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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grinder said:
Bill this isn't very difficult to understand. A defendant can't be charged with perjury but they can be charged with defamation or false reporting of a crime by another. You can say "I didn't do it" but you can't say "Bill did it". You can say "I was at home when the crime took place" but you can't say "Bill was at the scene when the crime took place".

Calunnia (Italian pronunciation: [kaˈlunnja]), meaning "calumny", is a criminal offence under Article 368 of the Italian Penal Code (Codice Penale), which states:

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
​
Click to expand...

Per the requirement highlighted above, if Mignini knew that Knox was hit in interrogation (even if he wants to pretend it did not happen), then her statement that she was hit is the truth and not false (Calunia). In that case, Mignini would himself be committing calunnia in charging her with committing calunnia.

Similarly, another police officer present when Knox was hit would be committing calunnia if she participated in any way in the calunnia accusation against Knox. For example, had Napoleoni been present when her subordinate hit Knox, Napoleoni would be guilty of committing calunnia in telling Mignini falsely that Knox was not hit.

I remember reading the account of an interview with Mignini that Mignini said perhaps Knox was bumped from behind. It appeared that Mignini was implying maybe it was an accident (people behind her in a small space). Was it possibly in the interview with Griffin? Does anyone remember?
 
Last edited:
anglolawyer said:
Well, assuming a certificate of conviction were enough to show probable cause between two US states, what, fundamentally, is different about the US extending this internally satisfactory and sensible system to friendly foreign powers? Of course, my assumption may be wrong. I am relying on you and Desert Fox to help me out on that.
Click to expand...

Well, how about the existence of a unified federal system of which the various states are coordinate parts, and which are overseen by a system of federal laws applied by federal courts, and also a federal Constitution?
 
Diocletus said:
Not sure. But I do know that Italy isn't Texas.
Click to expand...

I am not sure being tried in Texas is really much better than Italy
Honesty compels me to admit that. Look at the Cameron Todd Willingham case.
I might change my mind if the US at least put the death penalty off the table.
 
Desert Fox said:
I am not sure being tried in Texas is really much better than Italy
Honesty compels me to admit that. Look at the Cameron Todd Willingham case.
I might change my mind if the US at least put the death penalty off the table.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. Texas has to operate under the US Constitution, and they can't do things like use invalid junk science and other people's trials to convict you. And if they do, then you can file a habeas corpus petition and get out of jail, and there's nothing any Texas judge or sheriff can do about it.

Now, if you're lawfully convicted in Texas of a capital crime . . . then yes, you would rather be in Italy.
 
anglolawyer said:
Well, assuming a certificate of conviction were enough to show probable cause between two US states, what, fundamentally, is different about the US extending this internally satisfactory and sensible system to friendly foreign powers? Of course, my assumption may be wrong. I am relying on you and Desert Fox to help me out on that.
Click to expand...

In the US an individual in one state, being extradited to another state, has a right to a court hearing (for probable cause) before being extradited to the other state. People being extradited from one state to another often avail themselves of it. In other cases they waive their right to a court hearing. We hear of this all the time in news coverage.

A person anywhere in the US has access to a federal court to protect his constitutional (federal) rights. That cannot be said for a person in the US who is taken from the US to Italy. If Knox is returned to Italy, she cannot in Italy access a US federal court to protect her fundamental rights.
 
Last edited:
Diocletus said:
Yes it is. Texas has to operate under the US Constitution, and they can't do things like use invalid junk science and other people's trials to convict you. And if they do, then you can file a habeas corpus petition and get out of jail, and there's nothing any Texas judge or sheriff can do about it.

Now, if you're lawfully convicted in Texas of a capital crime . . . then yes, you would rather be in Italy.
Click to expand...

He was out to death using invalid junk science
http://www.thirteen.org/programs/frontline/death-by-fire/
 
anglolawyer said:
Well, read his verdict. He sets it all out, before slapping her with a three year prison sentence. He caused her great harm with that. The guilters ask the same question you do: if she is guilty of calunnia she must have been involved in the murder. They use the calunnia conviction to leverage the murder conviction.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see that I'm once again in the position of the person who's late to dinner & wants to know what there is to eat. Here's the relevant bit from the Hellmann verdict, in case I have any compatriots here. (It makes no sense to me.)

According*to*the*prosecution*hypothesis,*it*would*be*contradictory*to*considerAmanda*Knox*guilty*of*the*crime*of*calunnia*and*to*absolve*her*of*the*other*
crimes,*since -*thus*they*argue*- Amanda*Knox*could*only*know*that*Lumumba*was*innocent*of*the*crime*of*
murder*because*she*herself*had*participated*in*that*crime,*and*thus*knew*
who*the*real*murderers*were;*if*she*had*not*participated*in*the*crime*or*had*not*been*present*at*the*moment*of*the*crime*in*the*house*at*via*della*Pergola,*she*could*not*have*known*that*Lumumba*was*innocent.
Click to expand...
*

That's not just the prosecution hypothesis, it's the one that makes sense.


This*argument*cannot*be*accepted:*the*circumstances*under*which*
Lumumba’s name* came* out* during*the* police* interrogation*(a* message* sent*to* him* and*found* in*Amanda*Knox’s telephone) and the lack of any evidence connecting Lumumba to*Meredith*Kercher,*could*allow*Amanda*Knox,*even*if*actually*innocent*
herself*and*far*from*the*house*in*via*della*Pergola* at*the*time* of*the* crime,*to*be* aware* of*the*
complete*uninvolvement*of*Lumumba,*and*thus,*of*the*criminal*slander*[calunnia]*that*she*was*committing*by*indicating*him*as*the*murderer.*
There*is*thus*no*contradiction*in*holding*that*she*is*guilty*of*the*offense*of*calunnia . . .
Click to expand...

