Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

Nowhere did Bruno-Marasca say they should not have been on trial. On the contrary, they say were it not for the incompetent cops, there would have been a guilty verdict for sure.

Note the undermining of the police. A mafia hallmark.

Totally incorrect, and a gross misrepresentation.

 

[LondonJohn]

And herein lies the conundrum. As Article 530 para II is exclusively used in the lower courts to "drop charges" due to insufficient evidence, and, as in the UK and USA, it means the prosecutor may, within time limits, still press charges should better evidence come up.
So, when Bruno-Marascaa use it - for only the second time in history and the first in a case where a unanimous "guilty" charge was found in both lower courts, trial and appeal - it must therefore convey the same legal meaning as applied by the lower courts, being a lower court rule.

Therefore, it does mean "dropped charges" as we know it and not "exonerated" in the usual meaning of the word. Q.E.D::

Completely and utterly factually incorrect. A lie, if you will.

 

[Numbers]

And herein lies the conundrum. As Article 530 para II is exclusively used in the lower courts to "drop charges" due to insufficient evidence, and, as in the UK and USA, it means the prosecutor may, within time limits, still press charges should better evidence come up. So, when Bruno-Marascaa use it - for only the second time in history and the first in a case where a unanimous "guilty" charge was found in both lower courts, trial and appeal - it must therefore convey the same legal meaning as applied by the lower courts, being a lower court rule. Therefore, it does mean "dropped charges" as we know it and not "exonerated" in the usual meaning of the word. Q.E.D::

This is a total misrepresentation of Italian procedural law and the role of the lower courts and the CSC.

Any lower court judgment may be appealed within the time limit set by law; no CSC judgment may be appealed. There is no higher court than the CSC within the Italian judicial system.

The Constitutional Court in Italy only takes cases at the request of a judge in a current case or the government within 60 days of passage of a law; it is not an appeal court.

The judgments of the CSC are final (except for convictions, which may be subject to revision trials under certain circumstances, such as ECHR judgments against Italy); that is the law, CCP Article 648.

 

[LondonJohn]

In fact, in the spirit of the times:

Marasca's ruling actually stated that Knox and Sollecito ought to be considered for beatification. It also clearly stated that Mignini was an incarnation of the devil, and that Massei's court was under the control of Beelzebub and all his hideous minions.

That's my version of the facts and I'm sticking to it. No matter how many people show me things that flat-out contradict my version. And I'll continue to repeat it ad nauseam like some sort of weird mantra, in the face of any and all proof to the contrary. I hope that's OK

 

[Agatha]

Be civil and polite when talking to each other, and do not talk about each other lest you breach rule 0 and/or rule 12. Please also stay on topic.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[Bill Williams]

In fact, in the spirit of the times:

Marasca's ruling actually stated that Knox and Sollecito ought to be considered for beatification. It also clearly stated that Mignini was an incarnation of the devil, and that Massei's court was under the control of Beelzebub and all his hideous minions.

That's my version of the facts and I'm sticking to it. No matter how many people show me things that flat-out contradict my version. And I'll continue to repeat it ad nauseam like some sort of weird mantra, in the face of any and all proof to the contrary. I hope that's OK

Wow, I'd not go THAT far, but I hear you.... the standard of proof being bandied about would surely allow for this. The problem is that standard of proof.

And just to continue with that standard let me quote from the M/B report which upholds your view....

CONSIDERED AS FACT
1. Raffaele Sollecito and US citizen Amanda Marie Knox were indicted, in front
of the Court of Assizes of Perugia, of the following offences:
A) of the offence under Italian Penal Code Articles 110, 575, 576, first section
no. 5, in relation to the crime sub [Latin: “under”] C) and 577 first section no. 4 , in
relation to Italian Penal Code Article 61 nos. 1, 5 , for having, in collaboration
among themselves and RUDY HERMANN GUEDE, killed MEREDITH KERCHER, by
means of strangulation and consequent rupture of the hyoid bone, and profound
lesion to the left anterolateral region and the right lateral region of the neck, by a
sharp cutting weapon as per charge B), and thus metahemorrhagic shock with
appreciable asphyctic component secondary to the bleeding (derived from the
sharp-object wounds present in the left anterolateral and right lateral regions of the
neck and the concomitant abundant aspiration of hematic material [i.e. blood]), and
taking advantage of the nocturnal hour and the isolated location of the apartment
rented by the same KERCHER and the same KNOX, in addition to two young Italian
women (FILOMENA ROMANELLI and LAURA MEZZETI), an apartment located on via
della Pergola 7 in Perugia, committing the act for futile reasons, while GUEDE, in
collaboration with the others, committed the offence of sexual violence.

