Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

I thought his poop theory, although insane, deserved applause for the incredible fantasy it was.

Torn asunder, shredded, obliterated, nuked, and flushed with the rest of his fallacies and fantasies.

The pooh-theory was Prosecutor Crini's. Crini phoned in his prosecution, as Nencini, in effect, got his marching orders from the 2013 Supreme Court.

Crini was also the one who theorized the equivalence of the bedsheet stain of a knife, with Raffaele's kitchen knife, which was completely ludicrous.

Machiavelli (here on ISF) even tried to do a photoshopped view of how the two were equivalent.

A lot of things can be dumped on to Nencini, but the pooh is not one of them. Strangely, Nencini completely ignored the prosecution case (meaning, Crini's) and went on to reinvent the crime with his motivations report. In effect, Nencini deprived the defence the right of full answer by doing it this way. But why let the accused put on a defence when you KNOW they are guilty!

 

[carbonjam72]

Did Not Commit The Act = FACTUALLY INNOCENT

You have made good points here. Also, on IIP, poster Katody has pointed out that the CPP Art. 620 para. 1a is only meant to apply to charge B, carrying the knife.

I believe that is a reasonable and conservative view of what the CSC intended here. I may have overreached in thinking ("momentarily") that the initial CPP Art. 620 para. 1a reference applied to the whole despositivo.

Also, CP Art. 61 para. 2 only applies to aggravating circumstances in general:



Source: http://www.diritto.it/codici/articolo/4281113-codice-penale-circostanze-aggravanti-comuni
Google translated

So indeed, I would agree that CPP Art. 620 para. 1L and CPP Art. 530 para. 2 must be referring specifically to the aggravating circumstances of the calunnia charge. The aggravating circumstances would only make sense if Amanda Knox were guilty of the murder or some other crime, so CP Art. 61 cannot remain.

This leaves a little mystery about the rest of the charges. The terminology "the accused did not commit it {the criminal act}" is found in CPP Art. 530 para. 1. So that would seem to be applied to charges A, D, and F, but there is ambiguity, as you point out. It could be that CPP Art. 530 para. 2 from the previous clause is meant to apply. I suggest that there is no real difference, in the sense that "insufficient evidence" includes "no reliable evidence of guilt" and that because of the presumption of innocence, any acquittal based on defects in evidence (including no reliable evidence) must mean that legally the criminal act was not committed by the accused.

We need to see the Marasca CSC panel motivation report to more fully understand the reasoning. They may decide not to mention the procedural law violations in order to save face or avoid conflict. The Hellmann court MR did not explicitly state that there were procedural law violations, although it came close in its statements about the Nov. 5/6 interrogation of Amanda Knox.

Thanks for your post, which has helped clarify the meaning of the dispositivo.

ETA: There is still the little mystery as to whether the CSC panel meant to apply CPP Art. 620 para. 1L or para. 1A to the charges A, D, and F. The more conservative view would be that they intended to apply para. 1L.

KATODY: Not at all. It obviously refers to all the listed charges. It follows from the wording and also logically, as the charges (and the aggravation) are interdependent.

I looked at this again, and I agree that 530 (2) is meant to refer to all the remaining charges; the aggravated calunnia, AND charges A,D, and F.

It's that pesky comma I mentioned. It's supposed to be a comma, because 530 (2) applies to the latter charges (A, D, and F).

IIRC, 530 (1) means 'the crime does not exist'. Whereas 530 (2) means, 'did not commit the act'.

I do think 'did not commit the act', is a stronger form of acquittal than merely, 'insufficient evidence'.

In the new forward from WTBH, which nutjob ballerina stalker PQ posted on his hate site TJMK, Amanda asks this question specifically to her lawyer, Carlo Della Vedova, and his answer was that they were declared actually innocent, not merely 'not guilty'.

So there is no ambiguity in this result. ISC has stated knox and Sollecito are factually innocent, they did not commit the act. ISC did not conclude there is insufficient evidence, they concluded Knox and Sollecito are factually, positively innocent, now and forever, as a matter of law.
Not everyone seems able to accept that, but some people think the moon landing was faked, and 911 was an 'inside job'. What are you gonna do? At some point, you just have to let the ignorant fester in their own spiteful juices and call it a day.

