Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

Thank you for reminding me of Hellmann's MR. I had read it about 2 years ago, before I knew anything about Italian law, and hadn't appreciated then any issues.

But I think your issue is really with claiming that there is a verdict of "innocent" in Italian law. Do you have any citations or examples showing a verdict of that type?

And as I have pointed out several times, the acquittal specification "the accused did not commit the crime" is one used even when the person is not guilty "merely" because the prosecution did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard by law in Italy since 2006, put into CPP Art. 533.1). It's not some clue that a supernatural insight has shown the judge that the accused is truly, truly innocent.

An excerpt from near the end of the Hellmann MR, showing the consistency of the wording of the specification formulas:

Once the presence [sussistenza] of proof of guilt concerning the current defendants has been ruled out, it is indeed not up to this Court to suggest how the events may really have unfolded, nor whether the perpetrator of the crime was one or more than one, nor whether or not other investigative hypotheses have been neglected. What is relevant for the purposes of [our] decision is only the absence of proof of guilt of the current defendants.

Whence their acquittal of the crimes alleged in Charges A,B,C, [and] D for not having committed the act, and of the crime under Charge E because the act did not take place.

One point: it should be understood that "insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof" must be considered the same as the absence of proof. An incomplete or inadequate body of evidence is equivalent to an absence of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (By analogy, if there were a set of mathematical statements alleged to be the proof of a theorem, but there was an insufficiency, self-contradiction or lack within the set of statements, there would be no proof.)

 

[Mike1711]

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

My knowledge of DNA is completely irrelevant.

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.

Of course they were.

In law you're presumed innocent until proof of guilt. Only a guilty verdict overrides the courts presumption of innocence and so it would be trite for the court to declare innocence....it's there already.

 

[Mike1711]

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.

Charges can only be dropped before the conclusion of a trial AND only by the prosecution.

Can you please show me where 530.2 is not at the disposal of the Appeal Court?

 

[Mike1711]

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.

If you admit ignorance on DNA why do you have so much to say about all the DNA experts refuting Stef.?

 

[Planigale]

The mixed blood finding is Stefanoni's, who argued that the peaks of both Mez and Amanda's DNA was high, suggesting a rich source of DNA. In addition, the luminosity of the footprints was high. FIVE mixed Amanda-Mez DNA samples were found, including within a footprint in Filomena's room. Blood dries and decays very quickly so we know they would have been bleeding contemporaneously and there likely was a violent struggle.

This is a problem for the prosecution. If the Luminol intensity was high then this implies the haemoglobin concentration is high and should have been detectable by a confirmatory test and / or TMB. An intense response with negative confirmatory tests for haemoglobin is not blood. (There is an argument that because of the sensitivity of Luminol a low response might be attributable to dilute haemoglobin below the sensitivity of other tests (including DNA testing). Remember how dilute this has to be - one drop of blood in a bath size volume of water.

What do you mean by blood decaying quickly? Remind us when the Luminol positive prints were found and tested?

Actually blood is not a particularly rich source of DNA. This is why when doing DNA tests cheek swabs are taken. If Steffanoni was saying she could conclude the source of the DNA from the size of the EPG on the STR typing she is being unscientific. There is no way the source of DNA can be concluded. Actually brushing your teeth then swilling and spitting will provide lots of DNA laden epithelial cells and may be some blood. Since Luminol will detect blood at a level below that which you obtain a positive DNA test, Steffanoni can not have it both that this is a rich source of DNA and that it is highly dilute blood not visible under normal light, not detectable by confirmatory tests. Steffanoni does not follow through on the logical consequences of her findings. She makes things up to support the prosecution, like she did with her unique argument (unsupported by any evidence) that the location of DNA on a knife handle can tell you how that knife was held and to what purpose it was put. Steffanoni goes beyond any reasonable interpretation of the evidence.

If Knox was bleeding copiously and DNA is such a rich source of DNA as you say why was none of her blood or DNA found on the clothes of MK or Knox or in the bedroom? Or on towels or tissues? Where did the blood come from certainly not the mark on her neck as there was no break in the skin.

ETA to be accurate there were two sites of blood attributed to Knox. One on her pillow was certainly compatible with bleeding from her ear. The other on the tap/faucet was of uncertain origin. I can think of lots of activities that might result in a bit of blood in a bathroom, shaving, dealing with spots, etc.

