Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Shame on me for taking the bait. LJ is arguing what a para 1 acquittal might look like, but says nothing about #2. If anything his Mar 30 reflection is fully consistent with trying to come to grips with what the ISC meant by a straight acquittal, with no remand. Yikes. Is this Grinder's case?

At some point it's an indictment of me that I even participate.....

Pure BS. He is saying it must be a one and not a two because they didn't send it down. Go read the context if you can.

 

[acbytesla]

This seems a straight forward explication of a rather thin distinction between #1 and #2..... the thinness of which seems to be escaping Grinder.

For some reason Grinder (who is not a guilter by any means, but who is echoing a guilter-meme) believes that #2 is somewhat less of an acquittal than #1. From this seat, LJ, you have made yourself clear and I am baffled that anyone would try to argue against it.

All I can do is second your "Huh!?" It seems someone near and dear to this thread is arguing some sort of distinction that depends on you having had said those things...... yet:

Huh!?

Wow, when that boy gets a burr under his saddle.

 

[Grinder]

Wow.

Wow. Just. Wow.

 

[Grinder]

This cracks me up They were acquitted for not committing the crime.

FYI: I sent you a PM.

There is no debate that they were found not guilty. There is a difference between one and two. Why the PIPs don't want to admit it is baffling.

 

[LondonJohn]

Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Shame on me for taking the bait. LJ is arguing what a para 1 acquittal might look like, but says nothing about #2. If anything his Mar 30 reflection is fully consistent with trying to come to grips with what the ISC meant by a straight acquittal, with no remand. Yikes. Is this Grinder's case?

At some point it's an indictment of me that I even participate.....

Indeed. I was saying that the facts as we knew them at that point seemed to strongly support the idea of a 530.1 acquittal. I certainly didn't say I was "sure" it was a 530.1 acquittal, and nor was I on any mission to "educate" people. When inflammatory terms like those start being bandied round incorrectly and misleadingly, it's time to step away. Not worth it, I'm afraid....

 

[Grinder]

The fact that this didn't happen, and that the SC totally acquitted, would seem to strongly support a belief that the SC ruled that there was entirely no case to answer. In other words, a "Paragraph 1" acquittal. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the media were reporting Maresca's "creative" interpretation of the ruling, rather than anything explicitly issued by the SC itself.

The media was reporting a para 2. If you want to weasel on saying the above fine.

 

[LondonJohn]

The fact that this didn't happen, and that the SC totally acquitted, would seem to strongly support a belief that the SC ruled that there was entirely no case to answer. In other words, a "Paragraph 1" acquittal. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the media were reporting Maresca's "creative" interpretation of the ruling, rather than anything explicitly issued by the SC itself.

The media was reporting a para 2. If you want to weasel on saying the above fine.

Oh Jesus Christ. I was wondering aloud whether the media had a credible source for their reporting of 530.2, or whether it was pure speculation on their part. And I was adding that the facts as we knew them at that point seemed to support 530.1.

You're revising history to something akin to me writing that the media (and Maresca) were all wrong, and that the facts meant that the verdict HAD to have been 530.1.

These stupid games of semantics and misrepresentation are terrifically tiring and pointless. I'm out. Well done.

 

[Bill Williams]

The Jian Ghomeshi case in Canada, is perhaps a case in point when it comes to foreigners trying to understand rarefied Italian legalese, and perhaps two grades of "acquittal". Some claim that the use of one grade (paragraph 1) over the other (paragraph 2) indicates some "signalling" by the court of the way the the court felt about the person's innocence - or if said in relation to paragraph 2, their "innocence".

The Ghomeshi, sexual abuse trial is not yet closed, but some are completely panning the Crown Counsel's prosecution of the charges. Because of devastating cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, these pundits are wondering if all that the Crown has left is for a final summation to the judge-alone trial, is that "Ghomeshi is probably guilty." I'll leave that to you to judge if that'll ever be said in seriousness. They are blaming the Crown for putting witnesses on the stand seemingly unaware (but how could The Crown be unaware) of the places any competent defence lawyer would go when was it their turn.

