Knox vs. Lifetime

Amanda Knox was back in court yesterday; this time not as a defendant but as a plaintiff. Knox pleaded to a civil court in Perugia, Italy, to prevent distribution over the internet of a made-for-television Lifetime film, Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy.With her head down and walking rapidly, Knox appeared tense and was expressionless, Knox crossed the square from the prison van to the civil court in Piazza Matteotti in Perugia. Wearing a white shirt and black jacket over pants and her hair pulled back in a little pony tail, Knox was escorted by two guards on each arm Knox was in court with her lawyers: Carlo Dalla Vedova, Luciano Ghirga and Maria del Grosso.

The charges were filed several months before the release of the movie and the court apparently hasn’t taken her request very seriously or they would have scheduled this court date prior the premiere of the movie last month; plus the movie has already been viewed some 687,000 times on Lifetime’s website from all over the world, and a version with Italian subtitles is already in circulation.

During the yesterday’s session—which was closed to the public—Knox asked Judge Teresa Giardino to block the U.S. Lifetime channel movie from being shown in Italy, because her appeal could be jeopardized if the film was widely circulated. During her address, Knox told the court she was “devastated by this invasion into her life” and the way “she’s being exploited.”

Knox also wants it pulled from the internet and any distribution of images from the film to be blocked. They are bringing their case against YouTube and Google as well as Lifetime Entertainment. YouTube has since removed any reference to the movie and its trailer from its website. Nonetheless, with just a minimal search you can find some bootlegs of the trailer as well as trailer clips in Italian, and of course HERE. And even though these may be down when you view them, the dynamics of the internet have me thinking that others will emerge.

The hearing was quickly adjourned because representatives for the Lifetime channel, who have not yet confirmed receipt of their summons, were not present. However, Knox did get a chance to address the court. Les Eisner, a spokesman for the channel’s parent company, A&E Television Networks, said the network had no comment. The case was adjourned until 4 July 2011.

International Tribunals

In light of the recent attack on Libya, I have posted the following article that I wrote recently regarding international tribunals, which are set-up by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). The UNSC voted unanimously to apply sanctions (UNSC Resolution 1973) against Moammar Gadhafi and his regime for firing indiscriminately on peaceful protesters, killing as many as 1,000 people. Council members from all 15 nations also agreed unanimously to refer Gadhafi's regime to a permanent war crimes tribunal (The Hague Tribunal) for an investigation of possible crimes against humanity. Tribunal Prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo—Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC)—and the Security Council announced that there was enough evidence of alleged crimes against humanity by Gadhafi’s regime to warrant a full investigation.



International criminal tribunals are “courts established to try individuals accused of crimes recognized under international humanitarian law…” (Annan, 1997). Perhaps the most well-known of them is the Nuremberg Trials (1945-46), which were a series of military tribunals held by the allied forces of World War II, prosecuting several members of Nazi Germany for committing various war crimes—heard by the International Military Tribunal (Conot, 1984).

Tribunals are important to two or more countries for several reasons. They hold individuals accountable for committing crimes that their countries neither have the means nor the laws in place to do so. They also help dismantle the tradition of impunity for war crimes and other serious violations of international law (Taverneir, 1997). Furthermore, they shield entire communities from being labeled as being collectively responsible for the actions of others, and causing suffering; thus paving the way for the reconciliation process within war-torn societies (Annan, 1997). If there are not tribunals all of these things become harder to achieve, if not impossible.

Tribunals are not only affected by cultural and political differences of nations, they are also formed because of them. For instance, the massacres and genocide in Rwanda spawned the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). The ICTR was established so “that those responsible for serious breaches of international humanitarian law and acts of genocide must be brought to justice,” and at the same time assist in instilling “national reconciliation” and “respect for the fundamental rights of individuals” will be respected (Erasmus & Fourie, 1997). In order for the tribunal to achieve these objectives they must play a game of back-and-forth with Rwanda and their government; hence, be affected by the relationship—and Rwanda’s cultural and political ideas.

The creation of ad hoc Tribunals, such as in Yugoslavia and Rwanda, was largely improvised—resulting in numerous ambiguities in both procedure leading to their establishment and the legal status assigned to the two tribunals (Taverneir, 1997). Further ambiguity arises from the fact that these two Tribunals, mentioned above, depend on the decision making of the United Nations Security Council (small body), in which five world powers have veto rights, and there are financial constraints—hence inadequate funding and resources—available to these tribunals. Ambiguities exist further in the questions of binding nature of Security Council decisions and the requirements of State cooperation.

State cooperation, nonetheless, is required under Article 29 of the Statute of the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and under Article 28 of the Statute of Rwanda Tribunal. These tribunals were established under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, and the UN can take military action, along with its member nations, against those not in compliance with international law. Consequently, this is another way that a nation’s cultural and political differences can affect these Tribunals—by charting the course of their actions or responses.

Read PART 2

Low Crime in Japan: A Comparative Look

When you first look at Japan and try to get an understanding as to why their criminal justice system is so effective it is a daunting task. After all, many aspects of Japan’s social institutions have been heavily influenced, borrowed if you will, from other countries. The Japanese Navy was modeled after British; their army was modeled after the French and then the German; their educational system modeled on the French, American, and German; and their banking system on the American; their religion from China; and their political structure from Germany. Even more deceiving, when looking directly at their justice system, is the fact that 99 percent of offenders coming before a judge are convicted. So what factors might contribute to their low crime rate? Plain and simple: cultural factors.

Japanese culture is rich in tradition and group ties are strong. The Japanese believe that things borrowed must be adapted rather than adopted. Although the Japanese have borrowed many structural ideas from other countries, they have molded these ideas delicately around the “Japanese Spirit,” which they have protected dearly. The Japanese believe that standards of morality and ethics should be determined collectively (by a group) rather than through inflexible legal codes or universal principles. This belief is at the core of their thinking and breads their contextualist and collectivist practices.

Looking at Japan’s outlook and strong belief in harmony, we can appreciate some of the informal control mechanisms in Japan; such mechanisms that show that a 99 percent conviction rate hides the fact that over half those sentences are suspended. Being part of a group in Japan is everything (collectivism). Children in America are usually punished by being confined to their rooms or staying in with their families. The Japanese believe in “child-rearing,” which is quite the opposite of Americans. When a child misbehaves in Japan parents put the misbehaving child outside of the house until the child begs to get back in. “American mothers chase their children; Japanese mothers are chased by their children.” It is this instilled need and longing to be part of the group that defines the Japanese people, and they often are ashamed and feel a sense of worthlessness if discouraged by or banished from the group.

Americans have a strong sense of distrust in their social institutions; however, the Japanese do not, and it is their attraction to an orderly, hierarchal society that allows them to thrive in this area. Yet, still there are other factors that contribute to the low crime rate in Japan. For instance, gun control in Japan is the most stringent in the democratic world. The gun law begins by stating, “No one shall possess a fire-arm…and very few exceptions are allowed.” It should be no wonder why gun crime is so low in Japan.

In an international study between gun ownership and homicide and suicide, Professor Martin Killias (1993) determined that there was a strong correlation between the three, with those countries having higher gun ownership showing more homicides and suicides. The United States was miles above second place Switzerland in gun ownership; Japan was at the bottom of the list. Not surprisingly then (in 2001), the U.S. had 3.98 gun homicides and 5.92 gun suicides per 100,000 people; while in 2002, Japan had 0.02 gun homicides and 0.04 gun suicides per 100,000 people. Yet even this, I believe, is the result of cultural and societal phenomena—because any society’s laws are created out of cultural and social needs and wants.

*Tribute to Japan (May they rebuild quickly)

http://www.willsavive.webs.com/

PURCHASE SAVIVE'S LATEST BOOK (Amazon.com)

The Study Abroad Murder: Trial of the Century

ON SALE NOW!!

List Price: $19.99
6" x 9" (15.24 x 22.86 cm)
Black & White on Cream paper
288 pages
ISBN-13: 978-0615456263
ISBN-10: 061545626X
BISAC: True Crime / Murder / General

The college town of Perugia, Italy has always been known for its beautiful medieval hilltop landscapes, its fine art, and of course its world famous chocolate festival. Yet, all that changed on 2 November 2007, when British Born Meredith Kercher [21] was found brutally murdered in a flat that she shared with three female roommates. Kercher’s lifeless body had been found by Italian police under a duvet in her room (at Via Della Pergola 7) partially clothed with her throat cut and with multiple signs of bruising to her neck and body. The pathologist’s report indicates that she was stabbed at some time between 9.30 p.m., and 11.30 p.m., on the night of November 1, 2007.