 

[LondonJohn]

Funny that those around a year ago were sure it was a para 1 but now say it would be impossible for M&B to give a para 1. They even accused Maresca of lying about the verdict because the stupid defense lawyers indicated it was a 1.

Of course as Cheli pointed out the 2 gave notice that the verdict would not be a clear statement of innocence as a 1 would have.

Funny not one article has been found to refute Cheli.

Well....... firstly, if you're including me among "those (who) around a year ago were sure it was a para 1" then you're wrong. I wrote then that I thought the signs pointed strongly towards it being a 530.1 acquittal. Which is very different from being "sure" that it was a 530.1. I also suggested that one might not necessarily take Maresca at face value since he clearly had vested interests (just as defence lawyers had vested interests in the other direction), but again that's very different from claiming that I accused him of lying. Shame on you for distorting and misrepresenting my comments in such a pejorative manner.

Secondly, perhaps you're unfamiliar with the concept of new information and learning leading someone to modify or change their views. Or are you the sort who makes your mind up about something and then rigidly refuses ever to change, even if new information comes to light? In this case, I was wrong about suggesting it would probably be 530.1, and I was also wrong in thinking that the Knox/Sollecito acquittals could EVER be of the 530.1 variety. See how it works? I WAS WRONG. You should try it sometimes

Thirdly, quit with the canards about Cheli. As I've already written several times, of course he's correct to say that a 530.2 acquittal for Knox/Sollecito "would not be a clear statement of innocence as a 1 would have (sic)". And that's because a 530.1 verdict is used where the court positively concludes that the defendants could prove they did not commit (and could not possibly have committed) the crime with which they were charged. In the case of Knox and Sollecito, it was of course impossible for them ever to prove their factual innocence in this way, so THEY COULD/SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ACQUITTED UNDER 530.1.

Lastly, plenty of source material (have you read that paper yet.....?) has been shown to refute Cheli's (and your) overarching POV on 530. And again I repeat for clarity: 1) nobody is suggesting that 530.1 and 530.2 are not used in different circumstances of arriving at an acquittal verdict (even though both types of acquittal are exactly equal in law); and 2) obviously if 530.1 is used, it's a more emphatic declaration of factual innocence than 530.2.

But that in no way means that a 530.2 acquittal is necessarily weak or inconclusive in any way. As has been pointed out numerous times, 530.2 must be used even when there's zero evidence of guilt, provided that the defendant cannot prove his/her factual innocence. In fact, therefore, 530.2 is effectively equivalent to the standard "not guilty" verdict of courts in the US and E&W, and it's emphatically NOT equivalent to the "not proven" verdict currently in use in Scottish courts. The only difference is that the US/E&W "not guilty" also encompasses the exceedingly rare cases where a defendant can prove his/her factual innocence (rare since those sorts of cases should never even make it to trial, and should not therefore require any form of court verdict), or where the court determines that no crime occurred. In Italy these are still split out and covered under 530.1 - though since the form of acquittal is exactly the same, it's clear that this artificial splitting out of "different forms" of acquittal is archaic and moot. It's nothing more than a vestige of the old inquisitorial codes and quasi-Fascist legislation which has been clumsily shoehorned into the new system.

 

[Mike1711]

Well....... firstly, if you're including me among "those (who) around a year ago were sure it was a para 1" then you're wrong. I wrote then that I thought the signs pointed strongly towards it being a 530.1 acquittal. Which is very different from being "sure" that it was a 530.1. I also suggested that one might not necessarily take Maresca at face value since he clearly had vested interests (just as defence lawyers had vested interests in the other direction), but again that's very different from claiming that I accused him of lying. Shame on you for distorting and misrepresenting my comments in such a pejorative manner.

Secondly, perhaps you're unfamiliar with the concept of new information and learning leading someone to modify or change their views. Or are you the sort who makes your mind up about something and then rigidly refuses ever to change, even if new information comes to light? In this case, I was wrong about suggesting it would probably be 530.1, and I was also wrong in thinking that the Knox/Sollecito acquittals could EVER be of the 530.1 variety. See how it works? I WAS WRONG. You should try it sometimes

Thirdly, quit with the canards about Cheli. As I've already written several times, of course he's correct to say that a 530.2 acquittal for Knox/Sollecito "would not be a clear statement of innocence as a 1 would have (sic)". And that's because a 530.1 verdict is used where the court positively concludes that the defendants could prove they did not commit (and could not possibly have committed) the crime with which they were charged. In the case of Knox and Sollecito, it was of course impossible for them ever to prove their factual innocence in this way, so THEY COULD/SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ACQUITTED UNDER 530.1.

