Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Bill Williams]

No Bill as always when you lose the match you blame the goal posts or yell SQUIRREL.

Please find where I ever said a 2 isn't an acquittal. There is a legal difference in that a 1 is a declaration of innocence and a 2 is a "not guilty". O.J. was found not guilty but not innocent. If we had the Italian system it certainly wouldn't have been a para 1 acquittal.

I have referred to Cheli since very early on as he clearly stated the different paras mean something in Italy.

Just like a 100% and 70% are both passing grades that doesn't mean there is no difference. Just because a para 1 and para 2 are both acquittals doesn't mean there isn't a difference.

At least this is agonizingly close to acknowledging the issues at hand, at least at my end of the field where the goalposts of interest are.

The trouble is, the metaphor of passing grades is wrong. You've had to return to the concept that one is an acquittal and that the other is more of an acquittal.

You are referring to Cheli on the matter of perception. Great, good for you. I wish you would read more of his stuff, as well as other stuff from the PIP point of view, rather than cherry-picking.

Be all that as it may, you are agonizingly close to answering the question.... ok, ok, not "the" question, but one asked throughout the thread when you've tried to aim your P.A.T. at a differing set of goalposts.

And I actually do think you believe that there is no difference in legal consequence to any of the types of acquittals. An acquittal is an acquittal is an acquittal.

There is no such thing as an acquittal, vs. an acquittal with eye-brows raised. As mentioned way way up thread if the discussion is on perception, everyone with have their own version of it.

Great! Have a nice day! (But it is good to know that what this is really about is winning and losing an argument! I've just won a bet!!!)

 

[Numbers]

Your claims the kids were declared innocent and exonerated are the falsehoods.

My knowledge of DNA is completely irrelevant. Your twisting my words doesn't detract that my qualifications in Biology are probably higher than yours, it being a prerequisite to get on a BSc(Hons) psychology course.

Going through my posts with a fine-tooth comb hoping to spot a typo or a quibble is incredibly sad, given your deliberate and transparent agenda to present an Article 530.2 verdict as a being the same as 530.1.

LOL!

You apparently have no idea of the absurdity of your posts.

 

[Vixen]

It's strange because Vixen on two or three occasions has, indeed, 'fessed up about making a mistake. A brief read of the Wikipedia page on the subject of DNA makes it clear that on this one Vixen doesn't even want to know.... who knows, maybe someone has fed this misinformation to her; and to retract it will cause her to doubt that "someone" as a source.... who knows.

I made a passing comment about white blood cells being the major source of DNA in blood and which are a major source in secreting protein. Goodness me, I am now being bullied for not writing a learned thesis on the topic!

I guess it detracts away from the material misinformation which has it that Article 530.2 is the same as Article 530.1.


Come on, Bill, lead the way: come clean, and let's progress the discussion.

 

[Vixen]

1. In Italian - previously given in post #3803:

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.

In English translation (from Gialuz, Luparia, and Scarpa) - previously given in post #3765:

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.

Italian Constitution, Article 27 (clause 2)

2. A defendant shall be considered not guilty until a final sentence has been passed.

In the English translation, I bolded the language that is the equivalent of "the accused did not commit the act (crime)". If there is an acquittal, the defendant did not commit the crime in accordance with the proof (evidence) being insufficient, contradictory or lacking.

The logic is that one can only be judged to have committed the crime if there is proof (evidence) of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (CPP Article 533.1).

If the proof does not meet that standard, one has not committed the crime, according to the law.

Furthermore, in giving a verdict of acquittal, an Italian court gives a specification of the type of acquittal. There are only five types of specification of acquittal under Italian law. In the Knox - Sollecito case, the Marasca CSC panel's specification was "the appellants {the accused} did not commit the act (crime)". So by the verdict specification, the CSC indicates that is what it meant within CPP Article 530.2, which has other types of specifications within it (for example, that "the criminal act did not occur" - note in 530.2 this is also preceded by the phrase "insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof").

2. Who else maintains that there are different legal consequences - on ISF, Mach; I believe Vixen and Mach had the same or essentially the same arguments. Do you know of anyone else? Did they have citations from the CPP to support their claims? On checking the CPP, were the claims verified?

In terms of no different legal consequences for an acquittal with specification "the accused did not commit the act (crime)" under CPP Art. 530.2 compared to 530.1, I have already provided that information. I will summarize here.

CPP Art. 648 Irrevocability of judgments and criminal decrees

1. Judgments delivered at trial which are not subject to an appelate remedy other than revision are final.

CPP Art. 629 Convictions subject to revision

1. The revision of judgments of conviction ... may be performed at any time and in the cases established by law in favour of the convicted persons, even if the sentence has already been enforced or is extinguished.

