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

[Supernaut]

Amanda and Raf are INNOCENT!

(And, how do you like my new sig?)

 

[Supernaut]

Sorry for being a bit drunk and off-topic, but what great music;

"Deep inside your Heart you pick up the right station,

Shining through the layers of static in your brain.

You always know it, when you're tuned into the good one.

It's pure and clear .... "

EDIT >> from "Radio" on "Motivation Radio", I should have said.

 

[Dan O.]

Does anyone remember an earlier piece that mentions the CCTV clip in reference to the male figure? Or at all before the trial?

I think this is the earliest mention of CCTV related to the case:
Times Online Nov 10, 2007

A security camera near Kercher's flat identified the fourth suspect as a Congolese known only as "Usi" retreating from Kercher's flat shortly after the incident allegedly occurred.
Today another man was arrested. Seems police found a fingerprint on a pillowcase that didn't belong to any of the three suspects. He is a musician, is also from Africa and is named Usi.​

Sometimes CCTV is not so useful
Republica 2007-11-14 (keys)

Of little help instead 's examination of the frames of the cameras square Grimana. And for the cameras of the parking lot next to Meredith's house, according to the Flying Squad's images do not allow to identify the person shooting.
​

Sometimes ...
Ciao People 2007-11-15

Sollecito's lawyers have asked to purchase all the recordings of the cameras that are located between his house and the murder in order to prove the innocence of his client.​

 

[anglolawyer]

Kaosium - did you get the title of the post right? "PROSECUTION" appeal of the calunnia charge?

Bill

The prosecution is appealing against Hellman's rejection of the charge of aggravated calunnia. He convicted them of basic calunnia only. In the basic version, you just falsely accuse someone of a crime while in the aggravated version you make the accusation for the purpose of getting away with the crime yourself.

So the ILE say:

1 because A & R did, in fact, commit the murder, Amanda's purpose was evidently to send the cops in the wrong direction (like the old guy in Butch Cassidy who tells the posse 'they went thataway') and

2 it is illogical to acquit of murder but convict of calunnia since the only way she could know Lumumba was innocent was if she commited the crime herself.

Hellman rejects point 1 because he finds them innocent of the murder and he rejects point 2 because she had other ways of knowing Lumumba was innocent. I think I disagree with Hellman's reasoning on point 2, (but see below). He says this:

the circumstances under which Lumumba’s name emerged in the course of the police interrogation (a message directed to him taken from the cellular phone of Amanda Knox), and the lack of evidence of a connection between Lumumba and Meredith Kercher [should have] allowed Amanda Knox, even if actually innocent herself and far from the house on Via Della Pergola at the time of the crime, to be aware of Lumumba’s total innocence, and thus of the calumny that she was committing by pointing to him as the perpetrator of the murder.

So she should have been able to work out Lumumba was innocent from the information she had. Everytime I write a paragraph trying to say what I think about this I have to stop and start again. This is my third attempt. I don't mean I am overcome with emotion or anything but that a question pops up in my mind about the correct interpretation of the law of calunnia. Two areas of uncertainty are:

- first, is the knowledge of innocence the accuser is supposed to have restricted to actual knowledge or does constructive knowledge count as well (=something she should have known)? The answer to this is not in the statutory provision itself so this is a matter of construction. For my part, it is clear Amanda did not actually know Lumumba was innocent but, regarding her constructive knowledge, we need to get into whether a reasonable person, in her situation and subject to all the conditions prevailing at the time she made the accusation, should have known he was innocent. It's interesting that the defence (not to be assumed to have unlimited resources) has called no psychological expert's evidence on this point. The whole thing is just a matter for argument between lawyers, unaided by any qualified opinion on the psychic affects of interrogation techniques ... and

- second, is an intent to harm or injure the accused person part of the offence and, if it is, is the intent objective or subjective? This also is not in the statutory definition so it can only be put there by legal interpretation. The summary of Amanda's appeal posted by Kaosium and translated and compiled by roteoctober* suggests the defence thinks it is (or should be). LJ and I had an absolutely fascinating discussion about this, as will be recalled, and I recommend that everyone re-read every tedious, dreary word of it (indeed, that doing so should be a condition of further participation in the conversation). LJ thinks intent to cause harm to the falsely accused is part of the offence and that the test is objective.

Anglo has not the faintest idea about all this but points out that none of these problems would have arisen if Italy had adopted his drafting of the offence.

So my current position is: tell me what the law says and I'll tell you whether I think she committed basic callunia.

