Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

I'm waiting for the "It was the Masons!" argument.

Mormons and Free Masons are connected through Joseph Smith if it helps

 

[Stacyhs]

Mormons and Free Masons are connected through Joseph Smith if it helps

My late father-in-law was a 32nd degree Freemason. I wonder if he had his finger in the behind the scenes machinations to free Amanda?

 

[Mr Fied]

I hope I have got this correct.

I am taking the translation as being accurate.

Charges were: A- the murder, D- theft of money and credit cards, E- the staging of the break in.

visti gli artt. 620 lett. I) e 530, comma 2 cod. proc. pen.; esclusa l'aggravante di cui all'art. 61 n, 2 cod. pen., in relazione al delitto di calunnia, annulla senza rinvio la sentenza impugnata in ordine ai reati di cui ai capi a), d) ed e) della rubrica per non avere i ricorrenti commesso il fatto.

pursuant to Articles 620 letter L) and 530, section 2 Italian Code of Criminal Procedure; excluding the aggravating circumstance under Italian under Article 61 n. 2 Penal Code, in relation to the crime of calumny, annuls the ruling under appeal without referral with respect to the crimes under charges A), D) and E) of the rubric because the appellants did not commit the act.

It looks like an article 530 para 2 ruling.

However, far from being the equivalent of not proven, it seems the court decided the accused did not commit the crime.

If the court decrees the accused did not commit the crime, the accused must be innocent.

It doesn't say, we think they done it but the evidence is insufficient, or, we strongly suspect they done it but the police cocked up the investigation, or, we know they done it but can't prove it.

If all the above is correct, 530 para 2 can mean innocent, and Dalla Vedova was correct to tell Knox that she was indeed found innocent.

 

[Numbers]

I hope I have got this correct.

I am taking the translation as being accurate.

Charges were: A- the murder, D- theft of money and credit cards, E- the staging of the break in.






It looks like an article 530 para 2 ruling.

However, far from being the equivalent of not proven, it seems the court decided the accused did not commit the crime.

If the court decrees the accused did not commit the crime, the accused must be innocent.

It doesn't say, we think they done it but the evidence is insufficient, or, we strongly suspect they done it but the police cocked up the investigation, or, we know they done it but can't prove it.

If all the above is correct, 530 para 2 can mean innocent, and Dalla Vedova was correct to tell Knox that she was indeed found innocent.

Correct. In fact, if there was some doubt about the evidence being strong enough that possibly Knox and Sollecito were indeed guilty, the Marasca CSC panel would have referred the case back to a new second-level trial to eliminate any errors from the Nencini court trial, and obtain a new guilty verdict. That the Marasca CSC panel did not take such measures, and in fact stated in the MR that the evidence did not justify a referral, that a decision could and should be made without further referral, showed they were confident that Knox and Sollecito were innocent and could not be shown to be guilty by the evidence. In other words, as some as stated all along in this case, there was no reliable credible evidence of guilt against Knox and Sollecito. There was no evidence that either had taken part in the murder/rape of Kercher or had been in the murder room; the alleged DNA evidence from the kitchen knife and bra clasp used to support that claim was totally unreliable, as pointed out by the independent experts in the Hellmann court trial. Selectively cleaning DNA was physically impossible, and Guede statements against Knox or Sollecito were prohibited from use by Italian law and Constitution, because Guede never allowed himself to be cross-examined.

And there are no partial acquittals under Italian law. There are only convictions ("guilty"), acquittals (which come with one of 5 specifications), or dismissals for other reasons, such as charges are time-barred by the statute of limitation.

 

[Grinder]

It looks like an article 530 para 2 ruling.

However, far from being the equivalent of not proven, it seems the court decided the accused did not commit the crime.

If the court decrees the accused did not commit the crime, the accused must be innocent.

It would appear that all para 2 have that wording as a proforma.

OJ was declared not guilty and was released. Italy has a two ways to find one not guilty - innocent or not guilty because of a lacking, insufficient or contradictory evidence.

It wasn't I alone that made the comparison to "not proven" but rather a professor at the University of Bath in Italian history and culture. But hey when Amanda asked, without using the code, if she was found not guilt for a lack of evidence or innocent and the lawyer said innocent - well it didn't mean the obvious.

 

[Numbers]

Here is the short-form verdict from Amanda's acquittal for callunia against the police, from the PQM ("For these reasons") section of the MR, with a slightly cleaned-up Google translation to English. Note that the judge side-steps the non-controversy of CPP Article 530.1 compared to 530.2 by simply citing CPP Article 530 as a whole. And also note that the specifications for the acquittal are given, and they do not include "the accused did not commit the act", but rather "the act (crime) does not exist" and "the act is not an offense (crime under the law)". It is actually these specifications that are important, not necessarily whether one or the other particular paragraph of the acquittal article is being invoked.

Visto l'art 530 c.p.p., assolve Knox Amanda Marie dal reato attribuitale al capo a), perche i fatti non sussistono, e dal reato attribuitale al capo b), perche i fatti non sussistono e perche il fatto non costituisce reato, quanto alle accuse rivolte al dr. Giuliano Mignini.

Having regard to Article 530 Code of Criminal Procedure, acquits Amanda Marie Knox {of the offense} attributed {under} heading a), because the act {of the crime} does not exist, and {of} the offense attributed under heading b), because the act {of the crime} does not exist and {the act does not constitute an} offense {under law}, for the allegations addressed to dr. Giuliano Mignini.

Source for the Italian text: See MichaelB's post of 13 April 2016 on the main thread at IIP for the link.

 

[Grinder]

Correct. In fact, if there was some doubt about the evidence being strong enough that possibly Knox and Sollecito were indeed guilty, the Marasca CSC panel would have referred the case back to a new second-level trial to eliminate any errors from the Nencini court trial, and obtain a new guilty verdict. That the Marasca CSC panel did not take such measures, and in fact stated in the MR that the evidence did not justify a referral, that a decision could and should be made without further referral, showed they were confident that Knox and Sollecito were innocent and could not be shown to be guilty by the evidence. In other words, as some as stated all along in this case, there was no reliable credible evidence of guilt against Knox and Sollecito. There was no evidence that either had taken part in the murder/rape of Kercher or had been in the murder room; the alleged DNA evidence from the kitchen knife and bra clasp used to support that claim was totally unreliable, as pointed out by the independent experts in the Hellmann court trial. Selectively cleaning DNA was physically impossible, and Guede statements against Knox or Sollecito were prohibited from use by Italian law and Constitution, because Guede never allowed himself to be cross-examined.

And there are no partial acquittals under Italian law. There are only convictions ("guilty"), acquittals (which come with one of 5 specifications), or dismissals for other reasons, such as charges are time-barred by the statute of limitation.

No one has said there is a partial acquittal but defeating your own arguments is so much easier, like knocking over a scare crow or a snow man.

LJ used the above as the reason it must be a one.

Amanda specifically asked what sort of verdict it was. She knew she had been found not guilty. The lawyer knew she had been found not guilty but apparently wasn't aware in the a few minutes between verdict and the call.

Marasca didn't exactly say what you claim above. They said that the evidence had been bungled so badly that there was no way at that time to go back and get a verdict of guilty except if the judges looking at the case were sure of guilt but under the rules of BARD they couldn't now and shouldn't in the past have done it on that basis.

 

[Grinder]

Here is the short-form verdict from Amanda's acquittal for callunia against the police, from the PQM ("For these reasons") section of the MR, with a slightly cleaned-up Google translation to English. Note that the judge side-steps the non-controversy of CPP Article 530.1 compared to 530.2 by simply citing CPP Article 530 as a whole.

Visto l'art 530 c.p.p., assolve Knox Amanda Marie dal reato attribuitale al capo a), perche i fatti non sussistono, e dal reato attribuitale al capo b), perche i fatti non sussistono e perche il fatto non costituisce reato, quanto alle accuse rivolte al dr. Giuliano Mignini.