{There is no revision possible for an acquittal.}

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....

{"Dismissed" here is a general term meaning "acquitted" or "dismissed for other reasons" (such as, for example, time-barred by statute of limitations)}

CPP Art. 652 Effects of the criminal judgment of acquittal in trials for civil or administrative damages

1. The final criminal judgment of acquittal delivered after a trial shall have binding effect, with relation to either the ascertainment that the criminal act did not occur, or the accused did not commit it or the act has been carried out to perform a duty or to exercise a legal right, in the civil or administrative trial for restitution or compensation of damages brought by the injured person or in his interest, provided that the injured has joined the proceedings as a civil party or has been given the possibility to join the proceedings....

You just don't get that 530.2 is a lower court jursidiction, usually a preliminary one, when the judge decides the prosecutor's case isn't strong enough.

What you are quoting in Art 652 relates to cases that have gone to full trial.

Sure the kids went to full trial, but Supreme Court declaring the evidence insufficient from the prosecutor's perspective, as though it was a preliminary issue, is inappropriate at this stage, and a bridge too far.

 

[Bill Williams]

I made a passing comment about white blood cells being the major source of DNA in blood and which are a major source in secreting protein. Goodness me, I am now being bullied for not writing a learned thesis on the topic!

I guess it detracts away from the material misinformation which has it that Article 530.2 is the same as Article 530.1.


Come on, Bill, lead the way: come clean, and let's progress the discussion.

You yourself have led the way when you quickly ended the former bloopers by quickly and without fuss 'fessed up. No need for anyone else.

In fact the post above is full value for another admission to a boo-boo. So pat yourself on the back for "leading the way". Give yourself some credit.

 

[Vixen]

Which is different to your previous claim of "...the charges were dropped...".

Interesting to note that "case dismissed" applies where the prosecution's case is absolutely hopeless.

Lacking evidence....none.

A case dismissed under 530.2 is the equivalent of "charges dropped". This is because it refers to a - usually - preliminary stage where it is adjudged the prosecutor needs to present a better case. It doesn't confer "double jeopardy" as it hasn't gone to full trial.

For the Fifth Chamber to pounce on 530.2 as a get out clause - given the lower courts made no such finding - betrays their motive in circumventing due process, and bad faith.

 

[Vixen]

You yourself have led the way when you quickly ended the former bloopers by quickly and without fuss 'fessed up. No need for anyone else.

In fact the post above is full value for another admission to a boo-boo. So pat yourself on the back for "leading the way". Give yourself some credit.

It wasn't a blooper. So I referred to bodily fluids as consisting of protein. Big deal. DNA is indeed the building block of organic matter. Sorry if that is not set out in the scientific jargon. However, I am not going to do so because it is irrelevant whether I am a biochemist or not, when you ought to know by now I am a bean counter by trade.

 

[Planigale]

Oh really? I thought you claimed to be an expert.

The role of deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA in protein synthesis is that of a blueprint. It is a guide to the structure of the proteins being produced. Without DNA, the ribosomes in any given cell would not know what order to put amino acids in.

Clear now?

Well you are learning, so DNA is not a protein, it is not a building block of proteins, it is amongst other things the 'blueprint' for protein. You do understand that you look silly having expressed opinions on what the size of STR peaks meant, the likelihood of secondary transmission or contamination when you didn't even know what DNA was?

You just parrot factoids from dubious sources without really understanding what you are saying. This is a skeptic site; we don't just take people's word for something we want to know the evidence.

There are many miscarriages of justice because of confident expert opinions that were not properly challenged, because as Gill says judges do not understand the science.

 

[Vixen]

Well you are learning, so DNA is not a protein, it is not a building block of proteins, it is amongst other things the 'blueprint' for protein. You do understand that you look silly having expressed opinions on what the size of STR peaks meant, the likelihood of secondary transmission or contamination when you didn't even know what DNA was?

You just parrot factoids from dubious sources without really understanding what you are saying. This is a skeptic site; we don't just take people's word for something we want to know the evidence.

There are many miscarriages of justice because of confident expert opinions that were not properly challenged, because as Gill says judges do not understand the science.

Nonsense, it's not a factoid. All opinions expressed are my own. I know perfectly well what DNA is. I have never claimed to be anything other than a layman, so to pounce on a poorly worded sentence, doesn't mask the fact Amanda was likely bleeding quite significantly as of the time of the murder and it almost certainly was not "because of a pierced ear", as her DNA was in greater quantity than Mez in one of the mixed samples found.

 

[Bill Williams]

Nonsense, it's not a factoid. All opinions expressed are my own. I know perfectly well what DNA is. I have never claimed to be anything other than a layman, so to pounce on a poorly worded sentence, doesn't mask the fact Amanda was likely bleeding quite significantly as of the time of the murder and it almost certainly was not "because of a pierced ear", as her DNA was in greater quantity than Mez in one of the mixed samples found.

What I'd like to thank you for is putting it out there what the claim was - that from a PGP point of view, Amanda had to have been bleeding because of the quantity of her DNA - not because there is any actual blood evidence from her (other than the faucet).

I had not understood before that, that the "mixed-blood" was a derived claim - in my view a derived factoid.

Then again Judge Massei was careful in his 2010 motivations report to avoid saying there was mixed blood. Some guilters for years claimed mixed blood, and have in the past two years or so given that up.

Anyway, I now understand where the "reasoning" comes from.

 

[Grinder]

1. In Italian - previously given in post #3803:

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.

In English translation (from Gialuz, Luparia, and Scarpa) - previously given in post #3765:

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.

Italian Constitution, Article 27 (clause 2)

2. A defendant shall be considered not guilty until a final sentence has been passed.

In the English translation, I bolded the language that is the equivalent of "the accused did not commit the act (crime)". If there is an acquittal, the defendant did not commit the crime in accordance with the proof (evidence) being insufficient, contradictory or lacking.

The logic is that one can only be judged to have committed the crime if there is proof (evidence) of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (CPP Article 533.1).

If the proof does not meet that standard, one has not committed the crime, according to the law.

Furthermore, in giving a verdict of acquittal, an Italian court gives a specification of the type of acquittal. There are only five types of specification of acquittal under Italian law. In the Knox - Sollecito case, the Marasca CSC panel's specification was "the appellants {the accused} did not commit the act (crime)". So by the verdict specification, the CSC indicates that is what it meant within CPP Article 530.2, which has other types of specifications within it (for example, that "the criminal act did not occur" - note in 530.2 this is also preceded by the phrase "insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof").

2. Who else maintains that there are different legal consequences - on ISF, Mach; I believe Vixen and Mach had the same or essentially the same arguments. Do you know of anyone else? Did they have citations from the CPP to support their claims? On checking the CPP, were the claims verified?

In terms of no different legal consequences for an acquittal with specification "the accused did not commit the act (crime)" under CPP Art. 530.2 compared to 530.1, I have already provided that information. I will summarize here.

CPP Art. 648 Irrevocability of judgments and criminal decrees

1. Judgments delivered at trial which are not subject to an appelate remedy other than revision are final.

CPP Art. 629 Convictions subject to revision

1. The revision of judgments of conviction ... may be performed at any time and in the cases established by law in favour of the convicted persons, even if the sentence has already been enforced or is extinguished.

{There is no revision possible for an acquittal.}

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....

{"Dismissed" here is a general term meaning "acquitted" or "dismissed for other reasons" (such as, for example, time-barred by statute of limitations)}

CPP Art. 652 Effects of the criminal judgment of acquittal in trials for civil or administrative damages

1. The final criminal judgment of acquittal delivered after a trial shall have binding effect, with relation to either the ascertainment that the criminal act did not occur, or the accused did not commit it or the act has been carried out to perform a duty or to exercise a legal right, in the civil or administrative trial for restitution or compensation of damages brought by the injured person or in his interest, provided that the injured has joined the proceedings as a civil party or has been given the possibility to join the proceedings....

Did I miss where you showed "did not commit" is in 530?

 

[Numbers]

1. You just don't get that 530.2 is a lower court jursidiction, usually a preliminary one, when the judge decides the prosecutor's case isn't strong enough.
2. What you are quoting in Art 652 relates to cases that have gone to full trial.

3. Sure the kids went to full trial, but Supreme Court declaring the evidence insufficient from the prosecutor's perspective, as though it was a preliminary issue, is inappropriate at this stage, and a bridge too far.

1. and 3. False. Show a citation from Italian law in support of any of your claims.

Here is the true information:

All of CPP Article 530 applies to the conclusion of a trial. It may be found in the Code of Criminal Procedure in Book VII, Trial; Title III, Judgment; Chapter II, Decision; Section I, Judgment of Dismissal. In Italian legal terminology, "Dismissal" is the antonym of "Conviction". Acquittal is one type of dismissal. Section I is followed by Section II, Judgment of Conviction.

The CSC is the Supreme Court of Cassation. Cassation means "appeals". It is the highest criminal and civil court in Italy, and is obligated to hear any appeal framed according to law and presented to it within the legally designated time limit.

The CSC is granted considerable authority under Italian law and Constitution. In particular, it is given the following authority:

CPP Article 620 Annulment without referral

1. In addition to the cases specifically provided for in law, the CSC shall deliver a judgment of annulment without referral:

(A) if the criminal act is not deemed an offence by law, if the offence is extinguished or if the prosecution should not have been started or continued;
....
(L) in any other case in which the CSC believes the referral is superfluous or may proceed to the determination of the sentence or take the necessary decisions.

The CSC is allowed to overturn any appealed lower court conviction by Article 620 (L).

A judgment of dismissal, including one of acquittal, by the CSC constitutes a final judgment. A judgment of conviction by the CSC is final, but may be overturned by a revision trial under certain circumstances.

The CSC in the Knox - Sollecito case choose to annul the appealed Nencini court verdict (which necessarily includes its Nencini court motivation report, by Article 111 of the Italian Constitution) without referral under Article 620 (L) rather than (A). In doing so, it proceeded to the determination of the verdict and made the decisions it considered necessary under Article 620 (L). These included an acquittal under CPP Article 530.2 in this case.

___

2. The more appropriate wording for your statement (2) is that CPP Article 652 applies to final judgments. Final judgments include, among others, a judgment of acquittal delivered by the CSC. CPP Articles 648 and 649 apply to a judgment of acquittal delivered by the CSC, making the acquittal final.

The terminology "full trial" is not meaningful in Italian law.

 

[Numbers]

Did I miss where you showed "did not commit" is in 530?

You missed the logical path that leads from CPP Art. 530.2 "insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof...that the accused committed it [the criminal act]" to "the accused did not commit the crime".

You need to recall It. Const. Art. 27. This states that a defendant is not guilty until final sentence is delivered. If there is no sentence - no finding of guilt - the accused person is NOT GUILTY. And if they are acquitted because there was inadequate evidence of guilt (insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof) then they did not commit the crime according to law.

 

[Grinder]

At least this is agonizingly close to acknowledging the issues at hand, at least at my end of the field where the goalposts of interest are.

The trouble is, the metaphor of passing grades is wrong. You've had to return to the concept that one is an acquittal and that the other is more of an acquittal.

Well let's see, one says the defendant is innocent the other says the evidenc isn't enough to convict - yup there is a difference.

You are referring to Cheli on the matter of perception. Great, good for you. I wish you would read more of his stuff, as well as other stuff from the PIP point of view, rather than cherry-picking.

If Cheli wrote something else on the subject let her fly. If you have some other article send it. Since I've asked a hundred times I'm guessing you got zilch, nada, nunca, zippo.

Be all that as it may, you are agonizingly close to answering the question.... ok, ok, not "the" question, but one asked throughout the thread when you've tried to aim your P.A.T. at a differing set of goalposts.

You are one trying desperately to change the focus because you can't make a case. The verdict of a one is different than a two. A para 1 is like a perfect score and para 2 is less, maybe an A- or a B or a D+ - the court is saying clearly we can't judge this person innocent but by law (BARD) we must acquit.

And I actually do think you believe that there is no difference in legal consequence to any of the types of acquittals. An acquittal is an acquittal is an acquittal.

As I've said, no need to surmise, I don't think is a difference but nobody on this board knows for sure. If it turns out the two allows a new civil suit I wouldn't be shocked, but I doubt any will be filed. The 2 might protect some from lawsuits over defamation. Regardless the perception remains of more possible involvement with a 2 than a 1.

There is no such thing as an acquittal, vs. an acquittal with eye-brows raised. As mentioned way way up thread if the discussion is on perception, everyone with have their own version of it.

The question isn't what the exact perception should be but rather that a 2 left shadows and wasn't a clearcut verdict of innocent.

Great! Have a nice day! (But it is good to know that what this is really about is winning and losing an argument! I've just won a bet!!!)

You're the one that keeps with the sports analogies. Spend your money wisely.

 

[Grinder]

You missed the logical path that leads from CPP Art. 530.2 "insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof...that the accused committed it [the criminal act]" to "the accused did not commit the crime".

Nope. The law does not have the phrase. One need not be declared innocent to get a not guilty. O.J. was not declared innocent but rather not guilty. No choice here but there is no way he would have received a 1 in Italy.

[quiltyYou need to recall It. Const. Art. 27. This states that a defendant is not guilty until final sentence is delivered. If there is no sentence - no finding of guilt - the accused person is NOT GUILTY. And if they are acquitted because there was inadequate evidence of guilt (insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof) then they did not commit the crime according to law.[/QUOTE]

Do you actually not understand the difference between being declared innocent and not guilty? Yes they are both acquittals but one makes a different statement than the other. I think it is a good that option exists so that someone clearly innocent can get a verdict that shows it.

 

[bagels]

Grinder don't you think the students deserved para 1?

It's hard to think of someone more innocent than them still making it to trial. Has Italy ever tried someone for a crime committed while they were on video in front of 50 witnesses 1,000 miles away?

 

[Bill Williams]

The question isn't what the exact perception should be but rather that a 2 left shadows and wasn't a clearcut verdict of innocent.

Sigh. Yes, that's right. #2 means not quite guilty. I thought we were making progress, but apparently not.

You're the one that keeps with the sports analogies. Spend your money wisely.

I did. I won the bet!

 

[Numbers]

Nope. The law does not have the phrase. One need not be declared innocent to get a not guilty. O.J. was not declared innocent but rather not guilty. No choice here but there is no way he would have received a 1 in Italy.

You need to recall It. Const. Art. 27. This states that a defendant is not guilty until final sentence is delivered. If there is no sentence - no finding of guilt - the accused person is NOT GUILTY. And if they are acquitted because there was inadequate evidence of guilt (insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof) then they did not commit the crime according to law.

Do you actually not understand the difference between being declared innocent and not guilty? Yes they are both acquittals but one makes a different statement than the other. I think it is a good that option exists so that someone clearly innocent can get a verdict that shows it.

1. Do you understand that OJ was not tried in Italy? The verdict of "innocent" is not usually one given in the US. Do you have any examples of a trial court in the US finding someone "innocent" rather than "not guilty"?

2. Where do you get the idea that I have stated that there is a verdict of "innocent" in Italy? The verdicts are "Guilty" or "Acquitted" or "Dismissed (for some reason as specified in law)".

If you believe that there is a verdict of "Innocent" in Italy, that may be your misapprehension and/or that of others. It is not my position.

A verdict of acquittal under CPP Article 530.1 is a "not guilty" verdict. So is one under 530.2. I am referring to the legal definition, not to your perception.

Nowhere in the CPP or the Italian Constitution is there any use of the word "innocent".

3. I have written that acquittals in Italy have five different specifications. None of the specifications use the word "innocent". The specifications are:

3.1 Acquitted because the crime did not occur
3.2 Acquitted because the act was not a crime (includes self-defense)
3.3 Acquitted because the accused did not commit the act (crime)
3.4 Acquitted because a change in the law makes the act not a crime
3.5 Acquitted because the accused is not mentally responsible (insanity)

If you read CPP Article 530 with some care, you will see that each of these five specifications are included.

4. Do you actually read my posts, and read them fairly? You seem to miss important information in them. You have also misunderstood or imagined that I have written things I have not - for example, with respect to Gialuz and the reform of 1988 involving Article 530. You claimed that I had written that Gialuz had some statements about 530.1 and 530.2 that I had not written; in fact, Gialuz never discusses the paragraphs of 530, and only briefly discusses the history of a change in 530 made during the reforms instituted in 1988.

5. ETA. If you believe there is some inconsistency in the Marasca CSC panel verdict between their citation of CPP Article 530.2 and their statement that the specification of the acquittal is that the appellants did not commit the crime, I will give you the following advice:

Contact the Italian authorities and let them know of your important legal finding, and suggest how they may correct it. I am sure they will be sympathetic to your comments.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder don't you think the students deserved para 1?

Well, that's an interesting question. I think they should have been acquitted with a paragraph 2 verdict by Massei. Unlike many others I do believe that had all the evidence presented been serious, precise, and consistent the verdict could have gone the other way. But it wasn't so they should have been acquitted para 2. I don't understand why the SC used 530 while Hellmann used 605.

 

[bagels]

Well, that's an interesting question. I think they should have been acquitted with a paragraph 2 verdict by Massei. Unlike many others I do believe that had all the evidence presented been serious, precise, and consistent the verdict could have gone the other way. But it wasn't so they should have been acquitted para 2. I don't understand why the SC used 530 while Hellmann used 605.

Well it seems to me this is why having separate forms of acquittals isn't ideal. Knox and Raff were ensnared by ambiguous circumstances and the investigators had their thumb on the scale at all times, and i think it's all very clear. They unfortunately lacked the foresight to go stand in front of a 7-11 cctv camera for 8 hours. Too bad so sad enjoy para 2? I think Not Guilty for everybody is fine.