* all hail to the translators for facilitating this fascinating discussion. Thanks to them I think I am beginning to get my head round it. Thanks to Kaosium for posting the translations.

 

[anglolawyer]

Briars

Is it your position that Frank's reporting of the proceedings in Perugia should be regarded as entirely worthless because he is not a very nice and/or an abusive person? If so, that seems irrational. Can you find an example from any court report of his that conflicts with one or more accounts of the same proceedings as given by other journalists? That would be a much better basis for your dismissal of his writings and of his critique of Mignini.

Yours more in hope than expectation

 

[Kaosium]

I think this is the earliest mention of CCTV related to the case:
Times Online Nov 10, 2007

A security camera near Kercher's flat identified the fourth suspect as a Congolese known only as "Usi" retreating from Kercher's flat shortly after the incident allegedly occurred.
Today another man was arrested. Seems police found a fingerprint on a pillowcase that didn't belong to any of the three suspects. He is a musician, is also from Africa and is named Usi.​

Hrm. So on the tenth as reported here they think it's 'Usi,' who was the one named as Patrick's alibi in Matteini¹. On the 12th in the Mirror piece you previously posted they think its a 'North African man,' and they're 'downplaying his involvement.'

Sometimes CCTV is not so useful
Republica 2007-11-14 (keys)

Of little help instead 's examination of the frames of the cameras square Grimana. And for the cameras of the parking lot next to Meredith's house, according to the Flying Squad's images do not allow to identify the person shooting.
​

Thus at this point they must have given up on Usi, not having quite caught on to Rudy Guede's involvement. My memory fails, when did Rudy's friend go to the police with his suspicions of Rudy's involvement?

Sometimes ...
Ciao People 2007-11-15

Sollecito's lawyers have asked to purchase all the recordings of the cameras that are located between his house and the murder in order to prove the innocence of his client.​

If I recall correctly there's a bit about them trying to get the tapes of those recordings in "Honor Bound" as well, though I do not recall the exact reference, but we know they didn't get them, the reason why eludes me at this hour of the morning.


¹

In fact, while Lumumba was in the court hearing he confirmed that he had opened the pub in the afternoon of November 1 at around 1700 to 1800. The first receipts are shown to start from 22.29 and the suspect was not able to give any logical explanation for these circumstances, and was not able to furnish precise indications of the eventual clients who could attest to his presence in the pub before 22.29, and was not able to provide precise and therefore useful indications for the meeting with a person known only as Usi who would have come into the bar at 2000, or was able to give a telephone number or other identifying elements, despite calling him a friend.

 

[Kaosium]

Bill

The prosecution is appealing against Hellman's rejection of the charge of aggravated calunnia. He convicted them of basic calunnia only. In the basic version, you just falsely accuse someone of a crime while in the aggravated version you make the accusation for the purpose of getting away with the crime yourself.

Yes, a much better way of putting it.

So the ILE say:

1 because A & R did, in fact, commit the murder, Amanda's purpose was evidently to send the cops in the wrong direction (like the old guy in Butch Cassidy who tells the posse 'they went thataway') and

2 it is illogical to acquit of murder but convict of calunnia since the only way she could know Lumumba was innocent was if she commited the crime herself.

Hellman rejects point 1 because he finds them innocent of the murder and he rejects point 2 because she had other ways of knowing Lumumba was innocent. I think I disagree with Hellman's reasoning on point 2, (but see below). He says this:



So she should have been able to work out Lumumba was innocent from the information she had. Everytime I write a paragraph trying to say what I think about this I have to stop and start again.

I'm having the same problem, especially as the latter is basically what happened, as can be seen by her 'gift' note of (later on) November 6th, then her additional note of November 7th where she realizes none of it ever happened, and then finally in the bugged conversation with her mother on the tenth which the prosecution didn't quote in their appeal, that she eventually realized that the police didn't have any actual evidence against Patrick outside her statements which she'd since repudiated. It strikes me as there's pretty clear documentation of her slowly coming to that realization over days, thus Hellman's rationale here for her calunnia conviction ought not to stand scrutiny.