In mocking The Crown, one former Canadian prosecutor says that there are 13 kinds of Not Guilty:

1. the defendant is definitely not guilty
2. it is highly unlikely he's guilty
3. it's reasonably unlikely he's guilty
4. he's probably not guilty
5. it's unlikely he's guilty
6. he's possibly not guilty
7. he may not be guilty
8. perhaps he's guilty
9. it's justifiable to suspect he's guilty
10. there's a possibility he's guilty
11. there's a strong probability he's guilty
12. guilt is likely
13. it's legitimate to hold a strong belief in guilt

You'll note that these thirteen kinds of Not Guilty are in ascending order of likelihood.

Yet the ONLY thing the court will comment on, esp. at verdict, is either:

1. Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
2. Not guilty

In this, the pundit concludes:

Ignoring reasonable doubt in a highly charged criminal trial is the stuff wrongful convictions are made of.

Which is why sexual assault survivors deserve a way out of a system that places 100% of the evidentiary burden on their all-too-human shoulders, and none on the alleged abuser. The criminal justice system robs survivors of their own agency, and of true fairness and equality.

We can do better.

The difference in Italy seems to be only to want to say one of two things about the "why" of an acquittal.

One is that the defendant did not commit the act. Two is that there was no evidence to convict them, which COULD be anywhere on that 13-point list above; presumably the one which says that there "was no evidence to suggest they'd been involved" is the equivalent of "they did not commit the act", but that is the stuff of splitting legal hairs......

..... in a BARD world where the hair is very thin to begin with to start splitting them.

But here we are, almost a year after the acquittals/exonerations splitting hairs as if the difference between #1/#2 is of the size of the fact that the Bruno/Marasca court refused to remand - and waste further court time.

Soup-bx mode off. Here's the link to the Ghomeshi stuff:

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/02/11/opinion/why-crown-has-answer-ghomeshi-debacle

 

[Bill Williams]

Oh Jesus Christ. I was wondering aloud whether the media had a credible source for their reporting of 530.2, or whether it was pure speculation on their part. And I was adding that the facts as we knew them at that point seemed to support 530.1.

You're revising history to something akin to me writing that the media (and Maresca) were all wrong, and that the facts meant that the verdict HAD to have been 530.1.

These stupid games of semantics and misrepresentation are terrifically tiring and pointless. I'm out. Well done.

It's one thing to pick gnat-pooh out of pepper. It's quite another to bring your own gnat-pooh!

 

[Bill Williams]

Pure BS. He is saying it must be a one and not a two because they didn't send it down. Go read the context if you can.

Fool me three times and it's still shame on me. You've now nothing to lose.

 

[acbytesla]

There is no debate that they were found not guilty. There is a difference between one and two. Why the PIPs don't want to admit it is baffling.

I don't know if it's baffling. I'm simply apathetic about it.

 

[Numbers]

There is no debate that they were found not guilty. There is a difference between one and two. Why the PIPs don't want to admit it is baffling.

There is also a difference between "six" and "half-a-dozen" objects, but that difference is not one detectable by a count of the objects. No one disagrees that there may be a difference to some in perception, since there is a difference in the words and thus the sound of the two terms.

I have asked you to provide the LEGAL difference in consequences between CPP Article 530.1 and 530.2 acquittals for not having committed the crime (act), and if I understand correctly, you have not provided any such difference.

Here is an English translation of the text of the article; I have rearranged the text of Article 530.1 compared to my source in order to provide parallel construction.

CPP Article 530 Judgment of acquittal

1. The judge shall deliver a judgment of acquittal, mentioning the cause in the operative part of the judgment, if

the criminal act did not occur,

the accused did not commit it,

the act was not deemed an offence by by law or

it was committed by a person who cannot be accused or punished for a different reason.

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 doubt on the existence of such reasons.

4. By means of the judgment of acquittal, the judge shall apply the security measures, in the cases provided for by law.
-------
Note that in the US, the term "insufficient evidence" generally means:

Evidence so inadequate that a court will find that the prosecution or plaintiff has no basis upon which to proceed, and will most likely dismiss the case.

