Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

proscioglimento' found in these entries
Inglese:
exoneration

http://www.wordreference.com/iten/proscioglimento

Exactly.

This is the whole point. Marasca (et al) was not saying that Knox and Sollecito received a trial on fair merits but that (in Marasca's view) the evidence didn't support convictions. If that had been the case, Marasca would have remitted the case back to a lower court for a retrial. And if that had been the case, then Marasca would have annulled or set aside the convictions.

What actually happened was that Marasca ruled that (in its view) there never was - and thus never will be - sufficient grounds to bring a prosecution against Knox or Sollecito for murder etc. It ruled that the evidence was SO bad, SO tainted, SO contradictory, SO botched, SO negligent, SO mishandled and SO minsinterpreted (by police, prosecution and lower courts alike) that it would be in practice impossible ever to try Knox or Sollecito properly.

As part of this, Marasca stated - again correctly - that the disgraceful state of the "evidence" meant that it would now (and for ever more) be impossible in practice to determine whether Knox and Sollecito took part or whether they did not take part. And that again feeds into Marasca's (correct) ruling that the case cannot be passed down to a lower court for retrial. But biassed pro-guilt commentators ought to note that this is nothing like saying that "they might have done it" - any more that it is saying that ANYONE in and around Perugia that night without a watertight alibi might have done it (including, for example, every single couple who stayed in alone together that night and who didn't either speak on the phone or actively use the internet for at least a half-hour period some time between 9pm and 10pm....).

Marasca cancelled the convictions of Knox and Sollecito. For the salient and thoroughly sane reason that there's ZERO credible, reliable evidence that they participated in the murder. And there never will be any credible, reliable evidence that they participated. End of.

 

[Grinder]

Is there an Italian legal boff in the house? Methos?

proscioglimento
Pronunciation: /proʃʃoʎʎiˈmento/
Translation of proscioglimento in English:
nome maschile

1
(liberazione)
exoneration, release
IN OTHER DICTIONARIES
2 (Law)
acquittal

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/translate/italian-english/proscioglimento

 

[acbytesla]

Not really; it could be a broken thermometer.

Your nonsense never ceases

 

[acbytesla]

It is only inane because the Pollyanna-style method of "Whistle a happy tune" whilst firmly covering your ears with your hands renders all inane, even the implications of the report.

Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens,
bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens,
brown paper packages tied up with strings,
these are a few of my favorite things.

Why are we discussing the Bruno-Marasca report? acbytesla is right.

No, the point is why are discussing anything with you? Your arguments combine deceit and stupidity. So why bother?

 

[Numbers]

Not really. The Italian word here is the equivalent of "=drops the charges", not acquitted, which implies they can still be charged.

You and Mach have lost the dictionary game again.

exoneration n (finding [sb] not guilty) assoluzione, discolpa nf
*
* proscioglimento nm

Source: http://www.wordreference.com/enit/exoneration

Synonyms of proscioglimento (noun}

assoluzione

Translations of proscioglimento (noun)

acquittal

assoluzione, proscioglimento

Source: https://translate.google.com/#it/en/proscioglimento

(And with thanks to Grinder)

The problem may be that certain posters are unaware of the definition of acquittal in English; here are some:

Full Definition of acquittal

: a setting free from the charge of an offense by verdict, sentence, or other legal process

{In other words, an acquittal = dropping charges}

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acquittal

What is misleading is the idea that the word "proscioglimento" implies something about the type of acquittal a CSC panel gives.

Any acquittal without referral (as well as any affirmation of a lower court acquittal) by a CSC panel of judges is final and definitive and cannot be appealed or reversed; see CPP Articles 648, and 620.1 (l) with 621, case for letter (l). The last two articles referenced state that when the CSC decides on an annulment without referral, the CSC shall give the necessary decisions and instructions. If the decision is that there is an acquittal, Article 648 provides that it is a final judgment.

There is no appeal from a final decision of the CSC. There can be a revision trial, but only in case of a final conviction and certain additional conditions such as new evidence or an ECHR ruling of an unfair trial; see CPP Articles 629 and 630 and Italian Constitutional Court judgment 113/2011.

 

[Bill Williams]

From a professional translator (not google translate). Source: Machiavelli, on TJMK, for it is he:

Following the considerations above, it is obvious that a remand [rinvio] would be useless, hence the declaration of annulment without remand, based on art. 620 L) of the procedure code, thus we apply an acquittal [proscioglimento *] formula [see note just below] which a further judge on remand would be anyway compelled to apply, to abide to the principles of law established in this current sentence.

[Translator’s note: The Italian word for “acquittal” is actually “assoluzione”; while the term “proscioglimento” instead, in the Italian Procedure Code, actually refers only to non-definitive preliminary judgements during investigation phase, and it could be translated as “dropping of charges”. Note: as for investigation phase “proscioglimento” is normally meant as a not-binding decision, not subjected to double jeopardy, since it is not considered a judgement nor a court’s decision.]
Read that last sentence twice.

Read that last sentence twice.

In their summary, Bruno-Marasca cite Section 530 Para II by reason of insufficient evidence. Where they say "not guilty" or "did not do it" they are simply citing what it says in the text book under article 530 para 2, verbatim.

What was wrong with Hellmann? He allowed his own sentimental opinions seep in and acted outside of his remit, like some avuncular clown giving kids sweets at Christmas.

ETA The full article is well worth a read, here:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php...anslation_of_the_marasca_bruno_report_7_of_7/

LOL! Machiavelli is a professional translator! LOL!

All we know abut Machiavelli comes from Andrea Vogt who calls him an arm-chair detective.

However, ever since he came on the English language scene in 2010 by posting to Candace Dempsey's Seattle newspaper blog, his bona fides have never once been listed. Not once.

I'd be the first to say that as a native-Italian speaker, his English is excellent. But as we are finding out with translations of Italian legal documents, "legalese" by itself is another translation barrier not easily overcome.

But Machiavelli a professional translator!? LOL!

 

[Vixen]

Because the Marasca panel could clearly (and correctly) see that all the lower courts had completely botched the evaluation and weighing of the reliability/credilbility of virtually every single piece of prosecution evidence in this case. That's how.

It's really not hard to figure out if one's eyes and mind are actually open.

Let me get this straight. So the police and the forensics guys are bent. The prosecutor is bent. Massei is bent. Hellmann is straight. Chiefi is bent. Nencini is bent. Bruno-Marasca are straight.

<fx Brummie accent> YES MATE!

 

[Vixen]

Vixen has refused to address the issue I raised in my post which is how can Vixen and other PGP be in a position to attack Amanda and Raffaele for lying when they lie themselves and condone and ignore the lies of others. The term hater is perfectly appropriate because PGP have a virulent hatred of Amanda.

PGP are not on trial for murder. Trials are in the public domain and as such, we are free to discuss them.

 

[bagels]

Let me get this straight. So the police and the forensics guys are bent. The prosecutor is bent. Massei is bent. Hellmann is straight. Chiefi is bent. Nencini is bent. Bruno-Marasca are straight.

<fx Brummie accent> YES MATE!

Since Amanda Knox is the first person in history to be wrongfully convicted I can see how it's a struggle to accept.

 

[bagels]

PGP are not on trial for murder.

Finally, something you have in common with Amanda

 

[Numbers]

1. What is being referred to is that a final judgment in one case may be used as evidence in another, later case. That is Italian procedural law, I don't have the CPP article at hand. I am sure this was discussed previously on ISF, by me and others.
2. What the Marasca CSC panel MR criticized as contrary to Italian law and constitution is use of the final judgment of Guede's fast-track trial to introduce Guede's unexamined statements into the Knox - Sollecito trial by Nencini. This is one of their grounds for annulling Nencini's verdict. I discussed this in a previous post on ISF. Marasca did not go so far as to dispute the CSC final judgment that Guede had co-conspirators. That was not at issue before the Marasca CSC panel. There was no credible evidence that the co-conspirators were Knox or Sollecito. Of course, there was no credible evidence of any co-conspirators presented by the prosecution. That does not necessarily mean that were no co-conspirators, but if there were, the prosecution never presented any evidence of a perp other than Guede, such as, for example, DNA from the murder room or Meredith's body.

The DNA evidence allegedly obtained from the bra strap hook is not credible because of the issues of contamination and the irregular way Stefanoni tested it. That includes the apparent secretly performed double testing as discussed at www.amandaknoxcase.com.

1. CPP Article 238-bis states: Without prejudice to Article 236 {which allows gathering as evidence "criminal record certificates" and other information about previous convictions for evaluating the character of the accused and the victim, as well as the credibility of witnesses}, final judgments may be gathered as evidence of the facts therein ascertained and shall be evaluated in compliance with Articles 187 and 192.3.

CPP Article 187 states, in part (187.1): Facts concerning accusations, criminal liabilities and the determination of either the sentence or the security measure are facts in issue.

CPP Article 192.3 states: The statements made by either the co-accused charged with the same offence or a person accused in joined proceedings according to Article 12 shall be corroborated by the other elements of evidence confirming their reliability.

2. Note CPP Article 192. 3 above; also, the constitutional and procedural legal provisions against allowing statements from a person who never has allowed himself to be examined by the accused or the accused's lawyer to be used to convict that person. These provisions of Italian law were "encouraged" by ECHR cases finding violations of Convention Article 6 by Italy in Luca v Italy and Dorigo v Italy.

 

[Numbers]

LOL! Machiavelli is a professional translator! LOL!

All we know abut Machiavelli comes from Andrea Vogt who calls him an arm-chair detective.

However, ever since he came on the English language scene in 2010 by posting to Candace Dempsey's Seattle newspaper blog, his bona fides have never once been listed. Not once.

I'd be the first to say that as a native-Italian speaker, his English is excellent. But as we are finding out with translations of Italian legal documents, "legalese" by itself is another translation barrier not easily overcome.

But Machiavelli a professional translator!? LOL!

Machiavelli has posted translations here that are slanted, reflecting his opinion.

 

[Bill Williams]

PGP are not on trial for murder. Trials are in the public domain and as such, we are free to discuss them.

No, the PGP are 9n trial for an unrelenting hate campaign where the Italian courts have said that they probably should never have been on trial.

 

[acbytesla]

It's always worth bearing in mind that a legal use of a word is often very different from a colloquial usage. "Supposed" implies doubt in every day speech. To Bruno-Marasca they are saying "supposed presence [arising from the facts found]".

You never cease to amaze me Vixen. Soon, you will be telling us "up is down" and "black is white" and "red is green". You would spin that WWII was a minor skirmish and Hitler was just misunderstood.

 

[Mike1711]

Perhaps you should reword this to whether or not Bush received the most votes in Florida.

It is both a legal fact and an actual fact he won in FLA - look it up.

Aaahhh, yes Grinder. You cannot/should not win if you don't get the most votes.

But I get your point.

And you got mine.

To be clear, and this is the point, courts can create facts which are incorrect.

 

[acbytesla]

Aaahhh, yes Grinder. You cannot/should not win if you don't get the most votes.

But I get your point.

And you got mine.
To be clear, and this is the point, courts can create facts which are incorrect.

You could start your precedent citations with Gallileo move on to the Scopes Monkey trial for that one.

 

[acbytesla]

You and Mach have lost the dictionary game again.

exoneration n (finding [sb] not guilty) assoluzione, discolpa nf
*
* proscioglimento nm

Source: http://www.wordreference.com/enit/exoneration

Synonyms of proscioglimento (noun}

assoluzione

Translations of proscioglimento (noun)

acquittal

assoluzione, proscioglimento

Source: https://translate.google.com/#it/en/proscioglimento

(And with thanks to Grinder)

The problem may be that certain posters are unaware of the definition of acquittal in English; here are some:

Full Definition of acquittal

: a setting free from the charge of an offense by verdict, sentence, or other legal process

{In other words, an acquittal = dropping charges}

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acquittal

What is misleading is the idea that the word "proscioglimento" implies something about the type of acquittal a CSC panel gives.

Any acquittal without referral (as well as any affirmation of a lower court acquittal) by a CSC panel of judges is final and definitive and cannot be appealed or reversed; see CPP Articles 648, and 620.1 (l) with 621, case for letter (l). The last two articles referenced state that when the CSC decides on an annulment without referral, the CSC shall give the necessary decisions and instructions. If the decision is that there is an acquittal, Article 648 provides that it is a final judgment.

There is no appeal from a final decision of the CSC. There can be a revision trial, but only in case of a final conviction and certain additional conditions such as new evidence or an ECHR ruling of an unfair trial; see CPP Articles 629 and 630 and Italian Constitutional Court judgment 113/2011.

I'm curious. Do you know if the Italians use terms like "with or without prejudice"?

 

[Mike1711]

You could start your precedent citations with Gallileo move on to the Scopes Monkey trial for that one.

Thanks Tesla,

I was actually looking for a court case involving evolution to drive the point home more succinctly.

You provided it.

 

[Mike1711]

It emphasises the need to get it right at the First Instance court. For example, it was no good the defence making an application for the pillow stain to tested after the trial, when its strategy was to 'keep shtum' about it during the trial. A judge is bound to be tempted to dismiss it on the grounds of 'out of time' and a suspicion of bad faith motive.

The world according to Vixen.

The cart is before the horse.

That is exactly why an appeal court is necessary......but for a perfect world.

 

[Planigale]

Ladies and gentlemen: proof right here that Vixen's "opinions" on science matters can safely be written off as ignorant, ill-informed and bombastic.

(Hint to Vixen, who probably still hasn't figured it out: water does not boil at 100F, 32C. Furthermore, 100F does not even equal 32C. And water does not boil at either temperature. Look it up in a proper science source perhaps)

Oh and the term "anhydrous" was hideously (and hilariously, in the context) wrongly employed as well.

(Another hint to Vixen: "anhydrous" means "containing no water". It's in fact the very last thing possible that water could be described as. And it's utterly unrelated to a substance's acidity/alkalinity. Advice: don't use what you presumably consider to be sophisticated scientific terms if you don't have the first clue about what they actually mean. It exposes you as being scientifically illiterate and readily willing to play fast and loose with terminology. And that seriously damages credibility in all areas of argument. Just sayin'......)

Well, of course water does boil at 32C if you are at 22km altitude (roughly). Of course at this altitude your blood would boil given that normal body temperature is 37C. Although you would likely be unconscious from extreme hypoxia. Though paradoxically whilst boiling one would also 'freeze' as the ambient temperature at that altitude is below zero degrees. Certainly if water boils at 32C around Vixen this might explain the poor cognitive function as being secondary to hypoxia, or hypothermia. Even breathing pure oxygen will not preserve life, definitely need a space suit.

The anhydrous water was particularly excellent. My guess is Vixen was sold some dehydrated water; just dilute with dihydrogen monoxide for a refreshing beverage.