Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

Grinder,
Why are you splitting hairs here?

There is a case where a federal judge made a ruling on a defendant (who I consider almost certainly innocent) where he argued that based on the fact that the defendant asked for council and refused, the verdict was thrown out and could not be retried. He never said that the man was innocent.

I don't believe that you disagree with any of us that Amanda Knox was not involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher. Maybe you are not 100% certain but who is 100% certain about anything?

It is also a case where she can never be retried again. It is done.

Beyond that, what is to worry about?

 

[LondonJohn]

FIFY - you have no idea. You were wrong a year ago when you said it must be a paragraph one acquittal and you are wrong now. The law in no way states that the defendant must prove innocence. You keep saying it but no one else. The defense lawyers were saying it was a one at the very first. Maresca to your mocking IIRC said it was a two.

Hellmann didn't use 530 at all. he referred to it but the verdict was under another code.

Though I don't pretend to be an Italian legal expert my guess is that 530.1 would mostly be used at courts of the first instance when the prosecution case is without merit. Perhaps equivalent to summary judgment here when the defense moves for acquittal before presenting a defense. Those are given when if all the prosecution presented is accepted as true there still isn't enough to prove the crime existed or that the defendant had anything to do with it.

You have repeated the "must prove innocence" line since dropping your certainty that it was a para 1, but I have never seen even a lowly professor of Italian history and culture make that claim. Maybe I missed one of the Italian legal experts make that statement.

Yup you missed a few. And you missed the actual section of the code itself. Here is 530.1 (I've bolded the important part):


If the crime does not exist, or if the accused did not commit (the crime), or if the offense is not deemed by law as a crime, or if the offense was committed by a person not responsible or punished for another reason, the judge pronounces acquittal.


Now, let's think about the bolded part. The court will acquit under 530.1 if the court rules that the accused did not commit the crime. And the only way (philosophically, judicially and practically) that any court can deem that the accused did not commit the crime is if the court can be satisfied of the factual innocence of the accused. It's axiomatic.

In the case of Knox and Sollecito, the court could not deem that they had not committed the crime of murder, since it's possible (in factual terms, remember) that they did commit that crime. And that's because there is no evidence that proves that Knox and Sollecito did not commit - and could not have committed - the murder. Just as there's probably no evidence to prove that any other person or couple living alone in Perugia on the night of the murder who had no independently-verifiable alibi did not commit the murder.

Had Knox and Sollecito been seen on a reliable, accurate CCTV camera entering Sollecito's apartment at, say, 6.30pm on 1st November and not leaving it again until 10am the following morning, then the court would have been able to deem that Knox and Sollecito did not commit the crime. They would have been acquitted under 530.1.

Again I'll reiterate: the only way in which a court can conclude that the accused "did not commit the crime" - the necessary precursor for a 530.1 acquittal - is if the court can have been shown sufficient proof that the accused did not commit the crime - i.e. proof of the factual innocence of the accused. There's not a grey (gray) area here.

So, as a direct corollary, if a court cannot be satisfied that the accused did not commit the crime - which is to say the court has not been shown proof that the accused did not commit the crime, which is to say the court has not been shown proof of the factual innocence of the accused - then the only way the court can acquit (leaving aside statute of limitations, no crime committed, diminished responsibility etc) is through 530.2. Whether there's zero evidence of guilt or whether there's a hair's breadth below the BARD standard of proof of guilt.

I've already said that I was wrong about my supposition (and that's all it ever was, even though you misrepresent it as an absolute position on my part) that Knox and Sollecito could have been acquitted on 530.1. And I also suspect that the defence lawyers were engaging in a combination of rhetorical game playing (in much the same way as OJ Simpson pleaded "100% not guilty") and a certain element of hoping that the court might look at things like ToD evidence versus computer activity and determine that it was factually impossible for Knox and Sollecito to have been involved.

But anyhow...........

And Danny Willett seems about to win the Masters

 

[Grinder]

Grinder,
Why are you splitting hairs here?

There is a case where a federal judge made a ruling on a defendant (who I consider almost certainly innocent) where he argued that based on the fact that the defendant asked for council and refused, the verdict was thrown out and could not be retried. He never said that the man was innocent.

