Journalists, attorney threatened with criminal charges for reporting police abuse

[pnwmom]

in Amanda Knox case. In Italy, defamation is a criminal charge carrying up to three years in prison.

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/16/amanda-knoxs-parents-are-just-the-latest-to-run-afoul-of-italy/

Knox herself faces slander charges for saying Italian police were abusive during her 14-hour interrogation following Kercher's stabbing death. Her parents repeated those same statements to a British newspaper in 2008, which is what got them in trouble.

SNIP

One of Knox's other Italian lawyers, Luciano Ghirga, as well as a lawyer for Knox's former Italian boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, who was also convicted of the Kercher murder, and several Italian newspaper and magazine journalists reportedly have either been sued or investigated for defamation.

In the case of Steve Shay, a reporter at the West Seattle Herald, the BBC reported in February 2009 that Mignini had told Italian reporters that he would take legal action against the weekly for a story in which Shay quoted Knox supporters as saying he was "unstable."

Joe Cottonwood, a California-based adult and children's novelist, told AOL News today that an Italian friend of his who was a reporter e-mailed him asking for an opinion on the Knox case. Cottonwood wrote him a reply, which was reprinted as part of an article in an Italian newspaper. Among other things, Cottonwood called Mignini "egotistical." Cottonwood said CBS News called him to say Mignini was going to charge him with defamation.

SNIP

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. This case is so screwed up

I'm not sure whether to believe she's guilty or not anymore.

It's a mess.

[pnwmom]

2. The police, by law, are supposed to tape interrogations -- and no tape

has surfaced thus far. That's one of the reasons that the judge disallowed Amanda's "confession" for the criminal trial. But the judge for the civil trial (in which the bar owner sued Amanda) allowed it -- and the SAME JURY was considering both cases. So the jury that convicted her of the criminal charges heard the (later denied) "confession" but were supposed to disregard it. Right.

The bottom line for me is "reasonable doubt" -- a principle of Italian law, just as in ours. And here, regardless of all the smoke and mirrors presented by the prosecution, is the basis for a huge amount of doubt: in the very bloody crime scene (Meredith's room), there was found no evidence at all of Amanda's presence -- but shoe prints, handprints, fingerprints and DNA belonging to Rudy Guede -- who had previous convictions for breaking and entering. The prosecution claimed that Amanda cleaned up the crime scene. But how could she do that removing all traces of her presence and leaving that of Guede's? It doesn't make any sense.