Bill read the law. One para proclaims no crime or a clear statement the person didn't do it (para 1) while the second says the evidence wasn't enough to convict BARD.
Please stop with the legal consequences argument since 1) I never claimed there were differences and 2) this is about public perception. The conversation came out of your specious claims about how the verdict was perceived.
I have also said that I doubt anyone here knows for sure if a 2 makes any difference legally regarding other suits. Logically a pure innocent verdict would seem to be a defense against future accusations that a verdict based on lacking or contradictory evidence wouldn't. If O.J. had been found not guilty with a para 1 (if we had that) then I doubt he could have been successfully sued civilly.
In a never ending series of claims to define the argument so that one wins by default..... so, rather than see your admission, "I have never claimed there were differences," one returns to a former topic so as to claim victory....
So let's put it into context.
1) I never said you'd said there were differences. I was wanting to hear from you what legal consequences there might be, indicating that on that matter there was a difference. I note you say there are none. Thank you. That was the point I wanted to know. You've verified that my position (and Numbers and LondonJohn's) was correct. We could have saved a lot of time if you'de just said this from the beginning, rather than sneaking into the stadium at night trying to move to goalposts.
2) Re: my specious claims about how the verdict was "perceived". Once again this is a red herring, trying to redefine what we were talking about. The matter of paragraph #1 vs #2 is **at best** not a matter of perception, per se, it is a matter claimed by some of what judges are trying to signal with their verdicts. Can we at least dispense with that before you move the goalposts back to another topic!
First off if you would do something other than cherry-pick Italian arguments on this matter, you will see that that is the debate. First and foremost is the debate about whether or not judges, in fact, try to do that - try to signal things with their choice of type of acquittal.
As if that is not tenuous enough, one then gets into the further murky territory of what Marasca/Bruno were trying to signal, if anything. This is where at least Machiavelli and Vixen play the game, they believe the signal is that M/B really thought them guilty, but acquitted to send a signal that the Italian judiciary could be bought-off by foreign influence.
The vast majority of Italian commentators who get around to it, say it signals something else, that M/B signalled they were going to adjudicate acc. to the law, and not part of the internal party-politics within the judiciary.
One other case (mentioned way-way upthread) was about what seemed to be a return to the "dice-roll" method of meting out Italian justice, and the commentator mentioned the M/B decision as perhaps failing to establish the practise of judging based on evidence and the law, because this subsequent case returned to the dice-roll.
If you want to go back to Italian perception (generally) about this case - we have been around that 100 times. Initially, my own survey of GOOGLE.IT around the time of the acquittal in 2015 as well as six months later with the M.R., showed a virtual unanimity that M/B came to the right decision and that they'd laid the smack on the previous courts and particularly the inept investigation.
Machiavelli broke that unanimity, coming up with one - one - contemporaneous departure from that unanimity. Recently, he's also referenced a YouTuber, an Italian journalist of some note who seems to share the view that M/B made a mistake. You yourself have found some other instances.
Rather than beat this horse to death, though,the issue is once again - what's being done about that minority voice? Nothing.
RAI3 stuns this wee world of ours with its interview with Rudy Guede, playing violin music softly over his claims that he was railroaded. Surely that would have blown the lid off of things, and journalists from Switzerland to Italian's toe would be lining up to expose this thin wedge of "they might not be totally innocent" you claim paragraph #2 signals.
It is amazing that the RAI3 interview appeared, then disappeared. People keep trying to light the fuse of March 2015 being anything less than a definitive acquittal, and they find there is no fuse much less no ticking time-bomb.
All that's left are nitpickers. People who call world-renowned geneticists, "whores". Or people who conflate not one, not two, but three issues - perhaps only so that he can quietly slip into the conversation that he believes there is no difference in consequence of any of the acquittals, but then substitute another issue to make it seem we were discussing something else.
Weird.
. I try to back opinions with facts or other material, for example posting the law or Cheli's article.