Beyond that, what is to worry about?

From your description it would seem the case could be tried again. But I don't really give a rat's ass about the case. We are discussing whether or not there is a difference between verdicts in Italy and there is. Vixen provided a quote from an professor in Italian history and culture that compared 530.2 to the Scottish "not proven". The cite was requested and I found it and linked to it.

Ever time this comes up a group of posters pat each other on the back about their deep understanding of Italian law and what the judges really meant. I don't think we have one expert in Italian law posting here. From all that has transpired since the M&B verdict and MR it is clear to me that there is at a minimum a perceived difference in a one and two verdict.

 

[Grinder]

Yup you missed a few. And you missed the actual section of the code itself. Here is 530.1 (I've bolded the important part):


If the crime does not exist, or if the accused did not commit (the crime), or if the offense is not deemed by law as a crime, or if the offense was committed by a person not responsible or punished for another reason, the judge pronounces acquittal.


Now, let's think about the bolded part. The court will acquit under 530.1 if the court rules that the accused did not commit the crime. And the only way (philosophically, judicially and practically) that any court can deem that the accused did not commit the crime is if the court can be satisfied of the factual innocence of the accused. It's axiomatic.

You have no idea what a court needs to rule paragraph one. As I said above in a case here after the prosecution presents their case a defense counsel may ask for summary judgment based on the weakness of the evidence presented.

By the way what is the difference between a "not guilty" and a "not proven"?

I would suggest that if your interpretation is correct paragraph one would be so rare as to not be a consideration. You were not the only one saying it was a one and the defense team didn't indicate it would be impossible.

 

[Bill Williams]

Grinder,
Why are you splitting hairs here? There is a case where a federal judge made a ruling on a defendant (who I consider almost certainly innocent) where he argued that based on the fact that the defendant asked for council and refused, the verdict was thrown out and could not be retried. He never said that the man was innocent.

I don't believe that you disagree with any of us that Amanda Knox was not involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher. Maybe you are not 100% certain but who is 100% certain about anything?

It is also a case where she can never be retried again. It is done.

Beyond that, what is to worry about?

LOL! Why does Grinder split hairs!!!???? How long have you been on this thread!?

There is no point in engaging Grinder on this. So far no one has answered the relevant question - what is the difference in legal consequence between #2 and #1? Grinder goes back and forth on the perception issue....

.... and then brings in Scottish practise of "not proven" to try to disinguish a difference in perception; not a difference in legal consequence.

Fundamentally Grinder does not disagree with what you've said above. He's not a guilter, not by a long shot.

For my money, people should read Cheli's piece, linked to above. Pay special attention to the "shadows" which Cheli says exists from the Marasca/Bruno report. Pay attention also to the "light" and the "thunder" that the Maraca/Bruno report lobs at the PLE and all the courts below it - and possibly even Section 1 of ISC which is a peer-panel to Bruno/Marasca's Section five of the ISC.

This case has been plagued by some who cherry-pick stuff from documents. Read all of Cheli's opinions on this. Once again, the "shadows" of significance for Cheli which reside in the Sept 2015 motivations report are precisely the ones he writes about in the section (strangely enough) called "shadows"!!!!

1) the “conflitto in giudicato” which has always frightened the judges of Italy’s highest court.
2) the calumny against Lumumba, particularly the M/B reference to Knox being interrogated in a “context institutionally immune to anomalous psychological pressures” - really!?, a police-interrogation makes one immune from psychological pressures!? Really!?
3) the importance of the memorale attributed to Knox and signed by her after the interrogation
4) the ruling concerning the presence of Knox alone or of Knox and Sollecito at the time of the murder or later that night, of which Cheli says: "Here more than shadow we should talk of fog, a thick one indeed."​

To make any other point about "shadows" requires cherry-picking and ignoring the main thesis of Cheli's piece.

 

[Bill Williams]

From your description it would seem the case could be tried again. But I don't really give a rat's ass about the case. We are discussing whether or not there is a difference between verdicts in Italy and there is. Vixen provided a quote from an professor in Italian history and culture that compared 530.2 to the Scottish "not proven". The cite was requested and I found it and linked to it.

