Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

1. The issue we have been discussing has nothing to do with the above. 2. There is a distinct difference between 1 & 2 that the Italian people clearly understand. Not one example has been brought forward substantiating the contention there is no difference. Bongiorno mentions the law by para. Cheli points out the difference. The courts specify the para. 3. The lawyer that wrote the book you use recognizes the law and the different paras and thinks they should changed...because they have a meaning he thinks should not be there.



4. When the verdict was announced how many people in Italy said "oh my god a para 2 what will the ECHR say?" 5. For those that put a lot of value on the wording in Marasca, I would wager while millions read the acquittal being for insufficient evidence only a handful read the MR. The vast majority of Italians were left with a not guilty verdict because guilt couldn't be proven BARD.



6. Not really. 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

Your translation clearly shows a 2 is when insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof and not the accused did not commit the crime.



7. Wow. If a defendant has an alibi that convinces the court he is entitled to a para 1 acquittal. If the evidence is not sufficient for a BARD conviction (even if the court is sure in their heart they are guilty) they must acquit para 2 as Marasca said.

The law is clear. It is clear that judges and attorneys are aware of the difference. It is clear that a non-lawyer like Cheli was aware of the difference.

Even one of the current posters here now maintaining there is no difference, the law doesn't really exist or some other way of trying to make the difference go away was absolutely convinced after the verdict that it must be a 1.

I have inserted some numbers into your quote for clarity in the response.

1. I disagree that we are discussing the same thing with respect to this topic.

I am only discussing aspects of law, I have no reliable information about perceptions in Italy or elsewhere and therefore have not discussed and will not discuss perceptions.

Your focus seems to be perception, although you are also discussing aspects of law.

The ECHR, the European Convention on Human Rights, and ECHR case-law are part of Italian law. In fact, by treaty, Italy must conform its laws and practices to the Convention and ECHR case-law.

2. There is a difference in the language of CPP Art. 530.1 and 530.2. I have no idea how people in Italy, including lawyers view the difference.

If you are claiming you do, please provide one or more surveys of public opinion or lawyers' opinion on this topic. Otherwise, I do not find any statement about public or lawyers' opinion credible.

3. Your statement is incorrect and not fairly based on any information that I provided, as far as I can understand. Have you read Gialuz's essay? I have.

Gialuz writes only that CPP Art. 530 "was considered one of the least successful provisions of the CPP in the 1988 reform" because "it was not clear [what] was the required standard to convict a person." However, Gialuz writes that in 2006, the Italian Parliament changed CPP Art. 533.1 to establish that " 'the judge shall deliver a judgment of conviction if the accused is proven to be guilty of the alleged offence beyond a reasonable doubt'. This change has represented a step towards completion, from an accusatorial [adversarial] viewpoint, of the Italian criminal justice system."

There is no statement in Gialuz's essay that further change is required in CPP Art. 530 or 533. Gialuz does not discuss the difference between CPP Art. 530.1 and 530.2, but discusses that the previous version of the article was modified by a reform in 1988, as a move to implement an adversarial system.

I don't know how to be more clear about what Gialuz has written. It is not what you maintain. Perhaps you can obtain a copy of the book. I bought it through Amazon, but I believe it is available at the University of Washington library and some other libraries.

4. I don't know how to respond to your point. Perhaps it is rhetorical. Do you have some surveys or reports of how the Italian populace responded to the verdict, the short form announced March 27, 2015, or the motivation report? I am sure many Italians are familiar with the ECHR, they submit many applications to the ECHR, but that may be only about 10,000 persons claiming their rights were violated per year out of a population of about 60 million (adults and children).

5. Yes, the verdict is that guilt could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That is like any verdict of not guilty. What is the issue?

Only a verdict of "the accused did not commit the act (crime)" among the five not guilty verdicts available in Italy applies to the case. That applies whenever none of the other not guilty verdicts applies, and is always because there was no proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If there were proof of guilt beyond a reasonable guilt in the opinion of the Marasca CSC panel, the verdict would have been "guilty".*

6. There is a difference in language between CPP Art. 530.1 and 530.2. What you seem to not apprehend is that the degree of insufficiency, contradiction, or lacking of proof that the accused committed the crime may range from a small amount to a very large amount. But in any case, if the accused cannot be proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused is not guilty, for 530.2 just as for 530.1 where the wording is (illogically, in my opinion) absolute with no reference to evaluation of evidence.

