Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Or like with Barbie Nadeau's book, someone like Winterbottom buys the rights to it - which shuts up the author - then works with a screen-play which shows what a bed-hopping, drug-using tabloid hack she was.

Who's slut-shaming now? I thought you were against it? Or do we see rank hypocrisy?

 

[Vixen]

Saint Raff the Martyr

I note Raff is now claiming martyrdom.

It's just a matter of time before the Vatican beatifies him.

-----

A martyr (Greek: μάρτυς, mártys, "witness"; stem μάρτυρ-, mártyr-) is somebody who suffers persecution and/or death for advocating, renouncing, refusing to renounce, and/or refusing to advocate a belief or cause as demanded by an external party.

-----

 

[Bill Williams]

Who's slut-shaming now? I thought you were against it? Or do we see rank hypocrisy?

It's the way Winterbottom/Viragh presented her. Twasn't me. Indeed the "rank hypocrisy" is Nadeau's who made the basis of her book sex and drugs, while Winterbottom made a film showing how the journalists themselves were doing exactly what they'd criticized students for doing.

 

[Bill Williams]

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 quotes you provided are written to demonstrate how much M/B had shaken the Italian judicial world of judicial truths and the internal party of the PMs. A paragraph 1 acquittal means the crime did not exist. The crime obviously did exist, and the commentator is conceding that it leaves room for the naysayers - which it has.

It still is no less of an acquittal. Such things do not exist.

Remember that one of the alleged crimes (transporting the knife) was dropped from consideration because of time limits? If that one had gone to M/B, it would have been annulled because the crime did not exist.

One would then have been able to claim total and utter innocence on that one. Would that have done any good? Would it have satisfied those who believe M/B corrupt, inconsistent and virtually placing them at the crime while conspiratorially acquitting them?

No.

 

[acbytesla]

Who's slut-shaming now? I thought you were against it? Or do we see rank hypocrisy?

Barbie. Sort of self evident. Try and keep up.

 

[acbytesla]

I note Raff is now claiming martyrdom.

It's just a matter of time before the Vatican beatifies him.

-----

A martyr (Greek: μάρτυς, mártys, "witness"; stem μάρτυρ-, mártyr-) is somebody who suffers persecution and/or death for advocating, renouncing, refusing to renounce, and/or refusing to advocate a belief or cause as demanded by an external party.

-----

In time, All in good time.

 

[Grinder]

The quotes you provided are written to demonstrate how much M/B had shaken the Italian judicial world of judicial truths and the internal party of the PMs. A paragraph 1 acquittal means the crime did not exist. The crime obviously did exist, and the commentator is conceding that it leaves room for the naysayers - which it has.

It still is no less of an acquittal. Such things do not exist.

No Bill. Cheli makes it clear there is a difference. Paragraph one is not only for the crime not existing. It is less of an acquittal. You are in denial.

If the fact does not exist, if the accused has not committed, if the offense is not or is not required by law as a crime or if the offense was committed by a person not responsible [85 scp] or not punishable for a ' other reason, the court ruling of acquittal on their cause in the device [254 trans.].

 

[Bill Williams]

No Bill. Cheli makes it clear there is a difference. Paragraph one is not only for the crime not existing. It is less of an acquittal. You are in denial.

If the fact does not exist, if the accused has not committed, if the offense is not or is not required by law as a crime or if the offense was committed by a person not responsible [85 scp] or not punishable for a ' other reason, the court ruling of acquittal on their cause in the device [254 trans.].

Then which one of us is reading off the playbook? It's strange that you make that claim, and it is you who insist that people keep to some imagined orthodoxy!

I'm going to leave this to LondonJohn. Hey LJ - what's your opinion on the existence - in Italian law - of a verdict of, "not quite an acquittal, but not a conviction"?

 

[Grinder]

Then which one of us is reading off the playbook? It's strange that you make that claim, and it is you who insist that people keep to some imagined orthodoxy!

I'm going to leave this to LondonJohn. Hey LJ - what's your opinion on the existence - in Italian law - of a verdict of, "not quite an acquittal, but not a conviction"?

LJ happens to be wrong on the subject. Neither of you can produce anything but your own opinions. The law is clear. Cheli verifies that a paragraph two verdict meant something.

