Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

As far as I can see, A and R were found Not Guity (non colpevole) and had an acquittal (assoluzione) because the defendants did not commit the action they were alleged to have committed, but that action did take place (Perché l'imputato non lo ha commesso) (whatever the plural version of that is). Am I wrong? I cannot see any other possibility looking at the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure on Wikipedia.

If it was Non doversi procedure (which WIKIPEDIA explains as “There is a cause that prevents the Judge from actually deciding whether the defendant was guilty (e.g. an amnesty has been passed, the statute of limitations has expired, the injured party did not submit a criminal complaint etc.)”, then that would be very depressing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure#Verdicts

I have only been given access to what everyone here has and don't read Italian so I'm not claiming special knowledge at all. It may well turn out different than I currently think but at this time it seems a full on innocent was not found by the court.

I fear that the court saying the investigation was bungled will mean a Non doversi.

 

[Numbers]

In Italy verdicts are not binary. The court did not find her innocent but rather found that the evidence was insufficient or even worse that it wasn't handled correctly but had it been they would have been found guilty. I'd say that it is relevant.

Please provide the citation in the Marasca CSC panel motivation report that supports the highlighted statement.

 

[Mike1711]

Surely, a legal ruling of "a clear fact", becomes ipso facto a legal fact?

Not sure I understand the question but here goes...

If a "point of fact" were a fact in its pure form why would legal systems allow appeals on "points of fact"? There would no point in allowing such a law to exist if "points of fact" were empirical facts.

From the web...

"An appeal on a point of law will arise after a Court has made a finding on a case, but it has got the law wrong in arriving at that finding. Against a finding of fact, it is much the same principle really, but relates to a situation where the Court has given a decision based on the facts of the case, but that it has arrived at that decision wrongly because it got its finding of the facts leading to that decision wrong."

So logically when a court rules on facts they aren't necessarily facts if they can be overturned on appeal.

It's just a definition peculiar to law, that's all.

 

[acbytesla]

Tesla - AFAIK at this time they annulled Nencini and said the investigation was so messed up that they wouldn't allow another trial. A finding of not proven or something less than innocent doesn't mean the case isn't over. I find no issue with a more nuanced verdict but then I didn't live in a zero or one world.

Perhaps you don't understand that the trials can be ended with less than a full innocence verdict, at least that's what the different paragraphs indicated.

I'll be the first to admit Italian laws and jurisprudence is befuddling.

I understand .. (I think). But it is my understanding that the court dismissed this case "with prejudice" which DOES mean that this is the end of it. That it CANNOT be tried again. But if you have access to an Italian legal expert who says differently, please share.

 

[LondonJohn]

As far as I can see, A and R were found Not Guity (non colpevole) and had an acquittal (assoluzione) because the defendants did not commit the action they were alleged to have committed, but that action did take place (Perché l'imputato non lo ha commesso) (whatever the plural version of that is). Am I wrong? I cannot see any other possibility looking at the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure on Wikipedia.

If it was Non doversi procedure (which WIKIPEDIA explains as “There is a cause that prevents the Judge from actually deciding whether the defendant was guilty (e.g. an amnesty has been passed, the statute of limitations has expired, the injured party did not submit a criminal complaint etc.)”, then that would be very depressing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure#Verdicts

No, it was not a Non Doversi annulment. It was a regular annulment, meaning that the SC found Knox and Sollecito not guilty. And under Italian law (as in UK and US law), this means that they are considered legally and ethically innocent. The 530.1 and 530.2 variants no longer carry any judicial weight in Italy - it's only owing to Italy's slapdash, incompetent and reactionary approach that they are ever even mentioned in verdicts any longer.

As I've said before, it's entirely clear to me that the Marasca SC panel has very deliberately taken explicit steps to ensure that its ruling did not sit in any form of contradiction with any previous SC rulings related to the case. That's precisely why it made sure it shoehorned in anything related specifically to the Knox criminal slander conviction (as affirmed previously by the SC) and the "Guede did not act alone" nonsense (also as affirmed previously by the SC).

Just think about it for a moment. Take the "Guede acted alone" issue, for example. Imagine if the Marasca SC panel had stated in its verdict that it believed that a compelling legal reason to acquit Knox and Sollecito was that Guede committed the crime all by himself. Apart from the fact that the SC would have immediately have been exceeding its remit by making new findings of fact, such a finding would have almost certainly necessitated a review of Guede's conviction.