7. There apparently is a difference in your perception.

In this case, insofar as I have read the evidence, I am confident that Knox and Sollecito were totally innocent. That has nothing to do with any court verdict, nor with any personal knowledge on my part of Knox or Sollecito. Nor of any [fictive] compensation from any PR supertanker .

You may believe whatever you wish.

*ETA: The Italian Constitution, Article 27, states that "A defendant shall be considered not guilty until a final sentence has been passed". Thus, with the final sentence being an acquittal, Knox and Sollecito remain not guilty of the murder/rape charges.

Perhaps you do not believe the Italian Constitution is relevant, because you are concerned with perceptions. But as I indicated above, I am solely concerned with law, and have no reliable information on perceptions. Reliable information, in my opinion, must be obtained through scientific methods such as surveys rather than from expressions of opinion from a few persons.

 

[LondonJohn]

You and Numbers have not shown that 530 isn't the law.

Are you having a total comprehension failure? I am not attempting to show that 530 "isn't the law" (or, more accurately, the criminal code). If that's what you think I'm trying to argue, then things are even worse than I thought.

I am instead arguing that 530.1 is only ever used where a defendant can prove his/her innocence, or where the court deems that no crime was ever committed. I am then arguing that 530.2 is used for ALL OTHER ACQUITTALS. That is to say all acquittals other than those where the defendant can prove his/her innocence or where no crime took place.

I don't really know how I can make that any clearer. Of course 530.1 is a "better" and "more exonerating" method of acquittal than 530.2 - but only because it means that either the defendant is provably innocent or that no crime ever even occurred.

And neither Knox nor Sollecito could ever have been properly acquitted under anything other than 530.2 - since there was certainly a crime committed, and neither Knox nor Sollecito could have proven their innocence of the crime (since their alibis were self-supporting and unable to be independently verified).

If you were arrested for a murder which occurred a mile away from your house at 4am (a murder which you had nothing whatsoever to do with) and you couldn't prove your innocence (imagine you were asleep in bed either alone or next to a sleeping partner), then you would have to be acquitted under 530.2 (if this all took place in Italy). There would be not one single piece of credible, reliable evidence of your guilt (since in fact you'd been asleep at home all along and had nothing whatsoever to do with it). Exactly the same rationale applies to Knox and Sollecito and their acquittals.

I sincerely hope this is all clearer to you now - both in terms of what my position/argument actually is, and what your comprehension of it is. Because I really don't know how I can put it any more simply or clearly.

Numbers' translation makes even clearer that a para is a higher level acquittal.

Yes it is. Again, if you think that's the issue here, then things are much worse than I thought. But it's not a type of acquittal that could ever in practice have been applied to Knox or Sollecito, so it's entirely pointless and moot to even debate what a 530.2 acquittal means in their case - in practice, there was no other type of acquittal that could have been applied to them.

You have puffed about adversarial versus inquisitorial systems and how the law is just an oversight - but it is the law and is used by the Italian legal system. Bongiorno specifically asked for a para 1 as I quoted above. The defense lawyers hoped for a para 1 when the verdict came in. Marasca said it was a 2 and people here doubted him.

First, please knock it off with the insulting language such as "puffed about". I have argued a position in some detail. Whether or not you accept it or understand it is somewhat secondary. Second, of course it's in the nature of defence lawyers to ask for the moon. I guess you don't have much experience of the way this sort of bartering works in courts?

Cheli the well-educated Italian that wrote many FOA legal analysis should be dismissed because you say so. What a joke.

Once again, you specifically (and deliberately IMO) misrepresent my position with this strawman. As you should well know (and as I've explicitly corrected you already), I am in no way arguing that "Cheli... should be dismissed because (I) say so". Instead, I am saying that his opinion should not automatically be accorded any more credibility or weight simply on the (apparent) basis that he is Italian, and nothing more than that. Please don't misrepresent me in this sort of manner again. Thank you. (Oh and he "wrote many FOA legal analysis" did he.....?)

 

[LondonJohn]

3. Your statement is incorrect and not fairly based on any information that I provided, as far as I can understand. Have you read Gialuz's essay? I have.

I am guessing he has not. And Gialuz truly can be regarded as someone with learned opinions on Italian laws & codes of criminal procedures and their application by the courts.