The prosecution is alleging that the only way she could 'know' that Patrick was innocent was if she was involved, but the same sequence of documentation suggests she didn't know, she was terribly confused, and only figured out later that there was nothing to it outside the stress and psychological pressure they were putting on her. I think the defense argument as reiterated in their appeal ought to have at least some relevance, meaning the part where they point out that a competent police and prosecution might investigate her 'witness' statements, but then rushing out to haul Patrick in and not letting him out of their cold dead hands until Rudy was captured was hardly her[/i] doing, as posted recently from CD's "Murder in Italy" Amanda didn't even know Patrick had been arrested when she gave Ficarra the 'gift' note: thus she had already punctuated her realization it was all confused in her mind and likely never happened before knowing that Patrick had been arrested.

So how could she have been trying to pin it on Patrick with that being taken into account?

This is my third attempt. I don't mean I am overcome with emotion or anything but that a question pops up in my mind about the correct interpretation of the law of calunnia. Two areas of uncertainty are:

- first, is the knowledge of innocence the accuser is supposed to have restricted to actual knowledge or does constructive knowledge count as well (=something she should have known)? The answer to this is not in the statutory provision itself so this is a matter of construction. For my part, it is clear Amanda did not actually know Lumumba was innocent but, regarding her constructive knowledge, we need to get into whether a reasonable person, in her situation and subject to all the conditions prevailing at the time she made the accusation, should have known he was innocent. It's interesting that the defence (not to be assumed to have unlimited resources) has called no psychological expert's evidence on this point. The whole thing is just a matter for argument between lawyers, unaided by any qualified opinion on the psychic affects of interrogation techniques ... and

The name escapes me at the moment, but indeed an expert on the phenomena of 'internalized false confessions' did get involved in this case, he was the subject of smearing by TJMK months back if I recall correctly.

- second, is an intent to harm or injure the accused person part of the offence and, if it is, is the intent objective or subjective? This also is not in the statutory definition so it can only be put there by legal interpretation. The summary of Amanda's appeal posted by Kaosium and translated and compiled by roteoctober* suggests the defence thinks it is (or should be). LJ and I had an absolutely fascinating discussion about this, as will be recalled, and I recommend that everyone re-read every tedious, dreary word of it (indeed, that doing so should be a condition of further participation in the conversation). LJ thinks intent to cause harm to the falsely accused is part of the offence and that the test is objective.

Could you (or LJ) direct me to that conversation?

Anglo has not the faintest idea about all this but points out that none of these problems would have arisen if Italy had adopted his drafting of the offence.

So my current position is: tell me what the law says and I'll tell you whether I think she committed basic calunnia.

* all hail to the translators for facilitating this fascinating discussion. Thanks to them I think I am beginning to get my head round it. Thanks to Kaosium for posting the translations.

I'm trying to work through it myself, which is the purpose of this post. I was unaware of the existence of basic and aggravated calunnia, I didn't know there was a distinction either, merely the one between what amounts to defamation (like Amanda's parents and the other unfortunates charged) and calunnia as detailed in Massei.

 

[anglolawyer]

Yes, a much better way of putting it.



I'm having the same problem, especially as the latter is basically what happened, as can be seen by her 'gift' note of (later on) November 6th, then her additional note of November 7th where she realizes none of it ever happened, and then finally in the bugged conversation with her mother on the tenth which the prosecution didn't quote in their appeal, that she eventually realized that the police didn't have any actual evidence against Patrick outside her statements which she'd since repudiated. It strikes me as there's pretty clear documentation of her slowly coming to that realization over days, thus Hellman's rationale here for her calunnia conviction ought not to stand scrutiny.

The prosecution is alleging that the only way she could 'know' that Patrick was innocent was if she was involved, but the same sequence of documentation suggests she didn't know, she was terribly confused, and only figured out later that there was nothing to it outside the stress and psychological pressure they were putting on her. I think the defense argument as reiterated in their appeal ought to have at least some relevance, meaning the part where they point out that a competent police and prosecution might investigate her 'witness' statements, but then rushing out to haul Patrick in and not letting him out of their cold dead hands until Rudy was captured was hardly her[/i] doing, as posted recently from CD's "Murder in Italy" Amanda didn't even know Patrick had been arrested when she gave Ficarra the 'gift' note: thus she had already punctuated her realization it was all confused in her mind and likely never happened before knowing that Patrick had been arrested.

So how could she have been trying to pin it on Patrick with that being taken into account?




The name escapes me at the moment, but indeed an expert on the phenomena of 'internalized false confessions' did get involved in this case, he was the subject of smearing by TJMK months back if I recall correctly.



Could you (or LJ) direct me to that conversation?



I'm trying to work through it myself, which is the purpose of this post. I was unaware of the existence of basic and aggravated calunnia, I didn't know there was a distinction either, merely the one between what amounts to defamation (like Amanda's parents and the other unfortunates charged) and calunnia as detailed in Massei.

