Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Poppy1016]

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/o...-acquitted-for-not-having-committed-the-fact/

 

[acbytesla]

Looks like Frank Sfarzo understood what was happening in this case far better than you. Since he was predicting the annulments last week. What do you think about your old buddy Frank now Mach?

 

[toto]

It is what I mean to imply, but it doesn't have the consequence that you think. The institution has failed. But no foreign institution has the moral standing to take its place, nor any foreign institution, people or government is in a position where they can judge the system.

I felt a blow because it's a catastrophe for justice, a national shame, an injustice and an offence comparable to a coup d'etat, and the triumph of a gang of racist bullys; I described those things at PMF. I felt the feeling of being the victim, or maybe the witness, of a violent crime. A bit like witnessing a Gaza bombing or a mafia murder.
But I noted no blow to "my analysis". I only noted a tragic failure of institutions, I only noted the violence.

I thought you wrote quite cleverly, but I always felt had you written in what we would call plain English it would have felt more honest. You did write as the sole guilter of consequence on this forum so credit for that I guess and it was good to have the very best of what the guilter arguments were, otherwise a certain complacency might have drifted in. I was so shocked at the Nencini judgement (I viscerally understand how the guilter community must have felt on Friday) that it was good to have you not raise my hopes two nights ago. I look forward to your dissection of this SC motivation.

 

[Machiavelli]

Google translate of Yummi's PMF Italian language quote:

the criminal judgment of acquittal ".." produces foreclosure effects under art. 652 cpp "..." only when it contains an actual declaration of the fact, or the inability to attribute it to the defendant and not when the acquittal is motivated by the lack of sufficient evidence regarding the fact or to 'attribuibilità it accused "

So the correct English isn't "reasonable doubt" but "insufficient evidence" to convict, a different concept.

Information in the news is "the elements were not sufficient".

The motivations and the dispositivo should be read before telling for sure.

But "per non avere commesso il fatto" does not mean that there is a factual finding of innocence, this formula is the one also used for reasonable doubt (530.2) which is actually absolutely the same concept of insufficient evidence. You need to understand what sub-category of "non avere commesso il fatto" was in order to see what the factual findings are.

 

[Machiavelli]

Looks like Frank Sfarzo understood what was happening in this case far better than you. Since he was predicting the annulments last week. What do you think about your old buddy Frank now Mach?

May I have a link to his "predictions"?

 

[Bill Williams]

It is what I mean to imply, but it doesn't have the consequence that you think. The institution has failed. But no foreign institution has the moral standing to take its place, nor any foreign institution, people or government is in a position where they can judge the system.

I felt a blow because it's a catastrophe for justice, a national shame, an injustice and an offence comparable to a coup d'etat, and the triumph of a gang of racist bullys; I described those things at PMF. I felt the feeling of being the victim, or maybe the witness, of a violent crime. A bit like witnessing a Gaza bombing or a mafia murder.
But I noted no blow to "my analysis". I only noted a tragic failure of institutions, I only noted the violence.

I appreciate fully that you feel a need to shield your analysis from this blow. However your use of hyperbole.... coup d'etat..... racist bullys..... being the victim...... mafia murder.......

Shows the complete bankruptcy of the analysis. Perhaps the fact that this has shaken your belief in your own country to the core means that the only thing which is really real, the ultimate truth, is your analysis.

There is a name for a condition where someone believes they can never be mistaken - to the point of providing hyperbolic, public pronouncements.

 

[Machiavelli]

If the interference was proven, and it was also the interference was necessary to educate, and the program worked, would the judgement still be null?

"necessary to educate" ? !


The judgement would be null.

 

[Bill Williams]

Looks like Frank Sfarzo understood what was happening in this case far better than you. Since he was predicting the annulments last week. What do you think about your old buddy Frank now Mach?

May I have a link to his "predictions"?

Why? Sfarzo called this even against many supporters who feared the worst. You, yourself, described that the fix was in, simply by your post-facto observations that some people, pre-facto, seemed to be calm.