Ever time this comes up a group of posters pat each other on the back about their deep understanding of Italian law and what the judges really meant. I don't think we have one expert in Italian law posting here. From all that has transpired since the M&B verdict and MR it is clear to me that there is at a minimum a perceived difference in a one and two verdict.

Not me. I'm asking for a cite to the difference in legal consequence, precisely so that all of us chumps way up here in the cheap seats can hear something from someone who knows what they're talking about.

 

[Desert Fox]

Except with OJ, most people when they hear "Not guilty", they accept it as innocent and case closed.

After she was first found not guilty, most Americans saw it already that way.

I don't sweat the minutia, just concerned that two people will not be tried again for a crime which they did not commit.

 

[Grinder]

There is no point in engaging Grinder on this. So far no one has answered the relevant question - what is the difference in legal consequence between #2 and #1? Grinder goes back and forth on the perception issue....

I have not waffled. The perception is clear as Cheli let us know and the professor. Your rose colored glasses are just too thick to see. No one posting here knows whether or not a paragraph one would be beneficially at this point or in other cases.

.... and then brings in Scottish practise of "not proven" to try to disinguish a difference in perception; not a difference in legal consequence.

The "not proven" was brought up between Vixen and another and I provided the link. I don't know what "disinguish a difference" means.

1) the “conflitto in giudicato” which has always frightened the judges of Italy’s highest court.
2) the calumny against Lumumba, particularly the M/B reference to Knox being interrogated in a “context institutionally immune to anomalous psychological pressures” - really!?, a police-interrogation makes one immune from psychological pressures!? Really!?
3) the importance of the memorale attributed to Knox and signed by her after the interrogation
4) the ruling concerning the presence of Knox alone or of Knox and Sollecito at the time of the murder or later that night, of which Cheli says: "Here more than shadow we should talk of fog, a thick one indeed."​

To make any other point about "shadows" requires cherry-picking and ignoring the main thesis of Cheli's piece.

The single biggest shadow was M&B truly believing there were multiple killers. In terms of the current discussion, Cheli intro stating that he knew from the the paragraph two verdict it wouldn't be a clear case of innocence.

The MR didn't say "later that night". Cherry picking is one thing but just making stuff up like that is other. I posted a large part of the article.

Regardless of Cheli's main thesis as seen through those geeky rose colored glasses, he clearly states the paragraph two verdict made it clear it would be a MR that didn't provide for clear innocence.

Since the acquittal is based on paragraph 2 of article 530 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for a judge to pronounce a verdict of acquittal “when evidence is lacking, insufficient or contradictory”, it was to be expected that it would not have been a clearcut, one-sided proclamation of innocence.​

But of course the different paragraphs mean nothing that why Cheli didn't know the MR would not be a clear-cut one-sided proclamation of innocence - I'm shocked he would even notice the paragraph since everyone knows the law is arcane and opposed by the entire legislature.

 

[Bill Williams]

There is no point in engaging Grinder on this. So far no one has answered the relevant question - what is the difference in legal consequence between #2 and #1? Grinder goes back and forth on the perception issue....

I have not waffled. The perception is clear as Cheli let us know and the professor. Your rose colored glasses are just too thick to see. No one posting here knows whether or not a paragraph one would be beneficially at this point or in other cases.

.... which proves my point. Still, after all the backs and forths, you have not answered the question as asked: what is the difference in legal consequence of #2 vs. #1? You can help with my rose coloured glasses by first answering that question - or finding an authoritative citation.

Yes - no one here knows. Yet you continue to imply that you know, that #2 is perceived as something different in consequence ah, er, perception than #2.

The "not proven" was brought up between Vixen and another and I provided the link. I don't know what "disinguish a difference" means.

What is the difference in what can happen next legally?

The single biggest shadow was M&B truly believing there were multiple killers. In terms of the current discussion, Cheli intro stating that he knew from the the paragraph two verdict it wouldn't be a clear case of innocence.