Four days after the murder the case took a whole new twist when it was announced that Kercher’s roommate, American born Amanda Knox [20], and Knox’s boyfriend were arrested in connection with the murder. More than two-years after the murder, the verdict came in (on 4 December 2009), and Knox was convicted in an Italian court of being the ring leader in a “sex game gone bad” and sentenced to 26 years in prison. Meanwhile, the American media sided with Amanda Knox and her family—predicating their versions solely on the perceived “archaic Italian justice system” and what they claim was a “lack of evidence.”

This book is the true crime story of the murder of Meredith Kercher, providing a detailed analysis of the trial and a comprehensive forensic analysis of the evidence, the investigation, and the events that led to murder.

Knox Appeal: Homeless in Perugia

With the appeals on the verge of heating-up—in anticipation for the expected May 21st report from independent experts on crucial physical evidence in the case—today the court heard from witnesses disputing the testimony of homeless man, Antonio Curatolo. Mr. Curatolo testified that he saw Knox and Sollecito on the night of the murder several times in Piazaa Grimana, which overlooks the cottage (crime scene). Mr. Curatolo also testified that he was certain because he remembered seeing buses and other students in the piazza waiting to board buses to go to discos in town.

On this day, the fifth appeal hearing, six witnesses took the stand—including some operators of shuttle bus services that run from the piazza in question to discos on Perugia’s outskirts, as well as people doing work for two discos. In short, the witnesses said shuttle bus services were not running that night.

Roles of the seven defense witnesses (one hasn’t testified yet):

Rita Pucciarini, organizes events in Perugia
Giorgio Brugnini - owner, Disco Etoile 59
Mauo Mandarini - owner, Disco Gradisca
Arturo Liasullo, manager, SIAE
Massimiliano Bevilacqua - Bus company
Gaetano Ini- Bus company
Rosa Ini- Bus company

Rita Pucciarini, who at the time of the murder worked for the Red Zone disco, told the court “There were no buses [running that night]… I’m certain because discos focus on Halloween, which is a big draw. It’s like New Year’s Eve.”

Luciano Ghirga, a lawyer for Knox, said the testimony “removes the two from the scene of the crime.” Prosecutor Manuela Comodi said the testimony was “useless” as there are other discos in Perugia and other bus shuttle services whose operators had not been heard. Comodi also said, “If ever there is testimony that is completely useless…this is it.” Kercher family lawyer, Francesco Maresca, noted that he “remains convinced of the reliability of this witness [Curatolo].”

There has been no word yet whether the prosecution will be entering Rudy Guede’s Motivation Report into the record. Antonio Curatolo is expected to take the witness stand again during the next hearing, which is scheduled for 26 March 2011.

Don’t Let the Truth Get in the Way of a Good Story: 10 False Claims on the Knox Case

In light of the recent indictment on Amanda Knox’s parents for defamation, it seems only fair to illuminate further the many false statements made by the Knox family and others. These untrue statements below are only a few of the many that have been asserted throughout this process and are not related to their indictment; they instead show the pattern of rhetoric over the last few years regarding the case. The underlying point in this story is the America media’s obsession with not letting the truth get in the way of a good story.

One might think that the family has simply innocently mistaken the facts of the case after this post, but remember that the Knox family hired David Marriott of Gogerty Stark Marriott, a Seattle, Washington (US) based publication relations consultant, soon after the charges against their daughter. Their public relations campaign has been predicated on the notions that there was no evidence against Amanda, and an inferior Italian justice system; the American media bought it hook line and sinker.

The validity and veracity of any of these statements can be checked by viewing either of the two Italian judge’s reports on the case: (Micheli Sentencing Report of 26 January 2009) and (Massei Sentencing Report of March 2010)

Let’s take a look at some examples:



False claims # 1 - 3: “His [Rudy Guede’s] DNA was in her [Kercher’s] purse, after the crime he all of a sudden had money that he didn’t have earlier in the day…when he was on the run and police were secretly wiretapping him, and he was talking to a friend of his, the friend said, ‘you know, they think Amanda was there,’ and he goes, ‘oh, I know who Amanda is and she was absolutely not there’” (Minute 3:16 above)

FACT: Somehow, Edda was creatively able to squeeze 3 completely false statements into a very short amount of time. The first is a completely false statement with no proof to back this up. No evidence was ever provided, nor was ever even brought up at any hearing in the case, from the prosecution or the defense, indicating that Guede had stolen Meredith’s money. The second: Guede’s DNA was found on the zipper of Kercher’s purse, not inside of it.

