Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

There is a huge difference between the idea that the ISC could have written a more emphatic exoneration of Amanda and Raffaele and that they determined them to be less than innocent.

 

[Grinder]

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.

Geez read the law.

I never implied or said anything about Luca not thinking the kids are innocent. I doubt any report generated after a 530.2, declare innocence and if one did people in the know would be rolling their eyes.

The verdict is not a clear-cut proclamation of innocence. That's pretty much is what I've said.

Rather than keeping this going, let's suspend until someone produces a source that is knowledgeable and says that 530.2 doesn't exist. I've quoted the existing law, a legal analyst from the PI side and of course it appears in the verdict.

Do you not recall the debate about whether it was a 1 or a 2 after the verdict?

 

[Grinder]

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.

katy_did explained it on the thread. I've posted others translations. Numbers has posted his translations. I think you know perfectly well what it says.

The first paragraph says the offense never occurred or the defendant(s) definitively didn't do it.

The second paragraph says the prosecution didn't prove a case BARD.

Here's another translation -

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.

 

[Kauffer]

Geez read the law.

I never implied or said anything about Luca not thinking the kids are innocent. I doubt any report generated after a 530.2, declare innocence and if one did people in the know would be rolling their eyes.

The verdict is not a clear-cut proclamation of innocence. That's pretty much is what I've said.

Rather than keeping this going, let's suspend until someone produces a source that is knowledgeable and says that 530.2 doesn't exist. I've quoted the existing law, a legal analyst from the PI side and of course it appears in the verdict.

Do you not recall the debate about whether it was a 1 or a 2 after the verdict?

No. I've just checked Luca's article. He is not referring to the verdict. He is referring to the report itself.

Yes I'm aware of the debates. I'm not aware of any definitive clarity on these issues.

I am now going to attempt to find some. You might be vindicated! Keep your fingers crossed.

PS. I should clarify that I neither think that Luca's view is that A and R are less than innocent or that you said or implied that this was Luca's view. I should have worded my previous post better.

What you said was that the verdict was in fact a declaration by the court that they were in some sense less than innocent. Fair?

 

[Grinder]

No. I've just checked Luca's article. He is not referring to the verdict. He is referring to the report itself.

Yes I'm aware of the debates. I'm not aware of any definitive clarity on these issues.

I am now going to attempt to find some. You might be vindicated! Keep your fingers crossed.

No, he is referring to both.

Just curious as to what you think the difference is between a 1 and a 2? If they are identical, do you have any idea why there are two?

 

[Vixen]

Further to the appearance of world renowned A-list celebrity Amanda Knox "Innoscenti" BA Creative Writing (Calcutta, Failed) at Loyola Alumni, the board of fellows are pleased to announce Her Highness (and she can get very high) will partake in a post-event karaoke.

Here is a sneak preview of what we are been rehearsing all week.

------


St Amanda (for she has been beatified): (wails) I met him at the basketball cou-ourt. He turned around and smiled at me. You get the picture?

Us, the Loyola Alumni: Yes, we see.

St. A. That's when I fell for Rudy Guede-er.

<fx sound of Audi revving up>

St.A. My folks were always puttin' him down.

Alumni. Down, down.

St A. They said he came from the wrong side of town.

Alumni. Town, town.

St A. They said he was ba-ad, but I nuu he was sa-ad. Sor-ry I hurt you, Rudy Guede.

<fx sound of Audi revving and basketballs bouncing>

St. A. They said I had to find somebody nuu.

Alumni. Find somebody nuu!

St. A. I had to tell my Rudy, "We're through!" He just stood and asked me why, and all I could do was cry (fake tears, of course). Sorry, I hurt you Rudy Guede.

<fx screech of brakes>

St A. Don't do it, don't do it, don't do it!

< CRASH! Ooops!>

St. A. St. Raff came by, and we took a knife, was she hurt, of course she was, she *********** bled to death! Bleagh! Ew, she left her blood in the bidet when I washed my hands. Gross!

St. A. Gonna plead innocent, now she's go-one, Gonna plead innocent, now she's go-one...

