Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Amanda Knox To Be In Court In Perugia Tomorrow In Hearing About Stopping The Lifetime TV Film

Posted by Peter Quennell

[Above: Lifetime TV has an office suite in this giant hitech building which Google is presently purchasing]

Past posts on this mixed bag of a TV movie can be found here.

Late February Amanda Knox’s lawyers filed suit in Perugia to stop the airing of the movie (so far aired maybe half a dozen times in the US) and Raffaele’s Sollecito’s lawyers filed suit in Perugia and (or so they say - we can find no court record) also in New York.

The Perugia judge at the first hearing took a pretty relaxed view of the urgency of the matter and so it is only now that legal teams for Lifetime and Amanda Knox will face one another in court. The suit claims that the movie “violates the reputation” of Amanda Knox.

Very substantial payment for damages has been requested. If the New York suit also proceeds (unlikely as US law is not exactly favorable) the total asked appears to amount, converted from Euros, to over two hundred million dollars to compensate for sullied reputations.

Today’s Italian media reports in ANSA and AGI dont say very much more than that, except that Amanda Knox would like to be present in court.

As this is not Sollecito’s team’s suit, this is about the first time that one appellant will appear in court without the other. No word at all yet on the constitution of Lifetime’s legal team.


If Amanda wins this money wil it go to the Kercher family for their compensation?

Posted by Ginny on 03/23/11 at 05:55 PM | #

Hi Ginny. We believe the answer is yes as this (unlike the small award Knox won for the publishing of a diary) is directly crime-related. The Kerchers of course hated the concept of the film.

John Kercher and his lawyer Mr Maresca have explained that anti-profiteering is the only purpose of the damages award, though goodness knows the family costs have been quite horrific - as have those of the families of Meredith’s friends.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/23/11 at 06:15 PM | #

Okay, I’d like some help!
I’m new to this site and I have always been on the fence with this case.  There is no doubt in my mind about the guilt of RG but I have struggled with AK and RS.  To help me better analyze the case as well as reconcile my doubts, I was wondering if members of this site could give me the most significant piece of evidence (in their opinion) that implicates AK’s involvement beyond a reasonable doubt? 
Now it needs to be evidence that is not challenged by either the courts, defense attorneys or other experts.  I’ve researched all of that evidence and since it can go either way, it does not pass scrutiny and therefore is not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Posted by gbdfw on 03/23/11 at 08:23 PM | #

Lifetime sold a lot of ads for the Meredith movie. I took notes during the commercial breaks and could not write fast enough to record all the sponsors, it was unbelievable. Instead of 30-second and 60-second spots, it seems the ads now flash at the speed of light.

Just a few of the ads sold during this movie which aired around Feb. 19, 2011 on U.S. TV.

Crest White Strips
Suave shampoo
Sea salt soup
Mars needs Moms (out in theatres Mar. 11)
Coricidin safe for high blood pressure (S. Epatha Markerson of Law ‘n Order)

Abreva cold sore healer
Flatbottom tacos (feed your fiesta)
Nabisco frosted shredded wheat mini-wheats
Yoplait lite
Lay’s potato chips (Happiness is simple)
L’Oreal magic smoothie souffle makeup

Campbell’s “Address Your Heart” soup campaign

ambulance chasers (Did you take Paxil while pregnant? we can get you damages)
Bayer aspirin

Dannon Light ‘n Fit yogurt
Quilted Northern bath tissue
3 Musketeers truffle crisp
Progresso soup
Dove body wash (visible care)
24/7 Mom needs Ester-C
Oxi-clean new gelstick
Red Baron microwave pizza

Zatarain’s jazz it up jimbalaya rice mix
Brawny paper towels
Onglyza for type 2 diabetes
Milky Way simply caramel
Bisquick blueberry pancakes
Fiber One chocolate chip chewy bars
Hydroxycut (lose weight)
Silk Pure Almond milk
The Royal Romance, William & Kate marry in April

Tide laundry detergent’s “Truckloads of Hope” free laundry service for disaster areas, Haiti

Duracell batteries (firefighters trust Duracell)

Charter hi-speed internet
American Tax Relief (do you owe the IRS?)
It Takes a Con to Catch a Con, Breakout Kings A&E
Army Wives (lifetime program)
Alka-Seltzer Plus Cold Relief
Cheerios Boxtops for Education
Hillshire Farm (go meat)
Tide Stain Release (get out get out)
Puffs Plus
Swiffer 360 dusters
Campbell’s heart healthy request soup
SVC cell phones for seniors, sold at K-mart
Having a Baby (One Born Every Minute) reality show

Babybel Cheese, the laughing cow
Angel Soft 2-ply
Herbashine with bamboo extract by Garnier
Turbo Tax audit support
Jenny Craig Metabolic Max
Payless Shoes
2011 Chevy Silverado Onstar (local auto dealer)
Gold jewelry (local)
The Knox Family interview after the movie:

Metamucil Cyllium Fiber
Feb. Home Sale K-mart
Bayer aspirin
Cover Girl eyeshadow.Exact eyelightsQueen Latifah
Charter Business
Avandia linked to heart disease, file a claim (an ambulance chaser ad)

Army Wives
2-in-1 Pantene
Dell laptop Inspiron 15R
Cheese-it crackers
Kellogg’s fiber plus (wait for it) berry cereal
Pure Orange juice (voice of Donald Sutherland)
Listerine Cool Mint
Duracell, firefighters recommend
Avonwalk for Breast Cancer
Pantene hair conditioner

Ghirardelli squares (chocolate)
Angel Soft toilet paper
Cover Girl Oulast lipstain (Drew Barrymore)
Alka-seltzer Plux Cold relief
Mirena IUD by Bayer
Hometown Autos (Chrysler, Dodge Jeep—local)

and this list is not complete. Also many of these ads ran numerous times throughout the movie which was so chopped up with interruptions it was miserable to watch.

So Lifetime has money to settle this case, which they probably will do, to shorten the legal battle and save money on lawyers, even if the Knox crowd has weak case, my guess.

Posted by Hopeful on 03/23/11 at 08:38 PM | #

I suspect that stopping an airing of this film in Italy is what the hearing tomorrow, if not this suit itself, is all about. They may well get the injunction they seek or an interim injunction pending another hearing in the suit.

I don’t know the Italian system, particularly as far as civil litigation is concerned, but it is often the case that injunctions are not granted to private claimants unless there is a substantive suit, such as here.

No-one would quibble, except Lifetime, if a substantial award was made and it went to the Kerchers.

Sadly I think that may not be the case but of course we have to wait and see. My reaction to the substantive suit is that unless AK is acquitted, it is a joke. When the conviction is upheld on appeal the claim for compensation will be abandoned.

Will the courts be tolerant with this strategy, or not?

Posted by James Raper on 03/23/11 at 09:05 PM | #

Hi gbdfw,

If all defence lawyers had to do was challenge evidence in court, nobody would ever be convicted of any crime.

The mobile phone and computer records provide irrefutable proof that Knox and Sollecito lied to the police. Lying repeatedly to the police will always be considered a clear indication of guilt. The defence lawyers were unable to provide a plausible innocent explanation for Knox’s and Sollecito’s numerous lies.

Meredith’s DNA was found on the blade of the large kitchen knife sequestered from Sollecito’s apartment. An abundant amount of Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp. His DNA was identified by two separate DNA tests. Of the 17 loci tested in the sample, Sollecito’s profile matched 17 out of 17. At the trial, the defence experts were unable to prove that there had been any contamination. Alberto Intini, the head of the Italian police forensic science unit, pointed out that unless contamination has been proved, it does not exist.

There were five instances of Knox’s DNA mixed with Meredith’s blood in three different locations in the cottage: in the bathroom, the hallway and Filomena’s room. The mixture of Knox’s DNA and Meredith’s blood in Filomena’s room is particular damning evidence because it indicates that Knox tracked Meredith’s blood into the room after the murder. Rudy Guede didn’t track Meredith’s blood into Filomena’s room because his bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith’s room and out of the house.

The bloody footprint on the blue bathmat in the bathroom matched the precise characteristics of Sollecito’s foot, but couldn’t possibly belong to Guede.

Knox’s and Sollecito’s bare bloody footprints were revealed by luminol in the hallway. Knox’s DNA and Meredith’s DNA was found mixed together in one of the bloody footprints.

Amanda Knox stated that she was at the cottage when Meredith was murdered on at least four separate occasions. She voluntarily admitted that she was involved in Meredith’s murder in her handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007.

Amanda Knox accused an innocent man, Diya Lumumba, of murdering Meredith despite the fact she knew he was completely innocent. She didn’t recant her false and malicious allegation against Lumumba the whole time he was in prison. She admitted that it was her fault that Lumumba was in prison in an intercepted conversation with her mother on 10 November 2007.

Posted by The Machine on 03/23/11 at 09:17 PM | #

I should add that even if Amanda was acquitted it is still far from clear to me that Lifetime are liable for an award of damages, though I suspect that there would at least be a triable issue where none as yet exists.


In addition to what The Machine has said click on Vital Must-Read Posts in the right hand drop down menu and read How To Zero In On The Truth In This Case by SomeAlibi.

If you cannot see the wood for the trees then I am unable to help you further.

Posted by James Raper on 03/23/11 at 09:54 PM | #

thanks machine.  i’ll look into the cell phone and computer evidence more closely.  as far as the dna evidence most of that is circumstantial at best and some points aren’t even in the massei report, such as her admission of guilt.  but i will delve more into the technical evidence.

Posted by gbdfw on 03/23/11 at 10:36 PM | #

thanks james raper!  i have read all the must-read posts and i was impressed.  they are actually well prepared for amateur analysis.

Posted by gbdfw on 03/23/11 at 10:40 PM | #

Hi gbdfw. Good that you were impressed. The analysis here isnt so amateur though. We have many posters and commenters and readers who practice in relevant fields. Plus many Italian speakers who can actually read the docs in the original. Nice try, though we have seen better.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/23/11 at 11:05 PM | #

Hi gbdfw,

Meredith’s DNA on the blade of the double DNA knife and an abundant amount of Sollecito’s DNA on Meredith ‘s bra clasp isn’t circumstantial evidence. I politely suggest you look up the word circumstantial in a dictionary because you clearly don’t know what the word means.

Different judges have found different pieces of evidence to be compelling. For example, Judge Micheli regarded the triple alibis to be a clear indication of guilt. Two panels of judges at the Italian Supreme Court believe that Knox was referring to being at the cottage on the night of the murder when she said she “was there” in the intercepted prison conversation on 17 November 2007.

Posted by The Machine on 03/23/11 at 11:37 PM | #

Latest news: not enough genetic material on the blade and rust on the bra clasp so impossible to examine it.

Posted by ncountryside on 03/23/11 at 11:55 PM | #

Sounds simply like another excuse for Amanda to smile for the cameras. Nothing else could possibly be gained from this court action.

Posted by Kazwell on 03/24/11 at 12:13 AM | #

Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti will now have to look at the same data as Dr. Renato Biondo, Professor Francesca Torricelli, Luciano Garofano and Professor Giuseppe Novelli.

Posted by The Machine on 03/24/11 at 12:13 AM | #

Since I have no difficulty in accepting the court’s verdict in the first place, this claim is preposterous on the face of it.

Even the terminology is dubious (if the quotation be accurate.) “Violates her reputation?” We speak of violating virgins or principles or customs or treaties or even the peace of the neighborhood & people’s sleep. But to violate a reputation implies an act of violence, a deliberate smear.

Just what sort of reputation do they propose to uphold, given what we know of Amanda? (Let the reader bring details to mind.)

And what a perfectly immense sum sought in compensation! One might fairly ask if profit sought at any expense to the truth of the matter might be a motive here?

Amanda stands convicted & the film (I haven’t seen it) stands on that. Ever her lawyer was so careless as to say that her appeal trial means, in effect, that all bets are off—she starts over again with a clean slate. That is nonsense.

Until & unless her verdict is overturned by fresh evidence to the contrary or by demonstrations of impropriety in the trial or proof of false accusation or of police culpability & the like, her verdict stands.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 03/24/11 at 12:20 AM | #

The Machine is correct.

Posted by ncountryside on 03/24/11 at 12:34 AM | #


There is no statement by AK that constitutes a clear admission of guilt. She would not be appealing her conviction, given the other evidence, if there was.

She did not, in her handwritten statement of the 6th November admit to being involved in Meredith’s murder, at least not in the sense of taking part or having a hand in it.

She did say she was present but only to accuse an innocent party of the murder.

We do need to be clear about this.

Posted by James Raper on 03/24/11 at 01:14 AM | #

the reputation of Amanda Knox, is that a loaded statement or what? the only upside of this particular debacle would be some recompense for the Kercher family in covering their financial loss.

the Knox family just has no limit, do they?

Posted by mojo on 03/24/11 at 10:46 AM | #

and in other news—

60 signatures from the internet? the internet of the WHOLE WORLD?

Posted by mojo on 03/24/11 at 12:30 PM | #

Hi mojo,

The low amount of signatures reveals once again the false image being propagated through the smoke and mirrors by the Knox/Mellas PR campaign about any “worldwide support” for Amanda Knox.

Just like all those bowling fund raisers for Amanda Knox, where the local Seattle media always report how well attended they were while the accompanying photos to those stories consistently depict just a few of the Knox & Mellas clans and some of their friends.

Posted by True North on 03/24/11 at 04:52 PM | #

We have a great post on the Wikipedia situation from someone really informed and we will probably run it on sunday so it can sit there for a day or so.

Busy week this week. Nothing new yet on Knox v Lifetime. James Raper’s great comments above seem to frame it correctly. Next appeal hearing on saturday of course (Curatolo0.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/24/11 at 05:00 PM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry The Civil Case Of Knox v Lifetime Will Be Considered By The Perugia Courts On July 4

Or to previous entry Limited Review Of The DNA Tests Agreed To By Judge Hellmann Are Now Underway In Rome