Let's try to stick to Cheli's article for the moment, so thanks for so quickly coming back to it. Cheli is expressing an opinion about perception in relation to #2 vs. #1, because (as implied by the four main points he makes) there will always be those who will take those four main M/B shadows to mean something "in law" which they do not mean.

The MR didn't say "later that night". Cherry picking is one thing but just making stuff up like that is other. I posted a large part of the article.

Now I'm confused. Are you accusing Cheli of "cherry-picking"?

Regardless of Cheli's main thesis as seen through those geeky rose colored glasses, he clearly states the paragraph two verdict made it clear it would be a MR that didn't provide for clear innocence.

The ad hominem adds nothing to your remarks. Restating your believe in what the intro means is unnecessary. I get that you believe that. Rose coloured glasses or no

Since the acquittal is based on paragraph 2 of article 530 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for a judge to pronounce a verdict of acquittal “when evidence is lacking, insufficient or contradictory”, it was to be expected that it would not have been a clearcut, one-sided proclamation of innocence.​

But of course the different paragraphs mean nothing that why Cheli didn't know the MR would not be a clear-cut one-sided proclamation of innocence - I'm shocked he would even notice the paragraph since everyone knows the law is arcane and opposed by the entire legislature.

Same.

 

[acbytesla]

Except with OJ, most people when they hear "Not guilty", they accept it as innocent and case closed.

After she was first found not guilty, most Americans saw it already that way.

I don't sweat the minutia, just concerned that two people will not be tried again for a crime which they did not commit.

This really is one of those events where time makes a huge difference.How long has it been since Amanda and Raffaele were released? About 4 years. And since that time both have been model citizens. Both graduated from college. Neither has received as much as a traffic ticket. Amanda writes for a hometown newspaper and the city supports her. Raffaele has been an entrepreneur getting money for a new business (even though I'm skeptical of his business) And now reporting on TV can only help him.

There will always be crazy idiots who can't face the truth, but even most of them will get bored at some time and put it behind them.. I fully expect Italy to compensate Raffaele and the ECHR will also rule in Amanda's favor. I just wonder if Italy will also pay Amanda off.

Something nags at me that they will try and weasel out of it.

 

[Strozzi]

Good to see you Rose!

And yes, let's hope it's the start of the long-overdue correction process to get rid of Knox's totally unjust criminal slander conviction, and maybe (just maybe) lead to accountability and corrective action being applied to the most egregious miscreants in this sad process.......

I personally would like to see Mignini and a dozen police and prison officials nailed to the courthouse door. (It must be my Christian instinct.)

 

[Numbers]

From your description it would seem the case could be tried again. But I don't really give a rat's ass about the case. We are discussing whether or not there is a difference between verdicts in Italy and there is. Vixen provided a quote from an professor in Italian history and culture that compared 530.2 to the Scottish "not proven". The cite was requested and I found it and linked to it.

Ever time this comes up a group of posters pat each other on the back about their deep understanding of Italian law and what the judges really meant. I don't think we have one expert in Italian law posting here. From all that has transpired since the M&B verdict and MR it is clear to me that there is at a minimum a perceived difference in a one and two verdict.

Grinder,

I feel your pain in the lack of an expert in Italian law posting on this site.

A thought came to me when I saw this post of yours.

You should contact a real Italian lawyer, preferably one who practices criminal law in Italy, and ask away with your questions.

Now while I have never met an Italian lawyer, I am aware of the names some who might be able to help you. In particular, I can think of one who would give you information without any of that horrid PIP bias. I urge you to contact this Italian lawyer, or any other you choose, to answer your questions on Italian law.

The lawyer I have in mind is Francesco Maresca, who served as the Kercher's lawyer.

With a little Google research, I have found a site for a Maresca and Partners studio legale (law office) in Italy in which the chief partner (if that's the terminology) is a Doctor Francesco Maresca.

That law office has two locations in Italy and one in Brussels. One of the Italian offices is at:

via Assarotti N. 17/7
16122 Genova

Further contact information, including an email address, is at:

http://www.marescalex.com/contatti/

 

[Bill Williams]

Grinder,

I feel your pain in the lack of an expert in Italian law posting on this site.

