Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Sure. Link to it for me and tell me what page it is on.

Since 99.99% of your comments are lies or complete befuddlement as to what is going on around you, I am not going to take the time to read through a document on the 0.001% chance you are right this time.

LG:
A very last question. In the minutes of Nov 6, it says in the dossier that you visited doctor Lalli in the Questura, and he noted a mark on your neck, here. Do you remember that mark, firstly?
AK:
Yes. [laugh]
LG:
How did you get it?
AK:
[English] "Errr....it's a hickey." [Interpreter translates, giggling.]
FM?:
[in the background] Is it a scratch from Meredith?
AK:
A hickey. From Raffaele.
LG:
A hickey. I knew another term for this, but we know...

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox's_Testimony

You claimed it was an old scar.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen,
You are avoiding the core point. Show me how these two statements are identical:

1) Maori is facing charges of corruption for consorting with Conti and Vecchiotti.

2) Maori is being sued by Mignini and his cohorts, and in their long rambling legal document they accuse Maori of having a conversation with Conti and Vecchiotti. In one sentence of a 28 page document.

I am sure your flawless analytical skills can come up with something.

Just because your document (translation) is dated May 2015 does not mean that is when the lawsuit was filed. I am looking at an article that mentions Mignini's lawsuit against Raf's lawyer and it is dated February 2010. Either we are in a time warp, the date is completely wrong, or Migini has filed multiple lawsuits against the same people for the same thing (hilariously, these are all possibilities in this case).

As to your "personal data", you have posted on this very forum about your membership to Mensa. So you shared it with everyone. I don't know why you brought it up previously, but it seemed pertinent to the discussion since you like to trumpet your analytical skills. I just hope this exchange doesn't harm your membership status, that's all. I'm looking out for you.

Anyway, can you tell me how all this is connected to Dr. Gill and Forensic Science International and your charges of corruption against them, the top forensic science journal in the world? I am sure you are getting around to explaining it, but if you could get on with it that would be great.

No, I haven't. I have never mentioned it.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

You claimed it was an old scar.

No, YOU claimed it was a gaping neck wound from the murder orgy with Meredith and that is how Amanda got her blood in the bathroom.

I pointed out that given the obviously adjusted brightness of the picture, it could have been an old scar. Turns out it was a hickey. Whatever, the point remains that it clearly wasn't a gaping neck wound from a violent murder. We know this because it was identified at most as a tiny scratch.

Do try to keep my comments in context of what is being replied to, please.

 

[js202]

I mean, caveat emptor, already?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10611128#post10611128

Lies, damned lies, and hours of good lives wasted consorting with a preposterously unreliable and bad-faith interlocutor. Is this what has finally become of life on ISF?

 

[Numbers]

I have previously posted those translations - from Gialuz et al. - on this forum. They are also available on the IIP Forum, in the Italian Criminal Laws and Procedures thread:

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=3161&sid=2e50b1929ff8c76c6d8c6a2e1a1b6b05

With a little searching, I have found the text of CPP Article 530 as I posted on this forum. It is on Thread Continuation 18, post #1582, 17 June 2015.

I copy that post here:

Because of the interest expressed, I post the English translation of CPP Articles 530 and 531 here.

Source: The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation, ed. M. Gialuz, L. Luparia, and F. Scarpa, Wolters Kluwer Italia, (c) 2014.

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.

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 a 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.

CPP Article 531 Declaration of extinguishment of the offence

1. Without prejudice to the provision of Article 129, paragraph 2, if the offence is extinguished, the judge shall deliver a judgment of non-prosecution, mentioning the cause in the operative part.

2. The judge shall follow the same procedure if there are doubts regarding the cause for extinguishing an offence.
____
Commentary: In the inquisitorial system in a civil code jurisdiction, the judge must have some legal rationale to acquit. Otherwise (as probably was the usual case) the trial was a formality and the judge merely accepted the prosecution case (which was prepared by the investigating judge, if I understand correctly).

