Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

The only thing Numbers did not mention was the penchant for moving the goalposts. But I never said Numbers was perfect.

I wish you would stop with the straw men. I have said all along there is a difference because there is but have never said that it is a definitive difference in future legal cases.

You will not produce anything about the alleged debate and you won't produce anything that says the paras make no difference in how a verdict is perceived which was my point from the beginning. If Vixen says a 2 is a dropping of the charges that doesn't have anything to do with my position.

The fact is M&B left plenty on the bone for the PGP, that wouldn't be there with a 1. It would have been reduced if the MR hadn't left much open to question.

 

[Grinder]

Methinks you were gong for laughs with this! You got one here!

Yeah but you still laugh at the pull the finger gag.

 

[Vixen]

Have you actually looked up the law, CPP Article 530, in its Italian text?

I suggest all your statements regarding this law are false.

Please see my previous post (#3803). But I will repeat the Italian text here for your benefit.

Art. 530 - Sentenza di assoluzione
1. Se il fatto non sussiste, se l'imputato non lo ha commesso, se il fatto non costituisce reato o non è previsto dalla legge come reato ovvero se il reato è stato commesso da persona non imputabile o non punibile per un'altra ragione, il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione indicandone la causa nel dispositivo.
2. Il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione anche quando manca, è insufficiente o è contraddittoria la prova che il fatto sussiste, che l'imputato lo ha commesso, che il fatto costituisce reato o che il reato è stato commesso da persona imputabile.
3. Se vi è la prova che il fatto è stato commesso in presenza di una causa di giustificazione o di una causa personale di non punibilità ovvero vi è dubbio sull'esistenza delle stesse, il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione a norma del comma 1.
4. Con la sentenza di assoluzione il giudice applica, nei casi previsti dalla legge, le misure di sicurezza.

Source: http://leggeonline.info/leggi/procedurapenale/art530/sentenza_di_assoluzione/

Perhaps I should have made it clearer. Bruno-Marasca court refer in its motivation report in the penultimate paragraph:

Following the considerations above, it is obvious that a remand [rinvio] would be useless, hence
the declaration of annulment without remand, based on art. 620 L) of the procedure code, thus we
apply an acquittal [proscioglimento ] formula which a further judge on
remand would be anyway compelled to apply, to abide to the principles of law established in this
current sentence.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yeah but you still laugh at the pull the finger gag.

You always criticize my hobbies.

 

[Bill Williams]

I wish you would stop with the straw men. I have said all along there is a difference because there is but have never said that it is a definitive difference in future legal cases.

Complaining about strawman by introducing another shows talent!

"Future legal cases"? Who said anything about "future legal cases"? It is hard to respond when the goalposts keep changing.

 

[Numbers]

Perhaps I should have made it clearer. Bruno-Marasca court refer in its motivation report in the penultimate paragraph:

Following the considerations above, it is obvious that a remand [rinvio] would be useless, hence
the declaration of annulment without remand, based on art. 620 L) of the procedure code, thus we
apply an acquittal [proscioglimento ] formula which a further judge on
remand would be anyway compelled to apply, to abide to the principles of law established in this
current sentence.

Now you are misrepresenting what you wrote in your post #3789:

"And please note, if you read it in the original Italian: the word used in the penal code is proscioglimento NOT “assoluzione”. Proscioglimento normally refers only to non-definitive
preliminary judgements during the investigation phase, and it could be translated as “dropping of
charges”. It is a non-binding decision, and is not subject to double jeopardy. It is not even considered a court decision, but as Mike17 himself has pointed out, it is normally a prosecution decision.

Bruno-Marasca should never have used this article as it is not within their jurisdiction. However, having used it, the final verdict is: charges are dropped. This implies they can be recharged with the same offence."

The penal code is what you refer to; the only possible relevant code would be the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP). You are simply creating a new falsehood - that you referred to the Marasca CSC panel MR - when you very clearly referred to the CPP Article 530 itself.

How sad that you continually post falsehoods in a skeptic's forum.

And, as I previously posted, the word "proscioglimento" has translations of: acquittal, exoneration, dismissal (of charges), and absolution.

A final dismissal of charges is no different than an acquittal under Italian law. But, in fact, the specification for the acquittal on the murder/rape charges by the Marasca CSC panel was CPP Article 530.2, "the accused did not commit the act (crime)". One charge, carrying of a knife, was dismissed as time-barred. This time-barred dismissal is also legally equivalent to an acquittal under Italian law.