A thought came to me when I saw this post of yours.

You should contact a real Italian lawyer, preferably one who practices criminal law in Italy, and ask away with your questions.

Now while I have never met an Italian lawyer, I am aware of the names some who might be able to help you. In particular, I can think of one who would give you information without any of that horrid PIP bias. I urge you contact this Italian lawyer, or any other you choose, to answer your questions on Italian law.

The lawyer I have in mind is Francesco Maresca, who served as the Kercher's lawyer.

With a little Google research, I have found a site for a Maresca and Partners studio legale (law office) in Italy in which the chief partner (if that's the terminology) is a Doctor Francesco Maresca.

That law office has two locations in Italy and one in Brussels. One of the Italian offices is at:

via Assarotti N. 17/7
16122 Genova

Further contact information, including an email address, is at:

http://www.marescalex.com/contatti/

Grinder - you've just been Numbered! LOL!

Please tell us what Maresca says so that we're not all in the dark. When in the dark, doesn't much matter the style of glasses one wears!

 

[Numbers]

Grinder,

I feel your pain in the lack of an expert in Italian law posting on this site.

A thought came to me when I saw this post of yours.

You should contact a real Italian lawyer, preferably one who practices criminal law in Italy, and ask away with your questions.

Now while I have never met an Italian lawyer, I am aware of the names some who might be able to help you. In particular, I can think of one who would give you information without any of that horrid PIP bias. I urge you to contact this Italian lawyer, or any other you choose, to answer your questions on Italian law.

The lawyer I have in mind is Francesco Maresca, who served as the Kercher's lawyer.

With a little Google research, I have found a site for a Maresca and Partners studio legale (law office) in Italy in which the chief partner (if that's the terminology) is a Doctor Francesco Maresca.

That law office has two locations in Italy and one in Brussels. One of the Italian offices is at:

via Assarotti N. 17/7
16122 Genova

Further contact information, including an email address, is at:

http://www.marescalex.com/contatti/

Grinder - you've just been Numbered! LOL!

Please tell us what Maresca says so that we're not all in the dark. When in the dark, doesn't much matter the style of glasses one wears!

While you are asking Dott. Francesco Maresca or whatever Italian lawyer you choose to refer your questions to, see if that expert can explain to you what this Italian expression, from the end of the Marasca CSC panel motivation report, means under Italian law for the Knox - Sollecito case:

"annulla senza rinvio la sentenza impugnata in ordine reati di cui ai capi a), d) et e) della rubrica per non avere i ricorrenti commesso di fatto"

Those darn untrustworthy biased PIP translated the above expression as:

"annuls the ruling under appeal without referral with respect to the charges A), D) and E) of the rubric because the appellants did not commit the act"

but, of course, it can't really mean that because, well, some of those wonderful highly trustworthy never biased PGP claim it doesn't, somehow.

 

[Grinder]

.... which proves my point. Still, after all the backs and forths, you have not answered the question as asked: what is the difference in legal consequence of #2 vs. #1? You can help with my rose coloured glasses by first answering that question - or finding an authoritative citation.

Yes - no one here knows. Yet you continue to imply that you know, that #2 is perceived as something different in consequence ah, er, perception than #2.

Bill I have provided many points in favor of showing there is a clear difference in perception at a minimum. You have provided absolutely nothing to demonstrate there is no difference in perception. I have stated over and over that in both paras they are found not guilty but no one here knows if there is no consequence of not getting a para one. Go back to the time after the verdict and read the discussion as to whether it was a one or a two a see for yourself that people here definitely thought it mattered and was a one.

What is the difference in what can happen next legally?

You don't know?

{quote]Let's try to stick to Cheli's article for the moment, so thanks for so quickly coming back to it. Cheli is expressing an opinion about perception in relation to #2 vs. #1, because (as implied by the four main points he makes) there will always be those who will take those four main M/B shadows to mean something "in law" which they do not mean.[/quote]

Since the acquittal is based on paragraph 2 of article 530 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for a judge to pronounce a verdict of acquittal “when evidence is lacking, insufficient or contradictory”, it was to be expected that it would not have been a clearcut, one-sided proclamation of innocence.
​

Cheli makes it perfectly clear that the para two selection has meaning.

