Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

My understanding of what B/M or M/B ruled (limited by reading translation) is whatever way the evidence was interpreted even if Knox was present etc. there was insufficient evidence for a conviction BARD. They did not re-evaluate the evidence, what they evaluated was the reasoning based on this evidence.

They erred because in serious crime cases it is an edict (penal code 628 IIRC?) that any material dispute about how evidence or facts were assessed MUST be remitted back to a lower court.

No evidence was presented at any stage that there was DNA contamination or that the investigation was "fatally flawed".

Bruno-Marasca have erred, at a basic level, of substituting their own verdict, as well as making a schoolboy howler error of "trying a case on paper", without seeing any of the evidence or cross-examined witnesses in a full trial, which isn't in their remit, anyway.

 

[Vixen]

Not only that, but they act as though Conti and Vecchiotti had never reported - as did Nencini in January 2014. Now, Hellmann's verdict was annulled in March 2013 on the basis that the CSC disagreed with Hellmans reasoning, but (IIUC) all evidence heard by the Hellmann court remained valid, including the C&V report.

After C&V, the Stefanoni evidence could not, legally, be rehabilitated. Nencini disregarded this - even going against evidence in his own court that Stefanoni's result on the knife could not be considered reliable. So the March 2015 CSC decision - that the only verdict Nencini could reach was one of "not guilty" - was perfectly correct and cannot be criticised.

The PGP see the courts purely as an extension of the prosecution. Any time (Hellmann and Mascara/Bruno) the courts have shown independence and impartiality, they cry "foul!"

Hellmann was materially defective in that it completely omitted to consider the prosecution submissions. It was clearly bent.

 

[Vixen]

Let us use a British dictionary definition shall we? I imagine you searched high and low for something that would go a wee way to confirm your bias. This from the Cambridge version.



Simple.

We are not discussing common garden colloquialisms here. We are looking at the letter of the law, Italian-style.

 

[LondonJohn]

Not yet (except for Chieffi, which is valid and definitive, or jurisprudence).
We need to be patient for that.
Nevertheless, I could well point out things that B/M states that are factually false and/or manifestly contrary to the law.

Ah yes. How's that campaign (to bring about a review/cancellation of the Marasca ruling on the grounds that it's improper and unlawful) going.....?

 

[LondonJohn]

Innocent is a word you like to beat upon. That is you particular issue. Not necessarily that of anyone else. Acquittals are LEGAL decisions, not some absolute magical assurance that an acquitted person has not committed a crime, but a decision based on human reasoning, the evaluation of evidence, and legal principles.

Yes. And those instances where a court can acquit on 530.1 on the grounds of innocence must, by definition in any half-reasonable judicial system, be extremely rare - as I have written before and as the likes of Mike have also commented.

Virtually everyone who is charged with a crime, never mind brought to trial, cannot prove his/her innocence of the charges. After all, if innocence could be proven, then charges should never have been brought at all. Possibly the only situation that springs to mind as a possibility is where the alibi of the accused rests on the credibility of another person, whom the state judges as not credible, but whom the courts subsequently judge as credible and reliable.

And on this matter, it also bears repeating that very many factually-innocent people charged with a crime cannot PROVE they did not commit the crime. Fortunately, in both law and ethics, that shouldn't pose them a problem, since the state and the courts need to find sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty of the crime. And by definition, if they are factually innocent, there not only cannot be evidence reaching the BARD standard for guilt, there should in fact be zero credible, reliable evidence of guilt. Just as with Knox and Sollecito.

 

[LondonJohn]

We are not discussing common garden colloquialisms here. We are looking at the letter of the law, Italian-style.

And Annella was discussing the letter of the law - and the definitions that lie behind the letter of the law.

(ps: it's "common or garden". You're welcome )

 

[LondonJohn]

Hellmann was materially defective in that it completely omitted to consider the prosecution submissions. It was clearly bent.

I'm surprised therefore that Hellmann (and possibly other members of his court) has not been investigated, arrested and charged with corruption. After all, his court's verdict was "clearly bent". So that must mean that virtually everyone in positions of judicial authority and law enforcement in Italy must have been able to see how "clearly bent" it was.

And yet nothing appears to have happened, over four years later. Holy cow! It's worse than we ever thought!! The entire judiciary and law enforcement community in Italy must also be bent! They're covering up a "clear" criminal act committed by Hellmann and others!!!!!!!!

