Friday, April 03, 2009

Trial: Andrea Vogt Reports On Patrick Lumumba’s Testimony

Posted by Peter Quennell

Andrea Vogt is still providing her usual fine reports on the trial on the Seattle PI website.

Click above for her report late today on what Patrick Lumumba told the court of his experiences. He was the one fingered by Knox as the perp, and it took two weeks to get that charge refuted.

Knox is being prosecuted by the Republic of Italy, not by Lumumba, on a calunnia charge. 

Explanation of calunnia

The charge of calunnia (art. 368) has been commonly translated as “slander” in the English/US media. This translation is incorrect, however, as calunnia is a crime with no direct equivalent in the respective legal systems.

The equivalent of “criminal slander” is diffamazione, which is an attack on someone”Ÿs reputation. Calunnia is the crime of making false criminal accusations against someone whom the accuser knows to be innocent, or to simulate/fabricate false evidence, independently of the credibility/admissibility of the accusation or evidence.

The charges of calunnia and diffamazione are subject to very different jurisprudence. Diffamazione is public and explicit, and is a more minor offence, usually resulting in a fine and only prosecuted if the victim files a complaint, while calunnia can be secret or known only to the authorities. It may consist only of the simulation of clues, and is automatically prosecuted by the judiciary.

The crimes of calunnia and diffamazione are located in different sections of the criminal code: while diffamazione is in the chapter entitled “crimes against honour” in the section of the Code protecting personal liberties, calunnia is discussed in the chapter entitled “crimes against the administration of justice”, in a section that protects public powers.




Just seen part of a local TV programme with Lumumba answering questions at length. Its called, La Verita di Lumumba, and seems to have been aired 43 days after the murder.

Unfortuately, I can only find parts 3,4 and 5 with google video ... the full programme must be quite long.

Anyway, he is questioned about his ‘giving amanda’s job to Meredith’. Patrick doesn’t seem to give much weight to this. He says that Knox was already working fewer days than she had at the beginning, 1 or 2 instead of 3 or 4 times a week, and didn’t seem bothered.

He describes the ‘job offer’ to Meredith more in terms of a ‘one off’ thing, basically, he says that all the bars dream up any excuse they can to have ‘parties’ ... just to get people through the door. In Meredith’s case, she knew how to make Vodka based cocktails from some place she had worked in the UK (Sounds like Revolution, the Russian theme bars you find everywhere). This, plus a female DJ was just an excuse to have a ‘ladies night’.

As far as Lumumba was concerned, this shouldn’t have caused friction, says ‘Amanda wasn’t a bartender’, however he concedes that it could have been misinterpreted.

Posted by Kevin on 04/04/09 at 02:43 AM | #

Make a comment


Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Trial: Witness Rudy Guede Appears On The Stand But Choses Not To Talk

Or to previous entry Trial: The Closed Court Sees Graphic Photos And Video Footage Of The Autopsy