We were told my a PGP that supreme court rulings have given extra value to a para one dismissal. We were told that a para two dismissal doesn't protect the defendant from subsequent legal action in the civil arena. If I were to provide a source I would be charged with appealing to authority

I have consistently said I don't know Italian law and that no one here is an Italian legal expert. We have someone that has been respected for his opinions on the PI side that tells us the paragraph two verdict meant something when he heard it. The discussion boards made speculation as to which it was a hot topic. People sure at the time it was a one now say a one was always impossible.

 

[Numbers]

Bill I have provided many points in favor of showing there is a clear difference in perception at a minimum. You have provided absolutely nothing to demonstrate there is no difference in perception. I have stated over and over that in both paras they are found not guilty but no one here knows if there is no consequence of not getting a para one. Go back to the time after the verdict and read the discussion as to whether it was a one or a two a see for yourself that people here definitely thought it mattered and was a one.



You don't know?

Let's try to stick to Cheli's article for the moment, so thanks for so quickly coming back to it. Cheli is expressing an opinion about perception in relation to #2 vs. #1, because (as implied by the four main points he makes) there will always be those who will take those four main M/B shadows to mean something "in law" which they do not mean.

Since the acquittal is based on paragraph 2 of article 530 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for a judge to pronounce a verdict of acquittal “when evidence is lacking, insufficient or contradictory”, it was to be expected that it would not have been a clearcut, one-sided proclamation of innocence.
​

Cheli makes it perfectly clear that the para two selection has meaning.

We were told my a PGP that supreme court rulings have given extra value to a para one dismissal. We were told that a para two dismissal doesn't protect the defendant from subsequent legal action in the civil arena. If I were to provide a source I would be charged with appealing to authority

I have consistently said I don't know Italian law and that no one here is an Italian legal expert. We have someone that has been respected for his opinions on the PI side that tells us the paragraph two verdict meant something when he heard it. The discussion boards made speculation as to which it was a hot topic. People sure at the time it was a one now say a one was always impossible.

Grinder, I think you missed this post. Relief for your concerns about the differences between number 2 and number 1 is available.

Grinder,

I feel your pain in the lack of an expert in Italian law posting on this site.

A thought came to me when I saw this post of yours.

You should contact a real Italian lawyer, preferably one who practices criminal law in Italy, and ask away with your questions.

Now while I have never met an Italian lawyer, I am aware of the names some who might be able to help you. In particular, I can think of one who would give you information without any of that horrid PIP bias. I urge you to contact this Italian lawyer, or any other you choose, to answer your questions on Italian law.

The lawyer I have in mind is Francesco Maresca, who served as the Kerchers' lawyer.

With a little Google research, I have found a site for a Maresca and Partners studio legale (law office) in Italy in which the chief partner (if that's the terminology) is a Doctor Francesco Maresca.

That law office has two locations in Italy and one in Brussels. One of the Italian offices is at:

via Assarotti N. 17/7
16122 Genova

Further contact information, including an email address, is at:

http://www.marescalex.com/contatti/

ETA: I fixed the apostrophe's location to show the plural (Kerchers', not Kercher's) in my post. I was disappointed that you did not point out this grammatical error in the original post.

 

[Grinder]

Now while I have never met an Italian lawyer, I am aware of the names some who might be able to help you. In particular, I can think of one who would give you information without any of that horrid PIP bias. I urge you to contact this Italian lawyer, or any other you choose, to answer your questions on Italian law.

If you would like to set up an account to fund hiring Maresca I'll handle the the rest. I've asked a law professor in Italy that had taught here and I've ask an Italian law professor here the question but alas they have not answered.

Could you provide the PIP lawyers' comments on this issue that implied existed above. To that point I'm a little surprised that the defense hasn't, to my knowledge, explained the finer points of the differences and why they had hoped for a paragraph one.

 

[Numbers]

If you would like to set up an account to fund hiring Maresca I'll handle the the rest. I've asked a law professor in Italy that had taught here and I've ask an Italian law professor here the question but alas they have not answered.