Pretty dark day for Italy, huh........

 

[LondonJohn]

Nonsense. You are making a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions out of an irrational hatred of the prosecution.

"Unsubstantiated" huh? So which of those three acts of gross incompetence is unsubstantiated, and in what way? And I know a few poster children for "irrational" round here. What is it that they say about people living in glass houses?

 

[LondonJohn]

Declaring someone not guilty is not the same as declaring them innocent.

In law, and in ethics, yes it is.

One here says it is impossible to declare the kids innocent.

Indeed it is impossible for any court to declare Knox or Sollecito factually innocent, since they cannot prove they did not commit the murder. Therefore, it is impossible for any court to acquit Knox or Sollecito under 530.1. Simple as that.

.2 is like not proven whether PIPs like it or not.

No. It. Is. Not. If one is using the (soon to be abolished) Scottish system as a comparator, then 530.2 is in fact comparable to both "not guilty" and "not proven", with the exception that a small subset of "not guilty" (i.e. where a court believes the defendant has proven his/her factual innocence or where a court determines that no crime took place) would need to be split out and placed into the 530.1 bracket.

 

[Antony]

Hellmann was materially defective in that it completely omitted to consider the prosecution submissions. It was clearly bent.

As is often the case with your posts, this turns the truth completely on its head. It was the convicting courts, not Hellmann, that were characterised by a pattern of refusing defence requests - including for legally required disclosure. In any case, this was never the pretext for the illegal annulment of the Hellmann verdict. Chieffi went deep into Hellmann's interpretation of the evidence, which he was not entitled to do.

Your objection to Hellmann was that (unlike Massei and Nencini) he refused to take the side of the prosecution, and was rigorously fair and impartial as regards the murder charge.

 

[Numbers]

It didn't need to be tested twice as all parties were agreed the results were sound. Fingerprints are not tested twice, either.

Apparently you have no concept of how chemical or physical tests are done. There is an inherent uncertainty in chemical or physical tests because of their complexity. This applies to DNA profiling.

Therefore, chemical and physical tests such as DNA profiling are repeated to assure that the results obtained are reliable.

Fingerprints are not tested; once visualized, they are simply observed for certain features. The visualized prints can of course be repeatedly observed by different observers or under different analytical or observational conditions, such as different types of lighting.

 

[Numbers]

LOL I rather think it is you and Numbers who cannot grasp the difference between 530.1 and 530.2, not the "backward Italians". Or should that read "will not". LMAO

If you can show with citations from Italian law (the CPP) that there is a difference in legal consequences of a verdict of acquittal for "the accused have not committed the crime" under CPP Art. 530.1 compared to 530.2, I would be able to believe your position.

But otherwise, your post simply is a statement that is false in terms of legal consequences. It thus joins the long cavalcade of false posts that you have generated.

 

[Numbers]

Cornell has the definitive definition(if that's not a tautology):

Acquittal
Definition

At the end of a criminal trial, a finding by a judge or jury that a defendant is not guilty. An acquittal signifies that a prosecutor failed to prove his or her case beyond a reasonable doubt, not that a defendant is innocent. Thus, a person may be acquitted of a crime but found civilly liable in a civil case regarding that same crime, e.g. O.J. Simpson, because civil cases have a lower burden of proof than criminal cases.

This is true in the US. It is not true in Italy for those acquitted with a specification of "the accused has not committed the crime" and where the civil case was brought or could have been brought into the court during the criminal proceedings. The law establishing this is Italian CPP Art. 652. And Art. 652 applies whether the acquittal cited CPP Art. 530.1 or 530.2, as long as the verdict specifies "the accused has not committed the crime" or certain other specifications.

If you disagree with my statement, you must produce a citation from the CPP that actually supports your position. Otherwise, your statement will be considered false and not credible.
If

 

[Mr Fied]

This is my take on the last few pages of this discussion.

No one on here is an expert in Italian law. We can all guess as to what certain articles mean but it seems no one can come up with a definitive answer.

The correct verdict was finally achieved, but why and how is as confusing as ever.

We have the pro guilt side saying that even though the accused were found not guilty the court still considers them guilty.

Apparently it was found as fact that Knox washed Kercher's blood off her hands and Knox and Sollecitto were present at the time of the murder.