 

[carbonjam72]

It's interesting that Mignini thought it was important enough to drag this guy into court. To me it shows how his sex fantasy theory had become part of his strategy. The store clerk doesn't come across as the most reliable of witnesses. Then again, I can't think of too many of the prosecution witnesses that do. Even if his claim is true he overheard them talking about having sex, so what?
Just more character assassination simply because they have no real evidence to discuss.

He didn't overhear their conversation, because they were speaking in Amanda's english, and the store keeper only spoke Italian.

The gentleman is either confused or a liar. He deserved to get sued, as do many others who attached themselves to this fiasco hoping to make a filthy euro off a miscarriage of justice.

 

[bagels]

Does the ISC have a way to acquit someone for merely insufficient evidence? I thought the crime does not exist and did not commit the act were their only choices?

 

[carbonjam72]

Dead? But did Mignini dig him up to check his pants size? It was most irregular if they prevented him from doing so!

Mignini did dig him up, and rightly so, because the gentleman in question was rumored to have had his pants swapped, this according to a very reliable psychic medium who mustn't be named for reasons of public safety. However when he was dug up, Mignini discovered the pants had been swapped back, in a double pants swap, just to make the investigators appear foolish. Tragically, the mason's diabolical stratagem seems to have worked.

 

[Grinder]

IIRC, she said maybe some make-up was missing. I don't think that was established as fact.

Follain wrote it. Fact!!!!!

 

[Kauffer]

Not at all. It obviously refers to all the listed charges. It follows from the wording and also logically, as the charges (and the aggravation) are interdependent.

ETA: 530 II specifies lack of proof that the act took place, that the accused committed it etc. as reason for acquittal. It absolutely applies here.

I'm convinced now that 620 (L) and 530 (2) apply to A, D and F, which is why there is a comma not a semi colon in that section of the dispositivo. So I think you are right. It was my mistake not Numbers' to suggest that 620 (a) applied throughout. I hadn't read the text closely enough. Carbonjam spotted that, so thanks to him. art 61 applies exclusively to the aggravating circumstances of the calunnnia charge and since the murder charge was dismissed, it had to be excluded.

Numbers, do you have a translation of the complete Art 530 you can post?

 

[acbytesla]

The biggest problem with Raff's remark is that to see any guilt in it you must add to it. It's like a Roshach test. It doesn't provide anything really.

 

[Grinder]

If it turned out he did it and he made that statement I would think he is either really stupid or really crafty. If you stage a break-in it seems logical you would stage a state of ignorance over the crime scene. That he didn't is why I don't find that statement suspicious.

On the other hand there's things Raff did that are, if not suspicious, at least curious. His lie about Meredith pricking her hand with the knife, and some of his statements regarding what he was doing on the night of the murder. I think there's reasonable explanations (obviously) but those turn my head significantly more than his casual observation about the state of the cottage.

Thank you for the thoughtful post. I will say that had he said the "pricking" remark to the police rather than writing it in his diary it would be of some interest. In the diary it went more to him being a spaced cadet.

Please note that all I'm saying is that in the context and at the time it was reasonable for the police to seized on the phrase as suspicious. If he had been involved in the murder and a staged burglary of course the comment would have been really stupid. But people in the circumstances do make stupid mistakes and that's what police look for.

The police would have looked at many things. His knife he brought. His attitude. His being stoned.

Not directed at you, but no one I've seen has come up with anything suspicious he could have said.

Anyone seen his witness statements?

 

[Bill Williams]

If it turned out he did it and he made that statement I would think he is either really stupid or really crafty. If you stage a break-in it seems logical you would stage a state of ignorance over the crime scene. That he didn't is why I don't find that statement suspicious.

On the other hand there's things Raff did that are, if not suspicious, at least curious. His lie about Meredith pricking her hand with the knife, and some of his statements regarding what he was doing on the night of the murder. I think there's reasonable explanations (obviously) but those turn my head significantly more than his casual observation about the state of the cottage.

This was in his prison diary - hardly a lie, since his intention in diary writing was not to have anyone else read it.

 

[Grinder]

The biggest problem with Raff's remark is that to see any guilt in it you must add to it. It's like a Roshach test. It doesn't provide anything really.

Tell that to proponents.

Rorschach inkblot test, the Rorschach technique, or simply the inkblot test) is a psychological test in which subjects' perceptions of inkblots are recorded and then analyzed using psychological interpretation, complex algorithms, or both.

But of course no one said it was stand alone. The statement caused reasonable suspicion when put in context. Them being there and finding the crime. Being associates of the victim.

Why did they suspect Shakey?

 

[Kauffer]

I looked at this again, and I agree that 530 (2) is meant to refer to all the remaining charges; the aggravated calunnia, AND charges A,D, and F.

It's that pesky comma I mentioned. It's supposed to be a comma, because 530 (2) applies to the latter charges (A, D, and F).

IIRC, 530 (1) means 'the crime does not exist'. Whereas 530 (2) means, 'did not commit the act'.

I do think 'did not commit the act', is a stronger form of acquittal than merely, 'insufficient evidence'.

In the new forward from WTBH, which nutjob ballerina stalker PQ posted on his hate site TJMK, Amanda asks this question specifically to her lawyer, Carlo Della Vedova, and his answer was that they were declared actually innocent, not merely 'not guilty'.

So there is no ambiguity in this result. ISC has stated knox and Sollecito are factually innocent, they did not commit the act. ISC did not conclude there is insufficient evidence, they concluded Knox and Sollecito are factually, positively innocent, now and forever, as a matter of law.
Not everyone seems able to accept that, but some people think the moon landing was faked, and 911 was an 'inside job'. What are you gonna do? At some point, you just have to let the ignorant fester in their own spiteful juices and call it a day.

You know what, I think you're right on the money. I wouldn't have thought so before this discussion. Indeed, I doubted that della Vedova, as cited by Amanda, was correct. But, now I think I was wrong.

As follows:

"The basis for the acquittal must be expressly specified in the dispositivo"

"Criminal Law in Italy" - Astolfo Di Amato, Wolters Kluwer Law and Business, p189

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...inal law article 530 astolfo di amato&f=false

 

[Kauffer]

Does the ISC have a way to acquit someone for merely insufficient evidence? I thought the crime does not exist and did not commit the act were their only choices?

Yes, they can acquit for missing, insufficient or contradictory evidence under Art 530 (2). The defendants would still be deemed not to have committed the act. This broadly equates to a finding of reasonable doubt.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...inal law article 530 astolfo di amato&f=false

 

[acbytesla]

Tell that to proponents.

Rorschach inkblot test, the Rorschach technique, or simply the inkblot test) is a psychological test in which subjects' perceptions of inkblots are recorded and then analyzed using psychological interpretation, complex algorithms, or both.

But of course no one said it was stand alone. The statement caused reasonable suspicion when put in context. Them being there and finding the crime. Being associates of the victim.

Why did they suspect Shakey?

You keep suggesting suspicion . I think the cops are suspicious of everything . And that is fine. But I don't think it should be viewed as evidence and I don't think you do either.

 

[Bill Williams]

Does the ISC have a way to acquit someone for merely insufficient evidence? I thought the crime does not exist and did not commit the act were their only choices?

In Italian law, there are five types of acquittals (from Wikipedia), apparently apart from "not proven":

1) Perché il fatto non sussiste - Because the action the defendant was alleged to have committed never took place

2) Perché l'imputato non lo ha commesso - Because the defendant did not commit the action he was alleged to have committed, but that action did take place

3) Perché il fatto non costituisce reato - Because the action committed by the defendant is not considered a crime, for he was excused (e.g. self defense)

4) Perché il fatto non è previsto dalla Legge come reato - Because law no longer considers the action committed by the defendant to be a crime

5) Perché l'imputato non è punibile - Because the defendant is not liable for his crime, because he was legally insane at the time​

Charge A was murder, with the sexual assault rider (attributed to Guede, " in concourse with the others"), #2 applies.... Knox and Raffaele did not commit the act.

Charge B was in relation to Exhibit 36, the carrying of a knife without justified reason. My guess is this one was deemed acquitted for #1, because the action never took place. (But was this one not dismissed because of expiration of statute of limitations?)

Charge C was the sexual assault which the charge describes as Guede being "the material executor" who they were complicit with. Again, this one was #2, they did not commit the act.

Charge D was the theft of 300 Euros, two credit cards, and two mobile phones from Kercher. Again, this one was #2, they did not commit the act.

Charge E was the simulation of the break-in in Filomena's room. This one could be #1 or #2, I guess.

Charge F was the calunnia against Lumumba against Knox alone for which she was convicted.

 

[Numbers]

In Italian law, there are five types of acquittals (from Wikipedia), apparently apart from "not proven":

1) Perché il fatto non sussiste - Because the action the defendant was alleged to have committed never took place

2) Perché l'imputato non lo ha commesso - Because the defendant did not commit the action he was alleged to have committed, but that action did take place

3) Perché il fatto non costituisce reato - Because the action committed by the defendant is not considered a crime, for he was excused (e.g. self defense)

4) Perché il fatto non è previsto dalla Legge come reato - Because law no longer considers the action committed by the defendant to be a crime

5) Perché l'imputato non è punibile - Because the defendant is not liable for his crime, because he was legally insane at the time​

Charge A was murder, with the sexual assault rider (attributed to Guede, " in concourse with the others"), #2 applies.... Knox and Raffaele did not commit the act.

Charge B was in relation to Exhibit 36, the carrying of a knife without justified reason. My guess is this one was deemed acquitted for #1, because the action never took place. (But was this one not dismissed because of expiration of statute of limitations?)

Charge C was the sexual assault which the charge describes as Guede being "the material executor" who they were complicit with. Again, this one was #2, they did not commit the act.

Charge D was the theft of 300 Euros, two credit cards, and two mobile phones from Kercher. Again, this one was #2, they did not commit the act.

Charge E was the simulation of the break-in in Filomena's room. This one could be #1 or #2, I guess.

Charge F was the calunnia against Lumumba against Knox alone for which she was convicted.

Right, what you have described in 1) through 5) are the sub-clauses in CPP Art. 530, para. 1. and para. 2.

 

[zotz]

If the Kercher's attorney Maresca said to them that there was no path forward then that would signify that the accused have been found innocent. If the ruling had been insufficient evidence then they might have still been able to sue a la O.J. Simpson. But the innocent ruling rules that out.

Poor Francesco!

 

[RoseMontague]

The pooh-theory was Prosecutor Crini's. Crini phoned in his prosecution, as Nencini, in effect, got his marching orders from the 2013 Supreme Court.

Crini was also the one who theorized the equivalence of the bedsheet stain of a knife, with Raffaele's kitchen knife, which was completely ludicrous.

Machiavelli (here on ISF) even tried to do a photoshopped view of how the two were equivalent.

A lot of things can be dumped on to Nencini, but the pooh is not one of them. Strangely, Nencini completely ignored the prosecution case (meaning, Crini's) and went on to reinvent the crime with his motivations report. In effect, Nencini deprived the defence the right of full answer by doing it this way. But why let the accused put on a defence when you KNOW they are guilty!

Yes, thanks.

 

[Numbers]

I looked at this again, and I agree that 530 (2) is meant to refer to all the remaining charges; the aggravated calunnia, AND charges A,D, and F.

It's that pesky comma I mentioned. It's supposed to be a comma, because 530 (2) applies to the latter charges (A, D, and F).

IIRC, 530 (1) means 'the crime does not exist'. Whereas 530 (2) means, 'did not commit the act'.

I do think 'did not commit the act', is a stronger form of acquittal than merely, 'insufficient evidence'.

In the new forward from WTBH, which nutjob ballerina stalker PQ posted on his hate site TJMK, Amanda asks this question specifically to her lawyer, Carlo Della Vedova, and his answer was that they were declared actually innocent, not merely 'not guilty'.

So there is no ambiguity in this result. ISC has stated knox and Sollecito are factually innocent, they did not commit the act. ISC did not conclude there is insufficient evidence, they concluded Knox and Sollecito are factually, positively innocent, now and forever, as a matter of law.
Not everyone seems able to accept that, but some people think the moon landing was faked, and 911 was an 'inside job'. What are you gonna do? At some point, you just have to let the ignorant fester in their own spiteful juices and call it a day.

CPP Art. 530 para. 1 includes both the crime did not occur, or the accused did not commit it.
CPP Art. 530 para. 2 includes insufficient evidence etc.

There is no effective difference between an acquittal under para 1 v under para 2. Because an acquittal approved by the CSC is final under Italian law, and thus under the Convention.

 

[carbonjam72]

CPP Art. 530 para. 1 includes both the crime did not occur, or the accused did not commit it.
CPP Art. 530 para. 2 includes insufficient evidence etc.

There is no effective difference between an acquittal under para 1 v under para 2. Because an acquittal approved by the CSC is final under Italian law, and thus under the Convention.

So, "Did not commit the act" is 530, paragraph 1? Doesn't that seem to be a contradiction in the disposotivo? Was Amanda's attorney CDV also wrong?

Guess I'm confused now.