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

[andreajo]

I'd be interested to know which ones you're thinking of. For me this aspect of the case is what makes it so unique and compelling.

The Ramsey and McCann haters are as bad as the people who post on PMF, and very similar in their tone and attitude.

It doesn't just happen with wrongful convictions, or on just one side of the fence.

In the Jodi Arias murder of Travis Alexander case there are really emotionally invested people calling for her execution in a bloodthirsty lanterns and pitchforks kind of way. Her expert witness on domestic violence has been bullied and vilified on the internet and has received death threats. Her family has also been bullied and harassed.

On the other side, there is a small band of Jodi Arias supporters who blame the Mormon mafia for Travis' murder, and others who vilify him and cal him a pedophile and a domestic abuser. These people think that Jodi was lucky to get away with her life. They digitally bully members of Travis Alexander's family. They say terrible things about the prosecutor, Juan Martinez. They attack the moderators who run the Justice4Travis Facebook page.

Bad behavior by anonymous online humans is not unique to this case.

 

[Mary_H]

Well, it's a good think Doug is sleeping on the couch then. I'm not saying this was damaging to the case. I don't think it is Mary. I just don't think it is very PR smart. In my opinion it reflects poorly on the people close to Amanda.

Over all, I think the FOA have done a great job of demonstrating the right amount of rage about the smears on Amanda while showing just the right of deference to the family of a murdered daughter.

If Doug had actual evidence to HarryRags identity, I think it would be worthwhile to bring it forward. But without that, I think it is a mistake to suggest that Kerchers are spending their time spreading scurrilous rumors about Amanda as HarryRag has been doing.

Yes. It has become personal. I haven't seen any real evidence. Until I do I think it is just more speculation and really pointless to draw any conclusions.

acbytesla, I didn't mean it was damaging to the case, either. I meant it is not damaging to John Kercher, Jr.

For him to establish that his reputation had been damaged, I think he would have to show that enough people had read the accusations and that the accusations made him look bad in a public sense. But the blog in question is not being read by very many people and is not of interest to anyone outside the case. It's one thing if you're George Clooney and the New York Times slanders you, it's another if you're John Kercher, Jr. and the blog that slanders you is kind of a kooky nothing, like so many other kooky nothings all over the internet.

All of the guilter blogs have said stuff a thousand times worse than that about Amanda, Raffaele and their families, and I don't think they are going to go to the trouble of suing them for it. And, as I said above, it is likely the Kerchers and HR are allies.

 

[Strozzi]

If it were potentially libellous, then John Kercher could certainly bring a civil action in the UK (England and Wales, strictly speaking). That's because the statement can be construed as having been published within this jurisdiction.

If a suit were brought, Doug Bremner could choose to ignore it and not attend the court hearings. But if the court found against him, damages/costs could be pursued even across national boundaries.

Good to know that UK libel laws work that way. So if/when Amanda is finally cleared of the false murder charge she could bring libel suits against the known and anonymous individuals who were particularly vociferous in leading accusations against her which have certainly injured her reputation and ability to raise support for her defense. She might want to consider drawing up a list of the top 10 or so individuals and tabloids with assets in the UK, as those are the assets that a UK court could easily attach.

Who would you like to nominate for that list?

Could Raffaele claim that false and vociferous attacks on Amanda have also hurt him and injured his ability to raise support for his own defense? Could he seek action in the UK even though most of the false accusations and personal attacks have focused on his co-accused?

 

[Rolfe]

Good to know that UK libel laws work that way.

UK libel laws don't work any way at all, because they don't exist. I think we're talking about English libel law here.

There isn't even an offence called "libel" in Scotland, and the law on defamation works in quite a different way.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Good to know that UK libel laws work that way. So if/when Amanda is finally cleared of the false murder charge she could bring libel suits against the known and anonymous individuals who were particularly vociferous in leading accusations against her which have certainly injured her reputation and ability to raise support for her defense. She might want to consider drawing up a list of the top 10 or so individuals and tabloids with assets in the UK, as those are the assets that a UK court could easily attach.

Who would you like to nominate for that list?

Could Raffaele claim that false and vociferous attacks on Amanda have also hurt him and injured his ability to raise support for his own defense? Could he seek action in the UK even though most of the false accusations and personal attacks have focused on his co-accused?

I think the pair of them would be certifiably bonkers even to consider such a thing. You need a very specific complaint, and you need to be prepared to spend an inordinate amount of time and money in the courts to get what you want. I wouldn't bet on John Kercher not being prepared to do that in this particular case, that's all.

I would imagine that both Knox and Sollecito have seen as much of the inside of any court as they wish for, for their entire lives. Speculative suits alleging libels committed at a time when their reputations were arguably already trash is not the way they will spend their freedom when it is finally earned, not if they have any sense at all.

Rolfe.

 

[Strozzi]

I think the pair of them would be certifiably bonkers even to consider such a thing. You need a very specific complaint, and you need to be prepared to spend an inordinate amount of time and money in the courts to get what you want. I wouldn't bet on John Kercher not being prepared to do that in this particular case, that's all.