I'm not backing my opinion with my opinion. Read the law. Read Cheli.

It truly is pathetic to appeal to a poster that has the same opinion without demanding backing. Perhaps I should ask what Vixen's and Mach's opinions are. Ridiculous. You are in denial, deep denial.

 

[Bill Williams]

LJ happens to be wrong on the subject. Neither of you can produce anything but your own opinions. The law is clear. Cheli verifies that a paragraph two verdict meant something.

I'm not backing my opinion with my opinion. Read the law. Read Cheli.

It truly is pathetic to appeal to a poster that has the same opinion without demanding backing. Perhaps I should ask what Vixen's and Mach's opinions are. Ridiculous. You are in denial, deep denial.

Quite.

 

[Bill Williams]

LJ happens to be wrong on the subject. Neither of you can produce anything but your own opinions. The law is clear. Cheli verifies that a paragraph two verdict meant something.

I'm not backing my opinion with my opinion. Read the law. Read Cheli.

It truly is pathetic to appeal to a poster that has the same opinion without demanding backing. Perhaps I should ask what Vixen's and Mach's opinions are. Ridiculous. You are in denial, deep denial.

Here's the "cut to the chase" view of it. From a surprising source.

In law, there is no difference between the two. As there should be - in law.

However, there is much opinion out there which says that judges use the two to signal things. Whether or not that is what is being signalled in this case is far from clear.

If you want me to divert from the PR script for a second, this sounds to me a lot like the Italian concept of dietrology, that the surface level of meaning of something is not really the real meaning. Dietrological thought says that if you take a case where the two alleged perps are innocent, and obviously innocent - then there must be something else going on, issues available only to those with sufficient insight into things to see the nuances and tease out the underlying conspiracy.

It's what Douglas Preston was told when he tried to get a handle on the twists and turns, and bizarre claims associated with The Monster of Florence.

It's not about being in denial - claiming such is a sign one has kind'a run out of other arguments! It actually doesn't matter which one of us is right on an obscure website.

But it does seem to be true that there's a lot of talk within Italy that paragraph 2 is used the way you claim, although no one seems to want to come out and say that in their decision, they used it that way.

Why? Because apparently there are some judges in Italy who apply the law and leave the prognostications to obscure English-language message threads. The fact is that the judicial effect of 1&2 are the same, they are acquittals. The key is that there is no differing judicial remedy after that between the two.

 

[Grinder]

In law, there is no difference between the two. As there should be - in law.

What was/is the difference in law of a summary judgment and a not guilty verdict by jury? What's the difference between not guilty and not proven?

However, there is much opinion out there which says that judges use the two to signal things. Whether or not that is what is being signalled in this case is far from clear.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that it means something to an educated Italian? It clearly meant something to Cheli. Because it wasn't a para 1 verdict, he knew it wouldn't be a clear cut MR for innocence.

If you want me to divert from the PR script for a second, this sounds to me a lot like the Italian concept of dietrology, that the surface level of meaning of something is not really the real meaning. Dietrological thought says that if you take a case where the two alleged perps are innocent, and obviously innocent - then there must be something else going on, issues available only to those with sufficient insight into things to see the nuances and tease out the underlying conspiracy.

It does seem you refuse to accept the clear difference in the paragraphs. Perhaps part of your problem difficulty is that you believe everyone believes they were "obviously innocent".

It's not about being in denial - claiming such is a sign one has kind'a run out of other arguments! It actually doesn't matter which one of us is right on an obscure website.

No Bill denying what is plain as day and appealing to posters on this site is evidence of running out of everything.

But it does seem to be true that there's a lot of talk within Italy that paragraph 2 is used the way you claim, although no one seems to want to come out and say that in their decision, they used it that way.

M&B could hardly make it more clear.

Why? Because apparently there are some judges in Italy who apply the law and leave the prognostications to obscure English-language message threads. The fact is that the judicial effect of 1&2 are the same, they are acquittals. The key is that there is no differing judicial remedy after that between the two.

When the verdict was first given the defense and other supporters claimed it was a para 1 and it sure seemed important at the time.

 

[Bill Williams]

Grinder - answer this one question.....

If anyone wanted to move this forward as some claim is still an option available - what is the difference between 1 and 2 in the way it would be moved forward.

I have what I regard as an expert opinion that that is the compelling issue. If there is no difference between those two sections as to any hypothetical "what's next" then you're picking gnat pooh out of pepper.

If both mean nothing is available - same.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder - answer this one question.....

If anyone wanted to move this forward as some claim is still an option available - what is the difference between 1 and 2 in the way it would be moved forward.

I have what I regard as an expert opinion that that is the compelling issue. If there is no difference between those two sections as to any hypothetical "what's next" then you're picking gnat pooh out of pepper.

If both mean nothing is available - same.

Are you asking if a two allows further legal action that is precluded by a one? If so, I'm not with Vixen but rather LJ. The Italian system and culture are so byzantine it wouldn't shock me if there was a difference, but I can't find anything nor can you. Mach has inferred that a two leaves open civil actions (your Maresca news quotes notwithstanding ) and it makes sense that a one would eliminate that possibility, but I sure don't know that. If we had such a system I can't imagine OJ being a para one, which wouldn't have allowed the civil suits.

Why do you think they have the two? Do really believe the judges don't know the difference in how the verdicts are perceived?

Why do you think that the defense was hoping for a one if it didn't make any difference?

 

[Bill Williams]

Are you asking if a two allows further legal action that is precluded by a one? If so, I'm not with Vixen but rather LJ. The Italian system and culture are so byzantine it wouldn't shock me if there was a difference, but I can't find anything nor can you. Mach has inferred that a two leaves open civil actions (your Maresca news quotes notwithstanding ) and it makes sense that a one would eliminate that possibility, but I sure don't know that. If we had such a system I can't imagine OJ being a para one, which wouldn't have allowed the civil suits.

Why do you think they have the two? Do really believe the judges don't know the difference in how the verdicts are perceived?

Why do you think that the defense was hoping for a one if it didn't make any difference?

I thank you for your honesty and refraining from invective.

And yes, that is a better way of asking it: "Are you asking if a two allows further legal action that is precluded by a one?" That is the compelling issue. I will venture an opinion on your other issues mainly because you've left a decent reply to me! What is clear is that there is no further action that either 1 or 2 allows, which is the reason (I'm told) why in law, really, there IS no difference between the two. Both are definitive acquittals. That ends it.

If so, I'm not with Vixen but rather LJ. The Italian system and culture are so byzantine it wouldn't shock me if there was a difference, but I can't find anything nor can you.​

I'm with LJ too, and not with Vixen. An off the cuff observation is that I join with you that, "The Italian system and culture are so byzantine it wouldn't shock me if there was a difference, but I can't find anything nor can you."

That, indeed, is the point. At least as described to me. No one can find a difference in "what's next" between 1 and 2. However, this has not stopped Italian commentators from speculating that there is some other difference, much in the manner you have indicated above. And that that "some other difference" wanders into the territory which causes even judicial-professionals in Italy to wonder if judges use the perceived difference to signal something.

But it is clear, the difference is in perception rather than law - and by "law", that specifically refers to the "law of what's next", which means there is no difference.

Mach has inferred that a two leaves open civil actions (your Maresca news quotes notwithstanding) and it makes sense that a one would eliminate that possibility, but I sure don't know that.​

I don't know it either really, I can only pass on others' opinions and what seems logical and consistent. Mach's inference, though, puts him at odds with none other than Francesco Maresca which is perhaps all one really needs to know, way up here in the cheap seats.

Why do you think they have the two? Do really believe the judges don't know the difference in how the verdicts are perceived?​

Judging from the conversation here, why do I think they have two? It's as you say - Italy has a Byzantine system stuck halfway in transition from an Inquisitorial system to an Adversarial one.

Judges obviously DO know how things are perceived, yet I'm told each one is reluctant to actually support that perception in any motivation report they write. I am told that the reason why M/B is mistakenly read that way, is because it is one ISC Section following at least 2 other ISC Sections who made rulings on Guede (in a non-evidentiary, fast-track process) as well as on Hellmann. Section 5 last March (2015) was stuck with writing something that did not openly conflict with a dog's breakfast of judicial truths generated by an inept investigation and amnesiac judicial process. Marasca/Bruno went as far as they could, really, with calling out the former ISC sections without actually saying it.... in true ISC fashion of one Section not wanting to be perceived as out of step with another.

Section 5 meant for whatever it was they said to address the dog's judicial breakfast, rather than telegraph some lesser acquittal, a concept which does not exist in law, but seems to exist in even learned papers on the subject.

Why do you think that the defense was hoping for a one if it didn't make any difference?​

On that one I have no clue. Given that 1 can be used for "the crime did not exist", the crime of murder obviously did exist. That's why I speculated (above) on what M/B might have done on the "transport of knife" charge, one that Hellmann had said did not exist.

Other commentators on this thread have suggested that the real difference between one and two is that - whether or not the crime itself existed. However, the whole issue is so bizarre......

 

[Grinder]

I thank you for your honesty and refraining from invective.

Welcome.

What is clear is that there is no further action that either 1 or 2 allows, which is the reason (I'm told) why in law, really, there IS no difference between the two. Both are definitive acquittals. That ends it.

Please Bill stop with the "I'm told" "sources tell me" when making an assertion. Do you have a source or not?

That, indeed, is the point. At least as described to me. No one can find a difference in "what's next" between 1 and 2. However, this has not stopped Italian commentators from speculating that there is some other difference, much in the manner you have indicated above. And that that "some other difference" wanders into the territory which causes even judicial-professionals in Italy to wonder if judges use the perceived difference to signal something.

Again "at least as described to me" not good form. Yes, the difference does seem very real to Italians and I doubt they "wonder if judges use the perceived difference to signal something". Cheli knew immediately a two would preclude a total innocent MR. Mach knew the difference. The defense knew the difference.

But it is clear, the difference is in perception rather than law - and by "law", that specifically refers to the "law of what's next", which means there is no difference.

Not proven is a verdict available to a court in Scotland. As with other judicial systems, the burden to prove guilt rests with the prosecution. Under Scots law, a criminal trial may end in one of three verdicts: one of conviction ("guilty") and two of acquittal ("not proven" and "not guilty").
Under Scots law, a criminal trial may end in one of three verdicts: one of conviction ("guilty") and two of acquittal ("not proven" and "not guilty")
​

Do you really not see a difference, even though both "not guilty" and "not proven" are acquittals.

I don't know it either really, I can only pass on others' opinions and what seems logical and consistent. Mach's inference, though, puts him at odds with none other than Francesco Maresca which is perhaps all one really needs to know, way up here in the cheap seats.

What others? What are you basing your Maresca position on? Has he explained the legal aspects or only said it was over. Did he write a piece or is it based on reactions after the verdict.

Judging from the conversation here, why do I think they have two? It's as you say - Italy has a Byzantine system stuck halfway in transition from an Inquisitorial system to an Adversarial one.

No I didn't say " Italy has a Byzantine system stuck halfway in transition from an Inquisitorial system to an Adversarial one". I'm not at all convinced nor have I seen any credible source stating that 530 was an oversight of legislation. Do you have a link?

Judges obviously DO know how things are perceived, yet I'm told each one is reluctant to actually support that perception in any motivation report they write.

I'm sorry but besides the source (I'm told) I have no problem seeing M&B supporting the perception. They clearly support the multiple attackers. They state that the evidence wasn't handled correctly - they don't say there was no evidence at all. They call out the previous judges saying the ruling she was there made sense and was reasonable.

I am told that the reason why M/B is mistakenly read that way, is because it is one ISC Section following at least 2 other ISC Sections who made rulings on Guede (in a non-evidentiary, fast-track process) as well as on Hellmann. Section 5 last March (2015) was stuck with writing something that did not openly conflict with a dog's breakfast of judicial truths generated by an inept investigation and amnesiac judicial process. Marasca/Bruno went as far as they could, really, with calling out the former ISC sections without actually saying it.... in true ISC fashion of one Section not wanting to be perceived as out of step with another.

I'm told. Yes, we all understand that but Cheli specifically says they went beyond protocol in backing them.

Section 5 meant for whatever it was they said to address the dog's judicial breakfast, rather than telegraph some lesser acquittal, a concept which does not exist in law, but seems to exist in even learned papers on the subject.

I'm told it does exist in law by the actual code. It's the law. It's the law.

On that one I have no clue. Given that 1 can be used for "the crime did not exist", the crime of murder obviously did exist. That's why I speculated (above) on what M/B might have done on the "transport of knife" charge, one that Hellmann had said did not exist.

Yes and it can also be used for falsely accused of the crime. I can see why you want to only acknowledge "the crime didn't exist" but it is at a minimum specious but really worse because you know "the crime did not exist" is not the only para one reason.

Other commentators on this thread have suggested that the real difference between one and two is that - whether or not the crime itself existed. However, the whole issue is so bizarre......

Bill I have quoted the law and others quoted the law but those contending "whether or not the crime itself existed" have never provided anything to prove it is the only cause.

 

[Grinder]

art device. 530 Code of Criminal Procedure
Sources → Code of Criminal Procedure → BOOK VII - Findings → Title III - Judgment (Arts. 525-548) → Chapter II - Decision → Section I - Judgment of acquittal
1. If the crime does not exist [ 541 2 542 ], if the accused has not committed [ 541 2 542 ], if the offense is not or is not required by law as a crime or if the crime was committed from person not attributable [cp 85 ] or not punishable for another reason, the judge pronounces acquittal on their cause in the device.
2. The judge pronounces acquittal even when there is insufficient or contradictory evidence that the thing certain, that the accused has committed it, that constitutes a criminal offense or the offense was committed by a person attributable to (1) .
3 . If there is evidence that the act was committed in the presence of a justification or a personal cause for exemption from punishment or there is doubt about the existence of the same, the judge ruling of acquittal pursuant to paragraph 1.
4. With the acquittal the court shall apply in the cases provided by law, the security measures [ 537 ].

http://www.brocardi.it/codice-di-pr...timo/titolo-iii/capo-ii/sezione-i/art530.html

Another source, I'm told.

 

[Planigale]

Are you asking if a two allows further legal action that is precluded by a one? If so, I'm not with Vixen but rather LJ. The Italian system and culture are so byzantine it wouldn't shock me if there was a difference, but I can't find anything nor can you. Mach has inferred that a two leaves open civil actions (your Maresca news quotes notwithstanding ) and it makes sense that a one would eliminate that possibility, but I sure don't know that. If we had such a system I can't imagine OJ being a para one, which wouldn't have allowed the civil suits.

Why do you think they have the two? Do really believe the judges don't know the difference in how the verdicts are perceived?

Why do you think that the defense was hoping for a one if it didn't make any difference?

Paragraph 1 seems to include verdicts that are other than not guilty. Such things as no crime was committed, or a crime was committed and the accused did commit the action but there was a defence such as self defence, or the accused is innocent beyond doubt (e.g. the wrong 'John Smith' being arrested). Paragraph 2 is the not guilty verdict that would normally be returned. My guess is that para 1 verdicts will be unusual only occurring in special circumstances.

 

[Grinder]

Paragraph 1 seems to include verdicts that are other than not guilty. Such things as no crime was committed, or a crime was committed and the accused did commit the action but there was a defence such as self defence, or the accused is innocent beyond doubt (e.g. the wrong 'John Smith' being arrested). Paragraph 2 is the not guilty verdict that would normally be returned. My guess is that para 1 verdicts will be unusual only occurring in special circumstances.

Hey what part of a grain of salt (sugar) would be equal to the DNA found on the knife and the bra?

Self defense is paragraph three acquittal. The wording for one is closest to " the accused did commit the action".

It could well be that para 1 verdicts are unusual but never the less there is a difference. Obviously, if there were lots of them it would be even more significant that this one is a two.

 

[Planigale]

Hey what part of a grain of salt (sugar) would be equal to the DNA found on the knife and the bra?

Self defense is paragraph three acquittal. The wording for one is closest to " the accused did commit the action".

It could well be that para 1 verdicts are unusual but never the less there is a difference. Obviously, if there were lots of them it would be even more significant that this one is a two.

A better example might be justifiable homicide e.g. by a police officer