Gialuz writes only that CPP Art. 530 "was considered one of the least successful provisions of the CPP in the 1988 reform" because "it was not clear [what] was the required standard to convict a person." However, Gialuz writes that in 2006, the Italian Parliament changed CPP Art. 533.1 to establish that " 'the judge shall deliver a judgment of conviction if the accused is proven to be guilty of the alleged offence beyond a reasonable doubt'. This change has represented a step towards completion, from an accusatorial [adversarial] viewpoint, of the Italian criminal justice system."

There is no statement in Gialuz's essay that further change is required in CPP Art. 530 or 533. Gialuz does not discuss the difference between CPP Art. 530.1 and 530.2, but discusses that the previous version of the article was modified by a reform in 1988, as a move to implement an adversarial system.

I don't know how to be more clear about what Gialuz has written. It is not what you maintain. Perhaps you can obtain a copy of the book. I bought it through Amazon, but I believe it is available at the University of Washington library and some other libraries.

You can lead a horse to water........

6. There is a difference in language between CPP Art. 530.1 and 530.2. What you seem to not apprehend is that the degree of insufficiency, contradiction, or lacking of proof that the accused committed the crime may range from a small amount to a very large amount. But in any case, if the accused cannot be proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused is not guilty, for 530.2 just as for 530.1 where the wording is (illogically, in my opinion) absolute with no reference to evaluation of evidence.

This is possibly the crux of the whole thing. Once one has excluded acquittals on the basis that either a) no crime was committed or b) the defendant can prove his/her innocence to the court's satisfaction (i.e. 530.1 acquittals), then in fact and in practice 530.2 covers every type of "reasonable doubt" acquittal - right the way through from ZERO evidence of guilt, all the way up to plenty of evidence of guilt but just falling short of proving guilt BARD.

And so anyone on trial in Italy who cannot PROVE his/her innocence, and where the crime with which (s)he is charged has definitively been committed, ONLY EVER HAS THE CHANCE OF A 530.2 ACQUITTAL (if they end up being acquitted of course, that is). Even if there is zero credible, reliable evidence of his/her guilt.

You may believe whatever you wish.

A Doobie Brothers song is going round and round in my head

 

[Numbers]

Wiki is not a good source in this case because the above doesn't even mention "insufficient evidence".

If you are going to use wiki or google translate, you need to be discerning as to their accuracy. However, I do note, the above says dismissal. You do know what "dismissal" means in the context of law. It means case dismissed, not '"not guilty" never to be tried again'.

Please notify the Italian authorities of this finding of yours immediately! They have been in error all this time!

See, for example, CPP Art. 649 Ne bis in idem (no double jeopardy)
1. The accused person who has been dismissed or convicted by a judgment or criminal decree that has become final shall not be prosecuted again for the same offence, even if his conduct is considered differently in terms of legal definition, stage of the offence or circumstances....

All this time, the Italians have been thinking that a final dismissal means a final acquittal or final dismissal for other reasons, such as the case becoming time-barred (ran into statute of limitations), but you, Vixen, have found differently! Please, I beg you, let the Italian authorities know your findings immediately!

And, don't forget to tell all the biochemists of the world that DNA is a protein.

 

[Numbers]

Stefanoni did not "withhold test results". That's a rich accusation to make when only Tatumi and Torricelli bothered to turn up to eyewitness Stefanoni testing.

See http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/lab-data-suppression/ for details of what was withheld.

If you believe that the information there is not correct, provide citations including where all the information that an evaluation of DNA profiling requires, including the raw electronic data files, and show that the defense received all of that information.

And observing a test is far different from being allowed a detailed examination of ALL the results.

Remember, you maintain that DNA is a protein and much is expected from those who hold that point of view.

 

[Bill Williams]

See http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/lab-data-suppression/ for details of what was withheld.

If you believe that the information there is not correct, provide citations including where all the information that an evaluation of DNA profiling requires, including the raw electronic data files, and show that the defense received all of that information.

And observing a test is far different from being allowed a detailed examination of ALL the results.

Remember, you maintain that DNA is a protein and much is expected from those who hold that point of view.

From Wikipedia: "DNA is a nucleic acid; alongside proteins and carbohydrates, nucleic acids compose the three major macromolecules essential for all known forms of life."

Who knew?

 

[Numbers]

1. You and Numbers have not shown that 530 isn't the law. 2. Numbers' translation makes even clearer that a para is a higher level acquittal. You have puffed about adversarial versus inquisitorial systems and how the law is just an oversight - but it is the law and is used by the Italian legal system. Bongiorno specifically asked for a para 1 as I quoted above. The defense lawyers hoped for a para 1 when the verdict came in. 3. Marasca said it was a 2 and people here doubted him.

4. Cheli the well-educated Italian that wrote many FOA legal analysis should be dismissed because you say so. What a joke.

1. Your language is bizarre. I have in fact stated that CPP Art. 530 is an article of Italian procedural law*. I provided the text in translation (from Gialuz et al.) about one year ago.

2. In your opinion. I suspect CPP Art. 530.1 is merely in relevant part (that is, "the accused did not commit the crime" with no reference to the evaluation of evidence) a relic of Italian legal history which has been maintained in part because it (Art. 530.1) has other useful sections. I don't have evidence to fully support my suspicion, and, frankly, do not care whether or not you comprehend the change in Italian law which occurred beginning in 1988 from an inquisitorial system to an adversarial system. There are a number of legal articles that discuss this change in the Italian legal system, and a few of them were discussed here on ISF/JREF in 2014, not too long after I joined up.

3. I have never expressed any prediction that the Marasca CSC panel would provide any particular type of acquittal. While I thought they might acquit, or convict (upholding Nencini), I believed it was slightly more likely they would refer the case to a lower court for another go-round, or even go for the United Sections CSC review.

4. Cheli is very knowledgeable about Italian law, but he is not, to my knowledge, a lawyer. I believe he was indicating a difference in perception among (some) Italians relating to paragraph 2 compared to 1, but as I indicated previously, I have no interest in views about "perceptions" unless the views can be demonstrated in a scientific or reliable way, such as by surveys.
___
You point out in a different post that Hellmann did not refer to CPP Article 530 whatsoever in his verdict or motivation report. The procedural law called out by Hellmann was CPP Article 605.

For those interested, here is the translation from Gialuz et al.:

CPP Article 605 Judgment {of an appeal court}

1. With the exception of the cases provided for in Article 604 {cases of nullity}, the appeal judge shall deliver a judgment confirming or amending the appealed judgment.

2. The decisions of the appeal judge on civil actions shall be immediately enforceable.

3. {Instructions on forwarding a copy of the judgment to Judge's Clerk's Office etc.}

If indeed the Hellmann court did not see the need to cite any provision of CPP Article 530** in delivering a judgment of acquittal for the murder/rape charges, with the statement that it was for "the accused did not commit the crime", perhaps the role of this article can be better understood. If someone is acquitted and the specification of the acquittal (one of the five available specifications for an acquittal in Italian law) is "the accused did not commit the crime", the Italian legal system understands that the underlying law is CPP Article 530.

* CPP means Code of Criminal Procedure, a list of the Italian procedural laws for criminal cases. (Codice di procedura penale)
** I have not researched whether or not there is a cite of CPP Art. 530 "hiding" somewhere in the motivation report.

 

[Numbers]

From Wikipedia: "DNA is a nucleic acid; alongside proteins and carbohydrates, nucleic acids compose the three major macromolecules essential for all known forms of life."

Who knew?

Remember, please, that Wikipedia is not always a reliable source.

Vixen apparently has found that DNA is really a protein and has posted here on ISF that it is. This is a revolutionary result that Vixen should publicize.

Vixen has also apparently discovered a number of features of Italian law that the Italian authorities were not aware of, having posted those legal findings here on ISF. Vixen should, of course, make them aware of those features before there is irreparable damage to the Italian legal system.

 

[Vixen]

Are you having a total comprehension failure? I am not attempting to show that 530 "isn't the law" (or, more accurately, the criminal code). If that's what you think I'm trying to argue, then things are even worse than I thought.

I am instead arguing that 530.1 is only ever used where a defendant can prove his/her innocence, or where the court deems that no crime was ever committed. I am then arguing that 530.2 is used for ALL OTHER ACQUITTALS. That is to say all acquittals other than those where the defendant can prove his/her innocence or where no crime took place.

I don't really know how I can make that any clearer. Of course 530.1 is a "better" and "more exonerating" method of acquittal than 530.2 - but only because it means that either the defendant is provably innocent or that no crime ever even occurred.

And neither Knox nor Sollecito could ever have been properly acquitted under anything other than 530.2 - since there was certainly a crime committed, and neither Knox nor Sollecito could have proven their innocence of the crime (since their alibis were self-supporting and unable to be independently verified).

If you were arrested for a murder which occurred a mile away from your house at 4am (a murder which you had nothing whatsoever to do with) and you couldn't prove your innocence (imagine you were asleep in bed either alone or next to a sleeping partner), then you would have to be acquitted under 530.2 (if this all took place in Italy). There would be not one single piece of credible, reliable evidence of your guilt (since in fact you'd been asleep at home all along and had nothing whatsoever to do with it). Exactly the same rationale applies to Knox and Sollecito and their acquittals.

I sincerely hope this is all clearer to you now - both in terms of what my position/argument actually is, and what your comprehension of it is. Because I really don't know how I can put it any more simply or clearly.






Yes it is. Again, if you think that's the issue here, then things are much worse than I thought. But it's not a type of acquittal that could ever in practice have been applied to Knox or Sollecito, so it's entirely pointless and moot to even debate what a 530.2 acquittal means in their case - in practice, there was no other type of acquittal that could have been applied to them.






First, please knock it off with the insulting language such as "puffed about". I have argued a position in some detail. Whether or not you accept it or understand it is somewhat secondary. Second, of course it's in the nature of defence lawyers to ask for the moon. I guess you don't have much experience of the way this sort of bartering works in courts?





Once again, you specifically (and deliberately IMO) misrepresent my position with this strawman. As you should well know (and as I've explicitly corrected you already), I am in no way arguing that "Cheli... should be dismissed because (I) say so". Instead, I am saying that his opinion should not automatically be accorded any more credibility or weight simply on the (apparent) basis that he is Italian, and nothing more than that. Please don't misrepresent me in this sort of manner again. Thank you. (Oh and he "wrote many FOA legal analysis" did he.....?)

Talking out of your <fx Dambusters theme>: 530.I is the conventional acquittal.


530.2 is never used, except when it's politically expedient to bend the law.

 

[Vixen]

Remember, please, that Wikipedia is not always a reliable source.

Vixen apparently has found that DNA is really a protein and has posted here on ISF that it is. This is a revolutionary result that Vixen should publicize.

Vixen has also apparently discovered a number of features of Italian law that the Italian authorities were not aware of, having posted those legal findings here on ISF. Vixen should, of course, make them aware of those features before there is irreparable damage to the Italian legal system.

Features that YOU are not aware of, as the self-appointed PIP solicitor.

As you have been told, there is a legal distinction between Article 530 para 1 and 530 para 2. Stop trying to pretend there is no difference.

 

[Numbers]

Talking out of your <fx Dambusters theme>: 530.I is the conventional acquittal.


530.2 is never used, except when it's politically expedient to bend the law.

Please provide a list of cases over a period of time, such as the last 5 years, and an analysis of how many times an acquittal verdict cited CPP Article 530.1 compared to how many times an acquittal verdict cited CPP Article 530.2.

When you have that kind of quantitative information, which should include citation data to allow for peer review, your statement on this matter may be given some measure of meaning.

Otherwise, it is just an opinion without concrete foundation from an anonymous internet poster with no claimed legal credentials, and should be treated with the highest level of skepticism.

 

[Numbers]

Features that YOU are not aware of, as the self-appointed PIP solicitor.

As you have been told, there is a legal distinction between Article 530 para 1 and 530 para 2. Stop trying to pretend there is no difference.

That's right, I am not aware of the features you are claiming. Apparently the Italian legal authorities are not either. That's why you should notify them immediately that they are not allowed to have a feature such as a final dismissal of a case (for example, due to the statute of limitations running out*).

And please don't forget to notify all the world's biochemists that DNA is a protein, based on your post. Now that is a truly revolutionary finding you have made.

*ETA: And just for your info, that is how your hero, Mignini, evaded being convicted of abuse of power. The case against him ran so long that it ran into the statute of limitations and had to be finally dismissed. That is equivalent to a final acquittal in Italy, in that Mignini cannot again be tried for those alleged offenses against those individuals.

But according to your earlier post #3897, there is no such legal measure as a final dismissal, so you should notify Mignini immediately that he may be prosecuted again!

 

[Mike1711]

Not really. 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.

Why do you think that both the terms ""insufficient" and "lacking" are used? Where proof is lacking in this context does it not mean totally absent? A far stronger term than insufficient.

 

[Numbers]

Why do you think that both the terms ""insufficient" and "lacking" are used? Where proof is lacking in this context does it not mean totally absent? A far stronger term than insufficient.

Mike, your question is a very good one.

Indeed, one should be aware of the definition, especially from the legal viewpoint, of each of the key words:

insufficient; contradictory; lacking; and proof.

In particular, at least in the US, lawyers use the word "proof" differently (at least sometimes) than do, for example, mathematicians.

Lawyers will use the following definition of proof:

evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment of a tribunal.

They may also use this definition of proof:

the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact.

Thus, "lacking proof" means "the evidence was not there" or "there was no convincing evidence".

Source: www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary

 

[LondonJohn]

Please provide a list of cases over a period of time, such as the last 5 years, and an analysis of how many times an acquittal verdict cited CPP Article 530.1 compared to how many times an acquittal verdict cited CPP Article 530.2.

When you have that kind of quantitative information, which should include citation data to allow for peer review, your statement on this matter may be given some measure of meaning.

Otherwise, it is just an opinion without concrete foundation from an anonymous internet poster with no claimed legal credentials, and should be treated with the highest level of skepticism.

I wouldn't hold your breath. This, after all, was Vixen's (unintentionally hilarious) response when she was asked just a few days ago to provide references for her (ridiculous and incorrect) claim that "virtually all" acquittals in Italy were of the 530.1 variety:

"The reference is myself. I can't help being better informed than you."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11175418#post11175418


Person A: WWI started in 1924.

Person B: Please provide a reference to support this claim.

Person A: The reference is myself. I can't help being better informed than you.

 

[Mike1711]

I wouldn't hold your breath. This, after all, was Vixen's (unintentionally hilarious) response when she was asked just a few days ago to provide references for her (ridiculous and incorrect) claim that "virtually all" acquittals in Italy were of the 530.1 variety:

"The reference is myself. I can't help being better informed than you."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11175418#post11175418


Person A: WWI started in 1924.

Person B: Please provide a reference to support this claim.

Person A: The reference is myself. I can't help being better informed than you.

My reading was that almost all acquittals are done under 530.2. I could be wrong as I cannot remember where I read this....could be an unreliable source.

 

[Vixen]

That's right, I am not aware of the features you are claiming. Apparently the Italian legal authorities are not either. That's why you should notify them immediately that they are not allowed to have a feature such as a final dismissal of a case (for example, due to the statute of limitations running out*).

And please don't forget to notify all the world's biochemists that DNA is a protein, based on your post. Now that is a truly revolutionary finding you have made.

*ETA: And just for your info, that is how your hero, Mignini, evaded being convicted of abuse of power. The case against him ran so long that it ran into the statute of limitations and had to be finally dismissed. That is equivalent to a final acquittal in Italy, in that Mignini cannot again be tried for those alleged offenses against those individuals.

But according to your earlier post #3897, there is no such legal measure as a final dismissal, so you should notify Mignini immediately that he may be prosecuted again!

Talking nonsense doesn't mask your error. As I said before, dropping of charges is subject to the Statute of Limitation. Thus if one has charges dropped against one, you can still be charged again, (there is no double jeopardy if it was never tried) but only within the statute of limitations.

 

[Vixen]

Remember, please, that Wikipedia is not always a reliable source.

Vixen apparently has found that DNA is really a protein and has posted here on ISF that it is. This is a revolutionary result that Vixen should publicize.

Vixen has also apparently discovered a number of features of Italian law that the Italian authorities were not aware of, having posted those legal findings here on ISF. Vixen should, of course, make them aware of those features before there is irreparable damage to the Italian legal system.

You know perfectly well I corrected my clumsily phrased sentence.

There is a difference between Article 530 para 1 and Article 530 para 2 and the Italians are aware of the features. Every word in law has a precise meaning. You can't just go to wiki where it states, "all others"; it simply doesn't say that.

Please forgive me if I decline to reciprocate in similar immature vein and the logical fallacy of flippancy.

 

[Vixen]

Please provide a list of cases over a period of time, such as the last 5 years, and an analysis of how many times an acquittal verdict cited CPP Article 530.1 compared to how many times an acquittal verdict cited CPP Article 530.2.

When you have that kind of quantitative information, which should include citation data to allow for peer review, your statement on this matter may be given some measure of meaning.

Otherwise, it is just an opinion without concrete foundation from an anonymous internet poster with no claimed legal credentials, and should be treated with the highest level of skepticism.

AFAIAA Andreotti is the only other Art 530 para 2 acquittal, and he was found not guilty by the first instance courts. Guess who the barrister was.

 

[Mike1711]

AFAIAA Andreotti is the only other Art 530 para 2 acquittal, and he was found not guilty by the first instance courts. Guess who the barrister was.

I doubt it.