And the third: the transcript of that call to a friend that Guede made while unknowingly being recorded by police shows that Guede claimed not even to be there that evening. How could he say Amanda was “absolutely not there” if he himself claimed not to be there? Rubbish, as they say in the UK! Moreover, in the only other coversation that Guede had with a friend that was recorded by police, he says, "...Amanda or Raffaele did it."

False claim # 4: “They believe Meredith was killed at about 9.30pm” on Larry King Live (minute 1:37 above)

FACT: Knox’s mother makes this statement in order to explain that Amanda and Raffaele were at his apartment as late as 9:15p.m., and they could not have killed Meredith by 9:30p.m. Perugia Police Pathologist, Dr. Luca Lalli, was the first to examine the body. Italian coroner, Francesco Introna, also examined the body. Professor Introna concluded that the initial attack took place sometime between 9:30p.m., and 10:30p.m., and Dr. Lalli determined that Kercher’s time of death came between 8:00p.m., and 4:00a.m., on November 1, 2007 and November 2, 2007. Raffaele's flat was about a 10 minute walk from the cottage.



False claim # 5: “The prosecution had to admit that there was no physical evidence” (Minute 4:29 above)

FACT: The prosecution took nearly five-months indentifying and laying out the evidence against Knox and Sollecito during the trial, using the testimony of several specialists to prove the validity of the evidence. Not once has the prosecution made the claim that they had no evidence, physical or otherwise.



False claim # 6: Michael Archer – “There’s no evidence that brings Amanda into this crime scene; there’s no footprints, there’s no blood of hers there, there’s no biological fluids of her there; it perplexes me to see how they achieved a conviction” (minute 5:37 above).

FACT: Mr. Archer, who has consulted with the Knox family and is somehow listed as a forensic scientist, should be ashamed of himself for claiming to have “reviewed the [case] report” and misrepresenting the facts as he has above. You can either come to two conclusions regarding Mr. Archer’s statements here: he is either being paid by the Knox family to misrepresent the facts, or he is simply not a good forensic scientist and his reading comprehension is poor at best.

After CNN legal analyst, Lisa Bloom, points out that there was DNA of Amanda’s in the bathroom, Mr. Archer then says, “for Amanda’s DNA to be in her own bathroom…is not evidence of guilt of a murder” (minute 7:30 above). He has clearly made up his mind here and is not going to be swayed by the truth of the evidence, nor is he going to even acknowledge that there was a mix of Knox and Kercher’s blood in 3 spots in the house as well as footprints tracked by Knox in Meredith’s blood.

False claim 7: Anne Bremner, Spokesperson for ‘Friends of Amanda’ – “There is no evidence of Amanda Knox at the actual crime scene.” (minute 1:02 above)

FACT: The crime scene involves the whole cottage and it isn’t limited simply to Meredith’s room. Knox and Sollecito were both convicted based on their staging of the break-in and tampering with the crime scene. Moreover, there is plenty of evidence actually placing Amanda Knox in Meredith’s room on the night of the murder: the double DNA knife, and the blood she tracked into the bathroom, the hallway, Filomena’s room, and her own room. According to two imprint experts, there was a woman’s bloody shoeprint on the pillow under Meredith’s body which matched Knox’s foot size. Even Sollecito’s forensic consultant, Professor Vinci, claimed that he had found Amanda Knox’s DNA on Meredith’s bra.

Guede’s footprints went straight from Meredith’s room to the front door of the cottage. There is no physical evidence indicating that Guede went into either Filomena’s room or the bathroom used by both Knox and Kercher. “…Rudy, who, on leaving Meredith’s room (according to what the shoe prints show), directed himself towards the exit without deviating or stopping in other rooms” (Massei, pg. 379). Guede could not have staged the break-in or cleaned the cottage after the murder. Moreover, the clean-up and staged break-in benefited Knox and Sollecito more; accroding to Judge Massie, “...without which, lacking signs of forced entry at the door, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito would have been the first under suspicion” (Massei, pg. 88).