I would ask what level of proof does a court need to declare a fact?
There is no evidence Knox washed kercher's blood from her hands.
There is no evidence they were at the cottage. No one saw them there, in fact the only eye witnesses place them elsewhere.

If the court found as fact that they were there and covered in the victim's blood, wouldn't this have been evidence BARD to find them guilty?

It doesn't matter what a court or judge may think, it is what can be proven.

This leads us on to whether they are innocent, not guilty, not guilty but really guilty, having the charges dropped, or the victims/beneficiaries of a Mafia/Masons conspiracy.

They went to court innocent of all charges. They retain this status until the final verdict. The final verdict was that they were not guilty of the charges against them.

Then we have the issue of mixed blood, DNA results and footprints.

There is no, never has been, and never will be any proven evidence of mixed blood.
There is evidence of mixed DNA , as there would be in any dwelling from the occupants.

There is no evidence Knox bled copiously, there were a couple of spots on her pillow and the bathroom tap. No evidence of any open wounds found on her.

There are no footprints proven to be from Knox or Sollecitto that tested positive for blood.

We have a forensic team that does not know how to collect evidence.
Once collected they have shown they do not know how to test it.
Once tested they have shown they do not know how to store it for future reference.
When they do carry out testing and the results do not show what they want, they supress those results.

So yes, it may be that the court found them not guilty because of lack of evidence or insufficient evidence, but that doesn't mean they were lucky, or were really guilty.

It means that the evidence the prosecution put forward did not prove they were the guilty of the crime. Which is what would/should happen if you were charged with a crime you did not commit.

 

[Numbers]

They erred because in serious crime cases it is an edict (penal code 628 IIRC?) that any material dispute about how evidence or facts were assessed MUST be remitted back to a lower court.

No evidence was presented at any stage that there was DNA contamination or that the investigation was "fatally flawed".
Bruno-Marasca have erred, at a basic level, of substituting their own verdict, as well as making a schoolboy howler error of "trying a case on paper", without seeing any of the evidence or cross-examined witnesses in a full trial, which isn't in their remit, anyway.

This post contains a number of false or irrelevant statements.

The whopper (big falsehood) is: No evidence was presented at any stage that there was DNA contamination or that the investigation was "fatally flawed".
It is the responsibility of the prosecution to establish that its results are free of contamination and are credible. In fact, the prosecution showed that its results could be contaminated, and Stefanoni provided evidence and testimony to that effect.

On your other major error or falsehood:
CPP Art. 606 (E) gives the CSC authority to examine any document in a proceeding that is challenged by the appeal, for the grounds of the judgment being lacking, contradictory or manifestly illogical. Thus, since the evidence including all testimony of the proceedings and the analyses are recorded in documents, the CSC may review them as provided for in Italian law. This included anything pertinent to the appeal mentioned in the motivation report or any other lower court document pertinent to the appeal, such as a transcript or documentation of evidence.

You must read the texts of the CPP articles, such as Art. 606 (E), more carefully to comprehend what Italian law actually provides. Your post does not reflect such careful reading.

I hope that you reread CPP Art. 606 (E) and obtain a better, true understanding of the law.

 

[Numbers]

Hellmann was materially defective in that it completely omitted to consider the prosecution submissions. It was clearly bent.

Your statement is false as can be shown by a reading of the Hellmann MR.

https://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/

 

[Numbers]

This is my take on the last few pages of this discussion.

No one on here is an expert in Italian law. We can all guess as to what certain articles mean but it seems no one can come up with a definitive answer.

The correct verdict was finally achieved, but why and how is as confusing as ever.

....

The relevant Italian procedural law, translated into English, is actually rather clear. It is only the false and misleading statements of some posters on the internet that may be leading to confusion.

Here are the facts; there is no dispute about them within the Italian legal system:

The Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC) examined the appeals of Knox and Sollecito, and the answering appeals of the prosection, to the Nencini conviction, under the Italian Code of Criminal Proceedure Article 606.

The CSC delivered a verdict after hearing the lawyers for the parties, examining the relevant documentation, and deliberating.

The verdict is that Knox and Sollecito are not guilty of the charges of murder/rape of Kercher. This verdict was delivered based on Italian CPP Articles 620 (L) and 530.2.

The verdict of the CSC was an annulment of the previous lower court - the Nencini court - verdict, with the CSC ruling no referral to a new lower court was necessary. The CSC authority to rule in this fashion is established by CPP Article 620 (L).

The Nencini court, based on the appeal of the prosecution, convicted Knox of aggravated calunnia of Lumumba and increased her sentence for that conviction. ("Aggravation" meaning that the calunnia was committed to cover-up another crime.) The CSC annulled that verdict without referral under CPP Article 620 (L). It had to annul the aggravated condition, because that "aggravation" was based on the conviction for murder/rape by the Nencini court, and the CSC acquitted on the murder/rape charges, thus eliminating the grounds for aggravation. The CSC thus reinstituted the calunnia conviction as finalized previously by the CSC Chieffi panel, with of course, no increase in the sentence.

Knox has lodged a claim with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that her rights under the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention) were violated by Italy convicting her of calunnia. The ECHR functions, by treaty, as the supreme human rights court of the Council of Europe (CoE) States, including Italy.

Her case before the ECHR has not yet been heard; it is waiting in the queue of the many thousands of cases the ECHR must adjudicate from the CoE States. If the ECHR, on hearing the case, rules that Knox's rights were violated, then Italy will be obligated by treaty, its Constitution, and a 2011 ruling of the Italian Constitutional Court, to either vacate the conviction or conduct a revision trial that conforms to the Convention.

 

[Mr Fied]

The relevant Italian procedural law, translated into English, is actually rather clear. It is only the false and misleading statements of some posters on the internet that may be leading to confusion.

Here are the facts; there is no dispute about them within the Italian legal system:

The Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC) examined the appeals of Knox and Sollecito, and the answering appeals of the prosection, to the Nencini conviction, under the Italian Code of Criminal Proceedure Article 606.

The CSC delivered a verdict after hearing the lawyers for the parties, examining the relevant documentation, and deliberating.

The verdict is that Knox and Sollecito are not guilty of the charges of murder/rape of Kercher. This verdict was delivered based on Italian CPP Articles 620 (L) and 530.2.

The verdict of the CSC was an annulment of the previous lower court - the Nencini court - verdict, with the CSC ruling no referral to a new lower court was necessary. The CSC authority to rule in this fashion is established by CPP Article 620 (L).

The Nencini court, based on the appeal of the prosecution, convicted Knox of aggravated calunnia of Lumumba and increased her sentence for that conviction. ("Aggravation" meaning that the calunnia was committed to cover-up another crime.) The CSC annulled that verdict without referral under CPP Article 620 (L). It had to annul the aggravated condition, because that "aggravation" was based on the conviction for murder/rape by the Nencini court, and the CSC acquitted on the murder/rape charges, thus eliminating the grounds for aggravation. The CSC thus reinstituted the calunnia conviction as finalized previously by the CSC Chieffi panel, with of course, no increase in the sentence.

Knox has lodged a claim with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that her rights under the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention) were violated by Italy convicting her of calunnia. The ECHR functions, by treaty, as the supreme human rights court of the Council of Europe (CoE) States, including Italy.

Her case before the ECHR has not yet been heard; it is waiting in the queue of the many thousands of cases the ECHR must adjudicate from the CoE States. If the ECHR, on hearing the case, rules that Knox's rights were violated, then Italy will be obligated by treaty, its Constitution, and a 2011 ruling of the Italian Constitutional Court, to either vacate the conviction or conduct a revision trial that conforms to the Convention.

Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say that the problem is how the procedural law has been interpreted by different posters.

I have no expert knowledge of Italian law, but the pair have been found not guilty, which to me makes them legally innocent.

 

[Machiavelli]

What is remarkable about this post - fresh off of saying, "B/M cannot assess evidence, and cannot even see it," Machiavelli says that B/M, "B/M also said a number of things that you don't like to accept, like that it is a proven fact....."

Which is it?

Both things are true.
The fact that you try to deny them, just tells that you intend to deny that B/M is inconsistent on multiple levels.

 

[acbytesla]

This is not correct as 530.2 was used for Berlusconi 2007.

In any case, a law remains a law until such time it is amended by the legislature.
Sure we have some archaic laws in England & Wales, but they still technically actionable.

This is definitely not the case in the US. There are thousands of laws still on the books that are no longer actionable and are unenforceable because case law, international treaties or Constitutional review.