Source: http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/insufficient-evidence-term.html

n. a finding (decision) by a trial judge or an appeals court that the prosecution in a criminal case or a plaintiff in a lawsuit has not proved the case because the attorney did not present enough convincing evidence. Insufficient evidence usually results in dismissal of the case after the prosecution or the plaintiff has completed his/her introduction of evidence or, if on appeal, reversal of the judgment by the trial court.

Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/insufficient+evidence

ETA: Whether an acquittal is attributed to CPP Article 530.2 (as by the Marasca CSC panel in the final, definitive judgment) or to Article 530.1 (as by the Hellmann court in their acquittal), there must still be a motivation report in accordance with Italian law and constitution. And the motivation report for each judgment details the reasoning for the judgment, and should be relied upon for insights into that reasoning as the court wished to present it.

 

[Planigale]

There is also a difference between "six" and "half-a-dozen" objects, but that difference is not one detectable by a count of the objects. No one disagrees that there may be a difference to some in perception, since there is a difference in the words and thus the sound of the two terms.

I have asked you to provide the LEGAL difference in consequences between CPP Article 530.1 and 530.2 acquittals for not having committed the crime (act), and if I understand correctly, you have not provided any such difference.

Here is an English translation of the text of the article; I have rearranged the text of Article 530.1 compared to my source in order to provide parallel construction.

CPP Article 530 Judgment of acquittal

1. The judge shall deliver a judgment of acquittal, mentioning the cause in the operative part of the judgment, if

the criminal act did not occur,

the accused did not commit it,

the act was not deemed an offence by by law or

it was committed by a person who cannot be accused or punished for a different reason.

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 doubt on the existence of such reasons.

4. By means of the judgment of acquittal, the judge shall apply the security measures, in the cases provided for by law.
-------
Note that in the US, the term "insufficient evidence" generally means:

Evidence so inadequate that a court will find that the prosecution or plaintiff has no basis upon which to proceed, and will most likely dismiss the case.

Source: http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/insufficient-evidence-term.html

n. a finding (decision) by a trial judge or an appeals court that the prosecution in a criminal case or a plaintiff in a lawsuit has not proved the case because the attorney did not present enough convincing evidence. Insufficient evidence usually results in dismissal of the case after the prosecution or the plaintiff has completed his/her introduction of evidence or, if on appeal, reversal of the judgment by the trial court.

Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/insufficient+evidence

ETA: Whether an acquittal is attributed to CPP Article 530.2 (as by the Marasca CSC panel in the final, definitive judgment) or to Article 530.1 (as by the Hellmann court in their acquittal), there must still be a motivation report in accordance with Italian law and constitution. And the motivation report for each judgment details the reasoning for the judgment, and should be relied upon for insights into that reasoning as the court wished to present it.

It seems to me that the only option for the judges in this case was a para 2 acquittal. The crime did occur. The accused were competent, and were otherwise able to be tried (e.g. not asserting diplomatic immunity). The accused did not accept they commited the act but assert e.g. self defence or legitimate use of force. There is not absolute proof of innocence e.g. an unimpeachable alibi, e.g. CCTV and eye witness testimony that Knox was in Seattle at the time.

Para 2 seems to be the only option. This seems to cover the whole range between (but not including) definitely innocent and guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I cannot see how para 1 could be applied.

 

[LondonJohn]

It seems to me that the only option for the judges in this case was a para 2 acquittal. The crime did occur. The accused were competent, and were otherwise able to be tried (e.g. not asserting diplomatic immunity). The accused did not accept they commited the act but assert e.g. self defence or legitimate use of force. There is not absolute proof of innocence e.g. an unimpeachable alibi, e.g. CCTV and eye witness testimony that Knox was in Seattle at the time.

Para 2 seems to be the only option. This seems to cover the whole range between (but not including) definitely innocent and guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I cannot see how para 1 could be applied.

That's exactly how I understand it too.

And that's exactly how I interpret the ways in which 530.1 and 530.2 are used.

In the immediate aftermath of the Marasca SC verdict, I had wondered whether the unequivocal nature of the acquittals/annulments and the refusal to return the trial to an appeal-level court meant that the Marasca panel had gone as far as to decide that neither Knox nor Sollecito could, in practice, have participated in the murder (for example, the panel could have decided that there was sufficient evidence for a ToD well before 10pm, and that the other evidence of Knox's/Sollecito's whereabouts made it sufficiently impossible in practice for them to have committed the crime - particularly in the group-attack manner required by the prosecution theory).

But when the Marasca Report came out, it was clear that the reason for the definitive and forceful nature of the acquittals/annulments was that they deemed there to be no reliable, credible evidence pointing to the participation of Knox or Sollecito in the murder, and they also deemed that there never would be (hence the decision not to retry). In many ways, this was actually a far more binding and fair verdict than any ruling that Knox and Sollecito were definitely factually innocent (thus 530.1), since I don't think this can ever be proven (and nor does it need to be, of course).

There's always a theoretical possibility that Knox and Sollecito could have participated - but one could say exactly the same about every single person/couple within 50 miles of Perugia that night who didn't have a cast-iron alibi. And likewise, had the state chosen to prosecute and try (e.g.) Mr and Mrs Bianchi, a couple in their late 50s who lived together in Perugia and who claimed to have spent the whole evening/night of 1st November 2007 at home (but couldn't prove this unequivocally), they too would/should have been acquitted under 530.2.

 

[Vixen]

Well now we are getting somewhere!

Would it be accurate to say you believe Mignini's hypothesis was that Raffaele, Amanda, and Rudy attempted manga group sex (with Halloween, Day of the Dead, occult, vampire slaying, etc. overtones) with Meredith. Meredith refused. And they got pissed off and killed her?



While the Santa Clause murder spirit comment was a joke, you do know there are connections between modern day Christmas and earlier Roman holidays where they worshipped Roman gods (that Christians would view as pagan)?

Perhaps our fictional super sleuth just used the same logic as Mignini and deduced our Christmas murder had pagan roots and they were making a sacrifice to Saturn and Mithra? (But NOT Satan. That would be ridiculous after all.)

At no point did Mignini refer to 'satan' or 'satanic rites'. Mignini may have considered it rather unchristian to commit murder. Your take on this is, "What a warped loony so-and-so!"

 

[Vixen]

LJ - Here's the link to your post from March 30

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove a breach of rule 12

 

[Vixen]

Now... did Raffaele actually obsess over vampire slayings or is that something that you and the guilter loon cult made up? (Related: do you have that source where Raf stated he had the manga Devilman tattooed on his shoulder? You seem to be evading.)

And if we are indeed allowed to make up anything we want regarding the "context of the murder", wouldn't Satanic sex rite be just as plausible as Samhain pagan death murder orgy?

I cannot reveal my source. Try OGGI if you want a public source.

Sure, you can speculate a satanic rite. However, there is no evidence the alleged perps are satanists, although Raff showed a strong leaning towards the dark side.

 

[Numbers]

That's exactly how I understand it too.

And that's exactly how I interpret the ways in which 530.1 and 530.2 are used.

In the immediate aftermath of the Marasca SC verdict, I had wondered whether the unequivocal nature of the acquittals/annulments and the refusal to return the trial to an appeal-level court meant that the Marasca panel had gone as far as to decide that neither Knox nor Sollecito could, in practice, have participated in the murder (for example, the panel could have decided that there was sufficient evidence for a ToD well before 10pm, and that the other evidence of Knox's/Sollecito's whereabouts made it sufficiently impossible in practice for them to have committed the crime - particularly in the group-attack manner required by the prosecution theory).

But when the Marasca Report came out, it was clear that the reason for the definitive and forceful nature of the acquittals/annulments was that they deemed there to be no reliable, credible evidence pointing to the participation of Knox or Sollecito in the murder, and they also deemed that there never would be (hence the decision not to retry). In many ways, this was actually a far more binding and fair verdict than any ruling that Knox and Sollecito were definitely factually innocent (thus 530.1), since I don't think this can ever be proven (and nor does it need to be, of course). There's always a theoretical possibility that Knox and Sollecito could have participated - but one could say exactly the same about every single person/couple within 50 miles of Perugia that night who didn't have a cast-iron alibi. And likewise, had the state chosen to prosecute and try (e.g.) Mr and Mrs Bianchi, a couple in their late 50s who lived together in Perugia and who claimed to have spent the whole evening/night of 1st November 2007 at home (but couldn't prove this unequivocally), they too would/should have been acquitted under 530.2.

Yes.

What is missed in the argument that the person accused has, hypothetically, an airtight alibi, and a CPP Article 530.1 acquittal is justified, being, for example, in Seattle rather than at the murder site in Perugia at the relevant time, is that the prosecution could and would "refute" that argument by claiming that the accused had ordered the murder from the distant site.

But the defense counter to the prosecution would be that there was no evidence of such an order. Just as in the actual case, the lack of reliable and credible evidence of presence of the accused in the murder room was attributed to an impossible clean-up.

The prosecution would again claim that lack of evidence is not an indication that something has not occurred. That is the basic prosecution and guilter meme or theme. It is a rejection of the concept that guilt must be proven BARD by the prosecution and the guilters.

So one can argue that even in the case of the hypothetical "airtight" alibi, an acquittal must be based on the concept of insufficient evidence or proof, there being no reliable evidence of the communication from Seattle to Perugia of an order to murder someone.

 

[Vixen]

I agree with Desert Fox on this Grinder. It's not that it is impossible in that space, it's that there would be clear evidence of other people in that small room. Granted, this is all speculation. Anyone can build a scenario that ten people were in the room during the murder. But there would be evidence of more than just Rudy.

The reason for the lack of disturbance - for example, a glass of water on the desk remains upright - is the very fact of more than one attacker and of being forcibly restrained. Massei heard all the evidence from all the expert medics, forensics and others (including a wide range of defense experts for both Amanda and Raff, separately) and came to the conclusion as follows (Massei Report):

Furthermore, it is impossible to imagine in what way a single person could have
removed the clothes that Meredith was wearing (shoes, pants and underwear), and
using the violence revealed by the vaginal swab, could have caused the resulting
bruises and wounds recalled above, as well as removing her sweatshirt, pulling up
her shirt, forcing the bra hooks before tearing and cutting the bra.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>

Edited for rule 4.
You will not post "copyrighted" material in its entirety and do not post large amounts of material available from other sites.

Source: http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Massei_Report_(English)

 

[Vixen]

Every time one checks in here, one reads something that settles it. In any of the falsely provocative stuff Vixen spews here, there's usually a show-stopper response - like acbytesla's above.

Yet like a carnival barker moving to the next town, the falsely provocative stuff just keeps coming, usually recycled in three-month cycles. And the barker neglects to move to the next town.

One of the well-known guilters, now long since gone, made the point back in late 2011 that if the DNA evidence exonerates Raffaele and Amanda, that it should exonerate Rudy as well. It was pointed out to that guilter that once Rudy was found, his DNA-footprint could be compared to what was found at the scene of the crime, and the only (then) DNA which pointed to anyone, pointed uniquely to Rudy!

The double-DNA knife was found at Raffaele's, and could not be said to be tied to the murder unless one could explain how Meredith's non-blood DNA got on that knife, or why it was suspicious that a cooking knife at Raffaele's would be suspicious for having Amanda's DNA on the handle- she cooked at Raffaele's!

And then, 46 days later, the bra-clasp...... but rather than get into that here - it is bizarre in the extreme that one could claim an equivalence of the DNA of Rudy found at the scene, with the eventual claimed DNA of the other two. That's just bizarre.....

..... and shows how far one must reach to even suggest it.

Better at this late date to talk about the supposed difference between paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of the grounds for acquittal, neither of which is a "they almost proved they did it, but missed by an inch" clause. The, "If only they had one more piece of fake evidence we could have convicted them," clause.

They were acquitted exonerated almost a year ago. Deal with it.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove a breach of rule 12

As for being a carnival barker: LOL.

At least I am not a schnorrer going from wedding to wedding for free hospitality like the object of your cause, latching onto one innocence project after another, in the hope innocence will some how rub off onto one's own case.

Perhaps we can get such an attorney to find someone on Death Row to confess on his death bed to the Kercher murder.

PS who manufactures all these deathbeds? I've never seen one at John Lewis.