Okay, wait. The circumstances under which his name came out, together with the lack of any evidence, COULD allow AK to know he wasn't there???

What? How could she possibly have known there was no evidence? And these things COULD allow her to know this, which means she DID know it? Just, what???

Sorry, I know I missed the whole discussion earlier and probably a thousand posts about it. So, take this as what it is, a very late rhetorical question.

He's saying she's guilty of criminal slander because she could have known that PL was completely uninvolved. He doesn't say how she could have known that, though.

Mind, boggled again.

ETA Yikes, that copy/paste thing just got very weird.
 
Last edited:
Did Hellman have the option of overturning the calunnia conviction, or did he have to find a way to explain it while overturning the murder conviction?
 
Strozzi said:
In the US an individual in one state, being extradited to another state, has a right to a court hearing (for probable cause) before being extradited to the other state. People being extradited from one state to another often avail themselves of it. In other cases they waive their right. We hear of this all the time in news coverage.

A person anywhere in the US has access to a federal court to protect his constitutional (federal) rights. So, for that, it makes no difference what state the person is in or is being moved to. That cannot be said for a person in the US who is about to be taken from the US to Italy. If Knox is returned to Italy, she cannot in Italy access a US federal court to protect her fundamental rights.
Click to expand...
Can we compare apples with apples please? We are discussing convicted persons, not accused persons. What happens in the example I gave? Is probable cause shown by simply producing a valid certificate of conviction obtained in the requesting state? Simple question.
 
kwill said:
Ah, I see that I'm once again in the position of the person who's late to dinner & wants to know what there is to eat. Here's the relevant bit from the Hellmann verdict, in case I have any compatriots here. (It makes no sense to me.)

*

That's not just the prosecution hypothesis, it's the one that makes sense.




Okay, wait. The circumstances under which his name came out, together with the lack of any evidence, COULD allow AK to know he wasn't there???

What? How could she possibly have known there was no evidence? And these things COULD allow her to know this, which means she DID know it? Just, what???

Sorry, I know I missed the whole discussion earlier and probably a thousand posts about it. So, take this as what it is, a very late rhetorical question.

He's saying she's guilty of criminal slander because she could have known that PL was completely uninvolved. He doesn't say how she could have known that, though.

Mind, boggled again.

ETA Yikes, that copy/paste thing just got very weird.
Click to expand...

You aren't alone in reacting that way to Hellman. How did the name came out? Did Amanda mention his name first, or did the cops? Or did the cops hint at the name by sticking her phone in her face and asking: 'who is this?' And how in heck does Hellman know? And now I come to think of it, where are his findings of fact on this?

If the cops said, 'we know it was Patrick' and she was struck by some false memory then how can she have known what she was saying was false? Whatever, Hellman was not persuaded that's what happened and he upheld Massei but without the aggravating element which he threw out (but which the ISC in turn overruled while Nencini followed Massei). It turns out nice old Hellman holed her below the waterline.
 
anglolawyer said:
You aren't alone in reacting that way to Hellman. How did the name came out? Did Amanda mention his name first, or did the cops? Or did the cops hint at the name by sticking her phone in her face and asking: 'who is this?' And how in heck does Hellman know? And now I come to think of it, where are his findings of fact on this?

If the cops said, 'we know it was Patrick' and she was struck by some false memory then how can she have known what she was saying was false? Whatever, Hellman was not persuaded that's what happened and he upheld Massei but without the aggravating element which he threw out (but which the ISC in turn overruled while Nencini followed Massei). It turns out nice old Hellman holed her below the waterline.
Click to expand...

So you think if he had vindicated her completely, would have helped her here?
 
Chris_Halkides said:
anglolawyer,

For all anyone knows, he might have wanted to but got outvoted by the rest of the jury.
Click to expand...

OK scratch 'Hellman' and replace with 'Hellman's court' whenever the context requires. It makes no difference whether it was he or they. He or they screwed up.
 
pretzel logic

anglolawyer said:
OK scratch 'Hellman' and replace with 'Hellman's court' whenever the context requires. It makes no difference whether it was he or they. He or they screwed up.
Click to expand...
Obviously, I agree, and I was not trying to be overly picky. But the Italian system is strange in this respect: the judge might have to write a motivations report for something with which he disagrees.
EDT
IMO even stranger than using the calunnia conviction as evidence is the fact that in the end, the CSC has in effect let Amanda's statements in through the back door. The statement was only initially to be used in the calunnia case. Yet now the statement itself is indirect evidence against Amanda in the murder case. Pretzel logic IMO.
 
Last edited:
anglolawyer said:
OK scratch 'Hellman' and replace with 'Hellman's court' whenever the context requires. It makes no difference whether it was he or they. He or they screwed up.
Click to expand...

I translated as something like a sentence to "Time served" like the US will sometimes do instead of a retrial when they want to make a case go away.
A bit iof face saving as well.

I notice that Amanda's case against Calunnia was only filed after the retrial.
Wonder if the supreme court had just accepted his verdict if she would not have simply accepted it.
 
not seeing the why

Desert Fox said:
I notice that Amanda's case against Calunnia was only filed after the retrial.
Wonder if the supreme court had just accepted his verdict if she would not have simply accepted it.
Click to expand...
Desert Fox,

Why would they accept his Calunnia verdict when they did not accept his other verdict? If they think she is guilty, then it makes sense to press for aggravated calunnia.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom