• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ditto. There's no point in engaging Grinder on this. And please, please don't get into a dictionary war with him. That'll close the thread for sure.

My intent is to not do anything which would not serve to keep the thread open to discuss/review Amanda's acquittal on the charge of calunnia against the police, and, if possible (because we may all have withered away by then) to discuss/review the ECHR actions in the case Amanda has brought against Italy for wrongfully convicting her of calunnia against Lumumba.

I will put away my dictionary for now.
 
http://www.ilmessaggero.it/primopiano/cronaca/strage_via_palestro_milano_assolto_tutino-1113019.html
It was a warm evening of July 27, 1993 when in via Palestro, in the heart of Milan, a bomb exploded. They killed five people: the policeman Alessandro Ferrari, firefighters Carlo La Catena, Sergio Pasotto,Stefano Picerno and Moussafir Driss. Philip Marcello Tutino, accused of being the guy inside of the massacre, was acquitted "for not having committed the crime," but under the second paragraph of Article 530 of the Criminal Procedure Code, namely the insufficiency of pre-reform trials.
I'm looking for 530 verdicts and this one backs my theory that ALL 530.2 verdicts use the pro forma language "for not having committed the crime".
 
http://www.ilmessaggero.it/primopiano/cronaca/strage_via_palestro_milano_assolto_tutino-1113019.html
It was a warm evening of July 27, 1993 when in via Palestro, in the heart of Milan, a bomb exploded. They killed five people: the policeman Alessandro Ferrari, firefighters Carlo La Catena, Sergio Pasotto,Stefano Picerno and Moussafir Driss. Philip Marcello Tutino, accused of being the guy inside of the massacre, was acquitted "for not having committed the crime," but under the second paragraph of Article 530 of the Criminal Procedure Code, namely the insufficiency of pre-reform trials.
I'm looking for 530 verdicts and this one backs my theory that ALL 530.2 verdicts use the pro forma language "for not having committed the crime".

I guess you can't do much better in a criminal trial than it being definitively laid down in law that you didn't commit the crime, however some people might want to spin it.
 
I think we should remember the context of the words between Amanda and her lawyer. Nearly everyone was extremely surprised that they were definitively aquitted at that time and were overjoyed. Thus it was not spin Amanda was writing but a genuine reflection about how the verdicts were interpreted at the time, and which have not changed in any mainstream Italian website that I have seen: that they are definitively aquitted because they did not commit the act, which were the words used before the motivation report came out. I quote below The Guardian, and then an Italian source, which I got from IIP. Also There is a link to NBC which had an interview with Amanda's lawyer. I think the reason why para 1 and para 2 are not discussed much is because it is essentially irrelevant.

yes no spin just the honest question and answer. Was it for lack of evidence or was I declared innocent. "Innocent Amanda innocent."

Please see the post above showing the exact same language for a 530.2.

The question at hand was whether or not the defense made the claim it was a verdict of innocent that couldn't get better or if that only came from PIPs and PGPs. I've shown it came from the defense minutes after the verdict.

The fact that Amanda didn't quote code doesn't change the fact.
 
I guess you can't do much better in a criminal trial than it being definitively laid down in law that you didn't commit the crime, however some people might want to spin it.
Do you understand proforma language? They always say those words even when they are basically saying "not proven". If we had 530 here I can guarantee OJ would have been a para 2.

My search is showing that the Italians are quite aware of the differences.
 
We currently are not discussing the above. We are discussing whether the source of the idea that the verdict came solely from PIPs and PGPs. You contested my statement that the defense had early-on indicated the verdict was innocent as in a para one.

Amanda's quote clearly shows that minutes after the live broadcast Dalla called and in response to a direct question answered it was not an insufficient evidence but rather innocent. He also said publicly after the verdict that it doesn't get any better than this. No one in his right mind would say that a para 1 isn't better.

All Para 2 verdicts imply "there was not enough evidence to convict the accused"

Do you believe OJ was found innocent?

Do you have a link to verdicts using 530?

In law I don't think O J could have asked for anything better: in that sense it was the best possible outcome for him. (Though with him the court of public opinion was not so good, and then he lost the civil case).
 
In law I don't think O J could have asked for anything better: in that sense it was the best possible outcome for him. (Though with him the court of public opinion was not so good, and then he lost the civil case).

Oh I think a para one would have been better. That's how it works.
 
Do you understand proforma language? They always say those words even when they are basically saying "not proven". If we had 530 here I can guarantee OJ would have been a para 2.

My search is showing that the Italians are quite aware of the differences.

Can you show the words "non provata" anywhere?
 