 

[Grinder]

Complaining about strawman by introducing another shows talent!

"Future legal cases"? Who said anything about "future legal cases"? It is hard to respond when the goalposts keep changing.

What other legal difference could there be? They clearly are out of jail. The original case has ended. The only legal difference would be in the future. If Vixen were correct then a new case could be brought and that would be in the future.

And it's straw man - two words.

A few pages ago people were still trying to say a para 1 was only when the crime didn't exist or it was self defense or some other incorrect statement.

Numbers has provided a translation. I've provided a few. One poster claims mine was wrong but Numbers' example showed that mine was correct.

After it was shown, months ago, that a 1 is in fact different and more definitive it was not I that changed the discussion to it being legally no different. I never claimed anything except the perception is different. Could there be a difference in the future? I don't know. Does this open the door to new civil action? Don't know.

Did the verdict leave more of a shadow than a para 1 would have? You bet.

 

[Bill Williams]

What other legal difference could there be? They clearly are out of jail. The original case has ended. The only legal difference would be in the future. If Vixen were correct then a new case could be brought and that would be in the future.

And it's straw man - two words.

A few pages ago people were still trying to say a para 1 was only when the crime didn't exist or it was self defense or some other incorrect statement.

Numbers has provided a translation. I've provided a few. One poster claims mine was wrong but Numbers' example showed that mine was correct.

After it was shown, months ago, that a 1 is in fact different and more definitive it was not I that changed the discussion to it being legally no different. I never claimed anything except the perception is different. Could there be a difference in the future? I don't know. Does this open the door to new civil action? Don't know.

Did the verdict leave more of a shadow than a para 1 would have? You bet.

Right. There's a definitive acquittal vs. a more definitive acquittal.

Rìiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

[Grinder]

Right. There's a definitive acquittal vs. a more definitive acquittal.

Rìiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Yes Bill. One says the defendant was innocent and the other says there wasn't enough evidence to convict BARD.

Your position is that a perfect score on a test is the same as a 90 because they are both A's. Or even more accurately that a perfect score is the same as a 65 since they are both passing.

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.
​

 

[Methos]

Perhaps I should have made it clearer. Bruno-Marasca court refer in its motivation report in the penultimate paragraph:

Following the considerations above, it is obvious that a remand [rinvio] would be useless, hence
the declaration of annulment without remand, based on art. 620 L) of the procedure code, thus we
apply an acquittal [proscioglimento ] formula which a further judge on
remand would be anyway compelled to apply, to abide to the principles of law established in this
current sentence.

Now you are misrepresenting what you wrote in your post #3789:

"And please note, if you read it in the original Italian: the word used in the penal code is proscioglimento NOT “assoluzione”. Proscioglimento normally refers only to non-definitive
preliminary judgements during the investigation phase, and it could be translated as “dropping of
charges”. It is a non-binding decision, and is not subject to double jeopardy. It is not even considered a court decision, but as Mike17 himself has pointed out, it is normally a prosecution decision.

Bruno-Marasca should never have used this article as it is not within their jurisdiction. However, having used it, the final verdict is: charges are dropped. This implies they can be recharged with the same offence."

The penal code is what you refer to; the only possible relevant code would be the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP). You are simply creating a new falsehood - that you referred to the Marasca CSC panel MR - when you very clearly referred to the CPP Article 530 itself.

How sad that you continually post falsehoods in a skeptic's forum.

And, as I previously posted, the word "proscioglimento" has translations of: acquittal, exoneration, dismissal (of charges), and absolution.

A final dismissal of charges is no different than an acquittal under Italian law. But, in fact, the specification for the acquittal on the murder/rape charges by the Marasca CSC panel was CPP Article 530.2, "the accused did not commit the act (crime)". One charge, carrying of a knife, was dismissed as time-barred. This time-barred dismissal is also legally equivalent to an acquittal under Italian law.

Maybe we should stop playing wordgames here. M&B are referring to art. 530.2 "Assoluzione", so no doubt about what their verdict means, despite the ongoing debate on the consequences of 530.2 instead of 530.1. In the text of their motivations report they use the word "Proscioglimento" instead of "Assoluzione".
The translator's note Vixen is refering to, tries to implicate that this is a reference to Art. 469:

Art. 469 - Proscioglimento prima del dibattimento
1. Salvo quanto previsto dall'articolo 129 comma 2, se l'azione penale non doveva essere iniziata o non deve essere proseguita ovvero se il reato è estinto e se per accertarlo non è necessario procedere al dibattimento, il giudice, in camera di consiglio, sentiti il pubblico ministero e l'imputato e se questi non si oppongono, pronuncia sentenza inappellabile di non doversi procedere enunciandone la causa nel dispositivo.

I.e. charges dropped before trial - re-opening maybe possible, I don't know.
I think that their choice of words indicates that they think, in this case there should have been a "Proscioglimento prima del dibattimento" instead of an "Assoluzione" 8 years after the murder... (My 0.02 Euro).

 

[Numbers]

What other legal difference could there be? They clearly are out of jail. The original case has ended. The only legal difference would be in the future. If Vixen were correct then a new case could be brought and that would be in the future.

And it's straw man - two words.

A few pages ago people were still trying to say a para 1 was only when the crime didn't exist or it was self defense or some other incorrect statement.

Numbers has provided a translation. I've provided a few. One poster claims mine was wrong but Numbers' example showed that mine was correct.

After it was shown, months ago, that a 1 is in fact different and more definitive it was not I that changed the discussion to it being legally no different. I never claimed anything except the perception is different. Could there be a difference in the future? I don't know. Does this open the door to new civil action? Don't know.

Did the verdict leave more of a shadow than a para 1 would have? You bet.

There is a logical problem with the language of CPP Article 530.1 which causes confusion.

The paragraph 530.1 states, in the relevant part, that the judge shall acquit if the accused did not commit the criminal act.

How can the judge know that the accused did not commit the criminal act?

The judge knows only the evidence produced by the prosecution and by the defense in an adversarial trial. In an inquisitorial trial, essentially all the evidence was presented by the prosecution; the defense had limited rights to present evidence.

In an adversarial trial, the judge forms the opinion that the accused did not commit the criminal act based on a balanced evaluation of the evidence presented. Thus, if the evidence is insufficient, contradictory, or lacking proof that the accused committed it, the judge acquits. There is no way for the judge to form an opinion about the evidence - assuming that there is no other argument, such as self-defense, the law has changed, or the accused is not mentally responsible - except in terms of insufficiency, contradiction, or other failure to prove guilt - a lack of proof of guilt.

In an inquisitorial trial, the evidence before the judge may not allow a balanced evaluation but the judge may yet form an opinion. Generally, that would be if the judge felt that the prosecution case had insufficient evidence.

In an adversarial trial, the judge shall deliver a judgment of conviction if guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This concept was not defined in the Italian inquisitorial trial.

The point is that for an adversarial trial, the only logical acquittal is by the language of 530.2, assuming none of the other arguments (self-defense, amnesty, change of law, mental illness, etc.) apply. And this holds true even if the judge were to choose to call the basis for the acquittal CPP Article 530.1.

 

[Numbers]

Maybe we should stop playing wordgames here. M&B are referring to art. 530.2 "Assoluzione", so no doubt about what their verdict means, despite the ongoing debate on the consequences of 530.2 instead of 530.1. In the text of their motivations report they use the word "Proscioglimento" instead of "Assoluzione".
The translator's note Vixen is refering to, tries to implicate that this is a reference to Art. 469:

I.e. charges dropped before trial - re-opening maybe possible, I don't know.
I think that their choice of words indicates that they think, in this case there should have been a "Proscioglimento prima del dibattimento" instead of an "Assoluzione" 8 years after the murder... (My 0.02 Euro).

The Marasca CSC panel may have been suggesting that CPP Article 129 or 469 should have been applied by the first judge to hear the case.

These provisions with "proscioglimento" allow for the judge to immediately dismiss the case at any stage of proceedings, on the basis that, for example, the prosecution has not at all made a case that the accused could have committed the offense.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes Bill. One says the defendant was innocent and the other says there wasn't enough evidence to convict BARD.

Your position is that a perfect score on a test is the same as a 90 because they are both A's. Or even more accurately that a perfect score is the same as a 65 since they are both passing.

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.
​

See Number's post about repetition an argument does not make.

 

[Grinder]

I.e. charges dropped before trial - re-opening maybe possible, I don't know.
I think that their choice of words indicates that they think, in this case there should have been a "Proscioglimento prima del dibattimento" instead of an "Assoluzione" 8 years after the murder... (My 0.02 Euro).

Here we have terms dismissed with or without prejudice. With prejudice is what one wants, as it means no further action may be taken while without prejudice leaves it open for future refiling of charges.

 

[Methos]

Yes Bill. One says the defendant was innocent and the other says there wasn't enough evidence to convict BARD.

Your position is that a perfect score on a test is the same as a 90 because they are both A's. Or even more accurately that a perfect score is the same as a 65 since they are both passing.

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.
​

Why do you think they chose 530.2 instead of 530.1?
I think there are three reasons for it:
1st: Chieffi went into fact finding big time and created "judicial facts"
2nd: to change or challenge these facts, they would have had to send the case up to a United Sections panel, (they aren't permitted to rule on things that have been decided by a Supreme Court panel on the same level) to decide if Hellmann's strict interpretation of art. 192.2 or Chieffi's “quae singula non probant, simul unita probant” is the correct way to adress "circumstantial evidence".
3rd: they simply wanted to end this case without putting the investigators and their methods into the spotlight again.

So I think, they took the easy way out and essentially re-instated the Hellmann verdict (another 530.2, even if the article isn't referred to)...

 

[Grinder]

See Number's post about repetition an argument does not make.

Well I see a screen capture of your post going up asap over at dot net.

In Italy they have different levels of acquittal. The kids got the lesser one.

Rote education requires repetition.

 

[Methos]

The Marasca CSC panel may have been suggesting that CPP Article 129 or 469 should have been applied by the first judge to hear the case.

These provisions with "proscioglimento" allow for the judge to immediately dismiss the case at any stage of proceedings, on the basis that, for example, the prosecution has not at all made a case that the accused could have committed the offense.

Maybe they chose the word as a reminder to Judges like Matteini and Micheli to do their job better?

 

[Grinder]

Why do you think they chose 530.2 instead of 530.1?
I think there are three reasons for it:
1st: Chieffi went into fact finding big time and created "judicial facts"
2nd: to change or challenge these facts, they would have had to send the case up to a United Sections panel, (they aren't permitted to rule on things that have been decided by a Supreme Court panel on the same level) to decide if Hellmann's strict interpretation of art. 192.2 or Chieffi's “quae singula non probant, simul unita probant” is the correct way to adress "circumstantial evidence".
3rd: they simply wanted to end this case without putting the investigators and their methods into the spotlight again.

So I think, they took the easy way out and essentially re-instated the Hellmann verdict (another 530.2, even if the article isn't referred to)...

Mostly number 3. As Cheli pointed out they went way beyond "conflitto in giudicato" in their backing of multiple attackers.

Frankly I think they believed the case was botched by the PLE and ILE but that the one or both of the kids might have been involved. They blamed the international media for the pressure excusing the LE somewhat. I think many people in Italy think the kids guilty of something and they didn't want to face the hordes with a pure innocent verdict.

Why they did will most likely not come out but clearly they did. They didn't need to back up the acceptance of Amanda being there judicial truth but it seems they did.

In the end I think they wanted to get this case done and didn't want the spectacle of an extradition.

 

[Methos]

Here we have terms dismissed with or without prejudice. With prejudice is what one wants, as it means no further action may be taken while without prejudice leaves it open for future refiling of charges.

Of course a 530.1 would have been nice, but maybe it wasn't possible without dragging the case on for a few more years and unwanted spotlight...

On the "future charges" thing.
There is one thing easily forgotten in all this: the time limit to file a complaint. IIRC the time limit in Italy is 45 days after the publication of the motivations report.
Have we heard of any action taken by the prosecution or the civil parties against M&B by now?

 

[Grinder]

There is a logical problem with the language of CPP Article 530.1 which causes confusion.

The paragraph 530.1 states, in the relevant part, that the judge shall acquit if the accused did not commit the criminal act.

How can the judge know that the accused did not commit the criminal act?

Another person did and said no one else was there. The accused came up with an airtight alibi. A witness came forward that saw the crime and said the defendant wasn't there. Here, we a case go to trial after a year and two witnesses were brought forward that testified the defendant had not been the aggressor. He was found not guilty as that all we have, but the jury added on that he had been the victim of an assault and all his legal fees were paid.

In Italy it would have been a para 1.