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

[HumanityBlues]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

I agree - and I really don't think anyone here has been metaphorically high-fiving anyhow. Everyone commenting here is acutely aware that this was a brutal, tragic and senseless murder of a promising young woman. But similarly most of us are aware that the prosecution of Knox and Sollecito in this case was a malicious abomination. The fact that Hellmann's court appears to have come to an extremely similar conclusion is vindication of our collective position - in the face of aggressive and often unpleasant opposition - but it's no cause for celebration.

Here's the truth: Rudy Guede killed Meredith Kercher. He almost certainly acted alone, and he almost certainly entered the cottage by breaking in through Filomena's window. Knox and Sollecito should never have been criminally prosecuted for the murder, and nor should they have been held in custody for any more than a month or two maximum. And it's highly likely that neither Knox nor Sollecito had anything whatsoever to do with the murder or its aftermath. That is the truth of the matter. And it appears to be Hellmann's court's conclusion as well. This is neither a coincidence nor a cause-effect situation. Hellmann's court came to the same conclusions as most of us here because it's what all the available evidence indicates.

No, people have been metaphorically high fiving. Let's not get things twisted here just for the benefit of looking good. Two innocent people were wrongly convicted and lost four years of their lives. They have been set free. That is cause for celebration. When science is demanded over bad forensics and outright lies, that is cause for celebration. When rationality and actual logic win over emotion, we celebrate and high five.

"The fact that Hellmann's court appears to have come to an extremely similar conclusion is vindication of our collective position - in the face of aggressive and often unpleasant opposition - but it's no cause for celebration."

No, it actually is cause to celebration.

[Dougm]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

This is something that many of us pointed out repeatedly at the time. Guede's rulings simply had zero relevance to the trial process of Knox and Sollecito. Anyone with any knowledge of law and jurisprudence should have known this. The apparent fact that Mignini and his cohorts tried to argue otherwise - and that various "legal luminaries" among the pro-guilt commentator group tried to do likewise - is mystifying to me and very embarrassing to them.

Indeed. I am not a lawyer, have never studied law (other than business law), and I knew that! How people who purport to be attorneys could have been wrong on such an obvious point is beyond embarrassing, or shows their extreme bias.

Likely both.

[smkovalinksy]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

I think we all should be muted in our high fives, though. This is still a story of a horrible murder of a true innocent.

I do not think anyone here is "high fiving". I think it is good to see the truth will out; to see that Hellmann was decisive and harsh in his condemnations of the prior treatment of logic and facts in the case.

Of course Kercher was an innocent victim, but not of AK and Sollecito, who were also victimized. Because I hold them as innocent, and wrongfully convicted, I do not equate Knox and Sollecito with Kercher's murder.

[katy_did]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Conversely, I think that Knox stands a very good chance of successfully appealing the criminal slander verdict - for reasons that have been articulated here before. Whether she has the stomach for a re-trial at the appeal stage of this charge is debatable though - she may just want the whole thing to end, and to get on with her life.

If the Supreme Court overturns the slander conviction, I think it may be more likely to just quash the conviction and end the case there, rather than send it back to the appeal stage for yet another trial with all the associated time and expense. It'll depend on the grounds though, obviously.

Quote:

* Small intra-forum joke there, related to another thread

I nearly asked whether you really meant to say that Hellmann's verdict "jives" with our analysis.

[LondonJohn]

On the criminal slander charge, Hellmann is of course correct to decouple any culpability on this charge from culpability on the murder (and related) charge. Mignini was always totally incorrect to assert that Knox could only have slandered Lumumba if she herself knew who the real killer was (i.e., according to Mignini, herself and Sollecito).

Hellmann had the intelligence and perspicacity that seemingly was beyond Massei, and correctly reasoned that it's perfectly possible for someone to make a slanderous criminal accusation towards someone without having certain knowledge that the accused person didn't commit the crime. As I think I've written before, suppose that any citizen of Perugia (let's call him Mr A) had noted the manhunt going on in the days after the murder, and had phoned the police to "shop" someone (Mr B) with whom they - for example - had a vendetta. There would be no need for Mr A to have any knowledge of the actual perpetrator in order for him to have committed a criminal slander against Mr B. So in this example, Mr A would be found guilty of criminal slander, but of course would never be charged with the murder.

Having said all that, Hellmann's conclusion on the Lumumba slander is that Knox essentially gave up his name in order to end her own ordeal at the hands of the police, and that this provides the necessary mens rea for the crime. I disagree on this part, and I think that Knox's lawyers could successfully argue improper coercion and implied threat. Furthermore, it's abundantly clear that Knox's defence spent almost no time whatsoever addressing the criminal slander charge in the Hellmann appeal, since the overwhelming objective in that appeal was to gain acquittals on the murder (and associated) charges. And in that respect, Hellmann's report also explicitly gives grist to the mill that the Lumumba slander charge should have been tried separately from the murder-related charges. I think there's every chance of winning a retrial from a Supreme Court appeal, but I'd reiterate that Knox might well decide to just let the whole thing go and move on with her life.

[Fine]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

This is something that many of us pointed out repeatedly at the time. Guede's rulings simply had zero relevance to the trial process of Knox and Sollecito. Anyone with any knowledge of law and jurisprudence should have known this. The apparent fact that Mignini and his cohorts tried to argue otherwise - and that various "legal luminaries" among the pro-guilt commentator group tried to do likewise - is mystifying to me and very embarrassing to them.

______________________

John,

It ain't an apparent fact. And they don't appear embarrassed, yet. Here's what one of them cohorts, Barbie Nadeau--- in communication with Mignini--- has told us about Hellmann's MOTIVATIONS REPORT.....

"Knox’s lawyers are pleased with Hellmann’s ruling, but it is not the end of the road for Seattle’s most notorious resident. The prosecutor who first won and then lost the convictions has one more chance to appeal, and he told The Daily Beast that he will appeal the decision to Italy’s high court. Hellman’s ruling now sets up a perfect storm between Italy’s multilayered judiciary. Because Italy’s high court already ruled that Guede acted with Knox and Sollecito, they will now have to square the appellate court’s decision when they hear this case later this year." (See: Daily Beast.)

So now, according to Barbie---if Hellmann's decision is appealed---the Supreme Court is required to square their prior confirmation of Rudy's conviction with Hellmann's decision to acquit the lovebirds. But what is there to square? The Supreme Court thought Rudy murdered Meredith in cooperation with the lovebirds. The Supreme Court was wrong about that, as demonstrated by Hellmann's MOTIVATION REPORT. So what? In Rudy's case the Supreme Court also believed, falsely, that Meredith's bra had been cut off. If Hellmann's MOTIVATIONS REPORT accurately states that the bra was ripped off.........will that create another perfect storm within the Italian Judiciary??? Nope.

///

[LondonJohn]

Oh, and another "by the way":

The defence lawyers' experiment of climbing the wall under Filomena's window did indeed show how relatively easy such a climb would be to a reasonably athletic young man. The idiots who mock the demonstration climber's "inability" to get himself onto the ledge or inside Filomena's room embarrass themselves by forgetting that the cottage was a sealed crime scene at that point. It would not have been possible to even open the exterior shutters (which IIRC had been sealed shut), far less open the casement window. And since the exterior shutters could not be opened, there would not have been enough room on the exterior windowsill to crouch or sit.

Therefore the entire experiment could not be reproduced, but not because of any physical difficulties of doing so. The video and photos very clearly show that it's fairly easy to get to a position standing on the grate on the lower window, with more than enough leverage on Filomena's sill to be able to pull oneself up to the ledge (provided the exterior shutters have been opened, thus giving adequate sill width for the manoeuvre).

[LondonJohn]

Aaand........ Nadeau once more illustrates her ignorance and low intelligence, with a totally misguided and misjudged "argument" on the Supreme Court issue. Terrifically embarrassing once again. My bolding:

Quote:

Knox’s lawyers are pleased with Hellmann’s ruling, but it is not the end of the road for Seattle’s most notorious resident. The prosecutor who first won and then lost the convictions has one more chance to appeal, and he told The Daily Beast that he will appeal the decision to Italy’s high court. Hellman’s ruling now sets up a perfect storm between Italy’s multilayered judiciary. Because Italy’s high court already ruled that Guede acted with Knox and Sollecito, they will now have to square the appellate court’s decision when they hear this case later this year.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...acquittal.html


Bye bye Barbie! Good luck with those travel and culture pieces though.......

[LondonJohn]

So Frank Sfarzo's written an interesting commentary on the Hellmann/Zanetti report. It also reminded me of another aspect of Hellmann's reasoning that confirmed what we've been discussing here for some time: the role of interpreter Anna Donnino. Many of us have long argued that Donnino acted totally inappropriately by recounting a personal anecdote related to so-called "traumatic memory loss", and thereby became an active part of the interrogation process, rather than what she should have been: a strictly passive translator of Knox's words to Italian and the police's words into English. Donnino admitted this freely in Massei's court, yet Massei didn't even seem to notice it! Fortunately, Hellmann's court did notice it. And I think it adds further weight to a the possibility of a successful retrial on the criminal slander charge - should Knox wish to pursue that path.

[LondonJohn]

And another thing!

Here's Sfarzo on Hellmann's take on Curatolo's "testimony" (my bolding):

Quote:

He (Curatolo) always linked the presence of the defendants in the square to the buses that were bringing the students to the discotheques. But it has been ascertained that no discotheque buses were running that night. If small discotheques within the historical center were open, as testified by the cop Napoleoni, that has no importance, since those discotheques, being in town, don’t use buses.

Besides that, he remembers the presence of a crowd of young people, many of them wearing masks. We have to conclude that his testimony should be referred to the night of the 31st and not to the one of November 1st.

So, once again, Hellmann's court could properly sort out the disco bus issue, and was intelligent enough to differentiate between the city-centre discos - which, as he correctly points out, were irrelevant in this context since they never operated shuttle buses - and the large out-of-town discos, which were provably closed on the night of the murder. He therefore concludes - entirely correctly - that there can have been no disco buses in the square on the night of the murder.

And he also makes the correct deduction on the issue of the "people wearing masks". Of course, it's fanciful and ludicrous to suggest that crowds of people would have been wandering round Perugia on the night of the murder in masks and costumes. The night of the murder was the night of a solemn family-oriented religious holiday, and most young people were involved in family meals. The only conceivable night on which there would have been crowds of people wearing masks would have been Halloween - i.e. the night before the murder. This of course also makes a mockery of "on the spot reporter" Stewart Home's total crock (borne, I assume, of blind bias and perhaps a need to please) that there would indeed have been lots of people milling around in costumes and masks on 1st November. Laughable.

[smkovalinksy]

Glad to see these many aspects covered, as they now stand on record by this court Judge's motivation remarks:

Quote:

Hellmann also ridiculed the prosecution's efforts to demonize the 24-year-old Knox because she bought thong underwear days after the murder instead of more modest apparel, calling it "a garment in style and widely worn by young and not-so-young women."

Such a purchase, he wrote, "cannot be considered a show of an insensitive spirit or obscene inclinations."

He also defended Knox's behavior at a police station, where she did cartwheels and cuddled and kissed Sollecito while awaiting questioning.

Such displays could not be construed as evidence of guilt, he wrote, adding: "There are numerous ways ... to react to tragedy. An exchange of tenderness and even an exhibition of gymnastics can be explained by the need to find through gestures and behavior a bit of normality in a tragic situation."

The only elements of the prosecution case that were proven, the judge said, were a charge of slander against Knox, who was convicted of falsely accusing a bar owner of killing Kercher, and the fact that Knox and Sollecito's alibis did not match.

That the alibis were out of synch "is very different" from the prosecutors' claim of false alibis, he wrote.

And as for implicating Diya "Patrick" Lumumba after hours of intense police questioning, Knox did so because "she was convinced that was what the police wanted her to do: to name a guilty person," he said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1150932.html

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Maresca can't appeal the criminal verdict. In the criminal case, he is merely representing the victim (or, more accurately, the victim's family). He is a direct plaintiff in the civil case, but that's not appealable. The only parties that can appeal the criminal verdicts are the prosecution and the defence.

And yet Maresca is being reported as saying that he's actively engaged in writing the appeal to the Supreme Court right now. As I understand the legality of this, I don't see how he is allowed to appeal, if Costaglioli doesn't. And I have a crawling suspicion that Costaglioli is not going to appeal. That the only appeal likely to go forward is Dalla Vedova (mmmmm.....) appealling the calunnia conviction.

Rolfe.

[smkovalinksy]

Part of Hellmann's motivational report translated from Italian, by pmf---the calumnia charge:

Quote:

According to the hypothesis of the prosecution, Amanda Knox, already exhausted from the long interrogation, and above all demoralized by having learned from the people interrogating her that Raffaele Sollecito had, as it were, abandoned her to her destiny, denying the alibi that he had offered her up to then (having spent the whole night together in Sollecito’s house), supposedly resorted to a final defense effort, representing more or less what actually happened in the house at via della Pergola, but substituting Patrick Lumumba for Rudy Guede in the role of protagonist: “one black for another”, to quote the PM.

This Court does not share the hypothesis of the prosecution.

In order to evaluate the real meaning of the “spontaneous” declarations and the memorandum written almost immediately afterwards, it is important to take account of the context in which the former were given and the latter was written.

Edited by Gaspode:

Snipped for compliance with rule 4.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtop...428&start=4000

[Draca]

Originally Posted by halides1

Andrea wrote, "While her most avid supporters have been busy pursuing writing and speaking engagements about the fight for her release, she has not given a single public interview, choosing instead to keep a low profile."

I know that Bruce Fisher has a new book out, but speaking engagements? I am not sure to whom she refers.

Possibly Greg Hampikian.

[bookworm]

Wasn't Rudy's trial much, much sooner than Amanda and Rafffaele's? It seems to me that when Rudy trial went on alot of evidence was presented that was discounted and proved false by the time A&R's trial came along. If that's the case, then how could the Supreme Court even uphold that there were more than one killer? That decision was based upon faulty evidence. Is this correct? It's what seems pretty obvious to me.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

[A]fter all Rudy Guede knew Meredith even less well, and he murdered her.

You hit the nail on the head right there. The calunnia verdict was not defended in a way that suggests Hellmann agrees with the conclusion.

The thing that gets me is this: if it was so obvious that Lumumba could not have done it, what does that say about the Perugian police?

[RandyN]

Originally Posted by Fine

An interesting development.........

"Raphael went to Perugia recently to deposit a crucifix and pray in front of the house of the crime." (See: HERE.)

Is Mignini now investigating, hoping to charge Raffaele with trespassing too?


///

Ahhh do you mean Raffaele?

[RandyN]

Originally Posted by Fine

The only person with the authority to appeal the acquittal for murder is the chief prosecutor, Giancarlo Costagliola. Today he preferred not to comment. HERE.

///

So said Mignini to the masses...

I think we now have Mignini trying to goose step his way out of the mess he created. Mignini stated yesterday that it is up to the chief prosecutor but that may be the other guy who heads up the whole sheeee bang. Remember he made an appearance and stated his full confidence in the Perugia prosecution section. The name is avoiding me at the moment.

Its over guys and girls..... Now let the wrongful arrest and incarceration and slander and lying to the court to illegally arrest and detain law suits begin against Italy, Mignini, Flying Squad, Giobbi, Stefanoni, and all the rest of the lying liars.....

Payback days are ahead.

[snook1]

Edited by Gaspode:

Edited for moderated thread.

Anyway, from what I've seen, Hellmann did a really great job. He, as many of you already popinted that out, destroyed the prosecution's case and Massei's report.

I'm waiting for the translated final version and it will be a good read! I guess there's no chance for a christmas release, correct?

Also, I'm waiting for Amanda's comments or interviews, but most probably she won't speak before The Supreme Court's decision or until the time passes for prosecution to fill an appeal. I do wonder if they will appeal. This case is so over. Hellmann really left no doubt whatsoever.

Plus, Raffaele is "more than happy" with the report.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

And yet Maresca is being reported as saying that he's actively engaged in writing the appeal to the Supreme Court right now. As I understand the legality of this, I don't see how he is allowed to appeal, if Costaglioli doesn't. And I have a crawling suspicion that Costaglioli is not going to appeal. That the only appeal likely to go forward is Dalla Vedova (mmmmm.....) appealling the calunnia conviction.

Rolfe.

Easy tiger!

I might be wrong, but I believe the only prosecutor with the authority to lodge a Supreme Court appeal on this case is the Umbria Attorney General, Giovanni Golati. But in any case, Maresca is (to my knowledge) in no position to launch an appeal. I think that Maresca might be performing his usual "arrogant self-righteous bluster" tricks...

[Antony]

Originally Posted by RandyN

Its over guys and girls..... Now let the wrongful arrest and incarceration and slander and lying to the court to illegally arrest and detain law suits begin against Italy, Mignini, Flying Squad, Giobbi, Stefanoni, and all the rest of the lying liars.....

I'm somewhat surprised that we haven't seen this already. How is it that it's possible for hate-sites for example, still to exist on the internet? Do we have to wait for a final Supreme Court ruling?

Elsewhere on JREF people have been asking why the Amanda Knox threads still continue after the appeal court decision - well yes, AK and RS are free, but there are any number of loose ends to be tied up; not least the question of impunity for all of the corrupt and incompetent elements of the Perugia police and judiciary. This whole sorry story won't be over as long it is possible for the pro-guilt brigade to deny the truth of the case.

[Didaktylos]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

This is something that many of us pointed out repeatedly at the time. Guede's rulings simply had zero relevance to the trial process of Knox and Sollecito. Anyone with any knowledge of law and jurisprudence should have known this. The apparent fact that Mignini and his cohorts tried to argue otherwise - and that various "legal luminaries" among the pro-guilt commentator group tried to do likewise - is mystifying to me and very embarrassing to them.

Indeed - because if it were so that the verdict in Guede's trial process did constrain that in Knox and Sollecito's, this would mean that allowing Guede an abbreviato process would have infringed their right to a fair trial and thus been a clear violation of natural justice.

From what was said previously, I understand that in Guede's trial the Prosecution took the position that Guede committed the crime in concert with others and noted in passing that Knox and Sollecito were also facing charges in connection with the offence. Since Guede's legal team did not controvert this position the trial court took it as read, and Cassazione then ruled that this decision was procedurally sound.

[smkovalinksy]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Aaand........ Nadeau once more illustrates her ignorance and low intelligence, with a totally misguided and misjudged "argument" on the Supreme Court issue. Terrifically embarrassing once again. My bolding:



http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...acquittal.html


Bye bye Barbie! Good luck with those travel and culture pieces though.......

She really does not seem to grasp it, does she? I wonder if it is wishful thinking, or if she is only saying this to give hope to those who are still hanging onto this SC as their last refuge? I cannot believe she could be so ignorant at this juncture, but one never knows....

[smkovalinksy]

In these excerpted snippets from pmf, I have to wonder at the level of denial. I think Hellmann has been very clear, very robust in his judgments and in the logic which supports these judgments, and I think it is also clear that he has reason, and the ethics of reason, on his side. Not to mention empirical facts and evidence which support the acquittals wholly:

Quote:

Hellmann almost seems to be inviting his judgement to be overturned, especially since he has made the very blatant omission of not saying whether the acquittal was paragraph 1 or 2. It seems like he started with a not guilty verdict, then resorted to convoluted and dubious logic (which he doesn't even believe himself) in order to justify it, but he is actually hoping it will be overturned.

He is not a man who is comfortable with his own verdict, and we have to ask why.

Quote:

Is it possible that Hellman has had to write a motivation for a verdict he did not agree with, but which was decided by a majority of the other judges?

[halides1]

Originally Posted by Draca

Possibly Greg Hampikian.

Draca,

Dr. Hampikian was interviewed by Joey Ortega for blogtalkradio yesterday, and the audio is available. There is some discussion of discovery and also of other aspects of DNA profiling, such as mitochondrial DNA.

I think that Ms. Vogt was taking a subtle dig at some of the supporters.

[LondonJohn]

Hehehe. Some idiotic "argument" elsewhere has attempted to refute my post about the defence lawyers' climb of the wall under Filomena's window. According to this "rebuttal argument"(!), the fact that the cottage was sealed as a crime scene should have been of no matter to the lawyers performing the test climb, since there were two instances of unlawful breaking and entering while the cottage was sealed, and the front door was photographed open during this time too.

So, this "rebuttal argument"(!) seems to actually be suggesting that the defence lawyers should have ignored the police/prosecution sealing of the scene, and that they presumably should have unlawfully broken open the exterior shutters (and possibly also Filomena's window itself) in order to carry the test through to a conclusion. This "rebuttal argument"(!) seems also to be implying that just because a) the police were so incompetent that they didn't secure the front door locked shut, and b) some local kids decided to break into the cottage, this should somehow give the defence lawyers a carte blanche to enter the cottage unlawfully.

Quite extraordinarily poor reasoning, and it would be embarrassing if it wasn't so worthy of ridicule.......

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by smkovalinksy

Glad to see these many aspects covered, as they now stand on record by this court Judge's motivation remarks:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1150932.html

I'm personally less interested in the remarks on Knox's/Sollecito's characters - since these aren't really of true probative value either way. What I'm interested in is the piece-by-piece demolition of every single piece of evidence that Mignini - and, inexplicably, Massei - had tried to use to "prove" Knox's and Sollecito's participation in the murder.

Another area of excellent reasoning from Hellmann's court was on the knife. Hellmann reasons - totally correctly - that the wound evidence actually tends to support the use of a single smaller knife (or at the most the use of two similar smaller knives). The only wound that was ever argued to be "compatible" with Sollecito's kitchen knife was the product of multiple knife entries to the same depth - and the surface bruising clearly suggested that whatever knife caused this wound was plunged in up to the hilt. And the depth of these multiple knife entries was some 8cm, vs the 17cm blade length of Sollecito's kitchen knife.

Yet Mignini and Massei managed to form the dreadfully illogical judgement that this wound had been caused by someone inserting Sollecito's 17cm kitchen knife several times to an identical partial depth of 8cm, and at the same time somehow causing bruising around the wound that's associated with the hilt hitting the skin. However, Hellmann correctly deduced that the large knife wound was almost certainly caused by a knife with an 8cm blade - a blade profile that's entirely consistent with the other wounds and the imprint on the bedsheet. Hellmann also explicitly mentions the additional fact that had Sollecito's kitchen knife indeed been one of the murder weapons, it would have been perverse and illogical for Knox/Sollecito not to dispose of it, given that it was a generic cheap kitchen knife that was either easily replaceable or accountable for by some other story (e.g. "Oh, that knife: I broke its blade while trying to cut some frozen meat a month ago, so I threw it away": totally unfalsifiable, and utterly plausible).

Here's the truth: only one knife was used to kill Meredith Kercher. It was not Sollecito's kitchen knife. It was almost certainly not one of Sollecito's hunting/whittling knives. It was almost certainly owned and wielded by Rudy Guede, and Guede disposed of it either somewhere in Perugia or on his flight to Germany.

[LondonJohn]

There also appears to be mass ignorance in the pro-guilt community about the nature of the Supreme Court process in this case. Knox will not be required to be present, whether or not she or the prosecutors lodge an appeal. Nor, in fact, will any of the lawyers be required to be present. The Supreme Court judges will consider any appeal in camera, which is to say that they will consider written submissions behind closed doors. They will then issue their verdict. Of course, the parties who are appealing will almost certainly have representatives present at the Supreme Court building in order to communicate the ruling, but nobody except the Supreme Court judges themselves will be participating in the hearing itself.

So that's another misconception/misdirection cleared up.

Oh and it bears repeating that the case of Knox's former cellmate Angela Biriukova ("The Black Widow") does not stand as some sort of predecessor for Knox to be "re-convicted" by the Supreme Court. A certain pro-guilt commentator has repeatedly asserted (and not without bluster and righteousness) that Biriukova was convicted in the first trial, acquitted on appeal, then "re-convicted" by the Supreme Court. This, the commentator suggests, serves as a pointer for what might happen to Knox.

But the commentator has of course got the facts completely wrong. In fact, Biriukova was acquitted in the first trial, then convicted in the appeal, and this appeal conviction was confirmed by the Supreme Court. This all seems eerily reminiscent of the bogus assertions regarding the photos of disco buses on "1st November 2010", the doctoring of photos to fit an agenda, the total misjudgement of a certain Sig Curatolo, and the "millimetre-accuracy" fiasco.

[Grinder]

There has been much kvetching about Hellmann using the arguments of defense as being something untoward and evidence that he was in the FOA camp or in some other way corrupt.

Here in the US it common, certainly in civil cases, for the judge to use rulings written by one side or the other. In fact, they take an order written by the winning side, make some changes if needed and sign it.

What do the PGP think that the judge would do? Do they think that if the defense or prosecution makes a reasonable argument that the judge can't use them because that would make him look corrupt, lacking in imagination or what?

Of course, Hellmann agreed with the defense in much of their theories, that's why he found them not guilty.

[smkovalinksy]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

I'm personally less interested in the remarks on Knox's/Sollecito's characters - since these aren't really of true probative value either way. What I'm interested in is the piece-by-piece demolition of every single piece of evidence that Mignini - and, inexplicably, Massei - had tried to use to "prove" Knox's and Sollecito's participation in the murder.

Granted. I still think it is excellent that Hellmann rendered judgment on these "character issues" involving Knox and Sollecito, as it mattered a great deal in the court of public opinion, and I admire him for boldly and publicly addressing them.

[LondonJohn]

There seems to be another received misconception among many pro-guilt commentators, and it's this: Hellmann's court only considered a very small subset of the whole body of evidence/testimony in reaching its verdicts.

This is in fact totally and utterly untrue, and it belies the lack of knowledge of what was actually happening in the appeal trial. Hellmann's court actually considered every single last piece of evidence. Firstly, the Hellmann judicial panel read all the evidence and testimony from Massei's trial. Secondly, Hellmann then made rulings (following submissions from the various parties) as to what additional evidence/testimony he would allow to be introduced - I suspect that this is the source of much of the ignorance and confusion. And thirdly, all the parties made totally fresh arguments based on the totality of the evidence and testimony: that introduced into Massei's court, plus the additional stuff introduced into Hellmann's court.

So Hellmann's court in fact examined all the evidence and testimony. It ordered additional new evidence and testimony where it thought that new evidence/testimony could assist the reasoning of the court. But this was only supplementary evidence/testimony, and was simply added to the existing evidence/testimony for the purposes of arguments and deliberation. People should therefore be in no doubt that Hellmann's court's verdict was based on the totality of the evidence, and upon arguments that were themselves based on the totality of the evidence.

[LondonJohn]

More clarification appears to be required to correct anyone who thinks that referring to Knox or Sollecito as "murderers" (or similar) since the Hellmann verdict is not defamatory:

1) In law (both in Italy and in the rest of the modern democratic world), Knox and Sollecito are innocent of the criminal charges until any conviction is confirmed. Therefore, technically speaking, referring to them as murderers would have been potentially defamatory at any time, since no verdict has ever been confirmed by the Supreme Court of Italy. However, having said that, it's likely that most civil courts would have accepted that the Massei findings would have been a sufficient defence against libel/slander - at any time between 5th December 2009 and 3rd October 2011. However, since the Hellmann acquittals, it's highly unlikely that any court would accept any defence based on Italian judicial verdicts which have now been set aside and overturned. In other words, any court would accept that neither Knox nor Sollecito should be reasonably considered as "murderers" (or suchlike) - until and unless the Supreme Court orders a retrial on those charges and the new appeal trial finds for guilt. And since the moniker of "murderer" is therefore both untrue and injurious, it constitutes defamation.

2) Some people seem extremely ignorant of the burden of proof in civil defamation trials. Here's an example to aid comprehension. If Mr A were to write an article accusing [insert name of living former US president here] of raping and killing a ten-year-old immigrant girl while in office, and the former president were to sue for defamation, here's what would happen: the plaintiff (the former president) would sue Mr A. The court would require that Mr A prove to a civil standard that his accusation were either true, or that it fell into certain narrowly-defined exclusion areas such as fair comment. If Mr A could prove that the accusation were true, then the former president would by definition lose the case. However, if Mr A couldn't prove the veracity of the allegations, then the court would ask the former president to show that the false accusations were injurious to his reputation or good standing. Clearly in this example, that would be easy to demonstrate, and therefore the former president would win the case.

Therefore, if Mr B were to accuse Amanda Knox in writing in December 2011 of being a "murderer", and Knox were to sue Mr B, it would be entirely incumbent upon Mr B to prove the veracity of the accusation. In other words, it's quite wrong to suggest that in any defamation action, Knox herself would have to prove that she "wasn't a murderer". And since Mr B would be unable to prove the accusation (also by definition, unless Mr B was party to some secret information as yet made unavailable to the Italian courts), and since Knox would easily be able to prove the injurious nature of the accusation, Mr B would lose the defamation action.

In summary then, calling Knox (or Sollecito) a "murderer" at any time from October 3rd onwards is potentially a very bad idea. If such accusations are subjected to defamation action by Knox (or Sollecito), it's very likely that those making the accusations will lose any resultant court case. Their call though........

[LondonJohn]

Edited by jhunter1163:

Edited for Rule 0. Do not attempt to circumvent moderation by bringing in quotes from other boards without attribution.

[LondonJohn]

*sigh* Another correction required to counter ignorant and/or biased commentary elsewhere:

Steve Shay did not accuse Perugia prosecutor Mignini of corruption of any sort. In fact, Shay wrote an article in a local Seattle newspaper in which he repeated other people's opinions that Mignini might have certain mental health issues. It was on these grounds that Mignini sued. It was nothing whatsoever to do with accusations of corruption of a public official, which would indeed have been a far more serious potential defamation - indeed, it could be a criminal offence in Italian law.

I would hope that all of those merrily insinuating that Hellmann might have been corrupted/bribed, or for that matter those calling Knox (or Sollecito) a "murderer" right now, might have the intelligence to recognise the implication of the Mignini vs Shay case (not to mention taking the time to do some basic research into defamation law). But by the looks of things, it appears not. Ah well, tant pis!