I would imagine that both Knox and Sollecito have seen as much of the inside of any court as they wish for, for their entire lives. Speculative suits alleging libels committed at a time when their reputations were arguably already trash is not the way they will spend their freedom when it is finally earned, not if they have any sense at all.

Rolfe.

I agree with most of your reasoning, but think that the defendants might want to pursue claims for massive financial damages against specific media organizations that rabbidly accused them. Their defamatory stories were widely circulated and poisened the well. I think you can show that specific libelous stories were instantly followed with many hateful comments on the internet - not only on UK-based sites but in Italy and the U.S.

 

[Rolfe]

Newspapers are a possibility of course, though you'd have to get a lawyer to advise on whether any specific passage actually meets the criteria. Time elapsed could be a problem, as could the argument that the pair were official suspects and indeed for a time provisionally convicted of the murder, so it was not possible to damage their reputations any further. Knox is officially guilty of slander too, bear in mind. It's a minefield, and unless there was something that was absolutely open-and-shut (which I doubt, actually), I think everyone would be well advised to stay as far away from lawyers as they possibly can, for the rest of their natural lives.

Rolfe.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>It's a minefield, and unless there was something that was absolutely open-and-shut (which I doubt, actually), I think everyone would be well advised to stay as far away from lawyers as they possibly can, for the rest of their natural lives.

Rolfe.

Just chatting with anglolawyer on Facebook, lol. He sends this article for our edification: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25551640

31 December 2013

Defamation Act 2013 aims to improve libel laws

New libel laws aimed at giving better protection to people expressing their opinions are to come into force in England and Wales.

"The government said the law would reverse the "chilling effect" current libel laws have had on freedom of expression and legitimate debate."

 

[Rolfe]

That would be good for sure. It's not comfortable even living so close to England, and sharing a language and in fact much of the media. Even if it was said in Scotland, and against someone in Scotland, where do you bet they'd sue?

Rolfe.

 

[NancyS]

I think the pair of them would be certifiably bonkers even to consider such a thing. You need a very specific complaint, and you need to be prepared to spend an inordinate amount of time and money in the courts to get what you want. I wouldn't bet on John Kercher not being prepared to do that in this particular case, that's all.

I would imagine that both Knox and Sollecito have seen as much of the inside of any court as they wish for, for their entire lives. Speculative suits alleging libels committed at a time when their reputations were arguably already trash is not the way they will spend their freedom when it is finally earned, not if they have any sense at all.

Rolfe.

I think that Amanda and Raffaele would easily get a lawyer on a no-win no-fee basis - and then systematically go after media organisations/individuals who wrote the most outrageous lies. I think the McCann's received payouts from a number of UK papers for the lies written about them.

It hasn't just been biased reporting - a lot of the stories have been downright lies and I can't see that being easy to defend

 

[Bill Williams]

acbytesla, I didn't mean it was damaging to the case, either. I meant it is not damaging to John Kercher, Jr.

For him to establish that his reputation had been damaged, I think he would have to show that enough people had read the accusations and that the accusations made him look bad in a public sense. But the blog in question is not being read by very many people and is not of interest to anyone outside the case. It's one thing if you're George Clooney and the New York Times slanders you, it's another if you're John Kercher, Jr. and the blog that slanders you is kind of a kooky nothing, like so many other kooky nothings all over the internet.

All of the guilter blogs have said stuff a thousand times worse than that about Amanda, Raffaele and their families, and I don't think they are going to go to the trouble of suing them for it. And, as I said above, it is likely the Kerchers and HR are allies.

To sue someone, the first thing one needs is a lot of money, and a lot of money up front. And even if you win, you'll end up with far less money.

One of our local hockey legends has sued a blogger for a claim that the legend had fathered a child by a woman, not his wife. One of the things to consider is that merely by suing, that hockey legend is actually broadcasting the libel farther and wider than some anonymous blogger would posting in an obscure website.

Be that as it may, the legend has forced a web-administer to reveal email accounts and IP addresses... but at the end of the day even if winning, what has he accomplished? He's probably administered a self-inflicted wound of, like it says, broadcasting it to a larger audience than the original guy could have managed.

 

[Rolfe]

The McCanns were in a rather different position, though. Raffaele and Amanda had a guilty verdict pronounced by the Massei court. I'm not sure it would be a no-brainer, though of course it would depend on exactly what had been written.

They'll decide of course, but I'd be surprised if they want to spend a significant proportion of the next chapter in their lives in litigation.

Rolfe.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think that Amanda and Raffaele would easily get a lawyer on a no-win no-fee basis - and then systematically go after media organisations/individuals who wrote the most outrageous lies. I think the McCann's received payouts from a number of UK papers for the lies written about them.

It hasn't just been biased reporting - a lot of the stories have been downright lies and I can't see that being easy to defend

My view is that the Daily Mail already has a war chest of libel-payment money sitting in a vault somewhere in London. All it will take is a letter from one of Amanda's lawyers, and they'll be a public reaction from the DM about "Freedom of the press," but privately a large cheque will be mailed to Seattle with a disclaimer attached to it, "Cashing of this cheque is admission that the DM is no longer liable."