Kaosium

It's always brilliant when you show up. You make the great point about the gradually unfolding realisation on Amanda's part that Lumumba could not have been involved which I had missed. Someone also told me there was a defence expert on false confessions. Does Massei address this person's evidence I wonder?

As for basic and aggravated calunnia, this is fundamental. I explained it in post no. 6558
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8950074&postcount=6558* since when Grinder has posted a very nice translation of the offence in basic form in post 6602 as follows:

Anyone who with a denunciation, complaint, demand or request, even anonymously or under a false name, directs a judicial authority or other authority that has an obligation to report, to blame someone for a crime who he knows is innocent, that is he fabricates evidence against someone, shall be punished with imprisonment from two to six years. The penalty shall be increased if the accused blames someone of a crime for which the law prescribes a penalty of imprisonment exceeding a maximum of ten years, or another more serious penalty. The imprisonment shall be from four to twelve years if the act results in a prison sentence exceeding five years, from six to twenty years if the act results in a life sentence.[1][2]
The mens rea of calunnia requires awareness and a willingness to blame someone of a crime that the accused knows is innocent.[3]
Calunnia should be distinguished from criminal slander (ingiuria) and criminal libel (diffamazione) which relate to offences against personal honour in the Italian Penal Code

Now, that's basic because it lacks any of the aggravating elements in section 61 of the penal code. Section 61 contains a list of such aggravating circumstances, which can apply to any crime in the code. The one we are concerned with is section 61(2) which google renders as follows:

'to have committed the offense to back them or conceal another, or to achieve or provide for themselves or others or the profit or the price or the impunity of another crime;'

So, what this means is if you just accuse someone falsely you go down for the basic version. If you do so with one or more of the purposes stated above you get done for aggravated calunnia and you are liable for a heavier sentence.

It's like in England we have burglary and aggravated burglary, the latter being the same as the former in every respect except the burglar goes armed. So Rudy probably committed aggravated burglary when he entered the apartment just as he did at Tramontano's place (assuming it was him).

It all now becomes clear: the defence is unhappy with Hellman because he convicted her at all and the prosecution is unhappy because he downgraded the charge from aggravated to basic. Of course, they have to be peeved at that because in their universe she committed the murder and therefore, obviously, made the accusation against Lumumba to divert the police away from her own involvement.

Kaosium, as I like you, I will not refer to my discussion with LJ about mens rea, but what I will do is re-draft the law of calunnia in all its possible variations:

Basic calunnia as enacted in the penal code

A person commits calunnia if he falsely accuses another of a crime knowing the accused person to be innocent.

Aggravated calunnia as enacted in the penal code

A person commits aggravated calunnia if he falsely accuses another of a crime knowing the accused person to be innocent with intent to back them or conceal another or to achieve or provide for themselves or others or the profit or the price or the impunity of another crime.

I do not know what 'backing' someone means. If it means 'harm' then this gives the answer to what LJ and were discussing, namely whether malice is part of the mens rea of calunnia. I said, 'no' he said 'yes'. As we were not distinguishing between the basic and aggravated versions the whole conversation was otiose (but he was more wrong than I was )

Let's say that is what it does mean and turn to the other problem point concerning 'knowing'.

Basic calunnia as enacted in the penal code, constructive knowledge sufficient

A person commits calunnia if he falsely accuses another of a crime knowing or in circumstances in which he ought to have known the accused person to be innocent.

Now we can enquire as to what a reasonable person ought to have known, fix poor Amanda with that knowledge and then nail her good, even if, subjectively, she knew no such thing.

Finally, this is the version the Italians would have get i they redrafted the law to avoid all these problems.

Basic calunnia - anglo version

A person commits calunnia if he falsely accuses another of a crime knowing the accused person to be innocent without an honest belief in the truth of the accusation.

In this version the test is definitely subjective. Did the particular defendant in the given circumstances have the requisite belief? Since malice is dealt with in a separate provision, it cannot be an ingredient of the basic offence.



*can someone teach me sometime how to do fancy, economical links? Still don't know how to do that.

 

[Grinder]

She had come to a state of "extreme exhaustion" out of pressures, physical offenses (the well known "scappellotti"), lack of legal assistance and above all because of the specious news that codefendant Sollecito had changed his version of the events, she was then threatened with thirty years in prison if she did not remember or confirm the facts.