My view is that the Marasca SC panel knows very well that the Knox criminal slander conviction will be remedied via the ECHR, but that it needs (and wants) to leave it wholly to the ECHR to initiate such a remedy. Marasca knows very well that the ultimate outcome of this case will be full exoneration for Knox and Sollecito, but he has neither the remit nor the will to go the whole hog himself. And as Bruce and others have pointed out, the singularly important thing is that Marasca's court tossed out the murder convictions against Knox and Sollecito in a definitive manner, with scathing criticism of the investigation, the prosecution, and the actions of various lower courts. By 2020, neither Knox nor Sollecito will have any form of criminal record or black mark (legally or morally) in relation to the events of 1st-6th November 2007 in Perugia.

 

[LondonJohn]

Please provide the citation in the Marasca CSC panel motivation report that supports the highlighted statement.

Yeah I think Grinder's got that very wrong too. The SC says that it might have been possible to find Knox and/or Sollecito guilty had the investigation been conducted competently and fairly. That's very, very different from saying that Knox and Sollecito would have been found guilty had the investigation been conducted competently and fairly.

 

[Grinder]

Please provide the citation in the Marasca CSC panel motivation report that supports the highlighted statement.

Well Numbers as I have said about a hundred times, I haven't been given access to the complete translation. I have made it clear that I'm operating on limited snippets. I have made it clear that this is my opinion at this time and will change it when and if the facts support that change.

Any cases in the ECHR in which Perugian LE were sanctioned?

 

[Grinder]

I'll be the first to admit Italian laws and jurisprudence is befuddling.

I understand .. (I think). But it is my understanding that the court dismissed this case "with prejudice" which DOES mean that this is the end of it. That it CANNOT be tried again. But if you have access to an Italian legal expert who says differently, please share.

Slow down and read my post. I said that a verdict less than innocent doesn't mean the case isn't over.

Watch out, Numbers will ask for a cite on the with prejudice from Marasca or maybe he'll let you slide

I have never said the case isn't over so I'd say that's a bit of a straw man.

 

[acbytesla]

Slow down and read my post. I said that a verdict less than innocent doesn't mean the case isn't over.

Watch out, Numbers will ask for a cite on the with prejudice from Marasca or maybe he'll let you slide

I have never said the case isn't over so I'd say that's a bit of a straw man.

OK, So we're back to square one. Unless there are legal ramifications that we don't seem to know, there is no qualitative difference between "not guilty" and "innocent".

 

[Bill Williams]

Yeah I think Grinder's got that very wrong too. The SC says that it might have been possible to find Knox and/or Sollecito guilty had the investigation been conducted competently and fairly. That's very, very different from saying that Knox and Sollecito would have been found guilty had the investigation been conducted competently and fairly.

Hey, I'm on your side. But why is this not merely wishful thinking?

 

[acbytesla]

Hey, I'm on your side. But why is this not merely wishful thinking?

Well that is exactly what the media has been reporting.

Had investigators presented more substantiated findings, “‘in all probability’ the defendants’ guilt or innocence could have been determined from the earliest stages,” reported the AP.

 

[Kauffer]

I'm only a bean counter, and speak no Italian, except perhaps a round of Santa Lucia, but the case has only just finished now. There is no ruling the two are innocent, merely the case annulled, with some damning statements about the pair's culpability.

Far from bringing closure to the case, Bruno and Marasca have left it wide open.

One good thing is reform; politicians like Marasca and Bruno will no longer be able to don their robes, whilst active in government, open to lobbying and vote-catching, and then go and sit in chambers manipulating the outcome.

For all its faults, the UK/US adversarial system is superior IMV, despite the acrimony involved, because the judge's decision is final and that brings closure.
This case's latest saga is a right crock of ****.

You're in cuckoo land again. The Marasca court decision is final. They are acquitted of murder.

 

[acbytesla]

Well that is exactly what the media has been reporting.

Had investigators presented more substantiated findings, “‘in all probability’ the defendants’ guilt or innocence could have been determined from the earliest stages,” reported the AP.

It just hit me. But then again I haven't been trying to read Italian or Google translated Italian. But is it possible that the court ruled that in all probability the defendant's "guilt" could have been determined from the earliest stages,” That the "or innocence" is implied?

And that is the mixup."could" being the operative word and this is what everyone is freaking out about?

 

[Grinder]

Yeah I think Grinder's got that very wrong too. The SC says that it might have been possible to find Knox and/or Sollecito guilty had the investigation been conducted competently and fairly. That's very, very different from saying that Knox and Sollecito would have been found guilty had the investigation been conducted competently and fairly.

Can you provide that cite from Marasca? As I have said repeatedly, not having the final complete translation myself I'm working off various reports. I may well be that neither of us have it correct and as the brilliant Anglo has pointed out reading Italian court reports is more of an art form than a legal document should be.

 

[Bill Williams]

Can you provide that cite from Marasca? As I have said repeatedly, not having the final complete translation myself I'm working off various reports. I may well be that neither of us have it correct and as the brilliant Anglo has pointed out reading Italian court reports is more of an art form than a legal document should be.

The only thing to disagree with here is the assessment of AL's brilliance. The news-reports, internet buzz in Italian seems to sustain LondonJohn's claim, but as you say reading Italian motivations reports - in English, yet - is always less than straight forward.

 

[anglolawyer]

I have nothing to declare but my genius.

Tell you what, 'not proven' strikes me as a heck of a lot more useful than 'not guilty because the crime does not exist'. What exactly is the point of that? Not proven = s/he may well have done it but we can't be sure. NGB etc. means what? The police are dullards who imagined the whole thing, or the accused shot six bullets into the face of the deceased not realising he was already dead? Those are at opposite ends of the moral spectrum and both are covered by this pointless classification. What's it for?

 

[Bill Williams]

I have nothing to declare but my genius

Genius? You failed to competently represent a chickadee under illegal house arrest, and were easily diverted from doing due diligence with the RSPCA!!

 

[toto]

No, it was not a Non Doversi annulment. It was a regular annulment, meaning that the SC found Knox and Sollecito not guilty. And under Italian law (as in UK and US law), this means that they are considered legally and ethically innocent. The 530.1 and 530.2 variants no longer carry any judicial weight in Italy - it's only owing to Italy's slapdash, incompetent and reactionary approach that they are ever even mentioned in verdicts any longer.

As I've said before, it's entirely clear to me that the Marasca SC panel has very deliberately taken explicit steps to ensure that its ruling did not sit in any form of contradiction with any previous SC rulings related to the case. That's precisely why it made sure it shoehorned in anything related specifically to the Knox criminal slander conviction (as affirmed previously by the SC) and the "Guede did not act alone" nonsense (also as affirmed previously by the SC).

Just think about it for a moment. Take the "Guede acted alone" issue, for example. Imagine if the Marasca SC panel had stated in its verdict that it believed that a compelling legal reason to acquit Knox and Sollecito was that Guede committed the crime all by himself. Apart from the fact that the SC would have immediately have been exceeding its remit by making new findings of fact, such a finding would have almost certainly necessitated a review of Guede's conviction.

My view is that the Marasca SC panel knows very well that the Knox criminal slander conviction will be remedied via the ECHR, but that it needs (and wants) to leave it wholly to the ECHR to initiate such a remedy. Marasca knows very well that the ultimate outcome of this case will be full exoneration for Knox and Sollecito, but he has neither the remit nor the will to go the whole hog himself. And as Bruce and others have pointed out, the singularly important thing is that Marasca's court tossed out the murder convictions against Knox and Sollecito in a definitive manner, with scathing criticism of the investigation, the prosecution, and the actions of various lower courts. By 2020, neither Knox nor Sollecito will have any form of criminal record or black mark (legally or morally) in relation to the events of 1st-6th November 2007 in Perugia.

Thanks for that. I have subsequently found a helpful post by Michaelb where he links to:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Cassazione-Dispositivo-30-March-2015.pdf

in which the words "THE PETITIONERS DID NOT COMMIT THE ACT" are very clear. I do hope the ECHR turns out to be helpful to A K.

 

[LondonJohn]

Thanks for that. I have subsequently found a helpful post by Michaelb where he links to:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Cassazione-Dispositivo-30-March-2015.pdf

in which the words "THE PETITIONERS DID NOT COMMIT THE ACT" are very clear. I do hope the ECHR turns out to be helpful to A K.

Yep. Marasca's court ruled that Knox and Sollecito should have their convictions annulled without referral (i.e. back to appeals level) for charges A, D and E, for the reason that they did not commit the crime. A, D and E are the murder, the theft and the "simulated break-in" respectively.

 

[LondonJohn]

Can you provide that cite from Marasca? As I have said repeatedly, not having the final complete translation myself I'm working off various reports. I may well be that neither of us have it correct and as the brilliant Anglo has pointed out reading Italian court reports is more of an art form than a legal document should be.

I don't have time or access to find the part of the report right now, but I'll do it either this evening or over the weekend.