Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

But you are arguing that the judge can make that decision without evidence.

CPP Article 530.2 states, in the relevant part, the types of issues with evidence that would allow a judge to acquit. The acquittal necessarily indicates that the person did not commit the crime.

I don't imagine that any of my arguments will convince you to stop your word play; but all that you are doing is playing with words.

Here once again is the translation you provided:

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.


Can you see para 2 above - it does not say the person didn't commit the act. It says there isn't enough proof to convict. insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof

An acquittal does not mean the person didn't commit the crime in our system or under a 530.2. The court by invoking 530.2 allows for a guilty person to walk because the evidence wasn't sufficient.

If a person is found to be innocent, the Italians have a way to make that clear. A para 1 ruling.

Can you see that a para one says the accused did not commit it but a para two says insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof ... the accused committed it,
Word play my ass.

 

[Numbers]

The "failure to comprehend the Italian laws involved" is actually yours and Bruno and Marasca.

It is an oxymoron to say "there is insufficent evidence" and then rule "they did not commit the crime" in the same breath. In law you are not supposed to make statements that contradict each other. If it were a contract it would be repudiated by the fact of a contradiction in terms.

You are letting your bias get in the way of seeing how dreadful the Fifth Chamber reasoning is. It could be, you are so happy the kids were freed, you couldn't care less whether the court's reasoning is sound or not.

You should immediately notify the Italian authorities of this breach of Italian law that you have so cleverly identified. Perhaps you can get a reward! LOL

ETA: You should inform them in particular of the error of the Italian State and People in the wording of Article 27 of the Italian Constitution.

 

[Numbers]

Here once again is the translation you provided:

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.


Can you see para 2 above - it does not say the person didn't commit the act. It says there isn't enough proof to convict. insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof

An acquittal does not mean the person didn't commit the crime in our system or under a 530.2. The court by invoking 530.2 allows for a guilty person to walk because the evidence wasn't sufficient.

If a person is found to be innocent, the Italians have a way to make that clear. A para 1 ruling.

Can you see that a para one says the accused did not commit it but a para two says insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof ... the accused committed it,
Word play my ass.

Indeed, I see the difference in language between the two paragraphs.

However, it is contrary to ECHR case-law for a court to state or to hint that someone who has been acquitted of an offense is nonetheless somehow guilty or may be guilty of that offense.

So if that was what the Marasca CSC panel meant, there would be grounds for a complaint to ECHR on those alleged grounds by Knox or Sollecito.

If you are maintaining that there is a perception of a difference by you and perhaps by others, that basing an acquittal under CPP Art. 530.2 but stating in the verdict specification that "the appellants (the accused) did not commit the act (crime)", you and those with that perception are entitled to it.

I don't expect us to agree on this topic.

 

[Mike1711]

delete - repeat

 

[Mike1711]

The "failure to comprehend the Italian laws involved" is actually yours and Bruno and Marasca.

It is an oxymoron to say "there is insufficent evidence" and then rule "they did not commit the crime" in the same breath. In law you are not supposed to make statements that contradict each other. If it were a contract it would be repudiated by the fact of a contradiction in terms.

You are letting your bias get in the way of seeing how dreadful the Fifth Chamber reasoning is. It could be, you are so happy the kids were freed, you couldn't care less whether the court's reasoning is sound or not.

These are not mutually exclusive so you're wrong....again.

 

[Planigale]

A reasonable person, who did not issue post after post of false or erroneous statements, would recognize the meaning of the highlighted words in the following paragraph 2 of CPP Article 530:

2. The judge shall deliver a judgment of acquittal also in case of insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof that[/HILITE] 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.

I repeat them here without the intervening language for clarity:

The judge shall deliver a judgment of acquittal in case of insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof that the accused committed it {the criminal act}.

Now, to help anyone who doesn't follow, the above wording means that since there was no proof that the accused committed the criminal act, the accused DID NOT commit the criminal act. This last point is called the presumption of innocence, and is basic to the Italian Constitution and European Convention case-law.

This is the important point. The law has to be interpreted in conjunction with the constitution. There is no doubt that there is a constitutional dichotomy. Innocent or guilty. As they are not guilty (excepting Knox and callunia), then Sollecito and Knox are innocent.

 

[Vixen]

This is the important point. The law has to be interpreted in conjunction with the constitution. There is no doubt that there is a constitutional dichotomy. Innocent or guilty. As they are not guilty (excepting Knox and callunia), then Sollecito and Knox are innocent.

Not so. They have stood trial and were found to be guilty by two courts and "strongly suspicious" by the final supreme court, who did not find them innocent at all. They did not cite 530 para 1 "did not commit the crime", they cited 530 para 2, insufficient evidence.

It is what it is, not what you want it to be.

 

[Numbers]

Not so. They have stood trial and were found to be guilty by two courts and "strongly suspicious" by the final supreme court, who did not find them innocent at all. They did not cite 530 para 1 "did not commit the crime", they cited 530 para 2, insufficient evidence. It is what it is, not what you want it to be.

You have discovered important principles.

Again, I urge you to notify the Italian authorities of your findings immediately and tell them how to follow the law based on your learned opinions.

Then, you should notify all biochemists in the world immediately and let them know about your finding that DNA is a protein.

LOL.

 

[Bill Williams]

You have discovered important principles.

Again, I urge you to notify the Italian authorities of your findings immediately and tell them how to follow the law based on your learned opinions.

Then, you should notify all biochemists in the world immediately and let them know about your finding that DNA is a protein.

LOL.

Vixen already has the contact info for Forensic Science International:Genetics, so that she can report that "like a whore" Dr Peter Gill. She also has all the information needed to blow the whistle on their corrupt peer-review process.

She is now complicit after the fact. She has not taken the steps needed to right the wrongs she claims.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen already has the contact info for Forensic Science International:Genetics, so that she can report that "like a whore" Dr Peter Gill. She also has all the information needed to blow the whistle on their corrupt peer-review process.

She is now complicit after the fact. She has not taken the steps needed to right the wrongs she claims.

No reporting required. The defective Bruno-Marasca report is self-evident (politically elected judges are now barred, so they've been seen off) and it's sad Dr Gill finds himself in this sorry predicament. Maybe it's time for him to enjoy the fjords of Norway, instead.

 

[whoanellie]

You have discovered important principles.

Again, I urge you to notify the Italian authorities of your findings immediately and tell them how to follow the law based on your learned opinions.

Then, you should notify all biochemists in the world immediately and let them know about your finding that DNA is a protein.

LOL.

He is just waiting for the call from the Nobel committee.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

 

[Grinder]

Indeed, I see the difference in language between the two paragraphs.

However, it is contrary to ECHR case-law for a court to state or to hint that someone who has been acquitted of an offense is nonetheless somehow guilty or may be guilty of that offense.

So if that was what the Marasca CSC panel meant, there would be grounds for a complaint to ECHR on those alleged grounds by Knox or Sollecito.

If you are maintaining that there is a perception of a difference by you and perhaps by others, that basing an acquittal under CPP Art. 530.2 but stating in the verdict specification that "the appellants (the accused) did not commit the act (crime)", you and those with that perception are entitled to it.

I don't expect us to agree on this topic.

Numbers this isn't about the ECHR. I am maintaining there is a difference for the Italians as exhibited by Cheli and the defense. The verdict is confusing in both directions and gives credence to those that say the judges weren't up to the task. If you are now saying that the two paras are clearly different but M&B muddied the waters with their wording at the very end, that I can agree with, if that isn't how the wording always is. Hellmann didn't use 530 but rather 605.

Nencini did use 503 twice

Rudy Hermann Guede was also acquitted for the crime of theft (in his case for the entire indictment [of theft]) as per article 530, second paragraph [of the Code of Criminal Procedure], by the Preliminary Hearing Judge (“G.U.P.”) of the Court of Perugia as he did not commit the crime. It must be held that the Judge has evaluated the fact as completely unfounded, since in the body of the entire sentence there is no consideration on this point. AND
In accordance with article 530 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, [the Court] acquitted the accused of the residual charge related in count (D) because it was not proven that the crime was committed.​

It seems that the expression used in Italian for verdicts translates as "he did not commit the crime" but it seems the meaning really is "not guilty" as cl;early they couldn't know Rudi didn't steal the phones and credit cards.

These are not mutually exclusive so you're wrong....again.

It is an oxymoron to say "there is insufficent evidence" and then rule "they did not commit the crime" in the same breath

insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof ... the accused committed it,
​

Do you see how you altered it? You missed the part about lacking proof the accused committed it. The paras are different levels of not guilty which is plain for anyone to see.

The expression used in Italian for verdicts translates as "he did not commit the crime" but it seems the meaning really is "not guilty" as clearly they couldn't know Rudi didn't steal the phones and credit cards.

ETA - from Massei - Attorney Bongiorno for the accused Sollecito concluding, requesting absolution in the senses of Article 530 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code for not having committed the deed.

 

[Grinder]

From M&B - In the face of a
missing evidence , insufficient or contradictory, the court must confine itself to take
act and give a judgment of acquittal , pursuant to art , 530 , paragraph 2 , cod .
proc . pen . , even if animated by genuine moral conviction of guilt
accused.

Whoa - "even if animated by genuine moral conviction of guilt" so even if the court is pretty sure the defendant is guilty when the evidence is "missing , insufficient or contradictory" the court must find not guilty (acquittal) verdict under 530 para 2. Note not para 1.

 

[Numbers]

Numbers this isn't about the ECHR. ...

It seems that the expression used in Italian for verdicts translates as "he did not commit the crime" but it seems the meaning really is "not guilty"...

1. Italy is a member State of the Council of Europe and thus a signatory to the European Convention of Human Rights. Italy is thus obligated to follow the Convention and the ECHR case-law by treaty; the treaty is superior to all Italian law. Whether or not the Italian police, prosecutors, and courts actually follow the domestic Italian law or the Convention in each case is, of course, another issue.

So you are quite mistaken to ignore or claim that a case in Italy is not about the ECHR. As of 29 Feb 2016, there were 7550 applications alleging violations of the Convention pending before the ECHR; only Turkey, Russia, and Ukraine had higher numbers of applications pending. (Ukraine has the largest number: 14,900.)

2. As I showed in an earlier post, using information from Wikipedia, there are five levels or specification of acquittal in Italy and one level of guilty verdict. All acquittals are equivalent to a "not guilty" verdict. There is a confusion by some of the various paragraphs of CPP Article 530 with the levels of acquittal; the levels are in fact mixed among the paragraphs, for example, 530.1 and 530.2 can both be used for "the accused did not commit the act [crime]".

The implication of the relevant wording of 530.1 is that the judge somehow knows that the accused did not commit the crime (without specifying that evidence was examined), while that of 530.2 is that the judge concludes that the accused did not commit the crime based upon an examination of evidence, and finds that the evidence does not support a finding of guilt, because the evidence is insufficient, contradictory, or lacking in proof.

There is no Italian verdict of "approximately not guilty" or "approximately guilty".

Here is a repeat of that information on Italian verdicts (originally posted 3 March 2016, post 3765):

1. Guilty (colpevole)

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

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

 

[Mike1711]

Numbers this isn't about the ECHR. I am maintaining there is a difference for the Italians as exhibited by Cheli and the defense. The verdict is confusing in both directions and gives credence to those that say the judges weren't up to the task. If you are now saying that the two paras are clearly different but M&B muddied the waters with their wording at the very end, that I can agree with, if that isn't how the wording always is. Hellmann didn't use 530 but rather 605.

Nencini did use 503 twice

Rudy Hermann Guede was also acquitted for the crime of theft (in his case for the entire indictment [of theft]) as per article 530, second paragraph [of the Code of Criminal Procedure], by the Preliminary Hearing Judge (“G.U.P.”) of the Court of Perugia as he did not commit the crime. It must be held that the Judge has evaluated the fact as completely unfounded, since in the body of the entire sentence there is no consideration on this point. AND
In accordance with article 530 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, [the Court] acquitted the accused of the residual charge related in count (D) because it was not proven that the crime was committed.​

It seems that the expression used in Italian for verdicts translates as "he did not commit the crime" but it seems the meaning really is "not guilty" as cl;early they couldn't know Rudi didn't steal the phones and credit cards.

It is an oxymoron to say "there is insufficent evidence" and then rule "they did not commit the crime" in the same breath

insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof ... the accused committed it,
​

Do you see how you altered it? You missed the part about lacking proof the accused committed it. The paras are different levels of not guilty which is plain for anyone to see.

The expression used in Italian for verdicts translates as "he did not commit the crime" but it seems the meaning really is "not guilty" as clearly they couldn't know Rudi didn't steal the phones and credit cards.

ETA - from Massei - Attorney Bongiorno for the accused Sollecito concluding, requesting absolution in the senses of Article 530 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code for not having committed the deed.

They still are not mutually exclusive. It is not an oxymoron.

oxymoron
[ok-si-mawr-on, -mohr-]
Spell Syllables
Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun, plural oxymora [ok-si-mawr-uh, -mohr-uh] (Show IPA), oxymorons. Rhetoric.
1.
a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.”.

 

[Numbers]

From M&B - In the face of a
missing evidence , insufficient or contradictory, the court must confine itself to take
act and give a judgment of acquittal , pursuant to art , 530 , paragraph 2 , cod .
proc . pen . , even if animated by genuine moral conviction of guilt
accused.

Whoa - "even if animated by genuine moral conviction of guilt" so even if the court is pretty sure the defendant is guilty when the evidence is "missing , insufficient or contradictory" the court must find not guilty (acquittal) verdict under 530 para 2. Note not para 1.

Under the adversarial system, the Italian Constitution, and the European Convention of Human Rights, an accused person may be convicted only based on objective evidence that is fairly evaluated. The judge serves a neutral party evaluating evidence - trials occur before an "impartial judge in third party position". (Italian Constitution, Article 111) A person may not be convicted lawfully by means of an arbitrary opinion, such as a judge's "genuine moral conviction of guilt".

Under the inquisitorial system, which had its origins in religious courts and doctrines, a person could be convicted solely on evidence presented by the prosecution, without being allowed a formal defense, and the moral convictions or beliefs of the judge, who was not expected to be a neutral party, were critical elements in a court judgment.

ETA: I suggest that persons were convicted of being witches largely based on a judge's "genuine moral convictions of guilt".

 

[Bill Williams]

Under the adversarial system, the Italian Constitution, and the European Convention of Human Rights, an accused person may be convicted only based on objective evidence that is fairly evaluated. The judge serves a neutral party evaluating evidence - trials occur before an "impartial judge in third party position". (Italian Constitution, Article 111) A person may not be convicted lawfully by means of an arbitrary opinion, such as a judge's "genuine moral conviction of guilt".

Under the inquisitorial system, which had its origins in religious courts and doctrines, a person could be convicted solely on evidence presented by the prosecution, without being allowed a formal defense, and the moral convictions or beliefs of the judge, who was not expected to be a neutral party, were critical elements in a court judgment.

ETA: I suggest that persons were convicted of being witches largely based on a judge's "genuine moral convictions of guilt".

At the risk of saying it..... IMO those who believe that Marasca/Bruno are signaling that they had a "genuine moral conviction of guilt," yet used the evidence as an excuse to acquit....... (the "excuse" because they were, it is claimed, bought off.....)

...... are actually projecting. It's the essence of confirmation bias to see guilt, even when the judges go out of there way to say that the investigators were incompetent and the former judges were amnesiac. (With the exception of not wanting to be seen to be totally out of step with for ISC panels.)

 

[Mike1711]

At the risk of saying it..... IMO those who believe that Marasca/Bruno are signaling that they had a "genuine moral conviction of guilt," yet used the evidence as an excuse to acquit....... (the "excuse" because they were, it is claimed, bought off.....)

...... are actually projecting. It's the essence of confirmation bias to see guilt, even when the judges go out of there way to say that the investigators were incompetent and the former judges were amnesiac. (With the exception of not wanting to be seen to be totally out of step with for ISC panels.)

I agree.

The evidence trumps all. There is no morality which overrides evidence. To believe guilt without evidence is immoral.

 

[Numbers]

For those interested, here is Article 111 of the Italian Constitution, showing the language (in clause 2) that disallows a judge or court with "genuine moral conviction of guilt". (I have numbered the clauses.)

As an exercise, one may wish to identify all aspects of this article that the courts violated during the trials of Knox and Sollecito. Some (such as clause 8) but perhaps not all of those violations were pointed out in the Marasca CSC panel motivation report.

https://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costituzione_inglese.pdf

Constitution of the Italian Republic

This volume is published by the Parliamentary Information,
Archives and Publications Office of the Senate Service
for Official Reports and Communication

Art. 111
1) Jurisdiction is implemented through due process regulated by law.
2) All court trials are conducted with adversary proceedings and the parties are entitled to equal conditions before an impartial judge in third party position.3) The law provides for the reasonable duration of trials.
4) In criminal law trials, the law provides that the alleged offender shall be promptly informed confidentially of the nature and reasons for the charges that are brought and shall have adequate time and conditions to prepare a defence.
5) The defendant shall have the right to cross-examine or to have cross-examined before a judge the persons making accusations and to summon and examine persons for the defence in the same conditions as the prosecution, as well as the right to produce all other evidence in favour of the defence.
6) The defendant is entitled to the assistance of an interpreter in the case that he or she does not speak or understand the language in which the court proceedings are conducted.
7) In criminal law proceedings, the formation of evidence is based on the principle of adversary hearings.
8) The guilt of the defendant cannot be established on the basis of statements by persons who, out of their own free choice, have always voluntarily avoided undergoing cross-examination by the defendant or the defence counsel.
9) The law regulates the cases in which the formation of evidence does not occur in an adversary proceeding with the consent of the defendant or owing to reasons of ascertained objective impossibility or proven illicit conduct.
10) All judicial decisions shall include a statement of reasons.
11) Appeals to the Court of Cassation in cases of violations of the law are always allowed against sentences and against measures affecting personal freedom pronounced by ordinary and special courts. This rule can only be waived in cases of sentences by military tribunals in time of war.
12) Appeals to the Court of Cassation against decisions of the Council of State and the Court of Accounts are permitted only for reasons of jurisdiction.

 

[sept79]

Question:

What, if anything, does the Italian constitution say about 'discovery' which was, and still is, sorely lacking in the Knox/Sollecito prosecution? Or, is prosecutor Comodi's statement of "we (meaning the prosecution) determine what information the defense needs" a reality?