Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

Jeeeeez

Firstly, the Marasca SC panel didn't say - and nor did it imply in any way - that if the investigators and prosecutors had done their jobs better they could have proved Knox's/Sollecito's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. What the panel did was point out the obvious: the grotesque errors of incompetence, omission and malpractice made it effectively impossible for the police ever to solve this crime to a satisfactory level.

Secondly, I don't know why this needs to be repeated so very often, but I'll bold it to make it more visible: 530.1 and 530.2 are, in practice, outdated clauses which are meaningless in respect of the final finding of the court (guilt or non-guilt). There are no longer any degrees of acquittal in Italian criminal courts. That section of the code needs to be either rewritten or struck out entirely. But while it's still there, and while judges are required to refer to it in their motivations, the adopted convention appears to be that they employ 530.1 where there is clear-cut innocence on the part of the accused or where it was judged that no crime was ever even committed, and 530.2 for every other type of acquittal on the facts.

So, in that respect, the acquittal of Knox and Sollecito by Marasca's SC panel on a 530.2 basis is every bit as strong as every single acquittal in a court in the US or England/Wales. And just as acquittals in US or E/W courts can in effect range all the way from "the prosecution just narrowly failed to meet its burden of proof" through to "the prosecution offered zero credible, reliable evidence of the guilt of the accused", so the same range applies to any 530.2 acquittal in Italy. And Marasca's report makes it abundantly clear that Knox's and Sollecito's acquittal was right down at the "zero credible, reliable evidence of guilt" end of that scale.

But if Grinder is determined to cling to this issue, then so be it. That's the end of my contribution to this issue though..........

LJ, I think it's imperative NOT to ignore the words "if" and "could". Those are million dollar words. "If" I had a billion dollars I "could" live in a big house on an ocean beach . But I "don't" so I "can't".

Growing up my father use to always tell me "if is a condition contrary to fact".

Essentially they are saying "if there was any damn evidence we could convict the couple" "if the police and prosecutor had done their job and brought to the court a case with real evidence, we might be able to agree to the State's case.

It's a throw away line designed to soften the rejection. But it is still very much a rejection.

It's like a woman saying to you No, I won't go out with you, but saying it isn't you, its them.

Do you believe that? Neither does she.

 

[Bill Williams]

Jeeeeez

Firstly, the Marasca SC panel didn't say - and nor did it imply in any way - that if the investigators and prosecutors had done their jobs better they could have proved Knox's/Sollecito's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. What the panel did was point out the obvious: the grotesque errors of incompetence, omission and malpractice made it effectively impossible for the police ever to solve this crime to a satisfactory level.

Secondly, I don't know why this needs to be repeated so very often, but I'll bold it to make it more visible: 530.1 and 530.2 are, in practice, outdated clauses which are meaningless in respect of the final finding of the court (guilt or non-guilt). There are no longer any degrees of acquittal in Italian criminal courts. That section of the code needs to be either rewritten or struck out entirely. But while it's still there, and while judges are required to refer to it in their motivations, the adopted convention appears to be that they employ 530.1 where there is clear-cut innocence on the part of the accused or where it was judged that no crime was ever even committed, and 530.2 for every other type of acquittal on the facts.

So, in that respect, the acquittal of Knox and Sollecito by Marasca's SC panel on a 530.2 basis is every bit as strong as every single acquittal in a court in the US or England/Wales. And just as acquittals in US or E/W courts can in effect range all the way from "the prosecution just narrowly failed to meet its burden of proof" through to "the prosecution offered zero credible, reliable evidence of the guilt of the accused", so the same range applies to any 530.2 acquittal in Italy. And Marasca's report makes it abundantly clear that Knox's and Sollecito's acquittal was right down at the "zero credible, reliable evidence of guilt" end of that scale.

But if Grinder is determined to cling to this issue, then so be it. That's the end of my contribution to this issue though..........

LJ, I think it's imperative NOT to ignore the words "if" and "could". Those are million dollar words. "If" I had a billion dollars I "could" live in a big house on an ocean beach . But I "don't" so I "can't".

Growing up my father use to always tell me "if is a condition contrary to fact".

Essentially they are saying "if there was any damn evidence we could convict the couple" "if the police and prosecutor had done their job and brought to the court a case with real evidence, we might be able to agree to the State's case.

It's a throw away line designed to soften the rejection. But it is still very much a rejection.

It's like a woman saying to you No, I won't go out with you, but saying it isn't you, its them.

Do you believe that? Neither does she.

Of course, everyone has their own reasons for wanting to continually stir the pot. Knox is speaking soon at an American Catholic university, billed as one of the most famous exonerees ever. On the Twitter announcement of this are all the usual suspects, thinking that if they can spew venom on either Knox or the Jesuits, then somehow people's eyes will be opened.....

...... and they will see that Marasca is really saying that she's guilty, it's just that the cops and prosecutors blew it.

When, as pointed out, Marasca is really saying, "If they'd done their job we'd be in a position to know one way or the other."

So.... is RS/AK innocent or merely not guilty? Given that their legal status in Italy never once changed from innocent...... and their factual status completely depends on how you would use "really" in a sentence....

 

[Grinder]

Jeeeeez

Firstly, the Marasca SC panel didn't say - and nor did it imply in any way - that if the investigators and prosecutors had done their jobs better they could have proved Knox's/Sollecito's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. What the panel did was point out the obvious: the grotesque errors of incompetence, omission and malpractice made it effectively impossible for the police ever to solve this crime to a satisfactory level.

Secondly, I don't know why this needs to be repeated so very often, but I'll bold it to make it more visible: 530.1 and 530.2 are, in practice, outdated clauses which are meaningless in respect of the final finding of the court (guilt or non-guilt). There are no longer any degrees of acquittal in Italian criminal courts. That section of the code needs to be either rewritten or struck out entirely. But while it's still there, and while judges are required to refer to it in their motivations, the adopted convention appears to be that they employ 530.1 where there is clear-cut innocence on the part of the accused or where it was judged that no crime was ever even committed, and 530.2 for every other type of acquittal on the facts.

So, in that respect, the acquittal of Knox and Sollecito by Marasca's SC panel on a 530.2 basis is every bit as strong as every single acquittal in a court in the US or England/Wales. And just as acquittals in US or E/W courts can in effect range all the way from "the prosecution just narrowly failed to meet its burden of proof" through to "the prosecution offered zero credible, reliable evidence of the guilt of the accused", so the same range applies to any 530.2 acquittal in Italy. And Marasca's report makes it abundantly clear that Knox's and Sollecito's acquittal was right down at the "zero credible, reliable evidence of guilt" end of that scale.

We have another verdict for "the prosecution offered zero credible, reliable evidence of the guilt of the accused", which is summary judgment.

While you keep repeating your feeling about 520.2 and .1 it is clear that it they remain part of the code, the law, and that Italians recognize the difference. I think Luca knows more about the Italian legal system as any poster here and with his feet firmly in the kids' camps I see no reason to doubt him.

There are no longer any degrees of acquittal in Italian criminal courts. That section of the code needs to be either rewritten or struck out entirely. But while it's still there, and while judges are required to refer to it in their motivations, the adopted convention appears to be that they employ 530.1 where there is clear-cut innocence on the part of the accused or where it was judged that no crime was ever even committed, and 530.2 for every other type of acquittal on the facts.

Well the Italians think there are degrees of acquittal. The sections haven't been rewritten in the 27 years since the revision to an adversarial system (which doesn't preclude levels of innocence; not guilty, not proven) and I'm sure someone there would have noticed "they forgot" to change the law.

What the panel did was point out the obvious: the grotesque errors of incompetence, omission and malpractice made it effectively impossible for the police ever to solve this crime to a satisfactory level.

Yes that's exactly what they said. They went on about media pressure, to which they incorrectly attributed much of the poor police work including forensic work that was botched before any undo media pressure surfaced. The botched collection of the DNA from the sink happened on the 1st.

The highlighted portion is one that my reading puts me in complete agreement with the deniers. Well not quite, because I believe that it should be the "law" instead of "convention". Either way it matters to the Italians and Luca made that clear.

 

[Grinder]

I find this section interesting and wonder if we have a similar structure. The moving of the knife is thrown out because of the statute of limitations as they state there is no new evidence that proves innocence even though they say that is not necessary.

First, it should be noted that, regarding the contravention of charge B), relating
to the illegal carrying of the knife indicated in the charge, we have now passed the
statute of limitations, from the date of its commission.
There is no choice other than to accept it, without there being evidence of more
favourable reasons for acquittal based on merit, keeping in mind Article 129, second
section, Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, all the more in light of the
pronouncements of guilt in the first instance trial and the second Assizes Appeal
Court.
Moreover, according to undisputed guidance of this Court of Legitimacy the
formula of acquittal on merit prevails on the declaration of impossibility to proceed
due to the statute of limitations only if there is detectable, with a simple analysis of
the evidence, total absence of proof of guilt borne by the accused rather than
positive proof of innocence, and not also in the case of mere contradiction or lack of
evidence that requires a pondered consideration between opposing findings (Sec. 6,
n. 10284 of 22/01/2014, Culicchia, Rv . 259,445).

 

[Numbers]

I find this section interesting and wonder if we have a similar structure. The moving of the knife is thrown out because of the statute of limitations as they state there is no new evidence that proves innocence even though they say that is not necessary.

First, it should be noted that, regarding the contravention of charge B), relating
to the illegal carrying of the knife indicated in the charge, we have now passed the
statute of limitations, from the date of its commission.
There is no choice other than to accept it, without there being evidence of more
favourable reasons for acquittal based on merit, keeping in mind Article 129, second
section, Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, all the more in light of the
pronouncements of guilt in the first instance trial and the second Assizes Appeal
Court.
Moreover, according to undisputed guidance of this Court of Legitimacy the
formula of acquittal on merit prevails on the declaration of impossibility to proceed
due to the statute of limitations only if there is detectable, with a simple analysis of
the evidence, total absence of proof of guilt borne by the accused rather than
positive proof of innocence, and not also in the case of mere contradiction or lack of
evidence that requires a pondered consideration between opposing findings (Sec. 6,
n. 10284 of 22/01/2014, Culicchia, Rv . 259,445).

Grinder,
Thanks for pointing out this section. I too found its language very confusing. The Marasca CSC panel may be saying:

Even though the charge is now time-barred, there is no proof of innocence on this, therefore....what? Well, we can't say you are not guilty.
-----
The problem is that if that is what the Marasca MR is stating, then their is a violation of the Convention, Article 6.2. [And I hope no one is confusing the term "the Convention", meaning the European Convention on Human Rights, with the term "convention" in any other meaning.]

 

[acbytesla]

Grinder,
Thanks for pointing out this section. I too found its language very confusing. The Marasca CSC panel may be saying:

Even though the charge is now time-barred, there is no proof of innocence on this, therefore....what? Well, we can't say you are not guilty.
-----
The problem is that if that is what the Marasca MR is stating, then their is a violation of the Convention, Article 6.2. [And I hope no one is confusing the term "the Convention", meaning the European Convention on Human Rights, with the term "convention" in any other meaning.]

Wow!! Is it just me? IMV, this is just a typical convoluted ltalian way of saying that the State didn't prove that they are guilty but it is impractical even impossible that sending it back for a 4th review will result in any fairer decision.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder,
Thanks for pointing out this section. I too found its language very confusing. The Marasca CSC panel may be saying:

Even though the charge is now time-barred, there is no proof of innocence on this, therefore....what? Well, we can't say you are not guilty.
-----
The problem is that if that is what the Marasca MR is stating, then their is a violation of the Convention, Article 6.2. [And I hope no one is confusing the term "the Convention", meaning the European Convention on Human Rights, with the term "convention" in any other meaning.]

I read it that they are saying without something new or a total error in thinking they must acquit on statute of limitations. They make clear that the defendants must not prove innocence but it would better if they could.

Moreover, according to undisputed guidance of this Court of Legitimacy the
formula of acquittal on merit prevails on the declaration of impossibility to proceed
due to the statute of limitations only if there is detectable, with a simple analysis of
the evidence, total absence of proof of guilt borne by the accused rather than
positive proof of innocence

 

[Numbers]

I read it that they are saying without something new or a total error in thinking they must acquit on statute of limitations. They make clear that the defendants must not prove innocence but it would better if they could.

Moreover, according to undisputed guidance of this Court of Legitimacy the
formula of acquittal on merit prevails on the declaration of impossibility to proceed
due to the statute of limitations only if there is detectable, with a simple analysis of
the evidence, total absence of proof of guilt borne by the accused rather than
positive proof of innocence

The problem with how you have analyzed the CSC wording - which may indeed be what they were trying to say - is that it is against Italian law and the Convention. There was never any proof or evidence whatsoever that Raffaele's kitchen knife was carried from his apartment to the cottage. That is merely a prosecution assumption or conjecture (as is, for example, the staged break-in). There was no blood detected in Amanda's purse and no cuts in Amanda's purse that would indicated such carriage, and no one testified that there was a knife in her purse, with the possible exception of Kokomani (sp?), whose testimony was fully non-credible.

So the Marasca MR on the topic of carrying the knife should state that the charge is time-barred, and that there was no evidence presented to support the charge. Since there was no evidence, the presumption of innocence remains unchallenged. All the rest of their verbiage seems to be an attempt at double-talk.

 

[acbytesla]

I read it that they are saying without something new or a total error in thinking they must acquit on statute of limitations. They make clear that the defendants must not prove innocence but it would better if they could.

Moreover, according to undisputed guidance of this Court of Legitimacy the
formula of acquittal on merit prevails on the declaration of impossibility to proceed
due to the statute of limitations only if there is detectable, with a simple analysis of
the evidence, total absence of proof of guilt borne by the accused rather than
positive proof of innocence

Well duh. It would always be better if a suspect could prove unequivocally that they couldn't be guilty. But if they could have done that there likely would never have been a trial at all!

 

[Planigale]

I find this section interesting and wonder if we have a similar structure. The moving of the knife is thrown out because of the statute of limitations as they state there is no new evidence that proves innocence even though they say that is not necessary.

First, it should be noted that, regarding the contravention of charge B), relating
to the illegal carrying of the knife indicated in the charge, we have now passed the
statute of limitations, from the date of its commission.
There is no choice other than to accept it, without there being evidence of more
favourable reasons for acquittal based on merit, keeping in mind Article 129, second
section, Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, all the more in light of the
pronouncements of guilt in the first instance trial and the second Assizes Appeal
Court.
Moreover, according to undisputed guidance of this Court of Legitimacy the
formula of acquittal on merit prevails on the declaration of impossibility to proceed
due to the statute of limitations only if there is detectable, with a simple analysis of
the evidence, total absence of proof of guilt borne by the accused rather than
positive proof of innocence, and not also in the case of mere contradiction or lack of
evidence that requires a pondered consideration between opposing findings (Sec. 6,
n. 10284 of 22/01/2014, Culicchia, Rv . 259,445).

My take on this is that if the statute of limitations applies the court is required to dismiss the case with no finding of guilty or not guilty.
This is regrettable since a finding of guilt has been returned by previous courts. The only exception would be if the prosecution presented no effective case (total absence of proof of guilt) rather then defence being able to refute the prosecutions case.

I think the cassation are saying they would prefer to be able to return a not guilty verdict, rather than the stigma of the case being dismissed due to statute of limitations which might leave some to argue the verdict was determined on a technicality with Knox never being found not guilty of carrying a knife.

 

[Grinder]

My take on this is that if the statute of limitations applies the court is required to dismiss the case with no finding of guilty or not guilty.
This is regrettable since a finding of guilt has been returned by previous courts. The only exception would be if the prosecution presented no effective case (total absence of proof of guilt) rather then defence being able to refute the prosecutions case.

I think the cassation are saying they would prefer to be able to return a not guilty verdict, rather than the stigma of the case being dismissed due to statute of limitations which might leave some to argue the verdict was determined on a technicality with Knox never being found not guilty of carrying a knife.

The difference is not significant but I think they are saying they must acquit for merit rather than statute if the it is detectable, with a "simple analysis of
the evidence, total absence of proof of guilt borne by the accused" and then add that the accused need not prove innocence.

What a weird idea that the ISC will look at a conviction by the court of the second instance and say "hey that guilty verdict on such and such, there was a total absence of proof of guilt" without anything new being introduced.

Maybe I'm saying exactly what you said.

 

[Grinder]

From Nencini:

In any case, what matters is not whether Rudy Hermann Guede entered the apartment with
Amanda Marie Knox and Raffaele Sollecito or if Meredith Kercher opened the door for him
(the only possible options, excluding the entrance via the window of Filomena Romanelli’s
bedroom); what’s important is that, at a certain point, most likely between 9:30 and 10:00p.m. the night of November 1st, 2007, both of the defendants and Rudy Hermann Guede were
certainly within the cottage, and Meredith Kercher in her bedroom

What about Curatolo - Vixen what does Leek say about this?

 

[Grinder]

From Marasca:

Now, for all that the sentimental relationship between Sollecito and Knox is
undisputed, and for all that it has been established that the young woman did have
occasion to meet Guede in a few instances, there is no proof at all that Sollecito was
acquainted with or had ever frequented the Ivorian. On this point it is certainly
contradictory and manifestly illogical to [on the one hand] acknowledge (at f. 91)
the unreasonableness of hypothesising the participation in such a “gory” murder in complicity with a stranger in ruling out any notion of involvement on the part of flatmates Filomena Romanelli and Laura Mezzetti (who, certainly, did not know Guede), and [on the other hand] not extend the same argument to Sollecito, who turns out never to have even met the Ivorian.

I've checked Nencini and can't find this referred to analysis. Rather Nencini says they couldn't be involved because they were somewhere else.

Anybody have a recollection of Nencini saying anything about excluding F and L because they didn't know Rudi?

 

[Kauffer]

We have another verdict for "the prosecution offered zero credible, reliable evidence of the guilt of the accused", which is summary judgment.

While you keep repeating your feeling about 520.2 and .1 it is clear that it they remain part of the code, the law, and that Italians recognize the difference. I think Luca knows more about the Italian legal system as any poster here and with his feet firmly in the kids' camps I see no reason to doubt him.



Well the Italians think there are degrees of acquittal.The sections haven't been rewritten in the 27 years since the revision to an adversarial system (which doesn't preclude levels of innocence; not guilty, not proven) and I'm sure someone there would have noticed "they forgot" to change the law.



Yes that's exactly what they said. They went on about media pressure, to which they incorrectly attributed much of the poor police work including forensic work that was botched before any undo media pressure surfaced. The botched collection of the DNA from the sink happened on the 1st.

The highlighted portion is one that my reading puts me in complete agreement with the deniers. Well not quite, because I believe that it should be the "law" instead of "convention". Either way it matters to the Italians and Luca made that clear.

Do they? Which Italians? I see nothing in the code that comes even close to justifying your previous claim that the court found A and R less than innocent (or whatever wording you used). The constitution presumes innocence until or unless final conviction is confirmed. When, pray tell, did they lose this?

As for Luca - he is not a lawyer. Additionally, he wrote one short sentence referring obliquely to the verdict. You seem to be taking rather a lot for granted with regard to his views on the subject and the views of other Italians. You have cited no learned authority to demonstrate that these "views", even if they are held, are appropriate. As for noticing a failure to change the law, firstly, you need to be aware that this is essentially the preserve of the legislature not the judiciary and there has been an extraordinary difficulty in getting sufficient agreement in Parliament to effect important changes in law, let alone the tidying up exercise which appears to be required with 530.

Indeed, it took many years and much badgering by the C of E in order for an article 6 finding at the ECHR to be recognised as one of the mandatory triggers of a review of trial. But it did not come from the legislature. They had a flight of dietrology and failed to pass one. It was left to the constitutional court to make an extraordinary alteration. There are numerous examples of laws which need rewrites and expungement but have not been touched and others which were dealt with after much time had passed after the realisation that they needed changing.

But with regard to 530:1, what examples can you come up with, of cases where this verdict has been applied - say in the last 5 years? How many? I would suggest that the Italian legal culture ensures that it does not happen often. I would also suggest that there is likely to be little support for your idea that 530:2 is "less than innocent" or whatever you said.

 

[Bill Williams]

Do they? Which Italians? I see nothing in the code that comes even close to justifying your previous claim that the court found A and R less than innocent (or whatever wording you used). The constitution presumes innocence until or unless final conviction is confirmed. When, pray tell, did they lose this?

As for Luca - he is not a lawyer. Additionally, he wrote one short sentence referring obliquely to the verdict. You seem to be taking rather a lot for granted with regard to his views on the subject and the views of other Italians. You have cited no learned authority to demonstrate that these "views", even if they are held, are appropriate. As for noticing a failure to change the law, firstly, you need to be aware that this is essentially the preserve of the legislature not the judiciary and there has been an extraordinary difficulty in getting sufficient agreement in Parliament to effect important changes in law, let alone the tidying up exercise which appears to be required with 530.

Indeed, it took many years and much badgering by the C of E in order for an article 6 finding at the ECHR to be recognised as one of the mandatory triggers of a review of trial. But it did not come from the legislature. They had a flight of dietrology and failed to pass one. It was left to the constitutional court to make an extraordinary alteration. There are numerous examples of laws which need rewrites and expungement but have not been touched and others which were dealt with after much time had passed after the realisation that they needed changing.

But with regard to 530:1, what examples can you come up with, of cases where this verdict has been applied - say in the last 5 years? How many? I would suggest that the Italian legal culture ensures that it does not happen often. I would also suggest that there is likely to be little support for your idea that 530:2 is "less than innocent" or whatever you said.

He actually DID cite "learned authorities" and this relates back to the reason for stirring the pot.

These learned authorities were IIP, FOA and "Knox-supporters", as if because one of those number said something - in or out of context - the proper thing for all the other IIP, FOA or "Knox-supporters" was to simply agree. That pot has been continually stirred.

So not rising to the bait, but adopting the method that CNN legal analyst Jeffery Toobin adopted in relation to this case - let's cut to the chase, rather than get embroiled in the reasons why the pot might be stirred.

Marasca cited this reason for the acquittal - "because they did not commit the act." Sections 1 thru 8 in the Marasca report are clear why his court could not determine if AK and/or RS had done anything in relation to this, because the investigation and the legal-knots tied over 8 years made it impossible to tell.

Innocent they began and innocent they left the process, "because they did not commit the act."

My reading of Luca Cheli is similar to yours. He wrote one short sentence referring obliquely to the verdict, and a lot of other stuff needs to be presumed, so that the pot will remain stirred.

 

[Grinder]

Do they? Which Italians? I see nothing in the code that comes even close to justifying your previous claim that the court found A and R less than innocent (or whatever wording you used). The constitution presumes innocence until or unless final conviction is confirmed. When, pray tell, did they lose this?

As for Luca - he is not a lawyer. Additionally, he wrote one short sentence referring obliquely to the verdict. You seem to be taking rather a lot for granted with regard to his views on the subject and the views of other Italians. You have cited no learned authority to demonstrate that these "views", even if they are held, are appropriate. As for noticing a failure to change the law, firstly, you need to be aware that this is essentially the preserve of the legislature not the judiciary and there has been an extraordinary difficulty in getting sufficient agreement in Parliament to effect important changes in law, let alone the tidying up exercise which appears to be required with 530.

Indeed, it took many years and much badgering by the C of E in order for an article 6 finding at the ECHR to be recognised as one of the mandatory triggers of a review of trial. But it did not come from the legislature. They had a flight of dietrology and failed to pass one. It was left to the constitutional court to make an extraordinary alteration. There are numerous examples of laws which need rewrites and expungement but have not been touched and others which were dealt with after much time had passed after the realisation that they needed changing.

But with regard to 530:1, what examples can you come up with, of cases where this verdict has been applied - say in the last 5 years? How many? I would suggest that the Italian legal culture ensures that it does not happen often. I would also suggest that there is likely to be little support for your idea that 530:2 is "less than innocent" or whatever you said.

Luca has been recognized as an expert in Italian law by the pro innocent sites for years. Perhaps I'm wrong but I don't think you are proficient in either Italian or Italian law. I have not seen any reference to a source for 530 not being what it says it is. I may recall incorrectly but I'm pretty sure there was debate about which paragraph it was and not just by non-Italians directly after the verdict.

The language seems pretty clear:

Device art. 530 Criminal Procedure Code
Sources → Criminal Procedure Code → BOOK VII - Findings → Title III - Judgment (Arts. 525-548) → Chapter II - Decision → Section I - Judgment of acquittal
1. If the crime does not exist [ 541 2 542 ], if the accused does not commit [ 541 2 542 ], if the offense is not or is not required by law as a crime or if the crime was committed not attributable to the person [cp 85 ] or not punished for another reason, the judge pronounces the acquittal on their cause in the device.
2. The judge pronounces acquittal even when there is insufficient or contradictory evidence that the thing certain, that the accused committed it, that constitutes a criminal offense or the offense was committed by a person due (1) .
3 . If there is evidence that the act was committed in the presence of a justification or a personal cause for exemption from punishment or there is doubt about the existence of the same, the judge shall render a judgment of acquittal pursuant to paragraph 1.
4. With the acquittal the court shall apply in the cases provided by law, the security measures [ 537 ].

I would suggest that most paragraph 1 verdicts are at the trial of the first instance level but that's just a guess. The Italian PGP have been saying it is unheard of to have the ISC reverse a verdict without a technical error and then it should be sent back the second instance.

If you have a way of checking Italian court cases for verdicts, go for it.

 

[Grinder]

He actually DID cite "learned authorities" and this relates back to the reason for stirring the pot.

These learned authorities were IIP, FOA and "Knox-supporters", as if because one of those number said something - in or out of context - the proper thing for all the other IIP, FOA or "Knox-supporters" was to simply agree. That pot has been continually stirred.

So not rising to the bait, but adopting the method that CNN legal analyst Jeffery Toobin adopted in relation to this case - let's cut to the chase, rather than get embroiled in the reasons why the pot might be stirred.

Marasca cited this reason for the acquittal - "because they did not commit the act." Sections 1 thru 8 in the Marasca report are clear why his court could not determine if AK and/or RS had done anything in relation to this, because the investigation and the legal-knots tied over 8 years made it impossible to tell.

Innocent they began and innocent they left the process, "because they did not commit the act."

My reading of Luca Cheli is similar to yours. He wrote one short sentence referring obliquely to the verdict, and a lot of other stuff needs to be presumed, so that the pot will remain stirred.

What authority do you have for the interpretation the paragraph means nothing?

Since the acquittal is based on paragraph 2 of article 530 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for a judge to pronounce a verdict of acquittal “when evidence is lacking, insufficient or contradictory”, it was to be expected that it would not have been a clearcut, one-sided proclamation of innocence.​

The significant point from the short sentence is that 530 is recognized by an intelligent Italian versed in the law if not a lawyer. I am very, very sure that you respect and believe Luca knows what he is talking about.

Wouldn't you expect him to say something about 530 not really existing if that is what he believed?

 

[Grinder]

Here is an article posted at amandaknoxcase.com - from an Italian paper.

“Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, the evidence was insufficient”
The doubts of Gennaro Marasca, the Neapolitan judge who presided over the Supreme Court of Cassation panel that acquitted the two defendants accused of the murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia.

by Gianluca Abate, March 30, 2015

Source: «Amanda Knox e Raffaele Sollecito, le prove erano insufficienti»

Il giudice Gennaro Marasca
Judge Gennaro Marasca
Someone like him, someone who has spent a whole career condemning “the judges who speak to journalists” (the last time he did was on the board council of the Supreme Court, criticizing his colleague Antonio Esposito for the interview granted after the conviction of Silvio Berlusconi), someone like this is certainly not a magistrate to go for interviews after the verdict that has split Italy sending definitively discharged Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, defendants in the trial for the murder of British student Meredith Kercher. Yet, despite the reluctance, the judge was unable to avoid the phone calls from colleagues and friends from Naples, all looking (in vain) for any details.

And now, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Supreme Court that issued the ruling two days ago is a magistrate from Naples, Gennaro Marasca, one of the best known robes in the city. He, with the always courtesy, has limited himself to respond to everyone that the sentence will speak for itself, but that the decree of ruling issued at the end of the trial can already say many things. What acquitted Amanda and Raffaele was the same identical manner in which the former senator for life Giulio Andreotti was acquitted, that is, applying the second paragraph of Article 530 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

There is, in this Marasca explanation, most of the reasons for the judgment, since the rule states that “the judge pronounces judgment of acquittal even when it fails, is insufficient or is contradictory evidence that the fact exists or that the accused committed it.” And, not surprisingly, at the Palazzaccio [SC] Piazza Cavour in Rome, it is noted that an article of the law is rarely indicated (as in this case) in a decree of ruling of the Court of Cassation.

Unfortunately it doesn't explain why it is rarely indicated. Is it because the law doesn't really exist or is it because the ISC rarely finds people innocent.

 

[Kauffer]

What authority do you have for the interpretation the paragraph means nothing?

Since the acquittal is based on paragraph 2 of article 530 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for a judge to pronounce a verdict of acquittal “when evidence is lacking, insufficient or contradictory”, it was to be expected that it would not have been a clearcut, one-sided proclamation of innocence.​

The significant point from the short sentence is that 530 is recognized by an intelligent Italian versed in the law if not a lawyer. I am very, very sure that you respect and believe Luca knows what he is talking about.

Wouldn't you expect him to say something about 530 not really existing if that is what he believed?

You can also read what Luca has written as a reference to the thrust of the report itself. As in, following the acquittal the report is not "a clear cut, one-sided proclamation of innocence". I hardly see that you can read into the language that Luca's view is that A and R are less than innocent, or whatever you said. Indeed, it may well be the case that some reports generated after a 530:2 are indeed a "proclamation of innocence". It would not be "expected" according to Luca, but he does not preclude the possibility.

 

[Kauffer]

Luca has been recognized as an expert in Italian law by the pro innocent sites for years. Perhaps I'm wrong but I don't think you are proficient in either Italian or Italian law. I have not seen any reference to a source for 530 not being what it says it is. I may recall incorrectly but I'm pretty sure there was debate about which paragraph it was and not just by non-Italians directly after the verdict.

The language seems pretty clear:

Device art. 530 Criminal Procedure Code
Sources → Criminal Procedure Code → BOOK VII - Findings → Title III - Judgment (Arts. 525-548) → Chapter II - Decision → Section I - Judgment of acquittal
1. If the crime does not exist [ 541 2 542 ], if the accused does not commit [ 541 2 542 ], if the offense is not or is not required by law as a crime or if the crime was committed not attributable to the person [cp 85 ] or not punished for another reason, the judge pronounces the acquittal on their cause in the device.
2. The judge pronounces acquittal even when there is insufficient or contradictory evidence that the thing certain, that the accused committed it, that constitutes a criminal offense or the offense was committed by a person due (1) .
3 . If there is evidence that the act was committed in the presence of a justification or a personal cause for exemption from punishment or there is doubt about the existence of the same, the judge shall render a judgment of acquittal pursuant to paragraph 1.
4. With the acquittal the court shall apply in the cases provided by law, the security measures [ 537 ].

I would suggest that most paragraph 1 verdicts are at the trial of the first instance level but that's just a guess. The Italian PGP have been saying it is unheard of to have the ISC reverse a verdict without a technical error and then it should be sent back the second instance.

If you have a way of checking Italian court cases for verdicts, go for it.

The language in translation isn't clear at all. You think so? Go ahead and clarify its meaning point by point then. I feel I am being psychically pushed here to find a learned Italian source to clear all this confusion up for you.

Let's see what I can find....might be a day or two.

Who cares what PGP think about this? Unless you think, like John Kercher, that they are infused with independent lawyers expert in these matters.

Luca is knowledgeable, but he is not an Italian legal expert. Neither am I.