Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Machiavelli]

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.

Acquittal on insufficient proof still exists as legal category, it does not exist as "separate entity" or "third response", since 1989 it is a sub-type of the acquittal decision.

Whether you want to call it "legally the same", depends on the spin you intend to put on it.

In fact acquittals on 530.1 or 530.2 are the same on one aspect, that is the penal consequences and the Penal Code.
They are not the same in regard to all other consequences, that is all non directly penal consequences.
Consequences of a penal finding can be different on various non-penal aspects depending on the finding in it. This ranges from civil consequences, or the use of the final verdict as evidence in other trials, and several kinds of other possible effects in various legal contexts. Technically this verdict leaves the "judicial truth" open, that effects possibility of legal actions or claims.

 

[Grinder]

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.

Answer the pertinent question as to why Marasca used paragraph 2.

We know both are acquittal but it is quite clear that p.1 is a no doubt innocent whereas p.2 is not enough or conflicting evidence.

 

[carbonjam72]

Acquittal on insufficient proof still exists as legal category, it does not exist as "separate entity" or "third response", since 1989 it is a sub-type of the acquittal decision.

Whether you want to call it "legally the same", depends on the spin you intend to put on it.

In fact acquittals on 530.1 or 530.2 are the same on one aspect, that is the penal consequences and the Penal Code.
They are not the same in regard to all other consequences, that is all non directly penal consequences.
Consequences of a penal finding can be different on various non-penal aspects depending on the finding in it. This ranges from civil consequences, or the use of the final verdict as evidence in other trials, and several kinds of other possible effects in various legal contexts. Technically this verdict leaves the "judicial truth" open, that effects possibility of legal actions or claims.

Hey Mach,

Does this result from Marasca, have any implication one way or the other, in regard to Amanda' current trial foe 'continuing calunnia'?

Or is the legal result, "open", and something the courts will have to determine on a case by case basis.

Also, don't you think it looks pretty lousy to still be going after Amanda or Raf, neither of whom ever hurt anyone in their lives?

 

[Machiavelli]

Hey Mach,

Does this result from Marasca, have any implication one way or the other, in regard to Amanda' current trial foe 'continuing calunnia'?

Or is the legal result, "open", and something the courts will have to determine on a case by case basis.

Also, don't you think it looks pretty lousy to still be going after Amanda or Raf, neither of whom ever hurt anyone in their lives?

Amanda Knox has tortured and killed Meredith Kercher, is also an offender convicted of calunnia and under trial for a repeated offence, so I really don't think there is anything wrong letting the world know this.

In addition, Knox was the object of worship of activists who put on a slandering machine, a filthy media campaign of lies and joined corrupt forces within Italy to pervert the course of some proceedings. No, it's not lousy to go after media spin and corruption.

Bruno / Marasca won't be usable by Knox in her defence, because of art. 530.2; Knox was already indefensible in her Florence calunnia trial, but the statements in the SC ruling possibly make her even more indefensible. B&M only highlight Knox's will (malice) in the crime of calunnia.
Even locate her on the murder scene with certainty (despite they contradict their owns statements in one paragraph), with Meredith's blood on her hands, and highlight the purpose of her calunnia was to cover up for a murderer (who, B&M say, did not kill alone, and had less motive than Knox).

 

[Bill Williams]

Amanda Knox has tortured and killed Meredith Kercher, is also an offender convicted of calunnia and under trial for a repeated offence, so I really don't think there is anything wrong letting the world know this.

In addition, Knox was the object of worship of activists who put on a slandering machine, a filthy media campaign of lies and joined corrupt forces within Italy to pervert the course of some proceedings. No, it's not lousy to go after media spin and corruption.

It is noted you completely ignore Raffaele in your slander. Good job, dude.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yeah. Knox has also pulled the heads off live babies for fun, and I hear she defecated in the Rose Garden in the White House in front of the First Lady.

Oh no wait...... she didn't do those things either, did she.....?