Lastly, plenty of source material (have you read that paper yet.....?) has been shown to refute Cheli's (and your) overarching POV on 530. And again I repeat for clarity: 1) nobody is suggesting that 530.1 and 530.2 are not used in different circumstances of arriving at an acquittal verdict (even though both types of acquittal are exactly equal in law); and 2) obviously if 530.1 is used, it's a more emphatic declaration of factual innocence than 530.2.

But that in no way means that a 530.2 acquittal is necessarily weak or inconclusive in any way. As has been pointed out numerous times, 530.2 must be used even when there's zero evidence of guilt, provided that the defendant cannot prove his/her factual innocence. In fact, therefore, 530.2 is effectively equivalent to the standard "not guilty" verdict of courts in the US and E&W, and it's emphatically NOT equivalent to the "not proven" verdict currently in use in Scottish courts. The only difference is that the US/E&W "not guilty" also encompasses the exceedingly rare cases where a defendant can prove his/her factual innocence (rare since those sorts of cases should never even make it to trial, and should not therefore require any form of court verdict), or where the court determines that no crime occurred. In Italy these are still split out and covered under 530.1 - though since the form of acquittal is exactly the same, it's clear that this artificial splitting out of "different forms" of acquittal is archaic and moot. It's nothing more than a vestige of the old inquisitorial codes and quasi-Fascist legislation which has been clumsily shoehorned into the new system.

A 530.1 should never get to court. If innocence can be proved why is the prosecution pursuing the matter.

Italy

 

[Vixen]

And for what it's worth, although I don't doubt your googling ability -- DNA is not a "bodily fluid". "Bodily fluids" are mostly water. It may contain proteins but it does not "consist of" proteins. DNA is not the "building block" of organic matter. Carbon is the building block of organic matter.

Granted, you are a chartered accountant and have been evaluated in your professional knowledge in all the relevant scientific fields by professional evaluators, so you probably know more about all this than me, LondonJohn, Planigale, Peter Gill, and Bruce Budowle put together.

It's called shorthand. When chatting I might refer to some types of bodily fluid as 'protein' and nobody at all has any problem in realising that this also encompasses the 101 other elements. In the same way you can refer to a foot when you are actually only referring to a metatarsel. But then you already knew that.

I didn't say I knew more, I was simply pointing out that their claim everybody is ignorant except them is presumptive.

You were the one who demanded to know my credentials for stating game theory is probability theory.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, sweetheart. Help me understand this now. If you are self-admittedly a "layman", then when you have an opinion on something (such as that written above), and a world-class forensic geneticist like Peter Gill publishes something which explains precisely why your opinion is wrong in a journal like Forensic Science International: Genetics (the most important forensic genetics scientific journal in the world), shouldn't you perhaps weigh that opinion slightly more than your own?



Vixen, sweetheart. We (as in everyone) rather suspects that the entire forensic science community (of which Peter Gill, FSI, Bruce Budowle, etc. etc. are a part of) knows more about the topic at hand than Stefanoni. So when the published literature contradicts an Italian lab tech's (sorry... doctor. With a 3 year college degree.) opinion, the world-wide consensus opinion in the forensic community is more likely to be correct here. Doncha think?

Not when they are spin doctors advocating for a paying client.

 

[Vixen]

I quite agree. By the time the trial came around, if anyone had argued "mixed-blood", and that had been cited by Massei as a reason for conviction, you bet it would be ground for appeal.

On this one it seems that both Stefanoni and Massei simply quoted the proper science.... namely:

​

It's common sense. Where you have a great deal of blood, then the resulting footprints, rich quantities of DNA and luminol glows are almost certainly correlated.

For example, in the Justin Back case, whose parents reported him missing, but before anyone knew he had been killed by his two friends, a detective noticed a spot of blood on the carpet of the living room. He had his men pull the carpet up, and sure enough, underneath was a huge pool of congealed blood. He then got the luminol squad in, and the kitchen, where Mosely and Myers garrotted, stabbed and shot Back, lit up like a Christmas tree.