Hmmmm, this would indicate that Raffaele didn't give her alibi up before the 1:45 interrogation.

 

[Grinder]

It all now becomes clear: the defence is unhappy with Hellman because he convicted her at all and the prosecution is unhappy because he downgraded the charge from aggravated to basic. Of course, they have to be peeved at that because in their universe she committed the murder and therefore, obviously, made the accusation against Lumumba to divert the police away from her own involvement.

I thought Hellmann upgraded the conviction to aggravated.

 

[anglolawyer]

I thought Hellmann upgraded the conviction to aggravated.

Definitely not. Massei convicted of the aggravated version and Hellman downgraded it. He did something funny with the sentence, which I have not looked into, but that is something else entirely. I can assure you with confidence that things are as I have explained.

Think about it: Massei thought her guilty, Hellman the opposite. As far as Massei was concerned her reason for naming Lumumba was to throw the cops of the track so she could get away scot free. That is the aggravating circumstance. As Hellman thought she was innocent that cannot have been her motive, therefore she could not be guilty of the aggravated version.

In fact, now I think about out 'back them' is probably google's attempt to say something like 'bolster or favour the accuser's position' so LJ and I may still have to duke it out on the malice front.

 

[anglolawyer]

Hmmmm, this would indicate that Raffaele didn't give her alibi up before the 1:45 interrogation.

Can you source that quote? I wish to argue this point but out of context I don't understand how you are making it.

 

[Briars]

Briars

Is it your position that Frank's reporting of the proceedings in Perugia should be regarded as entirely worthless because he is not a very nice and/or an abusive person? If so, that seems irrational. Can you find an example from any court report of his that conflicts with one or more accounts of the same proceedings as given by other journalists? That would be a much better basis for your dismissal of his writings and of his critique of Mignini.

Yours more in hope than expectation

I would like to see the report signed by Mignini regarding his arrest by 5 officers. A strong allegation that has been key in an attempt to discredit Mignini and the police. This part is personal and involves his own domestic situation. The other incidents in Seattle ,Hawaii and Canada were also personal. Other court writing may not be suspect as you say because it was public and confirmed what other journalists reported .

 

[anglolawyer]

I would like to see the report signed by Mignini regarding his arrest by 5 officers. A strong allegation that has been key in an attempt to discredit Mignini and the police. This part is personal and involves his own domestic situation. The other incidents in Seattle ,Hawaii and Canada were also personal. Other court writing may not be suspect as you say because it was public and confirmed what other journalists reported .

Thank you.

I am less interested than you in the satellite proceedings you refer to but, if it's any help, I derive no part of my opinions about Mignini from anything concerning the charges Frank faces in Perugia. I think others here have also set out the grounds on which Mignini stands to be criticised regardless of whatever part he may have played in Frank's prosecution.

 

[Bill Williams]

Thank you.

I am less interested than you in the satellite proceedings you refer to but, if it's any help, I derive no part of my opinions about Mignini from anything concerning the charges Frank faces in Perugia. I think others here have also set out the grounds on which Mignini stands to be criticised regardless of whatever part he may have played in Frank's prosecution.

Has anyone noticed something recently - that there's a bit of a war to discredit anything to do with F. Sf. as if taking him down takes down the acquittal?

Also, thanks for the clarification of calunnia. A lot of it eludes me, including the nuance you point out. I shall observe from here on in.... because I could have sworn that the post i'd'ed as the prosecitor's brief was arguing for acquittal of calunnia. I'm almost positive Galati would not do that.

 

[anglolawyer]

Has anyone noticed something recently - that there's a bit of a war to discredit anything to do with F. Sf. as if taking him down takes down the acquittal?

Also, thanks for the clarification of calunnia. A lot of it eludes me, including the nuance you point out. I shall observe from here on in.... because I could have sworn that the post i'd'ed as the prosecitor's brief was arguing for acquittal of calunnia. I'm almost positive Galati would not do that.

No, he would not. He might ironically point out that, logically, Hellman should have acquitted of calunnia if he were acquitting them of murder and if you dived into the middle of the document and just read that bit you could easily wonder which side had filed it. If you want a real headache try reading a google translation of Galati's appeal against Hellman's reduction of the offence from the aggravated to the basic version. I would have more chance of understanding the original Italian.

So, to be completely clear:

1 Massei convicted AK of calunnia in an aggravated form
2 Hellman rejected the aggravating element but let the conviction stand without it
3 both sides appeal Hellman: the prosecution appeals the reduction in gravity and the defence appeals the conviction itself.