Having regard to Article 530 Code of Criminal Procedure, acquits Amanda Marie Knox {of the offense} attributed {under} heading a), because the act {of the crime} does not exist, and {of} the offense attributed under heading b), because the act {of the crime} does not exist and {the act does not constitute an} offense {under law}, for the allegations addressed to dr. Giuliano Mignini.

From this it looks like a clear para 1 as they are saying the crime didn't exist which makes sense.

Do you have the link the MR? Marroitt (not shown to be a Mormon) should have put this out on the front pages of every newspaper and lead story for all national broadcasts.

I'm with bagels (I think) in thinking that overturning the calunnia against Patrick is more important in public perception than the not guilty verdict. This ruling seems from what I've seen here to basically say the cops were wrong and extracted what they wanted from her.

Throughout this case the "blaming the black man" has been a if not the lead argument for guilt and bad character. The report on the 6th or 7th of the chief saying buckle - what was correct - etc. is what made know immediately something was rotten in Perugia.

 

[Grinder]

If the calunnia ruling is a para 1 and not para 2 it would seem the court is saying that the police, the translator and Mignini committed calunnia against Amanda. Since no crime was committed they should have known that. Maybe that prosecutor in Florence can file the charges

 

[Bill Williams]

If the calunnia ruling is a para 1 and not para 2 it would seem the court is saying that the police, the translator and Mignini committed calunnia against Amanda. Since no crime was committed they should have known that. Maybe that prosecutor in Florence can file the charges

Now yer talking!

 

[toto]

Good night. Sleep well, dream well and be well.

Will Lukaku score tomorrow?

Thanks. I don't follow football! Apparently he achieved his 50th Everton goal on his 100th appearance for the Club to earn his club a useful point against Crystal Palace the last time they played. That's what I get from looking at their website!

 

[Grinder]

Thanks. I don't follow football! Apparently he achieved his 50th Everton goal on his 100th appearance for the Club to earn his club a useful point against Crystal Palace the last time they played. That's what I get from looking at their website!

You're welcome

Btw, you most likely have forgotten but you brought the information to this site on March 30, 2015 that it had been a para 2 verdict. MichaelB had posted the summary of the verdict on IIP. So the discussion on one or two mostly was shut down here by your post three days after the verdict.

 

[Grinder]

Now yer talking!

Bill do you see that if it is a paragraph 1 acquittal that it may be better for Amanda? If they say that the crime didn't exist or that she was innocent not just that there wasn't enough evidence, a case for calunnia could be brought against the police, translator and Mignini. They should have known there was no crime and therefore by accusing Amanda it would be calunnia.

Now if it turns out it is just that the evidence was lacking, insufficient or contradictory the calunnia case against the PLE would be greatly weakened.

 

[Numbers]

One last time.
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innocence

Full Definition of innocence
1 ....a : freedom from guilt or sin through being unacquainted with evil : blamelessness
.......b : chastity
.......c : freedom from legal guilt of a particular crime or offense.......d (1) : freedom from guile or cunning : simplicity
..........(2) : lack of worldly experience or sophistication
.......e : lack of knowledge : ignorance <written in entire innocence of the Italian language — E. R. Bentley>

 

[Grinder]

One last time.
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innocence

Full Definition of innocence
1 ....a : freedom from guilt or sin through being unacquainted with evil : blamelessness
.......b : chastity
.......c : freedom from legal guilt of a particular crime or offense.......d (1) : freedom from guile or cunning : simplicity
..........(2) : lack of worldly experience or sophistication
.......e : lack of knowledge : ignorance <written in entire innocence of the Italian language — E. R. Bentley>

not guilty
n. 1) plea of a person who claims not to have committed the crime of which he/she is accused, made in court when arraigned (first brought before a judge) or at a later time set by court. The choices of what one can plea are: guilty, not guilty, no contest, not guilty by reason of insanity, or incompetent to stand trial. 2) verdict after trial by judge sitting without a jury or by jury (unanimous decision in all but two states, which allow a verdict by only 10 of the jurors), stating that the prosecution has not proved the defendant guilty of crime or that it believes the accused person was insane at the time crime was committed. The accused cannot be tried for again for the crime charged. (See: plea, arraignment, not guilty by reason of insanity)

not guilty - declared not guilty of a specific offense or crime; legally blameless; "he stands acquitted on all charges"; "the jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity"

not-guilty
image: http://cf.ydcdn.net/1.0.1.51/images/dictionaries/Wiktionary-logo.png


Noun
(plural not guilties)

(law) A formal plea by a defendant of not being culpable for the crime with which the defendant is charged.
If you do not plead, a plea of not guilty will be entered for you.
(law) A verdict or formal finding by the legal system that a defendant is not culpable for the crime with which the defendant was charged.
A member of a jury or tribunal supporting acquittal, or a vote cast in support of acquittal.
A person who has been acquitted of a crime.

Read more at http://www.yourdictionary.com/not-guilty#kyq9AOeKcDLSD84s.99​

Do you see that innocent doesn't show up in the legal definition of not guilty?

An innocent person is not guilty but a (legally) "not guilty" is not necessarily innocent. The Italian system has the ability to go beyond "not guilty" and declare a person innocent i.e. paragraph one.

So I know this is hard for you but a not guilty person isn't necessarily innocent (O.J. e.g.) but an innocent person is not guilty.


ETA - of course an innocent person could be found guilty especially if framed

 

[Mr Fied]

not guilty
n. 1) plea of a person who claims not to have committed the crime of which he/she is accused, made in court when arraigned (first brought before a judge) or at a later time set by court. The choices of what one can plea are: guilty, not guilty, no contest, not guilty by reason of insanity, or incompetent to stand trial. 2) verdict after trial by judge sitting without a jury or by jury (unanimous decision in all but two states, which allow a verdict by only 10 of the jurors), stating that the prosecution has not proved the defendant guilty of crime or that it believes the accused person was insane at the time crime was committed. The accused cannot be tried for again for the crime charged. (See: plea, arraignment, not guilty by reason of insanity)

not guilty - declared not guilty of a specific offense or crime; legally blameless; "he stands acquitted on all charges"; "the jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity"

not-guilty
image: http://cf.ydcdn.net/1.0.1.51/images/dictionaries/Wiktionary-logo.png


Noun
(plural not guilties)

(law) A formal plea by a defendant of not being culpable for the crime with which the defendant is charged.
If you do not plead, a plea of not guilty will be entered for you.
(law) A verdict or formal finding by the legal system that a defendant is not culpable for the crime with which the defendant was charged.
A member of a jury or tribunal supporting acquittal, or a vote cast in support of acquittal.
A person who has been acquitted of a crime.

Read more at http://www.yourdictionary.com/not-guilty#kyq9AOeKcDLSD84s.99​

Do you see that innocent doesn't show up in the legal definition of not guilty?

An innocent person is not guilty but a (legally) "not guilty" is not necessarily innocent. The Italian system has the ability to go beyond "not guilty" and declare a person innocent i.e. paragraph one.

So I know this is hard for you but a not guilty person isn't necessarily innocent (O.J. e.g.) but an innocent person is not guilty.


ETA - of course an innocent person could be found guilty especially if framed

Under EU law a defendant must be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/11/04-presumption-of-innocence/

If found not guilty then the defendant is legally innocent. Of course the defendant may have committed the crime they were found not guilty of, but legally they are innocent.

 

[Numbers]

not guilty
n. 1) plea of a person who claims not to have committed the crime of which he/she is accused, made in court when arraigned (first brought before a judge) or at a later time set by court. The choices of what one can plea are: guilty, not guilty, no contest, not guilty by reason of insanity, or incompetent to stand trial. 2) verdict after trial by judge sitting without a jury or by jury (unanimous decision in all but two states, which allow a verdict by only 10 of the jurors), stating that the prosecution has not proved the defendant guilty of crime or that it believes the accused person was insane at the time crime was committed. The accused cannot be tried for again for the crime charged. (See: plea, arraignment, not guilty by reason of insanity)

not guilty - declared not guilty of a specific offense or crime; legally blameless; "he stands acquitted on all charges"; "the jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity"

not-guilty
image: http://cf.ydcdn.net/1.0.1.51/images/dictionaries/Wiktionary-logo.png


Noun
(plural not guilties)

(law) A formal plea by a defendant of not being culpable for the crime with which the defendant is charged.
If you do not plead, a plea of not guilty will be entered for you.
(law) A verdict or formal finding by the legal system that a defendant is not culpable for the crime with which the defendant was charged.
A member of a jury or tribunal supporting acquittal, or a vote cast in support of acquittal.
A person who has been acquitted of a crime.

