Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Mike1711]

Ah, "labour", another clear sign that we're dealing with a Brit here.

Not that I care that you're (presumably) British, just that over the years it has surprised me how many (thinking) Brits eventually came over to the innocent side, despite the trash the UK press had peddled there – good for you!

Ironically, some of the worst 'Guilters' are located on American soil.

Also, some of the most harassed people arguing for innocence were Italians (e.g., Frank Sfarzo).

Rather comforting that so many people from different nations can unite under one logical conclusion, but it's also rather disturbing how many obvious nut-jobs we have within our respective midst.

Aaah, wish I to be British. I am South African. The case caught my attention at the time of the murder and intermittently thereafter.
When AK and RS were released I thought great...case closed but to my horror I read that things were going wrong earlier this year.
I read everything about the case because I thought I must've misunderstood the case to have believed innocence.
The more I read the obvious that innocence was the only conclusion.
I'm a bystander really but that AK & RS are innocent is obvious to all but the blind.

 

[Mike1711]

I wasn't referring to clause 9. Assume makes an ASS out of U and ME.

I read the whole report, contrary to your slur.

I didn't say you were referring to Clause 9. Nor did I say you didn't read the whole report.
I merely stated that Clause 9 has a specific context. If you want to understand read the whole report again, but this time try to see the correct context of Clause 9.
As you said assume makes.....

 

[Mike1711]

You did put words in my mouth. You keep ranting on about clause 9, when I haven't even mentioned it.

Oh!
Ok so all your quotes of confusion from the Marasca report are from which clause?
Enlighten me.

 

[Ken Dine]

Many of the police involved in this investigation - including very senior police officers and rank-and-file detectives - behaved in a variety of slipshod, incompetent, improper and neglectful ways. It is absolutely correct that they should be properly held to account for their actions and behaviour in this case. Who know, it might even make those of them who aren't sacked/prosecuted act more appropriately, professionally and honestly in any future investigations in which they might be involved.......

True, since there was only one cop in this MR who wasn't ridiculed, which was the same cop we had discussed here a few weeks ago as behaving professionally, Inspector Volturno, whom Judge Hellmann had cited extensively in his own exoneration opinion:

MARASCA, Pg 12:

7) The same concerns Quintavalle's testimony and the omitted evaluation of the Inspector Volturno’s testimony, who drew up an internal memorandum, according to which the same Quintavalle had reported seeing Sollecito and Amanda always together.

The MARASCA MR could have more clearly stated that Inspector Volturno’s testimony contradicted Quintavalle's LYING testimony (as Hellmann had ruled), but that is clearly what they were saying since MARASCA did effectively call Quintavalle's testimony pure "mythomania".

mythomania |ˌmiTHəˈmānēə|
noun
an abnormal or pathological tendency to exaggerate or tell lies.

 

[Vixen]

No!
Clause 9 is the clause around which the whole case turns. The ISC contemplates the arguments (those parts you want to make into "facts") and concludes from the arguments....
that the verdict is overturned....and a verdict of "not guilty" is reinstated...
....which in effect means that all the arguments in Clause 9 which favour the prosecution are considered to be.....
RUBBISH!!!
Clause 9 should be quoted within the context of the final verdict which is that the prosecution's evidence as per Clause 9 was was repeated, enlarged upon, contemplated, considered, debated but ultimately dismissed by the ISC as a flawed argument containing a case based largely on suspicion (and maybe at times valid suspicion or even great suspicion) but also contaminated by conjecture, assumptions, inaccuracies, negligences, lies.....but ultimately it was DISMISSED.
To read Clause 9 outside of its context is to read distortion into a well written report reflecting a resounding rejection of guilty and a replacement of a NOT GUILTY verdict.
Those pondering a of the ISC regarding where, who, when and how are simply legal meanderings the conclusion of which is a resounding "not guilty".

As I keep reiterating I have no problem whatsoever understanding the report. You must stop assuming I have difficulty with comprehension.

You haven't quoted me, as you claim, above, where you have written RUBBISH!!! Presumably you wish to give the unwary reader the false impression you are responding to something I wrote.

As I keep saying, I have not mentioned clause 9. Please keep your faux exasperation to yourself.

 

[Vixen]

Oh!
Ok so all your quotes of confusion from the Marasca report are from which clause?
Enlighten me.

I see. You are playing a game. End of.

 

[Vixen]

I didn't say you were referring to Clause 9. Nor did I say you didn't read the whole report.
I merely stated that Clause 9 has a specific context. If you want to understand read the whole report again, but this time try to see the correct context of Clause 9.
As you said assume makes.....

I understand perfectly well the correct context. Perhaps you see it as difficult, so you've decided to project your own bafflement onto others.

 

[Kauffer]

I understand perfectly well the correct context. Perhaps you see it as difficult, so you've decided to project your own bafflement onto others.

If you wish to make an argument, then cite from the report with regard to its meaning. You come here always to make assertions. This is a grown up place - We say: "I think that xyz is true for the following reason(s)...Marasca said, ..."cite...cite" [link]"

Can you do that, vixen? You should be able to - it's taught at undergraduate level.

As we have seen, your reluctance to cite, particularly from primary sources, has caused you no end of embarrassment recently. Fix it.

 

[Mike1711]

I understand perfectly well the correct context. Perhaps you see it as difficult, so you've decided to project your own bafflement onto others.

It would be simple for you to gather all your pro guilt postings relating to the recently translated Marasca Report (regarding your AK/RS guilty accusations) and then see from which clause you misinterpreted them.

On second thoughts don't worry. They are all from Clause 9.

It's not that I think Clause 9 tickles my OCD button, it's that your entire collection of broken eggs sit in that one basket.

...but I could be wrong, so feel free to chastise me publicly on this forum.

 

[Numbers]

Yep. Because of the formal introduction of "beyond reasonable doubt", both types of acquittal are now considered to be "because the defendant did not commit the offence" (or "because the crime did not take place" etc) and hence are to be treated the same way. However, as you say, the Code does still distinguish between the two kinds of acquittal.

The difference now, as Luca goes on to say in his comment, is that there are no legal consequences for being acquitted under one paragraph rather than the other, so it's much less significant. Previously if you were acquitted under paragraph 2, you could be tried again for the same crime if new evidence came to light, and you could also appeal against the decision to try to get a full acquittal. That's no longer the case.

I will appeal to the authority of Mitja Gialuz, who wrote the text I quoted above. Giuluz is Professor of Criminal Procedure at the University of Trieste. The acquittal for insufficient evidence is eliminated as a distinct entity in Italian law, and produces no legal effect different from other "not guilty" verdicts. The verdict delivered by the Marasca CSC panel is that Knox and Sollecito did not commit the act of murder, which is identical to "innocent".

I should point out, in relation to Grinder's point, that this short verdict, first given 27 March 2015, has been translated identically by others to the same effective wording (did not commit the act) as presented within the translation by the IA volunteers.

 

[acbytesla]

Delete

 

[Vixen]

If you wish to make an argument, then cite from the report with regard to its meaning. You come here always to make assertions. This is a grown up place - We say: "I think that xyz is true for the following reason(s)...Marasca said, ..."cite...cite" [link]"

Can you do that, vixen? You should be able to - it's taught at undergraduate level.

As we have seen, your reluctance to cite, particularly from primary sources, has caused you no end of embarrassment recently. Fix it.

Thank you for helping me in my struggles. Having passed about twenty accountancy exams, including industry case studies where you have to research a random industry inside out, and then on the day of the exam, you are confronted with unseen questions and a 20-page booklet of dense figures and turgid wording, out of which you have to identify the key issues on the hoof, do some complex calculations, draw some business models and then cobble up a 4,000 word report within three hours in correct format explaining the reasoning for your recommendations, to chartered accountancy standard, it really is so kind of you to help me read a very simple law report.

If I'd prattled on about Gallileo in any of my papers, it'd be a straight 'FAIL'.

 

[Vixen]

It would be simple for you to gather all your pro guilt postings relating to the recently translated Marasca Report (regarding your AK/RS guilty accusations) and then see from which clause you misinterpreted them.

On second thoughts don't worry. They are all from Clause 9.

It's not that I think Clause 9 tickles my OCD button, it's that your entire collection of broken eggs sit in that one basket.

...but I could be wrong, so feel free to chastise me publicly on this forum.

What bit do you think I don't understand?

 

[Grinder]

I will appeal to the authority of Mitja Gialuz, who wrote the text I quoted above. Giuluz is Professor of Criminal Procedure at the University of Trieste. The acquittal for insufficient evidence is eliminated as a distinct entity in Italian law, and produces no legal effect different from other "not guilty" verdicts. The verdict delivered by the Marasca CSC panel is that Knox and Sollecito did not commit the act of murder, which is identical to "innocent".

I should point out, in relation to Grinder's point, that this short verdict, first given 27 March 2015, has been translated identically by others to the same effective wording (did not commit the act) as presented within the translation by the IA volunteers.

University of Trieste... Pffft.

If the 530(2) has been eliminated why did Marasca use it? Clearly it means something to him and it was an early argument between the camps and now we see the PIP were incorrect in saying it was a paragraph one.

ETA - do you agree with this interpretation of the law?

CPP Article 530 Judgment of acquittal

1. If the criminal act did not occur, the accused did not commit it, the act is not deemed an offence by law or it has been committed by a person who cannot be accused or punished for a different reason, 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, the act is deemed an offence by law, the offence was committed by a person with mental capacity.

3. The judge shall deliver a judgment of acquittal under paragraph 1 if there is proof that the underlying causes of the committed act are either a reason for justification or a personal reason for exemption from punishment or there is a doubt on the existence of such reasons.

4. By means of the judgment of acquittal, the judge shall apply the security measures, in the cases provided for by law.

because that's what your boy says it is according to your own post

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10716816#post10716816

 

[katy_did]

I will appeal to the authority of Mitja Gialuz, who wrote the text I quoted above. Giuluz is Professor of Criminal Procedure at the University of Trieste. The acquittal for insufficient evidence is eliminated as a distinct entity in Italian law, and produces no legal effect different from other "not guilty" verdicts. The verdict delivered by the Marasca CSC panel is that Knox and Sollecito did not commit the act of murder, which is identical to "innocent".

It has been "eliminated as a distinct entity", sure, but not eliminated. Nothing in your quote from Gialuz contradicts what I posted.

I should point out, in relation to Grinder's point, that this short verdict, first given 27 March 2015, has been translated identically by others to the same effective wording (did not commit the act) as presented within the translation by the IA volunteers.

Yes, Marasca said "did not commit the act" with reference to article 530, paragraph 2 - insufficient/contradictory evidence.

 

[Kauffer]

Thank you for helping me in my struggles. Having passed about twenty accountancy exams, including industry case studies where you have to research a random industry inside out, and then on the day of the exam, you are confronted with unseen questions and a 20-page booklet of dense figures and turgid wording, out of which you have to identify the key issues on the hoof, do some complex calculations, draw some business models and then cobble up a 4,000 word report within three hours in correct format explaining the reasoning for your recommendations, to chartered accountancy standard, it really is so kind of you to help me read a very simple law report.

If I'd prattled on about Gallileo in any of my papers, it'd be a straight 'FAIL'.

Does all this stuff mean you actually know the importance of citation in order to lend weight and credibility to your argument? If so, why are you so reluctant to do it here, especially when the evidence shows that when you assert without cite, you are substantially wrong?

 

[Vixen]

Does all this stuff mean you actually know the importance of citation in order to lend weight and credibility to your argument? If so, why are you so reluctant to do it here, especially when the evidence shows that when you assert without cite, you are substantially wrong?

Read the report, then you'll know which bit I'm referencing.

Try p 28 for the bit about "it was not any unknown burglar...unless it was a serial killer."

The translation is dreadful. So Amanda thought Mez' scream, "heartbreaking"?

Aw, bless.

 

[Kauffer]

Read the report, then you'll know which bit I'm referencing.
Try p 28 for the bit about "it was not any unknown burglar...unless it was a serial killer."

The translation is dreadful. So Amanda thought Mez' scream, "heartbreaking"?

Aw, bless.

This is not good enough. You CITE and you LINK! You don't do this!
This language, which you quote, does not appear on p28 as you state.

Am I getting through to you at all? Knock, knock, hello!

Practice rigorousness in your posts.

 

[Numbers]

University of Trieste... Pffft.

If the 530(2) has been eliminated why did Marasca use it? Clearly it means something to him and it was an early argument between the camps and now we see the PIP were incorrect in saying it was a paragraph one.

ETA - do you agree with this interpretation of the law?

CPP Article 530 Judgment of acquittal

1. If the criminal act did not occur, the accused did not commit it, the act is not deemed an offence by law or it has been committed by a person who cannot be accused or punished for a different reason, 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, the act is deemed an offence by law, the offence was committed by a person with mental capacity.

3. The judge shall deliver a judgment of acquittal under paragraph 1 if there is proof that the underlying causes of the committed act are either a reason for justification or a personal reason for exemption from punishment or there is a doubt on the existence of such reasons.

4. By means of the judgment of acquittal, the judge shall apply the security measures, in the cases provided for by law.

because that's what your boy says it is according to your own post

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10716816#post10716816

What you are quoting is not an interpretation of the law, but the English translation of the Italian text of the law, CPP Article 530, as translated by Professors Mitja Gialuz, Luca Luparia, and Federica Scarpa and their associates. Gialuz is Professor of Criminal Procedure at the University of Trieste, Luparia is Professor of Criminal Procedure and Penitentiary Law at the University of Milan, and Scarpa is Professor of English Language and Translation Studies at the University of Trieste.

I have highlighted the relevant wording within paragraphs 530.1 and 530.2; note that in both cases the judgment is of acquittal. There is no difference in the kind of acquittal - legally they are the same.

If you wish to believe differently, that is your privilege.

 

[LondonJohn]

What you are quoting is not an interpretation of the law, but the English translation of the Italian text of the law, CPP Article 530, as translated by Professors Mitja Gialuz, Luca Luparia, and Federica Scarpa and their associates. Gialuz is Professor of Criminal Procedure at the University of Trieste, Luparia is Professor of Criminal Procedure and Penitentiary Law at the University of Milan, and Scarpa is Professor of English Language and Translation Studies at the University of Trieste.

I have highlighted the relevant wording within paragraphs 530.1 and 530.2; note that in both cases the judgment is of acquittal. There is no difference in the kind of acquittal - legally they are the same.

If you wish to believe differently, that is your privilege.

Yeah. 530, as worded in the CPP, is (yet) another of the clumsy and badly compromised pieces of Italian legislation and statute. Pretty much every judge in Italy over the age of 45 grew up with (and was taught) how to apply 530 in the old, proto-fascist manner, where the state could effectively decide to "suspend" the prosecution of anyone while they were trying to find new exciting ways to convict them. It was a little like dismissing a civil case with or without prejudice. And almost always - unless the case was so laughably wrong (usually because it was politically-driven or because the authorities chose to reject a perfectly valid alibi) that the courts threw it out right out of hand - the acquittal used to be of the 530.2 variety, so that the courts covered their backsides.

Post the revision of the code and the Italian Constitution, 530 sort of slipped through the net - probably because it became deemed somewhat moot and irrelevant. However, the letter of the law still requires judges to state which para of 530 they have used, and 530.2 is absolutely the default position - even when there is an exceptionally strong case for acquittal.

So the current situation is that there's a rather large disconnect between the clumsy wording of 530 and what it actually means (and DOESN'T mean) in the course of an acquittal. As Numbers and others have said, in reality there is only one single way in which to acquit someone in Italy these days (outside of technicalities such as the expiry of statutes of limitation, or withdrawal of accusation, etc). And acquittal means total innocence and the ongoing presumption of innocence.