False claim # 8: Peter Van Sant, 48 Hours Correspondent – “Why would Amanda Knox lie to police [regarding her signed confession]? Well it turns out that her ‘so called’ confession came after an all night 14 hour interrogation in which she was denied food, water, sleep, and legal representation” (minute 1:06 above).

FACT: Shame on you Peter Van Sant, 48 Hours Correspondent! Her questioning began at 11:00p.m., on the 5th and ended at 5:45a.m., on the 6th (Nov.), far from 14 hours. Moreover, Knox confessed to being in the house during the murder after only 2-plus hours, at which time she implicated Patrick Lumumba of being the murderer.

False claim # 9: Private investigator, Paul Ciolino – “Amanda and Raffaele never laid eyes on Rudy [Guede], never met with him, and never hung out with him—didn’t know him” (minute 2:34 above).

FACT: This is probably the most ridiculous statement of them all. This guy is a private investigator? He should keep his findings private! This program was aired on 19 June 2009, just seven days after Amanda testified at her own trial. Not only did Knox and Guede know each other, they met on more than one occasion, even smoked weed together—as testified to much earlier in the trial by all three Italian boys who lived downstairs from Meredith and Amanda. With just minimal research, Mr. Ciolino could have read the trial transcripts before completely discrediting himself and making himself look foolish.

Here’s the actual court transcript:

Carlo Pacelli (CP), Patrick Lumumba’s lawyer: Did you know Rudy Hermann Guede?
Amanda Knox (AK): Not much.
CP: In what circumstances did you meet him?
AK: I was in the center, near the church. It was during an evening when I met the guys that lived underneath in the apartment underneath us, and while I was mingling with them, they introduced me to Rudy.
CP: So it was on the occasion of a party at the house of the neighbors downstairs?
AK: Yes. What we did is, they introduced me to him [Rudy] downtown just to say “This is Rudy, this is Amanda”, and then I spent most of my time with Meredith, but we all went back to the house together.
CP: Did you also know him, or at least see him, in the pub “Le Chic”, Rudy?
AK: I think I saw him there once.
CP: Listen, this party at the neighbors, it took place in the second half of October? What period, end of October? 2007?
AK: I think it was more in the middle of October.

False claim # 10: Edda tells Linda Byron that Amanda hasn’t changed her story, in an interview with KING 5 News. Linda Byron: “Did she [Amanda] change her story?” Edda Mellas: “No, no. For this whole year they have maintained the story what they did that night. They stayed at Raffaele’s, they made dinner, they watched a movie. That’s it, that’s the story.”

FACT: Both Knox and Sollecito each gave three different alibis.

Knox's Parents Indicted for Slander

It seems that the lies of Amanda Knox’s parents, or at best their “false statements,” are finally catching up with them. About an hour ago Amanda Knox’s parents, Curt Knox and Edda Mellas, were indicted in an Italian court for slander. The charges stem from an interview they gave Britain’s Sunday Times in an interview published on 15 June 2008.

In it, Knox’s parents stated that—during Amanda’s 5 November 2007, interrogation—Amanda was interrogated by police for nine hours until she signed a statement at 5:54a.m.

FACT: the interrogation began at 12:30p.m., on the 5th and ended at 5:45a.m., on the 6th (5 hours and 15 minutes). Moreover, Knox confessed to being at the crime scene and implicated Patrick Lumumba after only an hour (1:30a.m.), at which time questioning was halted until Prosecutor Mignini was called in.

Another erroneous statement given by Knox’s parents during that interview was that—during that same interrogation—“no professional interpreter was present, only a police officer who could speak English and who was not always there.”

FACT: There was an interpreter at that interrogation, Anna Donnino, and she testified during the trial. Moreover, Amanda herself testified to the presence of Anna as the interpreter during that interrogation.

In that same article the dynamic-duo also said that “[Amanda] was given no food and no water for all the nine hours,” and she “was abused physically and verbally.” The couple did not attend today’s hearing, but Knox’s Lawyer, Luciano Ghirga, confirmed the indictment and said trial was set for 4 July 2011. Shockingly, a Knox family representative told various news sources that there would be no comment for the previously vocal duo.

Knox’s parents are being defended by lawyers Luciano Ghirga and Maria Del Grosso. Former Kercher family lawyer, Francesco Maresca, is representing the police officers who filed the charges. Amanda Knox’s own defamation trial resumes on 17 May 2011, and her appeal resumes on 12 March 2011.