Read more at http://www.yourdictionary.com/not-guilty#kyq9AOeKcDLSD84s.99​

Do you see that innocent doesn't show up in the legal definition of not guilty?

An innocent person is not guilty but a (legally) "not guilty" is not necessarily innocent. The Italian system has the ability to go beyond "not guilty" and declare a person innocent i.e. paragraph one.

So I know this is hard for you but a not guilty person isn't necessarily innocent (O.J. e.g.) but an innocent person is not guilty.


ETA - of course an innocent person could be found guilty especially if framed

One small problem with your analysis: the Italian word for "innocent" is "innocente". That word does not appear anywhere in CPP Article 530, and certainly not in 530.1.

The relevant Italian word used in both Article 530.1 and 530.2 is "assoluzione" which is translated as "acquittal" or "absolution".

Souces:
http://www.normattiva.it/uri-resN2L...el.presidente.della.repubblica:1988-09-22;447

http://dictionary.reverso.net/italian-english/assoluzione

 

[Grinder]

Under EU law a defendant must be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/11/04-presumption-of-innocence/

If found not guilty then the defendant is legally innocent. Of course the defendant may have committed the crime they were found not guilty of, but legally they are innocent.

You don't understand the concept of presumed innocent. The presumption is there basically to require a BARD verdict. The legal definition of not guilty does not include the word innocent. If found not guilty the defendant is not guilty but not innocent. Here where we have the same presumption of innocence a person can be convicted for another crime for the same act or can be convicted in civil court after being found not guilty.

 

[Grinder]

One small problem with your analysis: the Italian word for "innocent" is "innocente". That word does not appear anywhere in CPP Article 530, and certainly not in 530.1.

The relevant Italian word used in both Article 530.1 and 530.2 is "assoluzione" which is translated as "acquittal" or "absolution".

Souces:
http://www.normattiva.it/uri-resN2L...el.presidente.della.repubblica:1988-09-22;447

http://dictionary.reverso.net/italian-english/assoluzione

Okay so you concede not guilty doesn't mean innocent. Good we are making progress.

The paragraph one acquittal specifies the defendant did not commit the act. That is what Amanda seemed to be hoping for. I don't think it is surprising she didn't list the code in her afterward meant for the general public.

The paragraph one acquittal whether using the term or not clearly leaves a person more than just not guilty, it clearly leaves them innocent.

Paragraph two on the other hand (does not include the did not commit the act in the code) says the evidence was lacking, insufficient or contradictory.

There is very good reason Amanda hoped for the former.

Do you think a paragraph one acquittal on the recent calunia would be better than a paragraph two?

ETA since I was responding to the English definition of innocence Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innocence I disagree that the Italian definition had anything to do with my response. You must be very tired from digging up and moving goal post after goal post.

 

[Mr Fied]

You don't understand the concept of presumed innocent. The presumption is there basically to require a BARD verdict. The legal definition of not guilty does not include the word innocent. If found not guilty the defendant is not guilty but not innocent. Here where we have the same presumption of innocence a person can be convicted for another crime for the same act or can be convicted in civil court after being found not guilty.

According to the directive, member states will have to ensure that suspects and accused persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty under the law.

The legal definition is innocent until proven guilty.

The law decides whether a person is guilty or not guilty of the crime(s) they are being tried for.

They are presumed innocent unless found guilty.

If they are found not guilty they remain innocent of the crime(s).

There is no innocent verdict offered to a jury in England and Wales. The question is do you find the defendant guilty or not guilty.

If we are to go by your definition, anybody tried for a crime can never call themselves legally innocent of that crime again.