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium

It's always brilliant when you show up. You make the great point about the gradually unfolding realisation on Amanda's part that Lumumba could not have been involved which I had missed. Someone also told me there was a defence expert on false confessions. Does Massei address this person's evidence I wonder?

Thanks for the explanations! I must be coming down with something, my brain doesn't seem to be working very well so far today. It seems to me that in what you said in this post suggests an easy defense for Amanda on whether she 'ought to have known' that Patrick didn't do it: how could she? In fact her correspondence with him by text actually meant they she knew that he didn't want her at work, thus it was certainly possible that he'd done so as he was planning to go to the cottage and knew she was staying with Raffaele.

Snipped the rest solely for aesthetic reasons and I cannot get my mind out of this slumber long enough to retain what you are saying outside it sounds like you and LJ got into a knock down dragout and I ought to look it up! I remember the word 'otiose' coming up a few pages back, but I thought that was one of Grinder's conversations.

 

[Grinder]

Can you source that quote? I wish to argue this point but out of context I don't understand how you are making it.

From Amanda's calumnia appeal #6714 post

A wide and in-depth analysis has been done of the subjective and objective situation experienced by Knox during the dreadful (orrenda) night between 5 and 6 November 2007 in the offices of the Judiciary Police of Perugia.
The appealed verdict reconstructs precisely the state in which the defendant was.

She had come to a state of "extreme exhaustion" out of pressures, physical offenses (the well known "scappellotti"), lack of legal assistance and above all because of the specious news that codefendant Sollecito had changed his version of the events, she was then threatened with thirty years in prison if she did not remember or confirm the facts.

These ascertained elements confirm the state of absolute need Knox was into and the threat of an extreme danger that she could avoid only pointing at some way of escape, even if not true (in practice inventing a story about Lumumba) that would have appeased the investigators and removed the threat.

 

[anglolawyer]

I knew I had seen this somewhere before:

All the so called "interrogations" up to the statements of 5.45 a.m. on November 6 2007 were collections of concise informations where Knox was heard as "[person] informed about the facts" and to which no counselor could participate. It is really upsetting how the C.A.A. ignores the procedural role that Knox had till when the Police Officers of the Flying Squad of Perugia suspended the examination of Knox as provided by article 63 of the penal procedural code, having surfaced against her clues of responsibility for the murder; from that moment on Knox was not subjected anymore to examination or "interrogation".

Two things I don't get.

1 did not Cassazione rule, or perhaps opine, that AK & RS were suspects before the interrogations began (note Galati's refernce to 'so-called interrogations')? If so, on what possible basis is this still being questioned in the appeal document?

This Corte di Assise di Appello, while confirming the procedural ruling [ordinanza] of the first-level Corte di Assise on this point, has nevertheless specified that, while they are usable with respect to the crime of calumny against Patrick Lumumba, they cannot be usable with respect to the other crimes against Meredith Kercher to the extent that, as the Corte di Cassazione has also confirmed (ruling no. 990/08, dated 4-01-2008), they are subject to absolute nullification in this regard [sono affetti, sotto questo profilo, da nullità assoluta], as having been given in the absence of an attorney by a person who had already assumed the role of a suspect [indagata].

This paragraph refers to both the 1.45 and 5.45 'confessions and the memoriale.

2 isn't the official case that AK became a suspect at 1.45 when she was handed over to the judicial authority?

The Office acknowledges that the statement stops here and KNOX Amanda is put at the disposal of the proceeding Judicial Authority.--------------------------------------------------------

Has Galati not read the brief?

 

[Grinder]

Definitely not. Massei convicted of the aggravated version and Hellman downgraded it. He did something funny with the sentence, which I have not looked into, but that is something else entirely. I can assure you with confidence that things are as I have explained.

Think about it: Massei thought her guilty, Hellman the opposite. As far as Massei was concerned her reason for naming Lumumba was to throw the cops of the track so she could get away scot free. That is the aggravating circumstance. As Hellman thought she was innocent that cannot have been her motive, therefore she could not be guilty of the aggravated version.

In fact, now I think about out 'back them' is probably google's attempt to say something like 'bolster or favour the accuser's position' so LJ and I may still have to duke it out on the malice front.

My dear man, I became temporally confused by reading the Kaosium provided appeal translations that others may not have read thoroughly. I wasn't being specious .

I totally agree with the logic. The calumnia has never made sense even in the first trial because even the guilty shouldn't be forced into a false statement.