Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[LondonJohn]

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.

And I've already asked him to stop misrepresenting me when he refers to people who were "sure" at the time that the acquittals would be 530.1. But to no avail, it seems. Shame that this sort of misleading hyperbole continues to be deemed necessary by some......

 

[Grinder]

Here's one of the first posts on 530:
The second paragraph of Article 530 is the one which refers to insufficient evidence; the acquittal is still "for not having committed the offence" even if this paragraph applies. It would be very helpful to have the dispositivo so that we could know for sure, though. There's some possibility the journalists are relying on Maresca saying the acquittals were for insufficient evidence, and he's not exactly trustworthy (i.e. he also tried to claim Hellman's acquittal might have been for insufficient evidence, when he knew full well it wasn't). Still the Italian media do seem to be saying that the judge cited paragraph 2 - maybe the foreign media just hasn't understood what that means.

Before it was perfectly clear and gee no big debate, but many here still thought Maresca was lying. The post above was done by an Italian speaking PIP.

She was thanked for it.

Then LJ responded to her explanation thusly:

But at the same time, the overwhelmingly prevailing opinion was that if this was a "reasonable doubt" case in the eyes of the SC, then the case would without doubt have been sent back down to the appeal court level for (yet) another trial. The fact that this didn't happen, and that the SC totally acquitted, would seem to strongly support a belief that the SC ruled that there was entirely no case to answer. In other words, a "Paragraph 1" acquittal. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the media were reporting Maresca's "creative" interpretation of the ruling, rather than anything explicitly issued by the SC itself.

Incidentally, don't these SC rulings only consist, at this stage, of extremely curt and brief verdicts, with little or no supporting explanation? If so, then surely the SC wouldn't even have gone into this much detail yet over exactly what sort of acquittal it was etc.

Clearly people here were interested in whether it was a one or two. If it makes no difference, why the interest?

 

[Numbers]

Amanda Knox assolta dall’accusa di calunnia a polizia
La ragazza aveva detto di essere stata «forzata» dagli investigatori a denunciare la presenza di Patrick Lumumba nella casa dov’è morta Meredith

Google translation:

Amanda Knox acquitted of slander to the police
The girl had said she was "forced" by the investigators to report the presence of Patrick Lumumba in the house where she died Meredith

Source: http://www.lastampa.it/2016/01/14/i...-a-polizia-wlCvKyp9oqrOSnog9f4nIL/pagina.html

The text of the article by Google translation:

Amanda Knox acquitted of slander to the policeThe girl had said she was "forced" by the investigators to report the presence of Patrick Lumumba in the house where she died Meredith The court of Florence has acquitted Amanda Knox filled with formula from the accusation of having slandered some agents of the squad of Perugia They are investigating the murder of Meredith Kercher. The crime to which the young American, along with Raffaele Sollecito, was finally declared alien by the Supreme Court.In particular, Knox was accused of slander for having claimed to have been "forced" by the investigators to say that the murder had been in the house with Patrick Lumumba, who was involved in the investigation precisely because of the American company sentences and then recognized foreign to each other. The proceedings initiated by the Public Prosecutor of Perugia was then sent to Florence because of the people offended by the alleged offense would have also been the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini holder Kercher murder investigation.Knox for the prosecutor of the Tuscan capital had requested a sentence of two years and eight months in prison. His defenders, the Luciano Ghirga lawyers, Carlo Dalla Vedova and Tommaso Ducci they had instead called for the acquittal. Request accepted by the court. With its legal Knox, long back in the US, she said she was "very pleased and happy for the acquittal."

 

[Bill Williams]

Clearly people here were interested in whether it was a one or two. If it makes no difference, why the interest?

For me it has been an education going through it all. I would have dropped it long ago save for some who are maintaining the **perception** that #2 is a lesser acquittal than #1. The **perception** that #2 means something akin to, "they were obviously guilty, but the lower courts lacked the evidence."

Or that #2 is akin to the Scottish verdict "not proven."

Through it all I've asked for a cite that there is some difference in legal consequence betwwen #2 and #1, and you have quite kindly taken the initiative to contact some experts - response pending.

Numbers and LJ have made a convincing case, albeit as laymen, that there is no legal difference in consequence from either's use. To this you're seemingly trying to make the case that everyone's early misunderstandings somehow effect the reality of Italian law!!!