The only question will be how many zero's are after the 1.....

 

[Bill Williams]

Just chatting with anglolawyer on Facebook, lol. He sends this article for our edification: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25551640

31 December 2013

Defamation Act 2013 aims to improve libel laws

New libel laws aimed at giving better protection to people expressing their opinions are to come into force in England and Wales.

"The government said the law would reverse the "chilling effect" current libel laws have had on freedom of expression and legitimate debate."

The double edged sword of all this is that after all the Daily Mail, and others, were able to publish, Knox/Doubleday could not risk publishing the book in England!

 

[Bill Williams]

I think the pair of them would be certifiably bonkers even to consider such a thing. You need a very specific complaint, and you need to be prepared to spend an inordinate amount of time and money in the courts to get what you want. I wouldn't bet on John Kercher not being prepared to do that in this particular case, that's all.

I would imagine that both Knox and Sollecito have seen as much of the inside of any court as they wish for, for their entire lives. Speculative suits alleging libels committed at a time when their reputations were arguably already trash is not the way they will spend their freedom when it is finally earned, not if they have any sense at all.

Rolfe.

Agreed. Well said.

 

[snook1]

Steve Moore is not denying the rumour, but writes rather interesting piece.

http://gmancasefile.com/1/post/2014/01/-investigations-and-the-families-of-victims.html

With the recent discovery of evidence of the possible identity of vehement, frequently malicious, and obsessive anti-Amanda Knox blogger “Harry Rag,” I think it is prudent to discuss, with great respect and care, the issue of ‘victim families.’ This article, however, will not take sides on the claims and counter-claims of the identity of Harry Rag.

...

But why does all this matter today? It matters in light of the possible identity of angry blogger “Harry Rag,” and the resultant (potential) involvement of at least one member of the family of murder victim Meredith Kercher in the repeated trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

First, such involvement might explain why in a murder case where three individuals were brought forward by the Italians as suspects, two are hated and one ignored, and the one who is ignored is the only one who admits (literally) that he had Meredith’s blood on his hands. Why is the hate for the suspected killers aimed at the most unlikely suspect, Amanda Knox, while the most obvious suspect, Rudy Guede is ignored? Because Amanda was the first arrested, the first publicly humiliated, and the imprinting was fait accompli by the time Rudy was arrested weeks later. By the time the evidence of Amanda and Raffaele’s innocence surfaced, the damage had been done.

 

[Welshman]

There I an important point to make about Harry Rag. Harry Rag uses the comments section of articles to spread lies. Other guilters also lie eg female thumbprints were found on Meredith's neck, Amanda and Raffaele were caught with a mop and bucket when the postal police arrived, bleach receipts. John Kercher's book was riddled with falsehoods. This raises the question if there was clear and overwhelming evidence for the guilt of Amanda and Raffaele, why is that the PGP can not make the case for guilt without resorting to lying?

 

[NancyS]

I just had a look at PMF and someone has posted this in support of Nara and Curatalo's inconsistent testimonies - it's amazing that they can't see that this also applies to Amanda and Raffaele when trying to recall exactly what they did on a fairly non-eventful evening

An experiment was done in the UK a couple of years ago where a crime was staged in front of a group of people who didn't know they were part of an experiment. The witnesses' recollection of what happened was quite different from each other and a few descriptions were wildly different from what had actually happened (and it was filmed, so viewers could see how witness testimony can be unreliable even when a witness doesn't necessarily come across as unreliable).

 

[Bill Williams]

There I an important point to make about Harry Rag. Harry Rag uses the comments section of articles to spread lies. Other guilters also lie eg female thumbprints were found on Meredith's neck, Amanda and Raffaele were caught with a mop and bucket when the postal police arrived, bleach receipts. John Kercher's book was riddled with falsehoods. This raises the question if there was clear and overwhelming evidence for the guilt of Amanda and Raffaele, why is that the PGP can not make the case for guilt without resorting to lying?

..... or resorting to strawman arguments.

Both The Machine and Jackie are making strawman arguments about groupies and the necessity of motive.... as well as a comprehensive timeline for the crime.

For the record - they are correct, motive and timeline are not necessary to procure conviction.

Why then do prosecutors go through them by the sack full, never once making the argument TM and Jackie make?

Why is it that the ISC in part quashed the acquittals, saying that sex-game-gone-wrong went unexamined? Note - ISC did not make the argument those two are making.

Why did Crini, instead of taking legal advice from Jackie, venture into a completely unheard of motive? Crini turned his back on the ISC on this one, and offered up pooh in the toilet!!!!

Can guiters/haters do something other than erect strawmen? I thought not.

 

[codyjuneau]

Yes. It has become personal. I haven't seen any real evidence. Until I do I think it is just more speculation and really pointless to draw any conclusions.

.
I agree Rose.

It is however a fascinating example of what happens when someone, with some degree of credibility, makes an accusation without providing proof. The speculation spreads and snowballs, which ironically is also what happened to Amanda and Raffaele, in spades!
.