To my knowledge, Sfarzo was the only one on either side of this who saw this coming. You do not need a link, and no one is required to provide you proof.

Tell you what - give a link to Stefanoni's Ph.D. and maybe your request can be taken seriously.

 

[toto]

May I have a link to his "predictions"?

He's a fantastic writer - really clear.

 

[Machiavelli]

I appreciate fully that you feel a need to shield your analysis from this blow. However your use of hyperbole.... coup d'etat..... racist bullys..... being the victim...... mafia murder.......

Shows the complete bankruptcy of the analysis. Perhaps the fact that this has shaken your belief in your own country to the core means that the only thing which is really real, the ultimate truth, is your analysis.

(...)

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited breach of rule 0

I have seen everything and the contrary of it about my country. Actually such an infuriating and terrible event involving feelings of injustice, falsehood, outrage and reek of corruption, is not something new in my own experience of my country.
But I think I also have at least some knowledge about my country, to know what I am talking about.

 

[Numbers]

Information in the news is "the elements were not sufficient".

The motivations and the dispositivo should be read before telling for sure.

But "per non avere commesso il fatto" does not mean that there is a factual finding of innocence, this formula is the one also used for reasonable doubt (530.2) which is actually absolutely the same concept of insufficient evidence. You need to understand what sub-category of "non avere commesso il fatto" was in order to see what the factual findings are.

From a practical viewpoint, if the Kerchers were able to sue AK or RS in Italy, they would need to show some evidence for the liability. So we need to wait for the Marasca court motivation report to fully understand the judicial status of the evidence. Perhaps the Kerchers will find a way to show that the status of the evidence is different than the CSC-proclaimed judicial status. I don't believe any of this will happen, but we shall see.

The Kerchers may also be able to lodge a claim with the ECHR alleging that Italy violated the right to an effective investigation of the murder of Meredith.

 

[Machiavelli]

He's a fantastic writer - really clear.

And where did he write?

 

[Machiavelli]

From a practical viewpoint, if the Kerchers were able to sue AK or RS in Italy, they would need to show some evidence for the liability. So we need to wait for the Marasca court motivation report to fully understand the judicial status of the evidence. Perhaps the Kerchers will find a way to show that the status of the evidence is different than the CSC-proclaimed judicial status. I don't believe any of this will happen, but we shall see.

The Kerchers may also be able to lodge a claim with the ECHR alleging that Italy violated the right to an effective investigation of the murder of Meredith.

They should do something else. They may sue the State of Italy in an Italian Civil court, because of a Cassazione verdict contrastig with another previous one. And that way, pursue the truth about the murder.

 

[Machiavelli]

Why? Sfarzo called this even against many supporters who feared the worst. You, yourself, described that the fix was in, simply by your post-facto observations that some people, pre-facto, seemed to be calm.

No, not true, not "simply". This must be some poster here who quotes bits from my posts selectively.

To my knowledge, Sfarzo was the only one on either side of this who saw this coming. You do not need a link, and no one is required to provide you proof.

Well, but you already provided a testimony, by writing it here. So it's not that I am missing a proof. I have no reason to doubt what you say. I would only read it myself.

A screenshot.

 

[acbytesla]

They should do something else. They may sue the State of Italy in an Italian Civil court, because of a Cassazione verdict contrastig with another previous one. And that way, pursue the truth about the murder.

Seriously though Mach, do you really believe that they would actually have a chance? In the US, you can always sue someone...but that doesn't mean you really have a chance of winning.

 

[Desert Fox]

Seriously though Mach, do you really believe that they would actually have a chance? In the US, you can always sue someone...but that doesn't mean you really have a chance of winning.

As long as they had a guilty verdict, there was hope of winning some money but any civil lawsuit will fall apart (even if it can be filed) without that support.

Even in the US, the OJ case was very different in that the original jury did think he was probably guilty just that the prosecution had not proved it. They did not think he was innocent.

 

[acbytesla]

They should do something else. They may sue the State of Italy in an Italian Civil court, because of a Cassazione verdict contrastig with another previous one. And that way, pursue the truth about the murder.

According to Sfarzo's latest aeticle, this decision in fact wasn't a contradiction of the previous Cassazione verdict but a repudiation of the Florence verdict.

 

[toto]

May I have a link to his "predictions"?

Sorry about the delay. I was getting the links to his last three pieces and then lost them(though the first one is further up this thread):

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/o...-acquitted-for-not-having-committed-the-fact/

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-the-science-says-innocent/

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/a...ito-acquitted-then-convicted-what-to-believe/

His latest helps to give back some faith to the Italian legal system.

 

[Bill Williams]

No, not true, not "simply". This must be some poster here who quotes bits from my posts selectively.



Well, but you already provided a testimony, by writing it here. So it's not that I am missing a proof. I have no reason to doubt what you say. I would only read it myself.

A screenshot.

No. No one has any need to prove anything to you. Why do you need to know this anyway? You've already said that this whole thing is a coup d'etat in Italy, a mafia murder. Do you think they will make Sfarzo the interim president after the coup?

 

[Numbers]

The CPP appears to rule out any further civil action against Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito by those who had their civil actions joined to the proceedings in this case.

Here is CPP Article 652 in English translation by Gialuz et al.:

Article 652 Effects of the criminal judgment of acquittal in trials for civil or administrative damages

1. The final criminal judgment of acquittal delivered after a trial shall have binding effect, with relation to either the ascertainment that the criminal act did not occur, or that the accused did not commit it ...in the civil or administrative trial for restitution and compensation for damages brought by the injured person or in his interest, provided that the injured has joined the proceedings as a civil party or has been given the possibility to join the proceedings, unless the injured has already brought the action in civil court, under Article 75, paragraph 2.
2. {Same effect for a fast-track trial.}

Here are Google Translate English versions of CPP Art. 652 and 530

Art. 652. Effectiveness of the criminal sentence of
absolution in the civil or administrative
damage.

1. The irrevocable penal sentence of acquittal
given on a trial has efficacy of
judged, as a finding that the crime does not
exists or that the accused has not committed or that the
was made in fulfilling an obligation
or the exercise of a legitimate right, in the judgment
civil or administrative for refunds and
damages brought by the injured or
in the interest of the same, provided that the injured
it is made or has been placed in a position
a civil action, unless the injured from
crime has exercised the action in civil pursuant
Article 75, paragraph 2. (1)
2. The same effect has the final court
absolution pronounced in accordance with Article 442, if
the plaintiff has accepted the summary procedure.
(1) The original words: "as promoted by the injured" to the end
paragraph have been replaced by art. 9 of Law March 27
2001, n. 97.

Art. 530. Judgment of acquittal.
1. If the crime does not exist, if the defendant has not
committed, if the offense is not or is not
required by law as a crime or if the offense is
been committed by a person not attributable or not
punishable for another reason, the judge pronounces
acquittal containing the reason
device.
2. The court shall render a judgment of acquittal also
when there is insufficient or contradictory
proof that the fact exists, that the defendant has
committed, that the action constitutes a criminal offense or the offense
was committed by the person responsible.
3. If there is evidence that the act was committed in
presence of a cause of justification or a cause
staff of non-punishment or there is doubt
the existence of the same, the judge pronounces
judgment of acquittal pursuant to paragraph 1.
4. With the acquittal the court shall apply, in
when required by law, the security measures.
See. Criminal Appeal, sect. II, judgment of 10 March 2009 n. 10582 in
Altalex Massimario.I

There is a difference in language in CPP Art. 530 between para. 1 and 2, and the words "reasonable doubt" do not appear in the translation. The relevant text in the English translation by Gialuz et al. is:

1. If the criminal act did not occur, the accused did not commit it...the judge shall deliver a judgment of acquittal, mentioning the cause in the operative part of the judgment.

2. The judge shall deliver a judgment of acquittal also in case of insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof that the criminal act occurred, the accused committed it....