Thus, a law such as CPP Article 530.1 was needed to allow the judge a legal rationale to acquit when, in the judge's opinion, the accused was somehow clearly "innocent", or there was actually no crime committed, or it was committed by someone in authority who had immunity.

Furthermore, without a BARD standard for guilt having been encoded in law before 2006, there was a need to allow the judge a legal rationale to acquit when there was, in the judge's opinion, insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof of guilt, or for certain other cases, such as insufficient, contradictory, or lacking proof of mental competence. Thus, CPP Article 530.2 provided that legal rationale.

It may be useful to consider Wikipedia's categorization of judgments under Italian law; these lump together the Article 533, 530.1, 530.2, and 530.3 reasons:

There are only certain judgments allowed at the conclusion of a criminal trial.

1. Guilty (colpevole) - Conviction (condanna)

2. Not guilty (non colpevole)

2.1 Acquittal (assoluzione)
2.1.1 The act did not take place (there was no crime committed) - Perché il fatto non sussiste
2.1.2 The accused did not commit the act [crime] - Perché l'imputato non lo ha commesso
2.1.3 The action was not a crime, because the accused is excused (for example, self-defense) - Perché il fatto non costituisce reato
2.1.4 The action is no longer considered a crime under the law - Perché il fatto non è previsto dalla Legge come reato
2.1.5 The person is not criminally responsible, because of a mental condition [insanity] - Perché l'imputato non è punibile

2.2 Other dismissal (Non doversi procedere); such a dismissal may be because, for example: there has been an amnesty, the case has become time-barred under the statute of limitations, or the proper criminal complaint was not filed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure

 

[NotEvenWrong]

No, I haven't. I have never mentioned it.

Apologies if you indeed never mentioned it on here. It was brought up within the confines of these threads before, however. And given your penchant for discussing how you dismantled national chess champions back in the day and your professional level understanding of probability and game theory, it seemed natural to guess it came from you.

But think of it this way: much like how you say constant negative things about Amanda Knox (despite none of the information coming directly from her) and literally every single one of her supporters, and you discuss these people on here, TJMK, and PMF, sometimes other people may say things about you since you participate in these discussions. I then read what is posted (despite you never telling me directly); the same way everyone else reads it. The difference is what you post is intentionally malicious.

Considering you like to smear Amanda, Raffaele, and all of her supporters in every way imaginable, I find it incredibly strange you are sensitive about someone saying you are in Mensa because that's just too personal. Isn't that a tiny bit hypocritical?

 

[js202]

Apologies if you indeed never mentioned it on here. It was brought up within the confines of these threads before, however. And given your penchant for discussing how you dismantled national chess champions back in the day and your professional level understanding of probability and game theory, it seemed natural to guess it came from you.

But think of it this way: much like how you say constant negative things about Amanda Knox (despite none of the information coming directly from her) and literally every single one of her supporters, and you discuss these people on here, TJMK, and PMF, sometimes other people may say things about you since you participate in these discussions. I then read what is posted (despite you never telling me directly); the same way everyone else reads it. The difference is what you post is intentionally malicious.

Considering you like to smear Amanda, Raffaele, and all of her supporters in every way imaginable, I find it incredibly strange you are sensitive about someone saying you are in Mensa because that's just too personal. Isn't that a tiny bit hypocritical?

Please see post 3764, directly above. Also try this link:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10617995#post10617995

 

[Bill Williams]

Amanda herself said it was a recent hickey given her by lover boy Raff. It is a police picture. It is entirely bonkers to claim "the police doctored the contrast".

Sheesh.

Well, bonkers it is then. There's a notation on the pic I saw, a notation from the cops themselves that the pic was adjusted to make the mark visible.

Note how far the convo has wandered from the erroneous claim thatKnox bled at the scene.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Please see post 3764, directly above. Also try this link:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10617995#post10617995

HAHAHAHAHA. Boy do I have egg on my face. I actually believed someone who hasn't told the truth a single time in her 4,000+ posts.

 

[Bill Williams]

HAHAHAHAHA. Boy do I have egg on my face. I actually believed someone who hasn't told the truth a single time in her 4,000+ posts.

For the record, Vixen has twice in those 4,000 posts properly recanted erroneous claims, and apologized.

 

[Grinder]

I have previously posted those translations - from Gialuz et al. - on this forum. They are also available on the IIP Forum, in the Italian Criminal Laws and Procedures thread:

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=3161&sid=2e50b1929ff8c76c6d8c6a2e1a1b6b05

Thanks. I can see why you didn't want to publish it

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.

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 a 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.

If I recall the lawyer you refer thinks 530 should be ended. Obviously he thinks it means something.


Numbers530CCP

 

[js202]

HAHAHAHAHA. Boy do I have egg on my face. I actually believed someone who hasn't told the truth a single time in her 4,000+ posts.

I feel you. But, respectfully, your first mistake is endeavoring to engage with any post whatsoever that has a fox avatar below the username. That way lies damnation.

 

[Numbers]

Thanks. I can see why you didn't want to publish it
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.

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 a 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.

If I recall the lawyer you refer thinks 530 should be ended. Obviously he thinks it means something.


Numbers530CCP

I see that you currently have a fixed view on this issue, as you had previously.

It is your right to have your opinion, but you are, of course, totally incorrect in the implication of your first statement. Your statement is merely an ad hominem.

Since the CPP is available online at several sites, in Italian, and has been for years, it is a bizarre logical fallacy to suggest that I am somehow involved in publishing it, or have somehow not desired to publish it. Your statement is outside the bounds of reasonable discourse.

As I have indicated, with a little searching with the ISF search tool, I found my post of the Gialuz et al. translation on Continuation 16 {not 18, as I erroneously stated} from 17 June 2015, post 1582. In fact, you later quoted it, but if I understand correctly, considered it a legal interpretation rather than an attempt by Gialuz et al. at a fair translation.

You may express whatever resentment of Gialuz or the other Italian legal experts you wish, but for credibility, if you believe they are wrong, you should support your own opinions with some evidence from Italian law, and not merely reiterate the obvious difference in language of 530.2 compared to 530.1, which predates the 2006 adoption of conviction after trial requiring proof of guilt by BARD as Italian legal code (CPP Article 533.1). {Source: Gialuz et al.}

Again, your view is your view. However, in the real world, there is no legal difference in any consequence of a verdict stating "the accused did not commit the act (crime)" under 530.2 compared to 530.1. If you believe or find otherwise, you are free to provide a citation to support your position. Otherwise, I believe no reasonable person would accept your opinions on this topic as having legal validity.

 

[Grinder]

I see that you currently have a fixed view on this issue, as you had previously.

It is your right to have your opinion, but you are, of course, totally incorrect in the implication of your first statement. Your statement is merely an ad hominem.

Since the CPP is available online at several sites, in Italian, and has been for years, it is a bizarre logical fallacy to suggest that I am somehow involved in publishing it, or have somehow not desired to publish it. Your statement is outside the bounds of reasonable discourse.

There was no personal attack. The law as you had previously published on IIP etc. clearly shows that a para 1 includes for the defendant not committing the act, which goes against what others have been saying. The term publishing only means posting it.

As I have indicated, with a little searching with the ISF search tool, I found my post of the Gialuz et al. translation on Continuation 16 {not 18, as I erroneously stated} from 17 June 2015, post 1582. In fact, you later quoted it, but if I understand correctly, considered it a legal interpretation rather than an attempt by Gialuz et al. at a fair translation.

Not sure what you mean but I think the translation is the accurate.

You may express whatever resentment of Gialuz or the other Italian legal experts you wish, but for credibility, if you believe they are wrong, you should support your own opinions with some evidence from Italian law, and not merely reiterate the obvious difference in language of 530.2 compared to 530.1, which predates the 2006 adoption of conviction after trial requiring proof of guilt by BARD as Italian legal code (CPP Article 533.1). {Source: Gialuz et al.}

I'm not saying they are wrong. I'm saying 530 is a law and para 1 is different from 2 and if Gialuz thinks it should be changed that just supports my position that Italians understand the difference.

Again, your view is your view. However, in the real world, there is no legal difference in any consequence of a verdict stating "the accused did not commit the act (crime)" under 530.2 compared to 530.1. If you believe or find otherwise, you are free to provide a citation to support your position. Otherwise, I believe no reasonable person would accept your opinions on this topic as having legal validity.

There is no question that the defense hoped it was a para 1 after the verdict. Cheli made it clear he knew a para 2 meant the MR would be muddled and not a clear cut narrative for innocence.

 

[Bill Williams]

Again, your view is your view. However, in the real world, there is no legal difference in any consequence of a verdict stating "the accused did not commit the act (crime)" under 530.2 compared to 530.1. If you believe or find otherwise, you are free to provide a citation to support your position. Otherwise, I believe no reasonable person would accept your opinions on this topic as having legal validity.

The highlighted part is the issue. Until Grinder or anyone else can provide an answer to this, there is no point continuing discussing it with him. My Opinion Only.

At least Vixen is offering an answer, however wrong that answer might be.

One can only repeat - the discussion which happens in Italy, even at high levels, is about what judges/courts try to signal with the way they use #1 and #2. Part of that discussion is whether or not this"signalling" is even a legitimate discourse.

It is typical Italian "reading between the lines" activity.

If one tries to apply that "reading between the lines" to the Marasca-Bruno verdict and report, one quickly goes down the rabbit hole. The reading between the lines is most certainly what Machiavelli and Vixen are doing when they imply that Marasca acquitted, but wanted to signal that the pair were really guilty - or signal that they'd just barely beat BARD.

There are a lot of reputable news outlets in Italy which suggest this "signalling" is in another direction - that the M/B report was blunt in its repudiation of case investigators and the judges who had ruled at lower courts. Some ventured the opinion that M/B had instituted a rare "ruling on the evidence", rather than a typical roll-of-the-dice to determine guilt/innocence.

And this remains: until Grinder or anyone else can provide an answer to some differing legal consequence from the two types of acquittal, there is no point continuing discussing it with him. My Opinion Only.

 

[Grinder]

The highlighted part is the issue. Until Grinder or anyone else can provide an answer to this, there is no point continuing discussing it with him. My Opinion Only.

No Bill there clearly is a difference. Go read Cheli. The issue is about public perception for me and it is for you as well.

One can only repeat - the discussion which happens in Italy, even at high levels, is about what judges/courts try to signal with the way they use #1 and #2. Part of that discussion is whether or not this"signalling" is even a legitimate discourse.

what bull. you have no idea nor do I what high level discussions entail - no more than Follain knew what the cops said or that the interrogation tape will be forthcoming.

It is typical Italian "reading between the lines" activity.

Bill they have a law 530 which has different levels of acquittal, period.

 

[Mike1711]

You must be a doctor But not a lawyer, right? IIRC you took a class taught by a legal expert with a name starting with an L.

I was lectured by Professor Raymond Suttner.

 

[Bill Williams]

No Bill there clearly is a difference. Go read Cheli. The issue is about public perception for me and it is for you as well.

It is? Why didn't you say so in the first place!

I give up.

So your answer to the claim, "there is no legal difference in any consequence of a verdict stating "the accused did not commit the act (crime)" under 530.2 compared to 530.1" is......

Drum roll please:

"No Bill, there clearly is a difference"! Wow. Stellar rhetoric!

I give up. Obviously I've been outgunned.

 

[Numbers]

No Bill there clearly is a difference. Go read Cheli. The issue is about public perception for me and it is for you as well.



what bull. you have no idea nor do I what high level discussions entail - no more than Follain knew what the cops said or that the interrogation tape will be forthcoming.



Bill they have a law 530 which has different levels of acquittal, period.

For the benefit of readers of this forum, I have summarized the 5 different levels of acquittal under Italian law by paraphrasing information from the following Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure

2. Not guilty (non colpevole)

2.1 Acquittal (assoluzione)
2.1.1 The act did not take place (there was no crime committed) - Perché il fatto non sussiste
2.1.2 The accused did not commit the act [crime] - Perché l'imputato non lo ha commesso
2.1.3 The action was not a crime, because the accused is excused (for example, self-defense) - Perché il fatto non costituisce reato
2.1.4 The action is no longer considered a crime under the law - Perché il fatto non è previsto dalla Legge come reato
2.1.5 The person is not criminally responsible, because of a mental condition [insanity] - Perché l'imputato non è punibile

2.2 Other dismissal (Non doversi procedere); such a dismissal may be because, for example: there has been an amnesty, the case has become time-barred under the statute of limitations, or the proper criminal complaint was not filed

I previously posted this information (above) 13 March 2016 in post 3765.
______

There is no legal difference in consequences for an acquittal for the accused having been found NOT to have committed the act (crime) under CPP Article 530.2 compared to Article 530.1.

Again, I challenge anyone to find and post any such legal difference in consequences.

There is indeed a difference in language in CPP Article 530.2 compared to 530.1; that may be considered simply the method that the Italian Parliament used to convey the total way that acquittals may be established by rationale, prior to the adoption of the proven guilty under BARD standard for a conviction made Italian law in 2006.*

In terms of M. Gialuz's comment about CPP Article 530, there appears to be a misunderstanding. Gialuz did not criticize the existence of CPP Article 530 or any part of if in his essay, but stated that "Article 530 was considered one of the least successful provisions of the 1988 reform" of the Italian inquisitorial system because "it was not clear, however, which was the required standard to convict a person". However, Gialuz states that after an evolution of judicial decisions and eventually parliamentary views, the Italian Parliament adopted CPP Article 533.1 in 2006 stating "the judge shall deliver a judgment of conviction if the accused is proven to be guilty of the alleged offense beyond a reasonable doubt." Gialuz goes on to state "This change has represented a step towards completion, from an accusatorial {adversarial} viewpoint, of the Italian criminal justice system."

Thus, Gialuz in no way states that there is an issue of difference of legal consequence between CPP Article 530.1 and 530.2; rather, the concern was that this legal language (adopted in present form in 1988 according to Gialuz) was something of a carryover from the inquisitorial system and did not fully guide the judge to the legal standard required for conviction in an adversarial system. That standard was established satisfactorily, according to Gialuz, with the adoption of CPP Article 533.1 in 2006.

*ETA: For the inquisitorial system, the accused is essentially considered guilty until or unless the accused can prove himself innocent (not guilty). Thus the need for standards of proof of innocence in the inquisitorial system. Gialuz states: "With regard to the final decision {of a trial}, the [CPP] ... eliminated the acquittal for insufficient evidence, which was inherited from the inquisitorial system based on the presumption of guilt." In its place, the 1988 reform substituted the current language of CPP Article 530.2.

 

[Planigale]

Nicely sidestepped.

For the umpty-ninth time:

A mixture of the two women's DNA (probably mixed blood) was found in three places: on the cotton bud box, the side of basin, and the bidet.

The mixed traces are probably mixed blood because of the similar heights of the DNA peaks attributable to Meredith and Knox. White blood cells are rich in DNA and a large amount usually indicates ample blood, especially as we can see the blood with our naked eye.

Some of Amanda's DNA was more copious than Mez' indicating Amanda bled quite a lot. The same time as Mez.

Sorry if you think DNA is a protein then your opinion on DNA analysis is valueless.

One cannot identify the source of DNA from peak heights. In fact if one watches the video of the DNA collection from the basin then one cannot even be sure the DNA was co=located; broad swipes were taken, the DNA of Kercher and Knox could have been separately located. It would be normal to find DNA traces of the users on the basin or bidet or kitchen utensils. There is no time print, one cannot say when the DNA was deposited, one cannot know if the DNA was deposited at the same time. One can assume that the DNA from the blood stains identify the source of the blood, one cannot assume other DNA samples are from any particular source (cleaning teeth and washing mouth out would be an excellent source of DNA for the basin). This is just not scientific.