Of course people back then were interested in which type of **acquittal** was used, but it turns out that in terms of consequence (which is what is important as people, including Maresca, move on) there is only an acquittal, regardless of type.

Whether by in-vitro or by old fashioned sex, there's only one type of pregnancy. Cheli cautions that many will perceive #2 as a lesser pregnancy, and judging by your opinions - man oh man did he get that right.

He also said that M/B cast a virtual fog over when Knox (and/or RS) over the issue of a potential presence at the cottage. That fear, too, jas been borne out, people claiming M/B "ruled" with certainty when in Cheli's opinion M/B left a fog over the issue. A fog mainly to preserve the appearance of ISC Panel continuity.

No one has said "it makes **no** difference", that's a wee bit of a strawman. What I continue to ask for is a difference in consequence.

So far crickets.

 

[Numbers]

Let's consider that there are possible contradictions within Italian law and the way it is practiced.

For example, by the recent acquittal of Amanda on the charge of calunnia of the police, it appears the first-instance court has said she was indeed forced or coerced to make statements against Lumumba.

But the Marasca CSC panel MR stated that she had indeed committed calunnia against Lumumba and seemed to explicitly discount any suggestion that she had been coerced.

For the moment, only Grinder may be able to explain how this seeming contradiction exists.

 

[Desert Fox]

Let's consider that there are possible contradictions within Italian law and the way it is practiced.

For example, by the recent acquittal of Amanda on the charge of calunnia of the police, it appears the first-instance court has said she was indeed forced or coerced to make statements against Lumumba.

But the Marasca CSC panel MR stated that she had indeed committed calunnia against Lumumba and seemed to explicitly discount any suggestion that she had been coerced.

For the moment, only Grinder may be able to explain how this seeming contradiction exists.

I am perfectly fine with humans are fallible and laws are imperfect. I think 95% of all of this can be explained in this manner. Why Grinder cannot accept this, I don't understand although Grinder is of course just as fallible as Italian judges .

 

[Grinder]

I am perfectly fine with humans are fallible and laws are imperfect. I think 95% of all of this can be explained in this manner. Why Grinder cannot accept this, I don't understand although Grinder is of course just as fallible as Italian judges .

What an insult. Well Desert you have wisely chosen to have limited interests.

There is nothing inconsistent with saying Amanda committed calunnia against Patrick but she didn't against the police. She couldn't prove they sslapped etc. and they couldn't prove they didn't. I don't believe a full translation is out on the MR for that but if someone has it, let's see it.

It is totally obvious that the different paragraph verdicts mean something but perhaps those rose colored glasses just allow people to see smiley faces.

Since Bill won't answer perhaps you can tell me if every not guilty verdict is an exoneration? Was OJ exonerated?

Do you think when someone says about a not guilty verdict that he "beat the rap" they mean he is innocent/exonerated?

 

[Desert Fox]

Grinder, there are people who take images of sites on the moon and will blow them up to where jpg artifact and pixelation become issues. They will then think they see secret moon bases.

I think that is what you are doing here. You are in effect going beyond the limits of the clarity of the legal system involved. There are going to be issue which seem to contradict each other.

 

[analemma]

Amanda Knox assolta dall’accusa di calunnia a polizia
La ragazza aveva detto di essere stata «forzata» dagli investigatori a denunciare la presenza di Patrick Lumumba nella casa dov’è morta Meredith

Google translation:

Amanda Knox acquitted of slander to the police
The girl had said she was "forced" by the investigators to report the presence of Patrick Lumumba in the house where she died Meredith

Source: http://www.lastampa.it/2016/01/14/i...-a-polizia-wlCvKyp9oqrOSnog9f4nIL/pagina.html

The text of the article by Google translation:

Amanda Knox acquitted of slander to the policeThe girl had said she was "forced" by the investigators to report the presence of Patrick Lumumba in the house where she died Meredith The court of Florence has acquitted Amanda Knox filled with formula from the accusation of having slandered some agents of the squad of Perugia They are investigating the murder of Meredith Kercher. The crime to which the young American, along with Raffaele Sollecito, was finally declared alien by the Supreme Court.In particular, Knox was accused of slander for having claimed to have been "forced" by the investigators to say that the murder had been in the house with Patrick Lumumba, who was involved in the investigation precisely because of the American company sentences and then recognized foreign to each other. The proceedings initiated by the Public Prosecutor of Perugia was then sent to Florence because of the people offended by the alleged offense would have also been the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini holder Kercher murder investigation.Knox for the prosecutor of the Tuscan capital had requested a sentence of two years and eight months in prison. His defenders, the Luciano Ghirga lawyers, Carlo Dalla Vedova and Tommaso Ducci they had instead called for the acquittal. Request accepted by the court. With its legal Knox, long back in the US, she said she was "very pleased and happy for the acquittal."

Thanks for this.
Do you know if there is a link to the Motivation?
And what is the Italian press, such as Andrea Vogt, saying about it?

 

[acbytesla]

I've really tried to keep out of this argument. Frankly I don't understand what Grinder Is saying. Grinder has seemingly admitted that there are no ACTUAL differences of consequence but only of perception. Isn't that what the rest of us are saying?

Except Grinder also seems to be painting some ominous cloud hanging over the couple's head. The nuances of this pointless argument is way over my head.

 

[Numbers]

Thanks for this.
Do you know if there is a link to the Motivation?
And what is the Italian press, such as Andrea Vogt, saying about it?

I don't know if the MR is readily available.

How do the news media access it - from the Court Clerk? Or do they rely on statements from the lawyers?

I presume that Amanda and her lawyers have been sent a copy of the MR by the Court. Maybe she will post it on her web site; the Marasca CSC panel MR, in the original Italian, is on her site.

I found the article by Googling "Amanda Knox calunnia against police"

 

[Bill Williams]

Let's consider that there are possible contradictions within Italian law and the way it is practiced.

For example, by the recent acquittal of Amanda on the charge of calunnia of the police, it appears the first-instance court has said she was indeed forced or coerced to make statements against Lumumba.

But the Marasca CSC panel MR stated that she had indeed committed calunnia against Lumumba and seemed to explicitly discount any suggestion that she had been coerced.

For the moment, only Grinder may be able to explain how this seeming contradiction exists.

Marasca/Bruno try to justify “conflitto in giudicato” as practised by the ISC, nowhere more so than with this issue. Not only does the M/B report discount coercion, they go farther saying.....

Knox was interrogated in a “context institutionally immune to anomalous psychological pressures”.

This is the dance Marasca/Bruno danced to try as they might to be seen in alignment with the Chieffi panel which had signed off on calunnia against Lumumba.

What will the ISC do down the road with the calunnia against the cops? This looks to be one of those other instances where two lower courts acquit on the evidence, but some future ISC panel convicts anyway - so as to avoid.....

“Conflitto in giudicato” as practised by the ISC. Judicial truths will rule and hang the evidence.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder, there are people who take images of sites on the moon and will blow them up to where jpg artifact and pixelation become issues. They will then think they see secret moon bases.

I think that is what you are doing here. You are in effect going beyond the limits of the clarity of the legal system involved. There are going to be issue which seem to contradict each other.

And there are arm-chair crime tourist that believe they can tell guilt or innocence from the moon. The legal system is clear for those without limiting lenses.

The Italians seem to recognize the difference between the paragraphs and people here did as well until it became clear it was a two.

The Cheli article couldn't make it clearer that a two wouldn't result in a clear-cut innocence MR.

 

[Grinder]

I've really tried to keep out of this argument. Frankly I don't understand what Grinder Is saying. Grinder has seemingly admitted that there are no ACTUAL differences of consequence but only of perception. Isn't that what the rest of us are saying?

Except Grinder also seems to be painting some ominous cloud hanging over the couple's head. The nuances of this pointless argument is way over my head.

Tesla I have said clearly that I don't know the legal differences but that no one here is qualified to weigh one way or the other. Mach posted a section of a supreme court ruling that indicated a one would free a person of any other action civil or otherwise but not so for a two (at least not the civil end).

The PIP seem to take anything less than a pure innocence read from M&B as "some ominous cloud hanging over the couple's head".

 

[acbytesla]

Tesla I have said clearly that I don't know the legal differences but that no one here is qualified to weigh one way or the other. Mach posted a section of a supreme court ruling that indicated a one would free a person of any other action civil or otherwise but not so for a two (at least not the civil end).
The PIP seem to take anything less than a pure innocence read from M&B as "some ominous cloud hanging over the couple's head".

I think paragraph 1 was impossible given that two courts convicted them. I also don't really care about the "read" of MB. For me the evidence itself is very clear. As for Mach's quote of an Italian Supreme Court decision. Did it say that a second civil trial is possible after a decision was made in the previous civil trial that ran concurrently with the criminal trial?

 

[Grinder]

I think paragraph 1 was impossible given that two courts convicted them. I also don't really care about the "read" of MB. For me the evidence itself is very clear. As for Mach's quote of an Italian Supreme Court decision. Did it say that a second civil trial is possible after a decision was made in the previous civil trial that ran concurrently with the criminal trial?

Yes Tesla you have made it clear that A.Q.U.I.T.A.L is all you care about. IIRC Mach's quote indicated that there is a legal difference between one and two.

The read of M&B is what the conversation is about, both the paragraph and the narrative.

Strange that people here said it must be a paragraph two because it wasn't sent down. I happen to agree that a one would have been very difficult but once again that indicates there is a difference and in this case in law.

Personally I doubt any more cases will be filed against either of the kids for actions committed before the not proven guilty verdict.

 

[Numbers]

Marasca/Bruno try to justify “conflitto in giudicato” as practised by the ISC, nowhere more so than with this issue. Not only does the M/B report discount coercion, they go farther saying.....

Knox was interrogated in a “context institutionally immune to anomalous psychological pressures”.

This is the dance Marasca/Bruno danced to try as they might to be seen in alignment with the Chieffi panel which had signed off on calunnia against Lumumba.

What will the ISC do down the road with the calunnia against the cops? This looks to be one of those other instances where two lower courts acquit on the evidence, but some future ISC panel convicts anyway - so as to avoid.....

“Conflitto in giudicato” as practised by the ISC. Judicial truths will rule and hang the evidence.

I recall that one of Amanda's lawyers was quoted in a news article as stating the calunnia against the police case would reach its Italian statute of limitations in October, 2016. If that is correct, and considering how long it takes for trials in Italy, the case may end with a final dismissal and never reach the CSC. Perhaps that's the reason the first-instance court can state in its MR (according to the Umbria 24 news article) that the police violated Amanda's rights and Italian procedural law during the Nov. 5/6 interrogation.

 

[bagels]

Clearly people here were interested in whether it was a one or two. If it makes no difference, why the interest?

I think people were hoping the Italians "got it right."

The PIP view is that if M&B definitely ruled Knox was present at the scene, they're wrong in the same way Massei was wrong about (almost anything), and if Knox didn't get the equivalent of a legal exoneration, M&B are wrong. That anything less than an exoneration was a compromised verdict, in their view M&B bending over for the system at the expense of the correct just outcome.

I wouldn't disagree with that view, especially for Knox. There was a slightly better case against Raffaele, if a case must be made.

 

[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.

Grinder, could you refresh my memory with a citation where the actual legal defense (not the "PIP" anonymous posters) hoped - in writing, such as an appeal - specifically for an acquittal under CPP 530.1?

Did the appeals ask, in contrast to an acquittal specifically under 530.1, for an acquittal under "the applicants did not commit the act", which applies to either 530.1 or 530.2?

As we agree, the Hellmann court acquittal was issued naming neither 530.1 nor 530.2, but was, in the MR, clearly based on a reasoned evaluation based on BARD. The CPP citation used by Hellmann was the one allowing the appeal judge to amend a lower court verdict as necessary. Hellmann used the acquittal specification formula "the applicants (or the accused) did not commit the act".

 

[Bill Williams]

I recall that one of Amanda's lawyers was quoted in a news article as stating the calunnia against the police case would reach its Italian statute of limitations in October, 2016. If that is correct, and considering how long it takes for trials in Italy, the case may end with a final dismissal and never reach the CSC. Perhaps that's the reason the first-instance court can state in its MR (according to the Umbria 24 news article) that the police violated Amanda's rights and Italian procedural law during the Nov. 5/6 interrogation.

If there is no "sign-off" of the eventual verdict by the ISC because of statute of limitations, does the MR of the first-instance court have any legal effect?

Or would it only serve Grinder's interest - namely, perception?