Alumni: <frenzied applause> Encore! Do the Zombie! Aman-da, Aman-da. Seattle, Sheeattle!

 

[sept79]

Further to the appearance of world renowned A-list celebrity Amanda Knox "Innoscenti" BA Creative Writing (Calcutta, Failed) at Loyola Alumni, the board of fellows are pleased to announce Her Highness (and she can get very high) will partake in a post-event karaoke.

Here is a sneak preview of what we are been rehearsing all week.

------


St Amanda (for she has been beatified): (wails) I met him at the basketball cou-ourt. He turned around and smiled at me. You get the picture?

Us, the Loyola Alumni: Yes, we see.

St. A. That's when I fell for Rudy Guede-er.

<fx sound of Audi revving up>

St.A. My folks were always puttin' him down.

Alumni. Down, down.

St A. They said he came from the wrong side of town.

Alumni. Town, town.

St A. They said he was ba-ad, but I nuu he was sa-ad. Sor-ry I hurt you, Rudy Guede.

<fx sound of Audi revving and basketballs bouncing>

St. A. They said I had to find somebody nuu.

Alumni. Find somebody nuu!

St. A. I had to tell my Rudy, "We're through!" He just stood and asked me why, and all I could do was cry (fake tears, of course). Sorry, I hurt you Rudy Guede.

<fx screech of brakes>

St A. Don't do it, don't do it, don't do it!

< CRASH! Ooops!>

St. A. St. Raff came by, and we took a knife, was she hurt, of course she was, she *********** bled to death! Bleagh! Ew, she left her blood in the bidet when I washed my hands. Gross!

St. A. Gonna plead innocent, now she's go-one, Gonna plead innocent, now she's go-one...

Alumni: <frenzied applause> Encore! Do the Zombie! Aman-da, Aman-da. Seattle, Sheeattle!

Why do you persist in this trash talking?

 

[Kauffer]

No, he is referring to both.

Just curious as to what you think the difference is between a 1 and a 2? If they are identical, do you have any idea why there are two?

Look here:

https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_assolutoria

and here in translation:

https://translate.google.co.uk/tran...edia.org/wiki/Formula_assolutoria&prev=search

It states both 1 and 2 are full acquittals.

This is much more in keeping with my understanding and LJs than yours.

And look at this opinion:

A part of the doctrine considers that the choice of code to present a variety of formulas acquittal was a choice "not reasonable". According to Paolo Tonini

"[...] The" presumption of innocence requires, to those who accuse the burden to remove any reasonable doubt about guilt. Therefore, the alternative should be exclusively between "guilty" and "not guilty". The arguments, which lead to acquittal, they should be contained in the grounds of the judgment and did not appear in the device; otherwise could amount to interference when the formula is not fully release. " »
(Paolo Tonini, Manual of Criminal Procedure)

..which is exactly what LJ argued, I think and me, in connection with the constitutional presumption of innocence.


As for Luca, I'm happy with my understanding of his commentary.

"This article aims to be a short commentary on the final ruling concerning the Kercher murder case, the so-called Marasca Report, the one definitively closing the case by acquitting Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito after almost eight years.

But it is also intended to be a final thought about the case before leaving this chapter of my life behind me and dedicating myself to other causes.

The ruling

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 bold highlights all match up, n'est pas? "It" cannot refer to the verdict. It must refer to the report

 

[Grinder]

It states both 1 and 2 are full acquittals.

Fine source wiki that is.

What is the difference between a one and a two?

Haven't read your wiki but does it say the law doesn't really exist anymore except for old lawyers that can't accept change?

I certainly haven't said that a paragraph 2 ACQUITTAL isn't an acquittal. It is, but not the same as a 1.

Please explain the difference and why Luca anticipated less than a complete statement of innocence BECAUSE it was a paragraph 2.a

 

[Bill Williams]

The ruling

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 bold highlights all match up, n'est pas? "It" cannot refer to the verdict. It must refer to the report

Thank you for answering the question I asked another way upthread, and was referred to the OJ trial.....

 

[Grinder]

Copy and paste from your link as Google auto translated:

The formula absolutory is, to be more precise, a category of formulas, since Article. 530 cc it lists five:

Acquittal because the crime does not exist ;
Acquittal because the accused has committed the crime ;
Acquittal because the offense is not completed ;
Acquittal because the fact is not required by law as a crime ;
Acquittal because the offense was committed by a person not bring charges against or punished for another reason .
In the event that it might be possible to use more formulas acquittal, the judge must pronounce the formula more widely released.

Using links I came to this:

A part of the doctrine considers that the choice of code to present a variety of formulas acquittal was a choice "not reasonable". According to Paolo Tonini

"[...] The" presumption of innocence requires, to those who accuse the burden to remove any reasonable doubt about guilt. Therefore, the alternative should be exclusively between "guilty" and "not guilty". The arguments, which lead to acquittal, they should be contained in the grounds of the judgment and did not appear in the device; otherwise could amount to interference when the formula is not fully release. " »
( Paolo Tonini, Manual of Criminal Procedure )

So it is clear that there are shades of not guilty and Tonini doesn't think it should be...but it is. All not guilties are not equal a 1 is complete and a 2 isn't.

 

[Grinder]

Thank you for answering the question I asked another way upthread, and was referred to the OJ trial.....

Bill why don't you contact Luca? Ask him if the two paragraph have any differences in meaning.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill why don't you contact Luca? Ask him if the two paragraph have any differences in meaning.

It's not my issue. Why would I contact Luca on this? It has already been adequately explained here, and it is time to move on.

 

[Grinder]

The ruling

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 bold highlights all match up, n'est pas? "It" cannot refer to the verdict. It must refer to the report

The point was that paragraph 2 has a meaning and because it had the meaning of being a lesser form of not guilty IT being the report was consistent with the verdict in being a clear-cut proclamation of innocence. If it had been a paragraph 1 it would have been expected to be a clear-cut proclamation of innocence is my position.

He is talking about both the verdict and the report - but if for some reason you want him to be only talking about the report well you can think that free of thought and all that.

 

[Grinder]

It's not my issue. Why would I contact Luca on this? It has already been adequately explained here, and it is time to move on.

Well since you seem interested and have a way to contact him, I thought it reasonable.

 

[Kauffer]

Fine source wiki that is.

1) What is the difference between a one and a two?

2) Haven't read your wiki but does it say the law doesn't really exist anymore except for old lawyers that can't accept change?

3) I certainly haven't said that a paragraph 2 ACQUITTAL isn't an acquittal. It is, but not the same as a 1.

4) Please explain the difference and why Luca anticipated less than a complete statement of innocence BECAUSE it was a paragraph 2.a

1) The wiki example is that the "murder" was in fact a death by natural causes - that gets a 1! In other words, no crime exists. It seems pretty much to be suggesting that that is what 1 is all about.

2) No it doesn't - but we seem to be in a different ball game with this.

3) You said or at least implied that 2 was not a full acquittal.

4) The wiki explains the difference. You'll have to ask Luca about his thinking. Show him the wiki - he might adopt a different view.

 

[Kauffer]

The point was that paragraph 2 has a meaning and because it had the meaning of being a lesser form of not guilty IT being the report was consistent with the verdict in being a clear-cut proclamation of innocence. If it had been a paragraph 1 it would have been expected to be a clear-cut proclamation of innocence is my position.

He is talking about both the verdict and the report - but if for some reason you want him to be only talking about the report well you can think that free of thought and all that.

Para 2 is not a "lesser form of not guilty". I think I have demonstrated that, if you accept the source I provided.

If not, I don't know how I can help you.

An Italian law professor? What if he or she is wrong? How would you know?

 

[Kauffer]

Copy and paste from your link as Google auto translated:

The formula absolutory is, to be more precise, a category of formulas, since Article. 530 cc it lists five:

Acquittal because the crime does not exist ;
Acquittal because the accused has committed the crime ;
Acquittal because the offense is not completed ;
Acquittal because the fact is not required by law as a crime ;
Acquittal because the offense was committed by a person not bring charges against or punished for another reason .
In the event that it might be possible to use more formulas acquittal, the judge must pronounce the formula more widely released.

Using links I came to this:

A part of the doctrine considers that the choice of code to present a variety of formulas acquittal was a choice "not reasonable". According to Paolo Tonini

"[...] The" presumption of innocence requires, to those who accuse the burden to remove any reasonable doubt about guilt. Therefore, the alternative should be exclusively between "guilty" and "not guilty". The arguments, which lead to acquittal, they should be contained in the grounds of the judgment and did not appear in the device; otherwise could amount to interference when the formula is not fully release. " »
( Paolo Tonini, Manual of Criminal Procedure )

So it is clear that there are shades of not guilty and Tonini doesn't think it should be...but it is. All not guilties are not equal a 1 is complete and a 2 isn't.

It states that 1 is because no crime was committed! That would be a categorical declaration of innocence!

If what you are arguing is that you would rather be found not guilty because there was in fact no crime for you to be charged with as opposed to being found not guilty because you didn't commit the crime for which you had been charged, that's your call. In both cases there is room for public disagreement with the verdict.

Tonini is not arguing about the existence of shades of guilt or not guilt provided by the device (530 in this case). He is arguing the opposite! Tonini does not differentiate between qualitative differences in acquittals.

The wiki states that both 1 and 2 are full acquittals. Couldn't be clearer - surely?

 

[Bill Williams]

Well since you seem interested and have a way to contact him, I thought it reasonable.

1) I was interested in the manner I expressed, and am now satisfied that Kauffer and LondonJohn have a handle on this. #2 is not a lesser form of not guilty, or a lesser form of "because they did not commit the act."
2) Everybody has a way to contact everyone!
3) you have a right to regard things as reasonable. I'm not sure what to say beyond that.

 

[Grinder]

Copy and paste from your link as Google auto translated:

The formula absolutory is, to be more precise, a category of formulas, since Article. 530 cc it lists five:

Acquittal because the crime does not exist ;
Acquittal because the accused has committed the crime ;
Acquittal because the offense is not completed ;
Acquittal because the fact is not required by law as a crime ;
Acquittal because the offense was committed by a person not bring charges against or punished for another reason .
In the event that it might be possible to use more formulas acquittal, the judge must pronounce the formula more widely released.

Using links I came to this:

A part of the doctrine considers that the choice of code to present a variety of formulas acquittal was a choice "not reasonable". According to Paolo Tonini

"[...] The" presumption of innocence requires, to those who accuse the burden to remove any reasonable doubt about guilt. Therefore, the alternative should be exclusively between "guilty" and "not guilty". The arguments, which lead to acquittal, they should be contained in the grounds of the judgment and did not appear in the device; otherwise could amount to interference when the formula is not fully release. " »
( Paolo Tonini, Manual of Criminal Procedure )

So it is clear that there are shades of not guilty and Tonini doesn't think it should be...but it is. All not guilties are not equal a 1 is complete and a 2 isn't.

It states that 1 is because no crime was committed! That would be a categorical declaration of innocence!

The highlighted portion says Acquittal because the accused has committed the crime
That makes no sense. Not guilty because they committed the crime.

If what you are arguing is that you would rather be found not guilty because there was in fact no crime for you to be charged with as opposed to being found not guilty because you didn't commit the crime for which you had been charged, that's your call. In both cases there is room for public disagreement with the verdict.

No I didn't say that but if that makes it better for you...

Paragraph one is not just for no crime occurring.

Tonini is not arguing about the existence of shades of guilt or not guilt provided by the device (530 in this case). He is arguing the opposite! Tonini does not differentiate between qualitative differences in acquittals.

Tonini is opposed to the current law because it has shades of not guilty - reread what he says.

The wiki states that both 1 and 2 are full acquittals. Couldn't be clearer - surely?

You certainly have a difficult time getting what I have said clearly. Both paragraph 1 and 2 are full acquittals but paragraph one is a clear statement of innocence while 2 is saying there is not enough for conviction.

In most cases brought to court there is a case of some sort to get past summary judgment but not all result in convictions because of BARD.

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.

you seriously don't see any difference? you do see that under 1 there is the option "the accused did not commit it" while under two has "insufficient,contradictory or lacking proof.." you really don't see the difference? really?