 

[Dougm]

Amanda Knox has tortured and killed Meredith Kercher, is also an offender convicted of calunnia and under trial for a repeated offence, so I really don't think there is anything wrong letting the world know this.

In addition, Knox was the object of worship of activists who put on a slandering machine, a filthy media campaign of lies and joined corrupt forces within Italy to pervert the course of some proceedings. No, it's not lousy to go after media spin and corruption.

Thank goodness there are so few of you, that believe this crazy stuff.

My only question is: If you think it is so terrible to slander people, organize a "filthy media campaign of lies", and to attempt to "pervert the course of some proceedings" in Italy, then why do you do those things?

Amanda Knox did not murder anyone. The evidence shows that, and the court has now agreed, thankfully. Yet you still push on, as if somehow you know what is true, and the whole world's crazy.

 

[Grinder]

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.

But back in April you wrote:

Yes, I agree with your interpretation. But I think the only way in which a defendant can be acquitted on (the new version of) 530.1 where there actually was a crime committed is where the court can be satisfied that the defendant did not commit the crime - and that, almost by definition, means that there's sufficient evidence to prove the defendant's innocence.

And given that in the overwhelming majority of cases that reach charges and a trial, the defendant cannot prove his/her innocence (after all, if the defendant could prove innocence, then it's extremely hard to see how a case would get as far as a trial), this by definition also implies that very few acquittals will ever be on 530.1. Note also (though of course I know you understand this ) that "zero credible/reliable evidence of guilt" does not equate to "proof of innocence".

As you say, the Hellmann acquittals were particularly noteworthy for their 530.1 nature. I suspect that this might even have played a part in the SC annulling Hellmann and sending the case back for another appeal trial. It's clear that Hellmann thought there was no way that Knox and Sollecito could have participated in the murder - and while he was correct to think so, it might have been too audacious of him to use 530.1 in his acquittals. I wonder if Hellmann also knows that 530.2 is still widely viewed as a "not proven" style of verdict, even though it's now not that at all, and that he wanted to make a bold statement by using 530.1?

By the way do you happen to have anything to back up, what was it Anglo or Vixen called it?

 

[Bill Williams]

Thank goodness there are so few of you, that believe this crazy stuff.

My only question is: If you think it is so terrible to slander people, organize a "filthy media campaign of lies", and to attempt to "pervert the course of some proceedings" in Italy, then why do you do those things?

Amanda Knox did not murder anyone. The evidence shows that, and the court has now agreed, thankfully. Yet you still push on, as if somehow you know what is true, and the whole world's crazy.

Machiavelli needs a better PR firm. Think about it. His target audience is an English-language one outside of Italy.

Now that there's an English-language translation of the Marasca report out we now know why. No one *in* Italy is interpreting section 9 of the report as he is. His PR efforts within his own country has fallen on deaf ears.

He's tweeting Porta a Porta by his own account. Maybe he can bring us up to date with how that is going?

 

[bagels]

Amanda Knox has tortured and killed Meredith Kercher

No it was Raffaele Sollecito. Ever since his depression and reading violent mangas he started getting homicidal thoughts and planned to pull off a thrill killing. He targeted Amanda at the concert but maybe someone saw them together too soon so he had to come up with a plan B. He decided to use her as an alibi and kill one of her roommates with his longtime drug buddy Rudy Guede. On the night of the murder he learned everyone in the cottage was gone except Meredith, who was hanging out with her British friends but would likely be back in the evening. He drugged Amanda with a sedative so she wouldn't be aware of what was going on or notice him leaving. Then he met up with Guede and they proceeded to kill Meredith. This explains Raffaele's bloody print on the bathmat, his DNA on the bra clasp, why he lied about the kitchen knife, and why he gave Amanda up to the police so readily, because he knew she wouldn't have any information to give them (that she would be coerced into confessing to the police fantasy scenario never occurred to him) and Rudy's early story about the other male attacker (and Meredith's dying words about "aff" - ie "Raff"). The luminol is from Amanda's bathmat shuffle the next morning. This is also why he couldn't keep his story straight on whether Filomena's door was open or closed, why he said nothing was stolen, and why he hesitated to call the police after Amanda asked him to.