I think we should remember the context of the words between Amanda and her lawyer. Nearly everyone was extremely surprised that they were definitively aquitted at that time and were overjoyed. Thus it was not spin Amanda was writing but a genuine reflection about how the verdicts were interpreted at the time, and which have not changed in any mainstream Italian website that I have seen: that they are definitively aquitted because they did not commit the act, which were the words used before the motivation report came out. I quote below The Guardian, and then an Italian source, which I got from IIP. Also There is a link to NBC which had an interview with Amanda's lawyer. I think the reason why para 1 and para 2 are not discussed much is because it is essentially irrelevant.

The judges reached their decision after 10 hours of deliberations. The presiding judge, Gennaro Marasca, read the decision – repeating the word “annulled” several times. Initially, the tense assembly of lawyers and journalists, including many who are not native Italian speakers, fell silent.
Then there was a burst of activity as many went racing out of the grand courtroom, ready to call in the news, even as journalists desperately looked at one another, wondering if their ears had failed them.

Giulia Bongiorno, Sollecito’s lawyer, who has solidified her reputation as one of the best defence attorneys in Italy, began screaming in joy and ran out of the courtroom, journalists chasing behind her.
When a seemingly stunned Carlo Dalla Vedova, the lawyer for Knox, came out of the courtroom behind her, she turned around and leapt into his arms and the two embraced..
After the decision was read, Dalla Vedova remained calm, slowly walking down the corridor toward the lift. In a hushed tone he said that such a bold decision was nearly unprecedented. Indeed, he had largely dismissed such a result before the court of cassation hearing began in Rome, saying it was practically unthinkable.
Minutes later, he emerged from the court, which overlooks Piazza Cavour, and told the swarm of journalists that he had spoken to Knox and that she was “very happy”.
“It’s a fair verdict. It’s a victory of justice. This was a mistake from the beginning,” he said.

"Obviously we were right": Claudio Pratillo Hellmann, President of the Court of Assizes of Perugia in 2011 acquitted Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito murder of Meredith Kercher comments on the decision of the Supreme Court. "There was hoping, after so many judicial errors committed by other judges on the Court of Cassation has shown that in Italy there is still justice" said Pratillo Hellmann, now retired judge. "I'm happy - said the former president of the Court - was avoided because a miscarriage of justice and those two unfortunate Amanda and Raffaele have come out because innocent.

http://www.today.com/video/today/57177360#5717736

I recommend the above Today show video to anyone trying to understand the outcome. I had not seen this video, which includes an interview of Dalla Vedova, previously.

Dalla Vedova makes clear that the annulment without referral was a welcome surprise and only one of several possibilities.

In Amanda's 2014 appeal to the CSC, she and her lawyers make clear that she could be subjected to an unending number of retrials under Italian law and should not be subjected to such an ordeal because there was no credible evidence of her guilt.
 
Last edited:
yes no spin just the honest question and answer. Was it for lack of evidence or was I declared innocent. "Innocent Amanda innocent."

Please see the post above showing the exact same language for a 530.2.

The question at hand was whether or not the defense made the claim it was a verdict of innocent that couldn't get better or if that only came from PIPs and PGPs. I've shown it came from the defense minutes after the verdict.

The fact that Amanda didn't quote code doesn't change the fact.

But there is no such word innocente anywhere is there?
 
Let's see. You can be found innocent or not guilty for lack of evidence. Innocent better - fact.

But again I ask who is found "innocent" or whatever precise translation of the word innocent in any language relevant to the particular country?
 
Last edited:
Can you show the words "non provata" anywhere?
do you understand the form basically saying? Para 2 is basically saying "not proven" as stated by Anna B the Italian history and culture professor.
 
But again I ask who is found "innocent" or whatever precise translation of the word innocent in any language relevant to the particular country?

In Italy they have two choices for not convicting which was the exercise. Would OJ have preferred a one to a two - answer yes unless he was an idiot. Anyone that can't see that a verdict of innocent would be preferable to not guilty because of lacking or insufficient evidence is an idiot.
 
In Italy they have two choices for not convicting which was the exercise. Would OJ have preferred a one to a two - answer yes unless he was an idiot. Anyone that can't see that a verdict of innocent would be preferable to not guilty because of lacking or insufficient evidence is an idiot.

Living in the Uk means I have to curtail this discussion. Past midnight. But I don't think you have proved that para. 1 means Innocent and para 2 means not proven.If they used those words(in translation) I would see your point more.
 
Living in the Uk means I have to curtail this discussion. Past midnight. But I don't think you have proved that para. 1 means Innocent and para 2 means not proven.If they used those words(in translation) I would see your point more.
Good night. Sleep well, dream well and be well.

Will Lukaku score tomorrow?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom