Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #12

[otto]

Good to see you back otto :rocker: . The Cooper case was very interesting for me too. Wonder what would have happened to AK/RS if tried in N.Carolina?
Just possibly could have been LWOP with the chance of the DP being on the table.

So is another host taking it's chances with the court 'order' by having the new site up?
Could it possibly just be a host change?
Why has Frank not made a 'public' statement to clear up the matter some?
Is the mainstream ITALIAN media picking this up at all for verification, or just pro-AK US media outlets/supporters?

I can say with absolute certainty that if Amanda and Raffaele had been tried in N.C., they would be sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole or be given the death penalty. The N.C. courts are quick to reject defense testimony and appear to work closely with the prosecution. That was the first trial that I watched live, and if that's an example of a typical US trial, I really feel for anyone that is processed through that system.

I don't know exactly what is going on with Frank and his writings other than that he has been ordered to remove his writings from the internet. We know that Amanda was convicted of murder, and those that disagree with the verdict want to blame someone other than Amanda. I guess Mignini was the weakest link, so he is blamed for the decision of the jury, and now he is criticized again because he is addressing slander. The overall attitude seems to be that the Italian justice system should be treated as a joke. For some reason, the police station cartwheels, smuggling a 14 year old into the courtroom, showing up in court in beach wear, and now flipping the bird at a court order ... all seems to fall into the same category for me.

 

[ohiogirl]

You all have read what F Sfarzo hs said happened to him, right? Not just that they shut down his blog, but that he was beaten up, arrested, etc.? No one besides me finds this reprehensible?
This prosecutor is out of control! This is against every principle that we Americans have regarding freedom of the press! Why are you all not more outraged? I am speechless!
Do you really think that none of this happened just because Sfarzo doesn't think that AK and RS guilty?

Come on!

 

[otto]

You all have read what F Sfarzo hs said happened to him, right? Not just that they shut down his blog, but that he was beaten up, arrested, etc.? No one besides me finds this reprehensible?
This prosecutor is out of control! This is against every principle that we Americans have regarding freedom of the press! Why are you all not more outraged? I am speechless!
Do you really think that none of this happened just because Sfarzo doesn't think that AK and RS guilty?

Come on!

Frank said something about getting into a scuffle with police. Was that the time he was pushing a camera into Meredith's sister face and police shoved him away from her? Is there any truth to Frank's claims? The incident where he was too close to Meredith's sister and was shoved away by police is the video clip that he posted on his website in connection with the police scuffle.

In what way is the prosecutor out of control? Is he responsible for what happens on the street between Frank and police when Frank is interfering with the victim's family? Is the prosecutor supposed to stand silent while Frank publishes false statements alleging that the prosecutor has ties to the drug world?

Who cares whether Frank agrees with the jury's decision. That has nothing to do with Frank publishing false statements about the prosecutor.

Why should there be outrage because a blogger in Italy is charged with publishing false information about a prosecutor in Italy?

 

[Malkmus]

Frank said something about getting into a scuffle with police. Was that the time he was pushing a camera into Meredith's sister face and police shoved him away from her? Is there any truth to Frank's claims? The incident where he was too close to Meredith's sister and was shoved away by police is the video clip that he posted on his website in connection with the police scuffle.

The situation Frank described, of being tackled and beaten in his own home and taken to the hospital, is entirely different from the video clip you're describing. So I think you're incorrect in saying that's the moment he is referring to.

In what way is the prosecutor out of control?

In a country that doesn't have the free speech protections we do, the prosecutor - Mignini - is suing Sfarzo for defamation. He's not alone. He's just the latest in a growing list of people being sued or threatened by Giuliani Mignini.

There's Amanda Knox, already serving 26 years for killing Meredith Kercher, now charged with defaming the police by saying they hit her, called her a liar, and abused her during questioning.

Her parents Curt Knox and Edda Mellas were sued for repeating her daughter's claims.

American Crime Writer Doug Preston, another Mignini critic, who felt so threatened he fled Italy.

"In Italian, with no lawyer present, in which Mignini accused me of heinous crimes, demanded that I confess,” he said.

Mignini even threatened to sue westseattleherald.com and Steve Shay.

"It just didn't seem rational to quote somebody in context and then be slapped on the wrist by somebody 8,000 miles away,” said Shay.

http://www.king5.com/news/Blog--121672114.html

Is he responsible for what happens on the street between Frank and police when Frank is interfering with the victim's family?

Again, I believe you have confused two events.

Is the prosecutor supposed to stand silent while Frank publishes false statements alleging that the prosecutor has ties to the drug world?

Do you know exactly what Sfarzo wrote about these "drug ties" and what he meant by them? Until then I don't know that we can assume they are incorrect or libelous. And how about the flip side to your question, Otto: Are journalists supposed to stand silent while getting beaten up for their opinion or sued over reprinting someone else's quoted words?

Who cares whether Frank agrees with the jury's decision. That has nothing to do with Frank publishing false statements about the prosecutor.

Until we find out exactly what was said by Frank we won't know just how "illegal" it is. So far Mignini's gone sue-happy against other journalists simply for reprinting things he finds offensive, but not necessarily untrue.

Why should there be outrage because a blogger in Italy is charged with publishing false information about a prosecutor in Italy?

The CPJ seems to think there is good reason for outrage.

 

[otto]

The situation Frank described, of being tackled and beaten in his own home and taken to the hospital, is entirely different from the video clip you're describing. So I think you're incorrect in saying that's the moment he is referring to.

http://www.king5.com/news/Blog--121672114.html

Again, I believe you have confused two events.

Do you know exactly what Sfarzo wrote about these "drug ties" and what he meant by them? Until then I don't know that we can assume they are incorrect or libelous. And how about the flip side to your question, Otto: Are journalists supposed to stand silent while getting beaten up for their opinion or sued over reprinting someone else's quoted words?

Until we find out exactly what was said by Frank we won't know just how "illegal" it is. So far Mignini's gone sue-happy against other journalists simply for reprinting things he finds offensive, but not necessarily untrue.

The CPJ seems to think there is good reason for outrage.

In what way are "free speech" laws different in Italy? It is okay in the US to falsely accuse someone in public office of having ties to the drug world? That appears to be the situation with Frank. He published information alleging that an officer of the court, a public official, has ties to the drug world. Is that okay under US "free speech" laws?

I posted a link yesterday to the only real information we have read about the reason for Frank's writings being removed from the internet: "Sfarzo, the man responsible for the Perugia Shock blog, accused Mignini of having ties to drug dealers."

I think we would all like to hear from Frank. He should either clarify the situation or state that he is prevented from discussing the situation due to court order (court proceedings are also subject to media blackouts in the US, so let's not jump on that as another example of no "free speech").

The only people I see supporting Frank's illegal activities are the same people that are using Amanda Knox to further their own cause: Doug Preston, Dempsey, Fisher, etc.

 

[SMK]

In what way are "free speech" laws different in Italy? It is okay in the US to falsely accuse someone in public office of having ties to the drug world? That appears to be the situation with Frank. He published information alleging that an officer of the court, a public official, has ties to the drug world. Is that okay under US "free speech" laws?

I posted a link yesterday to the only real information we have read about the reason for Frank's writings being removed from the internet: "Sfarzo, the man responsible for the Perugia Shock blog, accused Mignini of having ties to drug dealers."

I think we would all like to hear from Frank. He should either clarify the situation or state that he is prevented from discussing the situation due to court order (court proceedings are also subject to media blackouts in the US, so let's not jump on that as another example of no "free speech").

The only people I see supporting Frank's illegal activities are the same people that are using Amanda Knox to further their own cause: Doug Preston, Dempsey, Fisher, etc.

Well, Frank has given his assurances that he has told no lies, and only the truth. If something is true, it is not libelous nor slander. So from his perspective, he has not done anything wrong. If a public official is having an affair or something, it is not libelous to write about it. Only if it is untrue is it defamation. So at this point it is Mignini's word against Frank's, and I will not drag out the tired old stuff about you know what.....

 

[Malkmus]

In what way are "free speech" laws different in Italy? It is okay in the US to falsely accuse someone in public office of having ties to the drug world? That appears to be the situation with Frank. He published information alleging that an officer of the court, a public official, has ties to the drug world. Is that okay under US "free speech" laws?

I think what it will boil down to is whether or not what Frank wrote is completely imaginary, the truth, or speculation... and exactly how it was written. That's what determines what is "okay".

I posted a link yesterday to the only real information we have read about the reason for Frank's writings being removed from the internet: "Sfarzo, the man responsible for the Perugia Shock blog, accused Mignini of having ties to drug dealers."

I think we would all like to hear from Frank. He should either clarify the situation or state that he is prevented from discussing the situation due to court order (court proceedings are also subject to media blackouts in the US, so let's not jump on that as another example of no "free speech").

And what I'm saying is it's premature to assume that what Frank has written is false or libelous just because Mignini wants his website taken down. You know, that CNN doc also speculated about Mignini doing underhanded things with a certain drug dealing homeless man, so I wonder if they are next to get slapped with a suit.

The only people I see supporting Frank's illegal activities are the same people that are using Amanda Knox to further their own cause: Doug Preston, Dempsey, Fisher, etc.

Really? So the CPJ's interest here is Amanda Knox?
Interestingly, the only people not offended by the unscrupulous tactics of a convicted prosecutor are Mignini himself and people who think AK and RS are guilty. The rest of the world seems to have a problem with such abuses of power, regardless of what is going on with Amanda Knox.

 

[Nova]

So are you thinking that even though there is a court order requiring that the information be taken off the net, it's okay to violate the court order if the information is on a private website?

I know I said I wouldn't comment, but now that I hear the Navy Seals landing in the compound yard, I want to say that I think ignoring that court order is an act of righteous civil disobedience.

I realize Italian law doesn't offer the same guarantees of freedom of the press as the U.S. Constitution, but using the judicial system to silence criticism of public officials is immoral and wrong, even if Mignini follows correct court procedures to do it. I have no doubt that is what is going on here.

I also see no reason why a writ from an Italian court must be obeyed by internet users in the United States, but I admit I'm not an expert on international law in this regard (or any other).

 

[Nova]

Nova,

We'd been talking about RG's skype call. I don't know if you saw this, but it was part of RS's appeal doc translated on http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/appeal4.html#anchor_169

Rudy’s Skype Conversation

During Rudy's skype conversation with Giacomo, Rudy is heard saying:



“They say there was a broken window, but when I was there, there wasn't any broken window; it's a window that's on the left when you're facing the house, the wooden shutters were open so I could see the window, it wasn't broken, and also when I left.”



The defense would like to know how Rudy could have known which of the windows was supposed to be broken. The defense confirms that this precise information was never printed in any newspaper at that time, In fact, it was mistakenly reported that Meredith's bedroom window was broken. The defense believes that there is a very logical reason why Rudy knew which window was broken.



The defense also points out that Amanda and Raffaele would not have chosen Filomena’s window to stage a break in. They could have simply broken the lock on the front door to stage a break in. Why would they go through all that trouble with Filomena’s window? The defense argues that Rudy knew what window was broken during his skype conversation because he broke it to gain entrance to the cottage.

I don't know what was reported in the beginning, but I guess if the police purposely didn't leak the info about the window, then RG wouldn't know. I can't help but think I read an article in dailyukmail or something where RS talks about it, but I don't know if it was before the skype call date.

Thanks, wasnt_me! This is definitely one of those things that make one go "Hmmmm..."

I'm a little nervous about "previously unknown info" because I've read of too many cases (including the West Memphis 3) where it was claimed certain info was withheld only to find that LE officers were blabbing to their families and the info was common knowledge on the street or had been printed somewere obscure.

I'm not saying the defense is lying, just that I don't know how to confirm that they are right that the window wasn't identified anywhere that RG could know about it.

I do wonder why AK and RS would break Filomena's window instead of AK's (or, as you point out, simply breaking the door lock). Frankly, if I were covering up for a murder, it would be worth losing my computer, jewelry, etc., to do a better job of making it look like a burglary. (But I know people have "staged" burglaries before without actually removing anything.)

 

[Nova]

considering the shoeprints... at this point, I'm not sure I'd trust them to match a pair of socks

So true (to quote Malkmus)... and genuinely funny! :floorlaugh:

 

[otto]

I think what it will boil down to is whether or not what Frank wrote is completely imaginary, the truth, or speculation... and exactly how it was written. That's what determines what is "okay".



And what I'm saying is it's premature to assume that what Frank has written is false or libelous just because Mignini wants his website taken down. You know, that CNN doc also speculated about Mignini doing underhanded things with a certain drug dealing homeless man, so I wonder if they are next to get slapped with a suit.



Really? So the CPJ's interest here is Amanda Knox?
Interestingly, the only people not offended by the unscrupulous tactics of a convicted prosecutor are Mignini himself and people who think AK and RS are guilty. The rest of the world seems to have a problem with such abuses of power, regardless of what is going on with Amanda Knox.

The CNN propaganda program about Knox also asked the viewer to forget everything they knew about the case and pretend that the only evidence was DNA on the knife and bra clasp. I can't take that type of media entertainment seriously.

What "unscrupulous tactics" are you referring to in the context of murderers Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede? Is it now an abuse of power for prosecutors to do their jobs? What exactly has Manuela Comodi done that is so unscrupulous? She is a prosecutor that presented the Meredith Kercher murder case to the jury, and the jury found the lovebirds guilty. If Frank alleged that Comodi had ties to the drug world, she would be filing a lawsuit against Frank. Would that also be an abuse of power?

 

[otto]

Well, Frank has given his assurances that he has told no lies, and only the truth. If something is true, it is not libelous nor slander. So from his perspective, he has not done anything wrong. If a public official is having an affair or something, it is not libelous to write about it. Only if it is untrue is it defamation. So at this point it is Mignini's word against Frank's, and I will not drag out the tired old stuff about you know what.....

So long as Frank has evidence to prove that an Italian prosecutor has ties to the drug world, great. This should all be cleared up in no time.

Would you happen to have a link to these "assurances" from Frank ... by any chance?

 

[Nova]

You do realize that Mignini did not convict Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy. Those convictions were handed down by a jury. There were two prosecutors involved in the trial of Amanda and Raffaele, and Mignini was only half of the team. Why so much venom for Mignini?

Additional lawsuits have been brought against Dr Sollecito for attempting to influence the trial process, against Amanda for falsely accusing an innocent man of murder, against Amanda for falsely accusing police of beating statements out of her, against Amanda's parents for making false statements against Italian police in British media, and now against Frank for publishing false statements about the prosecutor.

If people would stop lying, or attempting to influence the judicial process, none of these lawsuits would exist. I've read claims about how "free speech" doesn't exist in Italy, and this is why these lawsuits exist. Is it really okay in the US to publicly accuse specific individiuals in public office, police and prosecutors, of things that are not true?

It's my opinion that too many people perceive Perugia as some backwards little medieval town, and the thinking is that the laws in Italy don't have to be respected. I think this same attitude had something to do with Amanda's troubles as well. Is there any reason why the general consensus, from what appears to be US based opinion, is that it's okay to violate the laws of Italy rather than respect them?

Courts in the U.S. give the press (and private citizens) wide latitude in criticizing public officials, including prosecutors. This is based on our Founding Fathers' conviction that freedom of information was the best remedy against abuse of power.

The standard for libel or slander against a public official (which includes celebrities as well as elected officials) is very high: the plaintiff in such a case must prove that the defendant (the one making the statement in question) reasonably knew the statement was both false and damaging to the plaintiff. He must further prove the statement in question was not satire, as satire is also protected speech. This burden is almost never met by government officials.

Prosecuting a defendant for saying a police interrogator slapped her upside the head (but not hard enough to cause damage) would be viewed as outrageous here, whether or not the statement was true.

American courts are also reluctant to take action against alleged libel or slander in advance of trial. There's no way a prosecutor would get a blog taken down just for saying he had friends who were drug dealers.

There are trials (Simpson, Peterson, etc.) where it sometimes seems too much info is floating around in the press where it is available to potential jurors, but when I look at how the Italian system can be manipulated by one, out-of-control prosecutor, I'm glad we have the system we have.

 

[otto]

I know I said I wouldn't comment, but now that I hear the Navy Seals landing in the compound yard, I want to say that I think ignoring that court order is an act of righteous civil disobedience.

I realize Italian law doesn't offer the same guarantees of freedom of the press as the U.S. Constitution, but using the judicial system to silence criticism of public officials is immoral and wrong, even if Mignini follows correct court procedures to do it. I have no doubt that is what is going on here.

I also see no reason why a writ from an Italian court must be obeyed by internet users in the United States, but I admit I'm not an expert on international law in this regard (or any other).

Okay. What do you think a public official in the US should do if false allegations are published on the internet, and repeated all over the place on the internet, that he or she has connections to the drug world? Are there no laws in the US for people to protect themselves from this sort of lying?

 

[Nova]

Okay. What do you think a public official in the US should do if false allegations are published on the internet, and repeated all over the place on the internet, that he or she has connections to the drug world? Are there no laws in the US for people to protect themselves from this sort of lying?

Yes, there are laws. But as I said, the burden is on the official to prove that the writer/speaker KNEW the statement was false or reasonably should have known. It isn't enough to merely prove the statement was untrue.

We accept that great scrutiny comes with great power and rightly so. What Mignini is doing in Perugia demonstrates why.

 

[otto]

Courts in the U.S. give the press (and private citizens) wide latitude in criticizing public officials, including prosecutors. This is based on our Founding Fathers' conviction that freedom of information was the best remedy against abuse of power.

The standard for libel or slander against a public official (which includes celebrities as well as elected officials) is very high: the plaintiff in such a case must prove that the defendant (the one making the statement in question) reasonably knew the statement was both false and damaging to the plaintiff. He must further prove the statement in question was not satire, as satire is also protected speech. This burden is almost never met by government officials.

Prosecuting a defendant for saying a police interrogator slapped her upside the head (but not hard enough to cause damage) would be viewed as outrageous here, whether or not the statement was true.

American courts are also reluctant to take action against alleged libel or slander in advance of trial. There's no way a prosecutor would get a blog taken down just for saying he had friends who were drug dealers.

There are trials (Simpson, Peterson, etc.) where it sometimes seems too much info is floating around in the press where it is available to potential jurors, but when I look at how the Italian system can be manipulated by one, out-of-control prosecutor, I'm glad we have the system we have.

So, by the same standards as those practiced in the US, Mignini has so far established in a court of law that Frank reasonably knows his statement is both false and damaging to the plaintiff. All right. How are these freedoms of speech in Italy and the US different thus far?

How has Mignini manipulated the court system?

 

[otto]

Yes, there are laws. But as I said, the burden is on the official to prove that the writer/speaker KNEW the statement was false or reasonably should have known. It isn't enough to merely prove the statement was untrue.

We accept that great scrutiny comes with great power and rightly so. What Mignini is doing in Perugia demonstrates why.

What makes you think that it cannot be proven in court that Frank knows his statements are false? Thus far, the courts believe Mignini. It should be a very straight forward task of demonstrating proof. Either there are drug dealers that are connected with Mignini, or there are not. Common sense suggests that it is not reasonable to assume that prosecutors have ties to drug dealers, so ... let's see the proof. In fact, I have to wonder why the drug dealers aren't coming to Frank's rescue at this moment ... couldn't they also help Knox by demonstrating that the prosecutor is a druggie? Doesn't everyone want to help Knox?

 

[Malkmus]

The CNN propaganda program about Knox also asked the viewer to forget everything they knew about the case and pretend that the only evidence was DNA on the knife and bra clasp. I can't take that type of media entertainment seriously.

You missed my point. I wasn't commenting on the integrity of the show, rather drawing a comparison between the allegations made by CNN and Sfarzo and simply speculating whether we can say the same suit will be launched against them.

What "unscrupulous tactics" are you referring to in the context of murderers Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede?

You can start with all the lawsuits launched against people writing about their case. However, his "unscrupulous tactics" reach farther than just this case as has been well-documented already, most recently by the CPJ's investigation. So, his first conviction for abuse of power wasn't enough, he's now being investigated by a whole separate entity.

Is it now an abuse of power for prosecutors to do their jobs?

Silencing reporters you disagree with or dislike because they write unfavorable things about you is not the job of a prosecutor. This recent affair with Sfarzo isn't the only incident. You seem to want to ignore everything else he's done.

What exactly has Manuela Comodi done that is so unscrupulous?

Did I say anything about her? No. But now that you ask, she is the one who originally told the press the defense ewouldn't be getting the documents they requested for the DNA results. So I would say "withholding evidence" would be an unscrupulous tactic, for sure.

She is a prosecutor that presented the Meredith Kercher murder case to the jury, and the jury found the lovebirds guilty. If Frank alleged that Comodi had ties to the drug world, she would be filing a lawsuit against Frank.

Is that a fact? Or just wild speculation. We don't even know yet if there is truth to what Sfarzo wrote or what, even, he wrote specifically. It was on his website so it's kind of baffling that no one really knows what got Mignini fired up.

Would that also be an abuse of power?

The CPJ seems to think what he is doing falls under that, and since they have no stake in Amanda Knox's or Rafaelle Sollecito's guilt or innocence I find that they are good impartial judge's of Mignini's tactics.

 

[Nova]

So, by the same standards as those practiced in the US, Mignini has so far established in a court of law that Frank reasonably knows his statement is both false and damaging to the plaintiff. All right. How are these freedoms of speech in Italy and the US different thus far?

How has Mignini manipulated the court system?

Where is a source claiming Mignini has met that burden? As far as I know, that isn't even the standard in Italy.

(I'm not sure you understand how high a burden that is: it basically requires the plaintiff to prove the defendant was knowingly lying. Merely proving the defendant was wrong isn't enough. And with a statement as vague as the one reported ("has ties to drug dealers") it would be virtually impossible to prove Frank KNEW that none of Mignini's associates had dealings with drugs. As Malkmus (I believe) points out above, Mignini's dealing with the homeless heroin addict who testified against AK would be enough to tip the balance in Frank's favor.)

Moreover, U.S. courts have very strict rules about "prior restraint." Essentially, libel claims have to play out in the court system; it's virtually impossible to get a court to stop the publication (including the posting of a blog) in advance of a full trial on the libel/slander issues.

(The primary exception seems to be gag orders in court trials which are issued to insure the defendant gets a fair trial. That concept doesn't apply here, unfortunately, as it would have prevented Mignini from convicting "Foxy Knoxy" in the press.)

 

[Nova]

What makes you think that it cannot be proven in court that Frank knows his statements are false? Thus far, the courts believe Mignini. It should be a very straight forward task of demonstrating proof. Either there are drug dealers that are connected with Mignini, or there are not. Common sense suggests that it is not reasonable to assume that prosecutors have ties to drug dealers, so ... let's see the proof. In fact, I have to wonder why the drug dealers aren't coming to Frank's rescue at this moment ... couldn't they also help Knox by demonstrating that the prosecutor is a druggie? Doesn't everyone want to help Knox?

Like I said above, you still don't appreciate the burden required in the U.S.

I see nothing common-sensical about assuming prosecutors have no ties to drug dealers. On the contrary, it's common knowledge that prosecutors (as well as police) typically develop drug dealers as sources and jailhouse "snitches."

You keep making references to Mignini taking drugs himself. Do you have any reason to believe this is what Frank wrote? Because I haven't seen that reported.