Could you provide the PIP lawyers' comments on this issue that implied existed above. To that point I'm a little surprised that the defense hasn't, to my knowledge, explained the finer points of the differences and why they had hoped for a paragraph one.

I am sure that Maresca or any other Italian lawyer would provide the few minutes it would take to explain the difference between number 2 and number 1 pro bono to you.

I don't have any contact, to my knowledge, with the "PIP lawyers" (unless they are among the anonymous posters on IIP Forum or ISF) so I am unable to provide their comments.

Perhaps you should be contacting those lawyers as well as Maresca if you believe that the explanations of the differences between number 2 and number 1 may differ between them.

The only people I am aware of discussing this issue, in which, I acknowledge, you have invested much time and effort, are some anonymous posters on the internet.

The only exception, if it is that, are some comments I have copied here from an essay by Professor of Law Mitja Gialuz in the book The Italian Code of Criminal Conduct: Critical essays and English translation, which actually does not deal with the alleged differences in 2 v. 1, but with how the Italian State introduced "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" as a legal standard, starting with reforms in 1988. I have posted the exact language in the text previously, and it does not answer your question. It merely states or implies that the language in 2 was introduced as part of the 1988 reform, while that in 1 was already present - inherited from the inquisitorial system. Gialuz goes on to write that the BARD standard was introduced into CPP Article 533.1 by a law enacted in 2006.

Is Gialuz a member of the "PIP legal team"? I don't have any knowledge on this.

Perhaps all these statements in publications from Italian law professors such as Gialuz, Luparia, and Illuminati, stating that the Italian legal system was reformed from an inquisitorial to an adversarial system, and there was resistance by the judges, are part of a conspiracy? I have no independent knowledge about this, only what I have read.

 

[Bill Williams]

If you would like to set up an account to fund hiring Maresca I'll handle the the rest. I've asked a law professor in Italy that had taught here and I've ask an Italian law professor here the question but alas they have not answered.

Could you provide the PIP lawyers' comments on this issue that implied existed above. To that point I'm a little surprised that the defense hasn't, to my knowledge, explained the finer points of the differences and why they had hoped for a paragraph one.

Thanks for making the contacts you mention in the first paragraph. A much needed input of expertise rather than us sniping at each other.

The defence lawyers have no obligation to do as you imply with your "surprise" above. Me, I'd like to think that they've all moved on now that their clients are exonerated, but you'll accuse me of wearing rose-montague-coloured glasses.

I've been called worse. But let us know if/when you hear back.

 

[Bill Williams]

I have consistently said I don't know Italian law and that no one here is an Italian legal expert. We have someone that has been respected for his opinions on the PI side that tells us the paragraph two verdict meant something when he heard it. The discussion boards made speculation as to which it was a hot topic. People sure at the time it was a one now say a one was always impossible.

You have consistently ignored my question as asked.

And yes, you have consistently banged away at the perception issue. The four "shadows" in Cheli's article zero in on lingering perception faults for both this case and Italian lawkeeping in general. You cite Cheli's shadows/fears as him agreeing that those things are rightly perceived accordingly.

You ignore the overall thesis of his piece. Despite those lingering shadows in the M/B report, he sees the report as mostly positive in shedding "light" uncharacteristically on a case and the process that went so wrong for so long. Not to mention the "thunder" that he thinks should shake up the legal status quo.

But why not ignore all that to cherry-pick on fear about perception. As has plagued this case for almost a decade, has been everyone's differing perceptions of what judges try to "signal" with decisions. That you miss that part of Cheli's analysis is of no concern, really - you'll argue perception until the cows come home.

Do you know there's now a "perception", advanced by RAI3 no less, that Rudy has been railroaded!?

So have at perception. Good on you. I happen to know that Bruno/Marasca both held their mouths funny when releasing their report. There's incredible meaning to be mined from that, too. Obviously it means they thought the pair were guilty, but not quite.

Despite their acquittal. Afterall this is Italy, and things always have only deep, foggy meaning discernable only to those with special knowledge.