Continuation Part 18: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

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



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



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?

It's no good reproducing the translation of the code again. We know you have problems toggling between the Italian and the English in a search for meaning. Sometimes you contend that meaning is obvious, when it suits your argument. At other times, you contend it is opaque, when citations are produced against your position. Indeed, you have to read the original language in the context of the legal culture. That's why all this stuff is terribly difficult for non Italians - for both lawyers and non lawyers.

And here is a case in point:

In Italian, it reads:

"Assoluzione perché l'imputato non ha commesso il fatto"

I guess the use of "non" may deal with your perplexity on this point.

And para 1 is explained by:

"Assoluzione perché il fatto non sussiste"

As for Tonini, in the citation, he expresses absolutely no agreement with a position supportive of the view - your view, that there are different shades of guilt and absolution, including your own position that a para 2 acquittal means that A and R are deemed by the court or the system to be "less than totally innocent".

 

[Caper]

Generation Why podcast did an update on the Amanda Knox case. The covered it twice before. The 1st, they basically called her guilty. The 2nd episode was more balanced and now they do an update on the case. Here it is. Starts at about the 4 min mark.

http://thegenerationwhypodcast.com/updates-2015-147-generation-why

I still think they get some stuff wrong. Maybe some of the bigger experts in the case can give it a listen.

 

[Samson]

Generation Why podcast did an update on the Amanda Knox case. The covered it twice before. The 1st, they basically called her guilty. The 2nd episode was more balanced and now they do an update on the case. Here it is. Starts at about the 4 min mark.

http://thegenerationwhypodcast.com/updates-2015-147-generation-why

I still think they get some stuff wrong. Maybe some of the bigger experts in the case can give it a listen.

Good work Caper. I will listen, and I feel without more information that a few others will and comment. Oxygen.

 

[analemma]

Generation Why podcast did an update on the Amanda Knox case. The covered it twice before. The 1st, they basically called her guilty. The 2nd episode was more balanced and now they do an update on the case. Here it is. Starts at about the 4 min mark.

http://thegenerationwhypodcast.com/updates-2015-147-generation-why

I still think they get some stuff wrong. Maybe some of the bigger experts in the case can give it a listen.

They actually get a lot wrong.
They have a clear bias against Amanda Knox
All they had to do was quote the following statement from the ISC"the use of logic and intuition cannot, in any way, compensate for the lack of evidence or the inefficiency of the investigations. Faced with missing, insufficient or contradictory evidence, the judge should simply accept it and issue a verdict of acquittal, according to Article 530, section 2 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, even if he is really convinced of the guilt of the defendant."
Instead they say that they thought Knox was really shaky and had accused an innocent man and never apologized and a bunch of other BS that really did not address what the Motivation said: "that the whole thing was a media inspired which hunt."
There were plenty of quotations that could have been repeated to explain the truth of the Movivation, but like everyone else, they had declared Knox guilty in earlier broadcasts and were forced to justify their earlier mistake, by saying there was "plenty of evidence", which was in complete contradiction to the final Italian ruling.
I wonder if they even read the Motivation.

 

[carbonjam72]

They actually get a lot wrong.
They have a clear bias against Amanda Knox
All they had to do was quote the following statement from the ISC"the use of logic and intuition cannot, in any way, compensate for the lack of evidence or the inefficiency of the investigations. Faced with missing, insufficient or contradictory evidence, the judge should simply accept it and issue a verdict of acquittal, according to Article 530, section 2 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, even if he is really convinced of the guilt of the defendant."
Instead they say that they thought Knox was really shaky and had accused an innocent man and never apologized and a bunch of other BS that really did not address what the Motivation said: "that the whole thing was a media inspired which hunt."
There were plenty of quotations that could have been repeated to explain the truth of the Movivation, but like everyone else, they had declared Knox guilty in earlier broadcasts and were forced to justify their earlier mistake, by saying there was "plenty of evidence", which was in complete contradiction to the final Italian ruling.
I wonder if they even read the Motivation.

I listened to one of their earlier broadcasts, I think justifying the Hellman acquittal, while claiming there to be some doubt, but on balance, asserting somewhat snarkily, that the standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' required an acquittal.

