10 because that's when they thought the murder took place. He had receipts starting at 10:30 but that wouldn't do. They moved the ToD to 11:30 to fit Nara and Curatolo.

There were certainly an extraordinarily large number of widely-circulated stories related to this case which turned out to be either completely false/invented or massively distorted. It's hard to see how these stories could have reached the media (and the arraigning courts) other than through systematic and deliberate leaks from the police or prosecutors. I'd argue that it's improper for these sorts of public bodies to be leaking prejudicial information on principle - even when the leaks are accurate and subsequently provable in court. But when the leaks are themselves subsequently shown to be lies, spin and misdirection, one has to cast serious doubt on the probity and fitness-for-purpose of either the Perugia police or prosecutors' office (or both).

 

[LondonJohn]

And I'm almost certain it would apply. Even if you were correct that on release from prison she would not have met the standard of PF the fact that she has hired a broker to sign a book deal and more and that broker specializes in PFs would move her into the category. It would be interesting how her PR efforts while in prison would affect her PF status.

The PF category only adds an element to prove. Even without that element she would have a tough row to hoe. As I've said before other members of her family and those that assisted her would have a better shot.

Clearly england would offer the best laws for her. She would be subject to interrogatories and depositions unless their system is drastically different than ours. That could be rather tedious.

I really don't want to get bogged down on this issue. But there are good reasons why libel plaintiffs love suing through UK courts if at all possible. One is that the rules on Public Figures are nothing like those in the US - there is a rule of qualified privilege as a defence, but this rests on a finding of "public interest"; and there are also rules on public figures needing to prove malicious falsehood if they want to claim compensatory damages.

The second difference is - and I'll say it once again for the last time - in the UK there is no requirement for the plaintiff to prove the falsehood of the defendant's accusation. If a High Court judge decides that the case has merit, it then becomes entirely incumbent upon the defendant to prove that the accusation is true (or that it meets one of the other accepted defences). There is no deposition of the plaintiff, and no requirement for the plaintiff to do anything except to prove that the accusation was injurious to his/her good standing. Additionally, if any plaintiff wishes to claim punitive damages, it's incumbent upon him/her to prove malice on behalf of the defendant.

Therefore, someone like Knox could very easily bring libel suits in the UK courts, and would not have to answer any questions or provide any depositions as part of the High Court process. To mention this is not to "bully" or "threaten" those who are currently referring to Knox (or Sollecito) in writing as a murderer (or referring to Hellmann as corrupt or improperly influenced by outside forces): it's a discussion on a point of law that might become a rather interesting case. But, as I and others have also said many times, it's also pretty likely that Knox and her legal team will not bother to waste their time on a few... opinionated.... posters on internet forums. I guess we'll have to wait and see.....

 

[Grinder]

On the libel issue, the internet has certainly muddied the waters regarding jurisdiction. But UK courts certainly now recognise that if a website is visible in the UK, that is sufficient for anyone who feels they have been libelled on that website to bring an action in the UK - regardless of whether the plaintiff or the defendant are UK residents.

http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/54584680.html

It is clear that the uk has created an open field for libel law suits but the link provided isn't really of much value. The question remains whether or not suing anonymous commenters would be possible or worthwhile. When I say possible, I realize that anyone can sue anytime but at what cost and with what possible reward. Also, if the people are anonymous that means the provider would have to ID them and that would be a bit of chicken and egg.

This is a better link but still doesn't address the commenters but rather the websites. http://www.website-law.co.uk/resources/website-libel.html

or http://www.website-law.co.uk/blog/d...famatory-posts-on-your-website-forum-or-blog/

 

[LondonJohn]

Another interesting facet of the separation of the trial processes of Guede and Knox/Sollecito concerns the bathmat partial print. In Hellmann's motivation report, he explicitly points out that it should not be his court's job to make a positive identification for the print, nor to provide a mechanism as to how the print was made - however he then goes on to propose just such a hypothesis. But it's very important to remember that this hypothesis is not a legally-binding area of the judgement: the only thing that Hellmann's court was required to find was whether it was probable that the print belonged to Sollecito (and was therefore incriminating evidence against him). Hellmann's court found conclusively - and entirely correctly - that the print could not be positively matched to Sollecito with anything close to even a balance of probability. In fact, I disagree with Hellmann's hypothesis on the mechanism for the deposition of the print: I agree that it is most likely Guede's foot, but I believe that Guede left it as he washed blood from his trouser leg in the shower, and placed the sole of his foot into the blood/water mix pooling in the shower tray, then stepped out onto the mat as he reached for a towel or soap. However, as I've said here and in other posts, it's unimportant that I disagree with Hellmann, since there could be many possible hypotheses to explain the evidence. The only important thing is that the evidence does not point to Knox or Sollecito being involved in the murder.

And there's one other thing about the bathmat print that Hellmann alludes to in his report. He points out that the print was never properly examined in any court as a possible match to Guede. This is true, and it's very important. In Guede's trial process, prosecutors actively sought not to present this print as belonging to Guede, since they wanted to use it as evidence against the yet-to-be-tried Sollecito. And of course the defence weren't about to claim that the print belonged to Sollecito either! So neither of Guede's trials ever examined the possibility of the print belonging to Guede. It was not the job of either the defence or the courts in Sollecito's trial process to positively link the print to Guede: it was only within their remit to determine whether or not the print could positively be linked to Sollecito. So the print remained - and remains - in the netherworld of never having been positively ascribed to anyone, although Hellmann clearly makes his own feelings known on its provenance. The one thing we can say is that a court has made a judgement that the print didn't belong to Sollecito.

 

[Katody Matrass]

From Paninaro's quoting of Frank Sfarzo, Perugia Shock:


Our modern law in the US DOES in fact say you are not guilty as there was insufficient proof. And it never declares anyone innocent; just not guilty by reasonable doubt. I actually do not know what Frank is saying here.

I don't see what your problem is. If you're not guilty, you are innocent - those are actual words of Hellmann if you recall the interview he gave. He even used words like "absolutely innocent" IIRC. The strength of the verdict also comes from the finding that the proof of guilt was non-existent, not merely insufficient.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

other falsehoods

Grinder,

There were other things at first, such as the Harry Potter book and Amanda's supposedly missing clothes. Perhaps these are not repeated so much anymore.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Okay, the conspiracy theories are running off the charts. I love the newest one that suggests that Raffaele scrunched his foot up on purpose when he stepped on the bathmat in order to distort his print.

Does anyone actually think that Raffaele would have thought to distort his print at the time? Hey, if he was thinking that far in advance then why didn't he just pick up the bathmat and throw it away with his bloody clothes and the murder weapon?

Hey, why not just think logically? Logic tells us that Raffaele was not there. Hey, now lets throw in a little common sense when trying to imagine Raffaele thinking to scrunch up his foot. Yeah, not a very good theory after all.

The truth is that the print on the bathmat was inconclusive but it certainly looks a lot like Guede's foot. With all of the other evidence available at the scene, common sense tells us its Guede's print.

 

[Dan O.]

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.

The beliefee itself is the cause of divergence. In orde to flip a beliefe to the other side you need to accept evidence that is stronger than the beliefe. The true skeptics are able to lower their own beliefs in order to examine the evidence logically. The fake skeptics on both sides use their belief to filter or taint the evidence they accept. The belief feeds on itself and becomes stronger.