[Grinder]

There is almost no way that Amanda can win a suit for libel in the US for people on the net referring to her as a murderer. If she could she wouldn't receive much in damages.

"There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, the person first must prove that the statement was false. Second, that person must prove that the statement caused harm. And, third, they must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. In the case of a celebrity or public official trying to prove libel, they must prove the first three steps, and must (in the United States) prove the statement was made with the intent to do harm, or with reckless disregard for the truth. Usually specifically referred to as "proving malice"."

She would basically have to prove that she was innocent, not not guilty. Given the widespread coverage of this case and that many people certainly are not convinced she is innocent she'd have to prove that it damaged her. As often as we may read their tripe the world has never heard of PMF or TJMK and couldn't care less what those people say.

In the uk "Allowable defenses are justification (the truth of the statement), fair comment (whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest). An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove its truth. Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth).[citation needed] A private individual must only prove negligence (not using due care) to collect compensatory damages.[citation needed] To collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice.

She is a public figure and I doubt that a court would rule that they are in reckless disregard of the truth. Once again, it would be very hard to prove damages from their tiny web sites.

[LondonJohn]

And it gets better! It appears that some believe that a statement cannot be defamatory if it's expressed as an "opinion": e.g. "I think that Amanda Knox is a vicious sex killer".

This is so wrong it's laughable. To illustrate: "It's my opinion that [insert name of living former US President here] raped and killed a ten-year-old immigrant girl in the Oval Office, then he orchestrated a cover-up to conceal his crime". See? That's simply my "opinion"!! Surely that would be a perfect defence if the President in question were to sue me for libel!! Truly ridiculously poor thinking. But, as I said before, they can't say they weren't warned.

[Grinder]

"Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.
Opinion is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. However, some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege."

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Grinder

There is almost no way that Amanda can win a suit for libel in the US for people on the net referring to her as a murderer. If she could she wouldn't receive much in damages.

"There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, the person first must prove that the statement was false. Second, that person must prove that the statement caused harm. And, third, they must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. In the case of a celebrity or public official trying to prove libel, they must prove the first three steps, and must (in the United States) prove the statement was made with the intent to do harm, or with reckless disregard for the truth. Usually specifically referred to as "proving malice"."

She would basically have to prove that she was innocent, not not guilty. Given the widespread coverage of this case and that many people certainly are not convinced she is innocent she'd have to prove that it damaged her. As often as we may read their tripe the world has never heard of PMF or TJMK and couldn't care less what those people say.

In the uk "Allowable defenses are justification (the truth of the statement), fair comment (whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest). An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation. A defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove its truth. Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth).[citation needed] A private individual must only prove negligence (not using due care) to collect compensatory damages.[citation needed] To collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice.

She is a public figure and I doubt that a court would rule that they are in reckless disregard of the truth. Once again, it would be very hard to prove damages from their tiny web sites.

See highlighted part (for clarity, the "defendant" is the person who made the accusation, and who is the one being sued by the person against whom they made the accusation). Actions could easily be brought in the UK.

[HumanityBlues]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

*sigh* Another correction required to counter ignorant and/or biased commentary elsewhere:

Steve Shay did not accuse Perugia prosecutor Mignini of corruption of any sort. In fact, Shay wrote an article in a local Seattle newspaper in which he repeated other people's opinions that Mignini might have certain mental health issues. It was on these grounds that Mignini sued. It was nothing whatsoever to do with accusations of corruption of a public official, which would indeed have been a far more serious potential defamation - indeed, it could be a criminal offence in Italian law.

Let's not forget that Mignini didn't "win" his suit as claimed on that site.

[JREF2010]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

And yet Maresca is being reported as saying that he's actively engaged in writing the appeal to the Supreme Court right now. As I understand the legality of this, I don't see how he is allowed to appeal, if Costaglioli doesn't. And I have a crawling suspicion that Costaglioli is not going to appeal. That the only appeal likely to go forward is Dalla Vedova (mmmmm.....) appealling the calunnia conviction.

Rolfe.

Costaglioli....don't read that name often.
I recall the deflated FOA comments when Hellman allowed Migninni and Commodi to sit-in on his trial. As if it was all a Perugia Courtroom setup, a deflated start with expectation of a corrupt move almost.

Girgha was quoted saying something similar to never having seen this allowed in his entire career, or something of that meaning.

Maresca he's the only one who finds Rudy credible.

You never know whats going to happen in this case, thats all I know...