Basically these are a couple guys who are young, immature, lazy and not terribly concerned about complete accuracy. They seem more interested in the sound of their own voices, and snarky witticisms, then doing justice to the victims of the crime, and the victims of wrongful conviction.

I've decided to skip listening to these types of lazy layman charlatans. I'm about done arguing here over irrelevant details and fake controversies.

The crazies and nitpickers can fester in their obsessions.

 

[Grinder]

It's no good reproducing the translation of the code again. We know you have problems toggling between the Italian and the English in a search for meaning. Sometimes you contend that meaning is obvious, when it suits your argument. At other times, you contend it is opaque, when citations are produced against your position. Indeed, you have to read the original language in the context of the legal culture. That's why all this stuff is terribly difficult for non Italians - for both lawyers and non lawyers.

And here is a case in point:

In Italian, it reads:

"Assoluzione perché l'imputato non ha commesso il fatto"

I guess the use of "non" may deal with your perplexity on this point.

And para 1 is explained by:

"Assoluzione perché il fatto non sussiste"

As for Tonini, in the citation, he expresses absolutely no agreement with a position supportive of the view - your view, that there are different shades of guilt and absolution, including your own position that a para 2 acquittal means that A and R are deemed by the court or the system to be "less than totally innocent".

First of all stated clearly that the page you referred to was translated for me by Google. I pointed out that the second translated line stated that the defendant was not guilty because he has committed the crime which of course made no sense.

The English translation wasn't mine in any sense but was provided by a site or Numbers - at least Numbers commented on the translation as coming from a specific book.

Except for some outlier positions here there is no source that I have seen that states the law don't really still exist.

The law is pretty clear and 1 is a complete dismissal while 2 is a less than BARD situation. In both cases the defendant is found not guilty. If I said somewhere they are less than totally innocent that would incorrect if I was saying legal they weren't found not guilty. If I said the verdict left a shadow over them then I will stand by that. I just did a search and apparently I never used the term "less than totally innocent". Could you find the offending remark so I can see what I actually said that you find in error?

Now at the bottom of the Italian wiki I found this:

Opinioni della dottrina Modifica

Una parte della dottrina ritiene che la scelta del codice di presentare una molteplicità di formule assolutorie sia stata una scelta "non ragionevole". Secondo Paolo Tonini

« [...] la "presunzione di innocenza impone, a chi accusa, l'onere di eliminare ogni ragionevole dubbio sulla reità. Pertanto, l'alternativa dovrebbe essere esclusivamente tra "colpevole" e "non colpevole". Gli argomenti, che inducono a prosciogliere, dovrebbero essere contenuti nella motivazione della sentenza e non apparire nel dispositivo; altrimenti potrebbero costituire un pregiudizio quando la formula non è totalmente liberatoria." »
(Paolo Tonini, Manuale di procedura penale)

That translated to:

Some commentators believe 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 )

From the translation I was given by the Google Gods it seemed clear that Tonini is saying that the existence of the multiple not guilty verdicts is a bad form. I'm providing the Italian so an actual Italian or Italian speaker could weigh in.

We know that there are different paragraphs in 520 with #1 being a total exoneration while #2 doesn't express the same definitive conditions.

We know that the code exists because the judges used it.

Cheli to date a well respoected legal analist for the PIP sites making it clear that the #2 verdict wouldn't be a "clearcut, one-sided proclamation of innocence." The article is very good and as recommended by BW should be read if one is interested in the verdict and the MR.

To be clear the kids were found not guilty. As Cheli and others have related this verdict and MR leave a shadow over them. My read of the MR is that the judges left doubts open some of which is clearly because of the Italian system has "... a ghost haunting the solemn corridors of the palace of the Court of Cassation in Rome. It is called, in Italian, “conflitto in giudicato” and it has always frightened the judges of Italy’s highest court." but Cheli goes on to say "...expands quite a bit on the reasons for supporting the multiple attackers theory.

Some of those reasons are the usual ones and have been debated for years, and I will not discuss them further now (lack of defensive wounds, just to quote one), but while this could just be a mechanical rehashing of corny arguments, there is also something new that makes me think the judges of the panel, or at least a majority of them, really believed in what they were writing."

I don't believe you have provided, in your own words, what the difference in a #1 and a #2 is.

Do you really believe that the MR wasn't disappointing to the kids and their team?

Do you really believe that combining the #2 and the MR that some doubt was left on the case?

 

[anglolawyer]

What are the implications of the ISC saying that Raffaele must have been with Amanda on the morning of the second, contrary to her evidence and his oral statements to the court?

 

[Grinder]

They actually get a lot wrong.
They have a clear bias against Amanda Knox
All they had to do was quote the following statement from the ISC"the use of logic and intuition cannot, in any way, compensate for the lack of evidence or the inefficiency of the investigations. Faced with missing, insufficient or contradictory evidence, the judge should simply accept it and issue a verdict of acquittal, according to Article 530, section 2 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, even if he is really convinced of the guilt of the defendant."
Instead they say that they thought Knox was really shaky and had accused an innocent man and never apologized and a bunch of other BS that really did not address what the Motivation said: "that the whole thing was a media inspired which hunt."There were plenty of quotations that could have been repeated to explain the truth of the Movivation, but like everyone else, they had declared Knox guilty in earlier broadcasts and were forced to justify their earlier mistake, by saying there was "plenty of evidence", which was in complete contradiction to the final Italian ruling.
I wonder if they even read the Motivation.

I hadn't come to the first highlight in my perusal of the MR (I had only scanned it before) which certainly is a strong statement of what #2 means to these judges. The phrase "even if he is really convinced of the guilt of the defendant" pretty much says it all.

The second highlight doesn't appear in my translation using "which" or "witch"?

 

[Grinder]

What are the implications of the ISC saying that Raffaele must have been with Amanda on the morning of the second, contrary to her evidence and his oral statements to the court?

It would seem that Cheli covered this: There is a ghost haunting the solemn corridors of the palace of the Court of Cassation in Rome. It is called, in Italian, “conflitto in giudicato” and it has always frightened the judges of Italy’s highest court.

A “conflitto in giudicato” of the worst type happens when two definitive rulings, that is two different rulings issued by Cassation’s panels to close a case, conflict about the verdict on some element of the same case.

Throughout the years, Cassation judges have always tried to dispel such a haunting presence by trying to ensure that all of their rulings were “aligned” and coherent, as much as possible.

Whereas he says the judges really believe in multiple attackers I don't think he says they really believe Raf was there but I'll need to reread the section.

ETA - does their having him there make something else work for them? Wasn't their logic that Amanda would have called him from the cottage if he wasn't there.

 

[Bill Williams]

What are the implications of the ISC saying that Raffaele must have been with Amanda on the morning of the second, contrary to her evidence and his oral statements to the court?

The implications relate far less to the factual data of the crime, than they do to the inner workings of the Italian courts.

 

[Kauffer]

The verdict does say they didn't commit the crime under paragraph 2 which defines the acquittal as less than totally innocent. Here OJ was found not guilty as well and then was sued in civil court and lost.

You could easily be right. Did the Marasca court throw out the civil suits by all the private parties?

I just did a search and apparently I never used the term "less than totally innocent". Could you find the offending remark so I can see what I actually said that you find in error?

I've cited your remark above.

 

[Grinder]

I've cited your remark above.

Thanks. I should have said that the #2 verdict leaves room for an interpretation that they weren't totally innocent, whereas a #1 wouldn't allow that interpretation.

Paragraph two does define not guilty as less than totally innocent. I didn't say that specifically A&R are less than innocent which is what you contended. But you are correct that since #2 as the court said must be used even if the judges believe the defendant is guilty and they used #2 instead of #1, they are leaving their innocence in question.

Weirdly I did another search and it still won't show - clearly you found it.

 

[anglolawyer]

It would seem that Cheli covered this: There is a ghost haunting the solemn corridors of the palace of the Court of Cassation in Rome. It is called, in Italian, “conflitto in giudicato” and it has always frightened the judges of Italy’s highest court.

A “conflitto in giudicato” of the worst type happens when two definitive rulings, that is two different rulings issued by Cassation’s panels to close a case, conflict about the verdict on some element of the same case.

Throughout the years, Cassation judges have always tried to dispel such a haunting presence by trying to ensure that all of their rulings were “aligned” and coherent, as much as possible.

Whereas he says the judges really believe in multiple attackers I don't think he says they really believe Raf was there but I'll need to reread the section.
ETA - does their having him there make something else work for them? Wasn't their logic that Amanda would have called him from the cottage if he wasn't there.

I don't think that point point bears on mine TBH.

The implications relate far less to the factual data of the crime, than they do to the inner workings of the Italian courts.

If I were Mach I would make a big deal out of it. It means they think Amanda and Raffaele lied about a key part of the story. Why would two wholly innocent people lie? Leaving aside the extremely weak reasoning involved (which proceeds from the same people who think you can't rape a woman if she is wearing jeans) where did they get this from? I never heard this argument before. Did I miss something along the line somewhere? Was it part of Nencini or is this the ISC 'solving' the crime for everybody, like Nordheimer solved the Kish mystery?

 

[Grinder]

I don't think that point point bears on mine TBH.

Of course your always honest. I was saying that it the case of the multiple attackers Cheli thinks they really meant it but I wasn't sure if they just said the Raf was there thing to help make their verdict mesh.

If I were Mach I would make a big deal out of it. It means they think Amanda and Raffaele lied about a key part of the story. Why would two wholly innocent people lie? Leaving aside the extremely weak reasoning involved (which proceeds from the same people who think you can't rape a woman if she is wearing jeans) where did they get this from? I never heard this argument before. Did I miss something along the line somewhere? Was it part of Nencini or is this the ISC 'solving' the crime for everybody, like Nordheimer solved the Kish mystery?

Don't remember if Nencini or the prosecutor made the point that she would have called if he wasn't there.

 

[anglolawyer]

Of course your always honest. I was saying that it the case of the multiple attackers Cheli thinks they really meant it but I wasn't sure if they just said the Raf was there thing to help make their verdict mesh.

But Grinder, you are talking about the night of the crime and I am talking about the morning after.

Don't remember if Nencini or the prosecutor made the point that she would have called if he wasn't there.

So are you saying one or other of them made this point and that, unlike me, you have encountered it before?

 

[Grinder]

But Grinder, you are talking about the night of the crime and I am talking about the morning after.

Well I was trying to compare their thinking on the issues. I'm saying that while they truly believe there were multiple attackers (by Cheli's reading) that they may only be saying that Raf was there to help mesh with other verdicts. Just a comment.

So are you saying one or other of them made this point and that, unlike me, you have encountered it before?

Not exactly. While I do seem to remember someone making the point it could be just a PGP. I did add the prosecutors to Nencini as that would be another source for them.

I said I'd look at Nencini later.

They may have made it up out of whole cloth.

 

[Kauffer]

Thanks. I should have said that the #2 verdict leaves room for an interpretation that they weren't totally innocent, whereas a #1 wouldn't allow that interpretation.

Paragraph two does define not guilty as less than totally innocent. I didn't say that specifically A&R are less than innocent which is what you contended. But you are correct that since #2 as the court said must be used even if the judges believe the defendant is guilty and they used #2 instead of #1, they are leaving their innocence in question.
Weirdly I did another search and it still won't show - clearly you found it.

I most certainly did not contend that you feel their innocence is in question. I contended exactly what you said.

It is simply not correct to state that the court has left "innocence in question". You are falling into the PGP trap. You have no competent citation that addresses the point and you seem to have allowed the Tonini opinion to pass right over your head. It says, effectively: "Some people will talk about this; we should take away their opportunity to do so".

Also, I repeat, constitutionally, they are presumed innocent until or unless there is a final confirmation of guilt. The device that the Marasca court has used is the only one available to them under the code, but in the body of the report, they demolish the prosecution case. You wish to argue about the device. It makes no sense to do so because the device states that they "did not commit the act". It is no less a full acquittal than para 1. And as Luca has commented, it is clear that the court had to avoid a judicial conflict. But, of course, as a result, some small group is going to say that since Guede committed this crime "with others" and A and R were the only "others" in the frame, then Bob's your Uncle. But, Bob isn't your uncle - not at all.

With a para 1 aquittal because the court decides a murder was actually a natural death, there will certainly be people who will say that the court got it wrong. There are still people who argue the world is flat and God is in his heaven. We can do nothing about them and nor should we bother trying - although the American "museums" displaying children playing with dinosaurs should probably be closed down.

The acquittal verdict and report taken together is actually stronger, I feel, than a U.S. or UK aquittal. But they are all BARD standard. Are you really willing to join a chorus proclaiming that every single aquittal in your own country leaves "innocence in question"? If so, what flows from that?

 

[Bill Williams]

The implications relate far less to the factual data of the crime, than they do to the inner workings of the Italian courts.

If I were Mach.......

You're no Machiavelli. Unlike Mach you have 'fessed up to the litany of mistakes you've made. Okay, okay, that was unkind and I withdraw it. But like Lloyd Benson said, "I've met Mach, I've worked with Mach, and you, sir, are no Mach."

I would make a big deal out of it. It means they think Amanda and Raffaele lied about a key part of the story. Why would two wholly innocent people lie? Leaving aside the extremely weak reasoning involved (which proceeds from the same people who think you can't rape a woman if she is wearing jeans) where did they get this from? I never heard this argument before. Did I miss something along the line somewhere? Was it part of Nencini or is this the ISC 'solving' the crime for everybody, like Nordheimer solved the Kish mystery?

Making a "big deal" out of something is not the same as ferreting out, "what it means."

Why on earth is Raffaele coming with Amanda for her 10:30 shower, "a key part of the story"? So what? So after this previously unknown dual-trip to the cottage they (very hypothetically) went back to Raffaele's, still a little stumped as to the condition of what they'd seen there - the condition of which alarmed neither Filomena nor the Postal Police. (Please remember, it was not the condition of the cottage which alarmed Filomena - not even the mess in her room - it was that Meredith was without her phones.)

Why would two wholly innocent people lie? Why is it a "lie"? Knox had forgotten one of her calls to her mother. So? They question might also be asked, why would two wholly innocent people forget? Guilty people would more than likely remember rehearsed parts of their alibi.

It is exactly as you say.... where did the Marasca court get this from? Well, for my money they got it from a hypothetical that it was perhaps useless to try to rule out Raffaele's presence at the cottage from perhaps 9 pm Nov 1st, to 12:55 pm Nov 2, the bookends of that period being Jovovich coming to Raffaele's door at 8:35 pm on Nov 1, and the Postals actually seeing him there just before 1 pm on Nov 2 like Massei said.

This hypothetical proves nothing. The question is: why do Italian judges always seem compelled to include these sorts of hypotheticals with no further explanatory text?

It's as if Marasca had made book with Bruno about the ISF/JREF continuations, "Hey Gennero, I bet if you put some vague something-or-other in your report, those English speaking loons on ISF will make it to the 25th Continuation."

Nencini did it. All of a sudden with nothing said about it before - not police, not prosecution - Nencini sees Raffaele's DNA on the kitchen knife. Nencini must have looked in another striation, different from the one that Stefanoni say and no one else did.

Dude - if you're going to "do" Machiavelli, you're going to have to try harder!

 

[Desert Fox]

I listened to one of their earlier broadcasts, I think justifying the Hellman acquittal, while claiming there to be some doubt, but on balance, asserting somewhat snarkily, that the standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' required an acquittal.

Basically these are a couple guys who are young, immature, lazy and not terribly concerned about complete accuracy. They seem more interested in the sound of their own voices, and snarky witticisms, then doing justice to the victims of the crime, and the victims of wrongful conviction.

I've decided to skip listening to these types of lazy layman charlatans. I'm about done arguing here over irrelevant details and fake controversies.

The crazies and nitpickers can fester in their obsessions.

Even when they get the conclusion right, in the cases I know a lot about, they seem to screw up a lot. The episodes that seem better are when they have guests who can talk about an issue.

When they did a show about the Bermuda Triangle, I tried to point out a major thinking error and even offered to get them a couple of important books on the subject. It seemed as if they could not be bothered to read books about a subject. If you will not, you should not be speaking about the issue.

 

[Caper]

They actually get a lot wrong.
They have a clear bias against Amanda Knox

I thought so too. I did tweet one of the guys and they are receptive and want me to email them a longer response. I'm trying to come up with some points. I follow the case enough to know when someone is wrong about a specific issue, but not enough to be able to articulate why they are wrong.

Like when they say Amanda didn't appologize to Patrick. I thought she did. But am not sure where I heard it.

2nd. There is something about the part about Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp they got wrong... Or at least didn't consider.

Anyway. I'm going to come up with a decent response. Hopefully some others will help and find some other issues they got wrong.