Of course, the quoted text, hidden by a "spoiler alert" says no such thing, but apparently that's now allowed on the skeptics site here, as a legitimate citation, and "proof". I wish the mods would pay attention to that, if only to protect their brand.

 

[Grinder]

To the lay-mind, I'd argue that all reasons for judgement seem nutty to some degree. Some times they are forced to deal with idiomatic legal concepts the importance of which escapes everyone else except similarly trained people.

As for the highlighted part, there have been many well-considered posts to this very thread which would disagree. Some claim that the difference between paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 is simply a legislative remnant which has not real practical implication - certainly not one claimed by lay-commentators. But then, what do I know.

Some claim (Fox News?) but they provide nothing to back this claim. There is a difference and it has been noted by people with more cred than lay-commentators here.

Here is Cheli again. For those not aware Cheli has been writing legal commentary on the case as a strong supporter of A&R. He is not a lawyer but well versed and Italian.

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.

Also, by paying attention to the text of the verdict back in March, it was already clear to me that, since the acquittal for the charge of staging a burglary was due to the defendant not having committed the crime and not to the crime not existing, this new ruling was going to accept the theory of a staged burglary and hence, most probably, of multiple attackers.

It is a ruling with both lights and shadows, but indeed appreciation for it greatly varies if one looks at it only from the point of view of the specific case, or from the point of view of its potential effect on Italian criminal justice in general.
​

Bill rather than post contrary to my point backed by the weak "people say" why not find some actual proof the paragraph 2 is meaningless? If it is meaningless why did M&B use it instead of paragraph 1?

Please tell me who has more cred on the Italian system here than Cheli?

There is absolutely no doubt that the law provides for different degrees of innocent and it is obvious Italians understand it.

Read about the reforms of the eighties and you should see the 530 paragraphs were not an issue.

 

[Bill Williams]

Some claim (Fox News?) but they provide nothing to back this claim. There is a difference and it has been noted by people with more cred than lay-commentators here.

Here is Cheli again. For those not aware Cheli has been writing legal commentary on the case as a strong supporter of A&R. He is not a lawyer but well versed and Italian.

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.

Also, by paying attention to the text of the verdict back in March, it was already clear to me that, since the acquittal for the charge of staging a burglary was due to the defendant not having committed the crime and not to the crime not existing, this new ruling was going to accept the theory of a staged burglary and hence, most probably, of multiple attackers.

It is a ruling with both lights and shadows, but indeed appreciation for it greatly varies if one looks at it only from the point of view of the specific case, or from the point of view of its potential effect on Italian criminal justice in general.
​

Bill rather than post contrary to my point backed by the weak "people say" why not find some actual proof the paragraph 2 is meaningless? If it is meaningless why did M&B use it instead of paragraph 1?

Please tell me who has more cred on the Italian system here than Cheli?

There is absolutely no doubt that the law provides for different degrees of innocent and it is obvious Italians understand it.

Read about the reforms of the eighties and you should see the 530 paragraphs were not an issue.

These days, "people say" is the coin of the realm here!

 

[bagels]

in a case where a unanimous "guilty" charge was found in both lower courts, trial and appeal

Rewriting history is surely bolstering your argument.

 

[Welshman]

Perhaps if you provide two or three questions at a time, instead of a string of two or three dozen, then perhaps I can help you.

I asked only one question and that is how can PGP be in a position to accuse Amanda and Raffaele of lying when they lie themselves and condone and ignore the lies of others.

 

[Grinder]

These days, "people say" is the coin of the realm here!

Then who is king queen?

Why do you insist on making claims like the PR meme starting in 2011 with Mignini and when shown you are wrong just hand waving it away?

I have given actual cites and sources and you come back with "people say".

Please provide something you can at least with a half straight face claim is a better source than Cheli or admit you have nothing.

Even if the legislature forgot to get rid of paragraph 2, it is still the law and educated Italians think it means something. Even legal team members were commenting on the type of verdict when it came IIRC. There was much here and elsewhere debating it and the PIPs were insisting it was para 1, but it wasn't or do you need a cite from the MR?

 

[Bill Williams]

Then who is king queen?

Every lurker can sort that out for themselves.

Why do you insist on making claims like the PR meme starting in 2011 with Mignini and when shown you are wrong just hand waving it away?

For heaven's sake - Mignini IS the origin of the "Douglas Preston started the PR campaign," meme, as opposed to the factoid of the Seattle-based, Marriott-led PR supertanker.

I have given actual cites and sources and you come back with "people say".

Apparently so.

Please provide something you can at least with a half straight face claim is a better source than Cheli or admit you have nothing.

No.

Even if the legislature forgot to get rid of paragraph 2, it is still the law and educated Italians think it means something. Even legal team members were commenting on the type of verdict when it came IIRC. There was much here and elsewhere debating it and the PIPs were insisting it was para 1, but it wasn't or do you need a cite from the MR?

In other words, even your "IIRC" is a memory of "people say". The precariousness of distinction between paragraph 1 and 2 is not as dramatic as claimed..... what was the point of this again?

 

[Vixen]

This is a total misrepresentation of Italian procedural law and the role of the lower courts and the CSC.

Any lower court judgment may be appealed within the time limit set by law; no CSC judgment may be appealed. There is no higher court than the CSC within the Italian judicial system.

The Constitutional Court in Italy only takes cases at the request of a judge in a current case or the government within 60 days of passage of a law; it is not an appeal court.

The judgments of the CSC are final (except for convictions, which may be subject to revision trials under certain circumstances, such as ECHR judgments against Italy); that is the law, CCP Article 648.

We were't talking about appeal. The issue at hand is the implication of "dropping the charges" per Article 530 para II.

IMV it highlights the erroneous application of Article 530 para II by Bruno-Marasca, as it leads to a legal absurdity.

 

[Vixen]

Deleted.

 

[Bill Williams]

Logical fallacy: flippant argument.

It's not a logical fallacy at all. It's a direct example of the reasoning used by other posters here. Logically it is - what's good for the goose......

 

[Mike1711]

I repeat, not one of the MRs in this case escapes nutty aspects. It appears M&B decided to end the case and basically stated the investigation was botched. They don't make it seem no case existed or they would have found them not guilty by paragraph 1.

There is something in it for everyone. It may be in Italy no one is surprised by any MR as they are used to and accept what we think of wacky rulings.

If the investigation is botched then there can't be a case.

To be clear. To have a case the investigation must be sound. If not there can never.....ever....ever be a case.

To produce a case without a (sound) investigation is to produce something from nothing. Stephen Hawking or Leornard Susskind may be able to explain such an event, but for us mere mortals...no. Just NO!

 

[Mike1711]

Try this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
"Intelligent Design" is the 21st Century version of creationism, and in this case the local (Delaware) schoolboard was taken over by adherents to it. They started to require that Intelligent Design be taught alongside evolution in biology classes.

Was was notable about the courtcase was that Intelligent Design as a corpus of work, actually does no science - not peer-reviewed science anyway. It is chiefly the project of a Colorado evangelical lobby group called The Discovery Institute which tries to show how I.D. concepts are contained in mainline research - a claim very few reputable scientists support.

Indeed, when the case went to trial, the lone peer-reviewed scientist who would testify on behalf of the school-board (taken over by I.D. advocates) had to admit on cross-examination that the methods he had to concede to view I.D. as a "science" would also qualify Astrology to be seen as a science, and therefore taught in schools.

He also had to concede that he himself had not used I.D. in any of his own peer-reviewed work, and he was at a loss to cite a single example where it appeared in anyone else's peer reviewed work.

All this reminds me of guilters, actually.....

Thanks for that. ...and quite right too!

 

[Mike1711]

To the lay-mind, I'd argue that all reasons for judgement seem nutty to some degree. Some times they are forced to deal with idiomatic legal concepts the importance of which escapes everyone else except similarly trained people.

As for the highlighted part, there have been many well-considered posts to this very thread which would disagree. Some claim that the difference between paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 is simply a legislative remnant which has not real practical implication - certainly not one claimed by lay-commentators. But then, what do I know.

Bill, you are quite correct. I sound like a stuck record but it is important to note that Law like Accountancy is not a pure science dealing with empirical facts. Law makers set down man made rules which courts simply follow. These rules may not be logical and are steeped in historical baggage. They are the best we have.

Capital punishment is a prime example of an "illegal law" which contradicts law. It's there. It has no right to be there. But like judicial facts it just is.

 

[Mike1711]

The Bruno-Marasca verdict is nutty and unconstitutional even by Italy's standards.

I would love to say your post is unadulterated rubbish.

But I won't.

 

[Mike1711]

Nowhere did Bruno-Marasca say they should not have been on trial. On the contrary, they say were it not for the incompetent cops, there would have been a guilty verdict for sure.

Note the undermining of the police. A mafia hallmark.

If ever there was a non sequitur here is one.

Had it not been for the fact that whatever evidence there might have been being botched then there would have been a solid case. What?????

Who needs evidence when botched evidence proves guilt.