Give me some reasons why my theory isn't better than yours.

 

[Machiavelli]

Thank goodness there are so few of you, that believe this crazy stuff.

My only question is: If you think it is so terrible to slander people, organize a "filthy media campaign of lies", and to attempt to "pervert the course of some proceedings" in Italy, then why do you do those things?

Amanda Knox did not murder anyone. The evidence shows that, and the court has now agreed, thankfully. Yet you still push on, as if somehow you know what is true, and the whole world's crazy.

The Supreme Court does not asses evidence.
This panel obviously pasted some defence points, made a big mess into their report which is manifestly unlawful and foolish, beyond contradicting a definitive and still valid SC ruling; besides this, it does not agree with you. It does not "find" any innocence. In addition, quite obviously remarks the guilt of calunnia. It reports the things I've said. These are facts. Attempts to object to something manifest only make you look crazy indeed.

 

[acbytesla]

Thank goodness there are so few of you, that believe this crazy stuff.

My only question is: If you think it is so terrible to slander people, organize a "filthy media campaign of lies", and to attempt to "pervert the course of some proceedings" in Italy, then why do you do those things?

Amanda Knox did not murder anyone. The evidence shows that, and the court has now agreed, thankfully. Yet you still push on, as if somehow you know what is true, and the whole world's crazy.

That's a perfect example of going double down on stupid. The Italian Supreme Court declared that Amanda Knox in fact DID NOT COMMIT THE ACT. Correct Mach? Yet Mach is suggesting that the world does not accept this fact and that Amanda Knox who already spent 4 years in prison. 3 years for Callunia, which I'm told is in fact an unusually long and exceptional sentence should face more criminal prosecution.

I have to wonder. Does Mignini and the others understand the word "unseemly"?

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli needs a better PR firm. Think about it. His target audience is an English-language one outside of Italy.

Now that there's an English-language translation of the Marasca report out we now know why. No one *in* Italy is interpreting section 9 of the report as he is. His PR efforts within his own country has fallen on deaf ears.

He's tweeting Porta a Porta by his own account. Maybe he can bring us up to date with how that is going?

No, I am not tweeting Porta a Porta. You are lying. But above all, you are talking about the poster. It's time the moderators take care of removing these posts.

 

[Machiavelli]

No it was Raffaele Sollecito. Ever since his depression and reading violent mangas he started getting homicidal thoughts and planned to pull off a thrill killing. He targeted Amanda at the concert but maybe someone saw them together too soon so he had to come up with a plan B. He decided to use her as an alibi and kill one of her roommates with his longtime drug buddy Rudy Guede. On the night of the murder he learned everyone in the cottage was gone except Meredith, who was hanging out with her British friends but would likely be back in the evening. He drugged Amanda with a sedative so she wouldn't be aware of what was going on or notice him leaving. Then he met up with Guede and they proceeded to kill Meredith. This explains Raffaele's bloody print on the bathmat, his DNA on the bra clasp, why he lied about the kitchen knife, and why he gave Amanda up to the police so readily, because he knew she wouldn't have any information to give them (that she would be coerced into confessing to the police fantasy scenario never occurred to him) and Rudy's early story about the other male attacker (and Meredith's dying words about "aff" - ie "Raff"). The luminol is from Amanda's bathmat shuffle the next morning. This is also why he couldn't keep his story straight on whether Filomena's door was open or closed, why he said nothing was stolen, and why he hesitated to call the police after Amanda asked him to.

Give me some reasons why my theory isn't better than yours.

If you theory is true, Amanda Knox should have been thrown into jail together with him, since she claims of spending the whole evening and night with him at the time of the murder.

 

[carbonjam72]

Amanda Knox has tortured and killed Meredith Kercher, is also an offender convicted of calunnia and under trial for a repeated offence, so I really don't think there is anything wrong letting the world know this.

In addition, Knox was the object of worship of activists who put on a slandering machine, a filthy media campaign of lies and joined corrupt forces within Italy to pervert the course of some proceedings. No, it's not lousy to go after media spin and corruption.

Bruno / Marasca won't be usable by Knox in her defence, because of art. 530.2; Knox was already indefensible in her Florence calunnia trial, but the statements in the SC ruling possibly make her even more indefensible. B&M only highlight Knox's will (malice) in the crime of calunnia.
Even locate her on the murder scene with certainty (despite they contradict their owns statements in one paragraph), with Meredith's blood on her hands, and highlight the purpose of her calunnia was to cover up for a murderer (who, B&M say, did not kill alone, and had less motive than Knox).

At least you haven't lost your objectivity.

Italy's highest court tells you the scientific police were a disaster, but you're not convinced.

That curatolo and quintavale are scoundrels and liars, but you're not convinced.

That no trace of Amanda and Raf in the murder room, while there are abundant traces of only Rudy Guede, means Amanda and Raf must be excluded from participating in the crime, and presumably everyone else in the world too - except Rudy Guede, and you're still not convinced.

That there was a rush to judgement with a shoddy, poorly prepared case that Mignini should have known had fallen apart when the DNA and biological traces all pointed to only Rudy Guede, and you're still not convinced.

That Nencini misread his remit from cassation section 1, and failed to accord Amanda and Raf the presumption of innocence, was illogical, and failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and you're still not convinced.

What would it take to convince you, that you have been wrong all this time, and have been tormenting and slandering two of the kindest people who have ever lived?

If Rudy Guede had a religious conversion and confessed he committed the crime alone, would that do it for you? I seriously doubt it would.

Have you ever had psilocybin mushrooms? I suggest you try some in an omelette at the first opportunity. I believe it would change your life.

 

[Dougm]

No, I am not tweeting Porta a Porta. You are lying. But above all, you are talking about the poster. It's time the moderators take care of removing these posts.

Mach,

Not trying to talk about you at all. It just seems there is a contradiction in your ideas. I see someone who posts slanderous things about a person (Knox), then follows with criticism of others, saying they do that. Is that a consistent idea?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

[bagels]

If you theory is true, Amanda Knox should have been thrown into jail together with him, since she claims of spending the whole evening and night with him at the time of the murder.

Her memory would be fogged from the sedative and since she got in so much trouble when the police talked her into the Patrick memories she wouldn't ever dare suggest she doesn't remember Raffaele being home the whole time, which would be the truth from her perspective.

 

[Bill Williams]

No, I am not tweeting Porta a Porta. You are lying. But above all, you are talking about the poster. It's time the moderators take care of removing these posts.

When the poster in question participates in a five-year internet campaign to convince the English-language online sites about something diametrically opposite to what the Italian courts eventually found, that poster is fair game to have that PR campaign addressed.

 

[Bill Williams]

No, I am not tweeting Porta a Porta. You are lying. But above all, you are talking about the poster. It's time the moderators take care of removing these posts.

Posters in this thread have been warned about calling other posters liars.

Please do me a kindness - please remind me what you tweeted *about* Porta a Porta. I very well could me mistaken, but your last explanation sounded like an attempt to lobby Porta a Porta....

.... in the same manner you lobbied Katie Couric and Chris Cuomo. In fact the claim was that Couric closed with guilter talking points as a result of intervention.

 

[Ken Dine]

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

METHINKS, since March 27th the "Guilters' have instead been trying to create some wiggle-room in the vague wording of CPP Article 530 (2).

Since Raffaele & Amanda were both adjudged to be 100% innocent, what difference does it make?

There were many Italian code sections cited in this opinion, so why dwell on one vague code section which could mean many things in different cases?