Was it blood that made it glow? We'll never know. But common sense tells you it was, likewise in the Kercher murder. What else did the kids dip their feet in?

 

[Bill Williams]

Thirdly, quit with the canards about Cheli. As I've already written several times, of course he's correct to say that a 530.2 acquittal for Knox/Sollecito "would not be a clear statement of innocence as a 1 would have (sic)". And that's because a 530.1 verdict is used where the court positively concludes that the defendants could prove they did not commit (and could not possibly have committed) the crime with which they were charged. In the case of Knox and Sollecito, it was of course impossible for them ever to prove their factual innocence in this way, so THEY COULD/SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ACQUITTED UNDER 530.1.

Lo and behold, Cheli actually does list the six "shadows" he believes the M/B report dwells in, that somewhat masks the real-reality (as opposed to the judicial-reality) of the previous 7 1/2 years. None - repeat none - of these six are the choice of paragraph 2 over paragraph 1.

What Grinder is plucking out of context is another use of the word "shadow" in Cheli's introduction to his otherwise well-constructed argument. Given that this out-of-context "shadow" didn't make the cut of Cheli's six specific ones - once again, Grinder is picking gnat-pooh from pepper. Not telling us to whole story simply to win an argument, rather than cast light on a situation.

I'm not implying that you're bound to believe it just because it is Cheli's, but it IS a well constructed argument. The three sections of it are:

1) the shadows M/B walks through, leaves us with
2) the actual light that M/B casts on this process as his court definitively concludes it with acquittal/annulment
3) the thunderous criticism of former renderings which should ripple through the Italian judiciary​

The thunderous criticism section is what Cheli builds to. To ignore this structure and to cherry-pick something from his introduction that doesn't make the cut in the main section shows just what I think it shows.

The point of all this is as Cheli concludes - M/B represents a thunderous criticism of the legal culture in Italy, where evidence is often cast aside because a judge wants to theorize or apply some sort of personal "logic" to solve a case. THAT is the point of Cheli's piece, not what some here are pressing.

The six shadows Cheli highlights have nothing to do with the choice of type of acquittal. They are:

1) “conflitto in giudicato”, the dance Supreme Court judges always do to avoid being seen as out of step with former ISC definitive rulings

2) that a reason why M/B acquitted is that he believes that the other attackers are more criminally skilled than any of Guede, Knox, or Sollecito are capable; if forensics had not already confirmed Guede this might apply to him, but forensics exclude K/S so why shoe-horn them in?

3) Marasca illegally uses calumny as part of his rendering about the murder which, despite Shadow #1, shows even the ISC ignores “conflitto in giudicato” when it wants to

4) Upholding calumny on a bizarre notion that a public minister (prosecutor) is incapable of creating a condition of putting psychological pressure on an interrogatee, saying that such things are, "institutionally immune to anomalous psychological pressures"

5) Using language so unclear in relation to RS and AK's presence at the cottage that it could still mean the morning of Nov 2 when their presence is uncontested

6) casting doubt on the staging of the break-in evidence by returning to “conflitto in giudicato”, but implying - "I am officially obliged to believe where the glass ended up."​

Argue with any one of those "shadows" if you want, but none of them are concerns of his about the choice of type of acquittal.

 

[Vixen]

This is a problem for the prosecution. If the Luminol intensity was high then this implies the haemoglobin concentration is high and should have been detectable by a confirmatory test and / or TMB. An intense response with negative confirmatory tests for haemoglobin is not blood. (There is an argument that because of the sensitivity of Luminol a low response might be attributable to dilute haemoglobin below the sensitivity of other tests (including DNA testing). Remember how dilute this has to be - one drop of blood in a bath size volume of water.

What do you mean by blood decaying quickly? Remind us when the Luminol positive prints were found and tested?

Actually blood is not a particularly rich source of DNA. This is why when doing DNA tests cheek swabs are taken. If Steffanoni was saying she could conclude the source of the DNA from the size of the EPG on the STR typing she is being unscientific. There is no way the source of DNA can be concluded. Actually brushing your teeth then swilling and spitting will provide lots of DNA laden epithelial cells and may be some blood. Since Luminol will detect blood at a level below that which you obtain a positive DNA test, Steffanoni can not have it both that this is a rich source of DNA and that it is highly dilute blood not visible under normal light, not detectable by confirmatory tests. Steffanoni does not follow through on the logical consequences of her findings. She makes things up to support the prosecution, like she did with her unique argument (unsupported by any evidence) that the location of DNA on a knife handle can tell you how that knife was held and to what purpose it was put. Steffanoni goes beyond any reasonable interpretation of the evidence.

If Knox was bleeding copiously and DNA is such a rich source of DNA as you say why was none of her blood or DNA found on the clothes of MK or Knox or in the bedroom? Or on towels or tissues? Where did the blood come from certainly not the mark on her neck as there was no break in the skin.

ETA to be accurate there were two sites of blood attributed to Knox. One on her pillow was certainly compatible with bleeding from her ear. The other on the tap/faucet was of uncertain origin. I can think of lots of activities that might result in a bit of blood in a bathroom, shaving, dealing with spots, etc.

First of all, whoever dealt the fatal wound, would have been covered in a spurt of blood when they pulled the knife out. As Mez was on her knees and about 15cms from the floor, it certainly went over the killer's trousers and upper shoes (if wearing any), as no blood pool was found in front of the wardrobe on the carpet or upholstery, where detectives expected one.

Rudy says his jogging bottoms were soaked, but the biggest splodge of all is the one on the bathmat, which is highly compatible with Raff, and not at all with Amanda or Rudy.

Only white blood cells are rich in DNA. Red blood cells are not nucleated so there is virtually no DNA in it. So when you have a large sample of DNA, presumed as from blood, you can surmise whether the blood flow was light or profuse. Stefanoni, extremely experienced in DNA testing, was able to assess Amanda must have been bleeding quite a lot for there to be so much.

The towels in the murder room could not be tested for DNA as they had already begun to go mouldy, rendering them untestable.

 

[NotEvenWrong]

It's called shorthand. When chatting I might refer to some types of bodily fluid as 'protein' and nobody at all has any problem in realising that this also encompasses the 101 other elements. In the same way you can refer to a foot when you are actually only referring to a metatarsel. But then you already knew that.

You weren't casually chatting. You were presenting an argument. An argument that contradicts everything known about forensic science and DNA. When you are presenting an argument that contradicts known science and say DNA is a protein, you're going to get called out on it. This isn't PMF. We have brains over here and know how to think.

I didn't say I knew more, I was simply pointing out that their claim everybody is ignorant except them is presumptive.

I'm sorry, is the person that repeatedly claims Stefanoni and the pro-guilt community know more than Peter Gill, Bruce Budowle, and *all known published literature on the matter* saying that WE are being presumptive because we dare say Stefanoni is wrong and we back it up with empirical published evidence?

You were the one who demanded to know my credentials for stating game theory is probability theory.

No, Vixen. I said I am interested in how you think, with respect to how you analyze evidence and update your beliefs when presented with irrefutable proof you are wrong. You responded with your world class credentials in probability and game theory as "evaluated by professional evaluators". I legitimately can't tell anymore if you're deliberately lying or you just distort away reality to whatever is most convenient and you don't realize it.

 

[Numbers]

Well....... firstly, if you're including me among "those (who) around a year ago were sure it was a para 1" then you're wrong. I wrote then that I thought the signs pointed strongly towards it being a 530.1 acquittal. Which is very different from being "sure" that it was a 530.1. I also suggested that one might not necessarily take Maresca at face value since he clearly had vested interests (just as defence lawyers had vested interests in the other direction), but again that's very different from claiming that I accused him of lying. Shame on you for distorting and misrepresenting my comments in such a pejorative manner.

Secondly, perhaps you're unfamiliar with the concept of new information and learning leading someone to modify or change their views. Or are you the sort who makes your mind up about something and then rigidly refuses ever to change, even if new information comes to light? In this case, I was wrong about suggesting it would probably be 530.1, and I was also wrong in thinking that the Knox/Sollecito acquittals could EVER be of the 530.1 variety. See how it works? I WAS WRONG. You should try it sometimes

Thirdly, quit with the canards about Cheli. As I've already written several times, of course he's correct to say that a 530.2 acquittal for Knox/Sollecito "would not be a clear statement of innocence as a 1 would have (sic)". And that's because a 530.1 verdict is used where the court positively concludes that the defendants could prove they did not commit (and could not possibly have committed) the crime with which they were charged. In the case of Knox and Sollecito, it was of course impossible for them ever to prove their factual innocence in this way, so THEY COULD/SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ACQUITTED UNDER 530.1.

Lastly, plenty of source material (have you read that paper yet.....?) has been shown to refute Cheli's (and your) overarching POV on 530. And again I repeat for clarity: 1) nobody is suggesting that 530.1 and 530.2 are not used in different circumstances of arriving at an acquittal verdict (even though both types of acquittal are exactly equal in law); and 2) obviously if 530.1 is used, it's a more emphatic declaration of factual innocence than 530.2.

But that in no way means that a 530.2 acquittal is necessarily weak or inconclusive in any way. As has been pointed out numerous times, 530.2 must be used even when there's zero evidence of guilt, provided that the defendant cannot prove his/her factual innocence. In fact, therefore, 530.2 is effectively equivalent to the standard "not guilty" verdict of courts in the US and E&W, and it's emphatically NOT equivalent to the "not proven" verdict currently in use in Scottish courts. The only difference is that the US/E&W "not guilty" also encompasses the exceedingly rare cases where a defendant can prove his/her factual innocence (rare since those sorts of cases should never even make it to trial, and should not therefore require any form of court verdict), or where the court determines that no crime occurred. In Italy these are still split out and covered under 530.1 - though since the form of acquittal is exactly the same, it's clear that this artificial splitting out of "different forms" of acquittal is archaic and moot. It's nothing more than a vestige of the old inquisitorial codes and quasi-Fascist legislation which has been clumsily shoehorned into the new system.

A 530.1 should never get to court. If innocence can be proved why is the prosecution pursuing the matter.

Italy

Mike has a very good point about cases that could fall under CPP Art. 530.1.

In my opinion, to deliver a verdict in a reasonable way, the judge must evaluate the prosecution case and its evidence. If the evidence does not meet the standard of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then the judge must acquit. It doesn't matter whether the amount of reasonable doubt is small or large or overwhelming; there must be an evaluation of the evidence. This suggests to me that CPP Art. 530.2 is universally applicable, while 530.1 is redundant.

My suspicion or hypothesis is that CPP Art. 530.1 is a survivor from the inquisitorial system of justice that Italy had prior to the reforms of 1988 - 2006. The BARD concept was only introduced into Italian law starting in 1988, and was only "completely" part of law with the Italian parliament enacting a law that resulted in CPP Art. 533.1.

So CPP 530.1 is, in my hypothesis, the standard for acquittal that Italian law used during the inquisitorial system period, when a defendant was obligated to prove innocence and was otherwise considered guilty.

Without identifying the paragraph numbers specifically, in Gialuz's essay on Italian law in Gialuz, Gialuz states that in 1988, the CPP was modified for the purpose of advancing to the adversarial system of law. The exact wording of Gialuz is as follows:

The last highly innovative profile of the evidentiary system introduced in the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure concerns standards of proof. In 1988, the CCP {CPP} adopted some standards...[including] the committal to trial (Article 425: "suitability of the evidence to sustain the prosecution before the trial judge").

With regard to the final decision {judgment}, the CCP instead has solely eliminated the acquittal for insufficient evidence, which was inherited from the inquisitorial system based on the presumption of guilt. The Code only established that "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 offense by law, the offense was committed by a person with mental capacity". It was not clear, however, which was the required standard to convict a person and therefore Article 530 was considered one of the least successful provisions of the 1988 reform.
....
In 2006, Law no. 46...changed Article 533, par. 1 by introducing a norm {to include the current BARD standard for proof of guilt}.

My interpretation of Gialuz's statement quoted above: The new wording introduced in 1988 clearly went into CPP Article 530.2. Prior to that reform, apparently the defendant had to prove innocence by some profound measure, in accordance with the absolute wording of CPP Article 530.1, or the judge apparently could evaluate the prosecution evidence and find it insufficient. Otherwise, apparently the only verdict available was that the defendant was guilty (although perhaps some other acquittal by Article 530.1, such as the crime did not occur, might have been available).

My hypothesis is the persons in Italy of a certain age may recall that defendants prior to the complete change to the adversarial system had to prove their innocence, and therefore find verdicts of acquittal based on failure to prove guilt BARD unsatisfactory. There is certainly a large section in the Hellmann court MR devoted to a justification of the use of BARD and includes considerable legal and judicial history (CSC court decisions) relating to its adoption in Italy. The Massei court MR (annulled by the Hellmann court verdict) used probabilistic arguments or supremacy of prosecution arguments norms to reach it a verdict of guilty, an apparent survival of the inquisitorial system in the Knox - Sollecito case.

 

[Vixen]

Well....... firstly, if you're including me among "those (who) around a year ago were sure it was a para 1" then you're wrong. I wrote then that I thought the signs pointed strongly towards it being a 530.1 acquittal. Which is very different from being "sure" that it was a 530.1. I also suggested that one might not necessarily take Maresca at face value since he clearly had vested interests (just as defence lawyers had vested interests in the other direction), but again that's very different from claiming that I accused him of lying. Shame on you for distorting and misrepresenting my comments in such a pejorative manner.

Secondly, perhaps you're unfamiliar with the concept of new information and learning leading someone to modify or change their views. Or are you the sort who makes your mind up about something and then rigidly refuses ever to change, even if new information comes to light? In this case, I was wrong about suggesting it would probably be 530.1, and I was also wrong in thinking that the Knox/Sollecito acquittals could EVER be of the 530.1 variety. See how it works? I WAS WRONG. You should try it sometimes

Thirdly, quit with the canards about Cheli. As I've already written several times, of course he's correct to say that a 530.2 acquittal for Knox/Sollecito "would not be a clear statement of innocence as a 1 would have (sic)". And that's because a 530.1 verdict is used where the court positively concludes that the defendants could prove they did not commit (and could not possibly have committed) the crime with which they were charged. In the case of Knox and Sollecito, it was of course impossible for them ever to prove their factual innocence in this way, so THEY COULD/SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ACQUITTED UNDER 530.1.

Lastly, plenty of source material (have you read that paper yet.....?) has been shown to refute Cheli's (and your) overarching POV on 530. And again I repeat for clarity: 1) nobody is suggesting that 530.1 and 530.2 are not used in different circumstances of arriving at an acquittal verdict (even though both types of acquittal are exactly equal in law); and 2) obviously if 530.1 is used, it's a more emphatic declaration of factual innocence than 530.2.

But that in no way means that a 530.2 acquittal is necessarily weak or inconclusive in any way. As has been pointed out numerous times, 530.2 must be used even when there's zero evidence of guilt, provided that the defendant cannot prove his/her factual innocence. In fact, therefore, 530.2 is effectively equivalent to the standard "not guilty" verdict of courts in the US and E&W, and it's emphatically NOT equivalent to the "not proven" verdict currently in use in Scottish courts. The only difference is that the US/E&W "not guilty" also encompasses the exceedingly rare cases where a defendant can prove his/her factual innocence (rare since those sorts of cases should never even make it to trial, and should not therefore require any form of court verdict), or where the court determines that no crime occurred. In Italy these are still split out and covered under 530.1 - though since the form of acquittal is exactly the same, it's clear that this artificial splitting out of "different forms" of acquittal is archaic and moot. It's nothing more than a vestige of the old inquisitorial codes and quasi-Fascist legislation which has been clumsily shoehorned into the new system.

It emphatically IS - more or less - equivalent to the Scottish law "Not Proven". I dare say there'll be procedural differences. My source, quote below, is:

Anna Cento Bull is Professor of Italian History and Politics at the University of Bath. Her publications include Social Identities and Political Cultures in Italy (Oxford: Berghahn, 2000); The Lega Nord and The Northern Question in Italian Politics (London: Palgrave, 2001) (with M. Gilbert) and Speaking Out and Silencing: Culture, Society and Politics in Italy in the 1970s. (Legenda: Oxford, 2005) (edited jointly with A. Giorgio).

 

[NotEvenWrong]

Not when they are spin doctors advocating for a paying client.

Do you have any evidence that Amanda Knox paid Peter Gill and Forensic Science International to publish information that is known to be incorrect and/or misleading? Do you even KNOW what you believe is wrong in the paper? Or do you only "know" it has to be wrong because it supports the innocence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito? What is specifically wrong in the paper, Vixen?

Does the international forensic science community know that they have been infiltrated by the Amanda Knox PR campaign, and the entire field of forensics as has been practiced for the past 30 years is in danger of collapsing around them? Forensic Science International has been corrupted, nothing can be trusted anymore. All because of the pagan witch sorceress Amanda Knox and her manga vampire slayer boyfriend. Have you contacted the proper authorities and let them know Amanda Knox is subverting all of science? (What did they say lol?)

Or... maybe it is possible that since you are a layman at science, none of this is true, maybe the top forensic geneticist in the world publishing in the top forensic science journal in the world is right, and the DNA evidence used against Amanda and Raffaele was analyzed and interpreted incorrectly in this case, just like Peter Gill and every other expert in the world has said. Have you considered that possibility? You know, that an admitted layman (you) in forensic science is just... uh... wrong?

 

[Numbers]

It emphatically IS - more or less - equivalent to the Scottish law "Not Proven". I dare say there'll be procedural differences. My source, quote below, is:

Anna Cento Bull is Professor of Italian History and Politics at the University of Bath. Her publications include Social Identities and Political Cultures in Italy (Oxford: Berghahn, 2000); The Lega Nord and The Northern Question in Italian Politics (London: Palgrave, 2001) (with M. Gilbert) and Speaking Out and Silencing: Culture, Society and Politics in Italy in the 1970s. (Legenda: Oxford, 2005) (edited jointly with A. Giorgio).

Vixen, what is the title of the publication you have cited, and its date of publication?

 

[Bill Williams]

First of all, whoever dealt the fatal wound, would have been covered in a spurt of blood when they pulled the knife out. As Mez was on her knees and about 15cms from the floor, it certainly went over the killer's trousers and upper shoes (if wearing any), as no blood pool was found in front of the wardrobe on the carpet or upholstery, where detectives expected one.

Rudy says his jogging bottoms were soaked, but the biggest splodge of all is the one on the bathmat, which is highly compatible with Raff, and not at all with Amanda or Rudy.

Only white blood cells are rich in DNA. Red blood cells are not nucleated so there is virtually no DNA in it. So when you have a large sample of DNA, presumed as from blood, you can surmise whether the blood flow was light or profuse. Stefanoni, extremely experienced in DNA testing, was able to assess Amanda must have been bleeding quite a lot for there to be so much.
The towels in the murder room could not be tested for DNA as they had already begun to go mouldy, rendering them untestable.

You have just exonerated Amanda Knox. If Amanda "must have been bleeding", and there was no mixed blood, where did Amanda's blood go?

 

[Bill Williams]

Do you have any evidence that Amanda Knox paid Peter Gill and Forensic Science International to publish information that is known to be incorrect and/or misleading? Do you even KNOW what you believe is wrong in the paper? Or do you only "know" it has to be wrong because it supports the innocence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito? What is specifically wrong in the paper, Vixen?

Does the international forensic science community know that they have been infiltrated by the Amanda Knox PR campaign, and the entire field of forensics as has been practiced for the past 30 years is in danger of collapsing around them? Forensic Science International has been corrupted, nothing can be trusted anymore. All because of the pagan witch sorceress Amanda Knox and her manga vampire slayer boyfriend. Have you contacted the proper authorities and let them know Amanda Knox is subverting all of science? (What did they say lol?)

Or... maybe it is possible that since you are a layman at science, none of this is true, maybe the top forensic geneticist in the world publishing in the top forensic science journal in the world is right, and the DNA evidence used against Amanda and Raffaele was analyzed and interpreted incorrectly in this case, just like Peter Gill and every other expert in the world has said. Have you considered that possibility? You know, that an admitted layman (you) in forensic science is just... uh... wrong?

In contrast to his, the Chieffi Section 1 panel of the ISC implied that unless they upheld the forensic practises in this case, all of other cases since 1986 which relied on this kind of science would be called into question. So instead of over-turning that rock, they simply annulled Hellmann's 2011 acquittals.

 

[Vixen]

Thirdly, quit with the canards about Cheli. As I've already written several times, of course he's correct to say that a 530.2 acquittal for Knox/Sollecito "would not be a clear statement of innocence as a 1 would have (sic)". And that's because a 530.1 verdict is used where the court positively concludes that the defendants could prove they did not commit (and could not possibly have committed) the crime with which they were charged. In the case of Knox and Sollecito, it was of course impossible for them ever to prove their factual innocence in this way, so THEY COULD/SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ACQUITTED UNDER 530.1.

LOL The PIP are now arguing the kids should/could never have been found innocent under 530.1. LMAO.