Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

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.

Was O.J. found not guilty? Were the cops that beat Rodney King found not guilty? Were they all innocent?

In Italy a person can say they are innocent if acquitted using paragraph one. People can claim innocent whether convicted or found not guilty but the system doesn't provide that category.

ETA - please point out the word innocent in this definition of "not guilty"

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 the 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 a judge sitting without a jury or by a jury (unanimous decision in all but two states, which allow a verdict by only 10 of 12 jurors), stating that the prosecution has not proved the defendant guilty of a crime or that it believes the accused person was insane at the time the crime was committed. The accused cannot be tried again for the crime charged.

Read more: http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1348#ixzz45jpyxUS9

 

[Numbers]

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

Please don't twist or misrepresent my words. You are the one claiming that there is a difference in level of "innocence" or "acquittal" in the different paragraphs of Article 530, not I. The word "innocent" no where appears in that article, only the word "acquittal". Persons who are acquitted remain "not guilty" according to the Italian Constitution, Article 27. There are no shades of "not guilty", and all final acquittals in Italy have the same legal consequences, with the possible exception of acquittals based on lack of mental capacity.

I have previously posted the definitions that "innocent" and "not guilty" are synonyms, with it understood that LEGALLY innocent is meant.

Innocent has many meanings in English, for example, "chaste".

You are confusing the potential of a false or incorrect "not guilty" verdict, which acquittal could be conferred on a person who is indeed "guilty" or "not innocent" with someone being found "not guilty" somehow not being LEGALLY innocent.

Even someone who is incorrectly or falsely found "not guilty" is LEGALLY "innocent", at least in those countries with the presumption of innocence.

This is a basic legal premise, and I think most people who have had a modest exposure to the US - or, post 1948 Italian Constitution, Italian - legal principles will understand this.

ETA: I have also previously posted an excerpt from Nolo law, stating that "innocence" is not often used in legal terminology, with "not guilty" preferred. For example, in a US criminal trial, a defendant pleads "guilty" or "not guilty". However, in the US, the phrase "actual innocence" or "actually innocent" is used in some cases to describe persons who have been wrongfully convicted.

 

[Grinder]

The presumption of innocence, an ancient tenet of Criminal Law, is actually a misnomer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.
In practice the presumption of innocence is animated by the requirement that the government prove the charges against the defendant Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. This due process requirement, a fundamental tenet of criminal law, is contained in statutes and judicial opinions. The requirement that a person suspected of a crime be presumed innocent also is mandated in statutes and court opinions. The two principles go together, but they can be separated.

 

[Mr Fied]

Was O.J. found not guilty? Were the cops that beat Rodney King found not guilty? Were they all innocent?

In Italy a person can say they are innocent if acquitted using paragraph one. People can claim innocent whether convicted or found not guilty but the system doesn't provide that category.

Legally, yes.

Is a person convicted of a crime they did not commit, guilty?

Legally, yes.

No one is saying the system is perfect, but legally, unless convicted of the crime one has been tried for, that person remains innocent in the eyes of the law.

 

[Grinder]

Please don't twist or misrepresent my words.

I have previously posted the definitions that "innocent" and "not guilty" are synonyms, with it understood that LEGALLY innocent is meant.

In the law "not guilty" is not the same as innocent.

Innocent has many meanings in English.

You are confusing the potential of a false or incorrect "not guilty" verdict, which acquittal could be conferred on a person who is indeed "guilty" or "not innocent" with someone being found "not guilty" somehow not being LEGALLY innocent.

Even someone who is incorrectly or falsely found "not guilty" is LEGALLY "innocent", at least in those countries with the presumption of innocence.

This is a basic legal premise, and I think most people who have had a modest exposure to the US - or, post 1948 Italian Constitution, Italian - legal principles will understand this.

Look you just don't get it. Not guilty isn't innocent by legal definition.

 

[Grinder]

Legally, yes.

Is a person convicted of a crime they did not commit, guilty?

Legally, yes.

No one is saying the system is perfect, but legally, unless convicted of the crime one has been tried for, that person remains innocent in the eyes of the law.

http://thelawdictionary.org/verdict-of-not-guilty/

The Law Dictionary Featuring Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed.

Law Dictionary: What is VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY? definition of VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY (Black's Law Dictionary)

a verdict declaring the case is not proven against the defendant. It does not mean he is innocent.

Is that clear enough?

 

[Mr Fied]

http://thelawdictionary.org/verdict-of-not-guilty/

The Law Dictionary Featuring Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed.

Law Dictionary: What is VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY? definition of VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY (Black's Law Dictionary)

a verdict declaring the case is not proven against the defendant. It does not mean he is innocent.

Is that clear enough?

We'll have to agree to disagree.

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

This seems perfectly clear to me. Innocent until proven guilty.

I go back to one of my earlier posts. If we go by your view, no one ever tried for a crime can ever legally claim to be innocent under a system that requires a verdict of either guilty or not guilty.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

This conversation pisses me off to no end. Especially with the reference to OJ. It's an excuse to allude to the possibility that Amanda and Raffaele still could have murdered Meredith or probably did kill Meredith as OJ probably did kill Nicole. It's red meat for the guilters.

From a perception perspective of the pickiest nature it would be better if paragraph 1 had been used. But that doesn't make them any more innocent. Amanda Knox is NOT OJ or Casey Anthony.
I think it absurd to suggest that the court was saying anything other than the case did not prove the crime.

 

[Grinder]

We'll have to agree to disagree.



This seems perfectly clear to me. Innocent until proven guilty.

I go back to one of my earlier posts. If we go by your view, no one ever tried for a crime can ever legally claim to be innocent under a system that requires a verdict of either guilty or not guilty.

Not my point - the most recent was Black's Law Dictionary - you on the other hand bring no definition of what "not guilty" means.

Since our courts only find people guilty or not guilty, they don't make any statement about innocence.

Presumed innocent only is the form to set up BARD - in the past people had to prove they were not guilty but the concept of BARD changed that.

 

[Grinder]

This conversation pisses me off to no end. Especially with the reference to OJ. It's an excuse to allude to the possibility that Amanda and Raffaele still could have murdered Meredith or probably did kill Meredith as OJ probably did kill Nicole. It's red meat for the guilters.

From a perception perspective of the pickiest nature it would be better if paragraph 1 had been used. But that doesn't make them any more innocent. Amanda Knox is NOT OJ or Casey Anthony.
I think it absurd to suggest that the court was saying anything other than the case did not prove the crime.

Be pissed off over at IIP. `When people say a not guilty verdict equates to innocent when it doesn't, how would you respond. I have produced proof not guilty is not legally equal to innocent but when no amount of proof works I asked the simple question was O.J. innocent and obviously he wasn't.

Why worry about the PGP? The fact is M&B didn't acquit in a way that "couldn't be better" and that Amanda even asked pointedly about the type acquittal.

M&B only said that the evidence was bungled and didn't meet the BARD standard. That's just what it is. Seems pretty damn clear Amanda for good reason hoped for innocence over a lack of evidence verdict.

If I were in the FOA I would be urging the translation of the calunnia MR and if it is a para one, spread the word.

 

[Mr Fied]

Not my point - the most recent was Black's Law Dictionary - you on the other hand bring no definition of what "not guilty" means. Since our courts only find people guilty or not guilty, they don't make any statement about innocence.

Presumed innocent only is the form to set up BARD - in the past people had to prove they were not guilty but the concept of BARD changed that.

My definition of not guilty is that the defendant has been found not guilty of the charges tried for.

What happened in the past is irrelevant. The law now is that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Grinder]

My definition of not guilty is that the defendant has been found not guilty of the charges tried for.

What happened in the past is irrelevant. The law now is that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

You don't understand that the presumption of innocence is only in relationship to the verdict not the reality. The prosecution needs to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on that presumption of innocence.

Find a few legal definitions of "not guilty" that say that verict is a declaration of innocence. If there was a presumption of guilt then the defense would have to prove BARD their client is innocent. Why do you think all the legal definitions avoid the use of the word innocent in the definition of not guilty?

 

[Mr Fied]

Be pissed off over at IIP. `When people say a not guilty verdict equates to innocent when it doesn't, how would you respond. I have produced proof not guilty is not legally equal to innocent but when no amount of proof works I asked the simple question was O.J. innocent and obviously he wasn't.

Why worry about the PGP? The fact is M&B didn't acquit in a way that "couldn't be better" and that Amanda even asked pointedly about the type acquittal.

M&B only said that the evidence was bungled and didn't meet the BARD standard. That's just what it is. Seems pretty damn clear Amanda for good reason hoped for innocence over a lack of evidence verdict.

If I were in the FOA I would be urging the translation of the calunnia MR and if it is a para one, spread the word.

From M&B motivations report.

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.

They could have said they annulled the ruling because of insufficient evidence.

 

[Grinder]

Apparently many Italians are not pleased with Raf's TV gig.

https://www.change.org/p/no-a-raffa...VQarRf9BxYxd43c0EX25brPljujTFB0PBm9WsoTT/f2d5

 

[Numbers]

Apparently the US Federal Courts must stop using the word "innocent" or "innocence", according to the ruling of an ISF poster:

Actual Innocence

Definition

An absence of facts required for conviction under a criminal statute. For example, a defendant accused of robbery who never illegally took anyone's property is actually innocent of the charge.
Overview

Defendants often claim actual innocence when appealing criminal convictions. To prove actual innocence, the defendant must submit additional evidence that undermines the court's confidence in the verdict reached by the trier of fact. Appellate rules normally require that this evidence must not have been available to the defendant at the time of the trial.
Caselaw

"A finding of actual innocence, as that term has come to be used in federal habeas corpus jurisprudence, is not the equivalent of a finding of not guilty by a jury or by a court in a bench trial.” Lambert v. Blackwell, 134 F.3d 506, 509 (3d Cir. 1997).

House v. Bell 311 F.3d 767; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23930; 2002 FED App. 0406P (6th Cir.)

 

[Mr Fied]

You don't understand that the presumption of innocence is only in relationship to the verdict not the reality. The prosecution needs to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on that presumption of innocence.

Find a few legal definitions of "not guilty" that say that verict is a declaration of innocence. If there was a presumption of guilt then the defense would have to prove BARD their client is innocent. Why do you think all the legal definitions avoid the use of the word innocent in the definition of not guilty?

I am not saying the court has made a declaration of innocence.

I am saying , legally the accused remains innocent, because they haven't been found guilty.

 

[Grinder]

From M&B motivations report.

They could have said they annulled the ruling because of insufficient evidence.

We've covered this. From every para 2 verdict anyone has found they use the same proforma language. I've asked our Italian legal research maven to link us to a list of verdicts where we could see what the language used is, but alas nada.

While he can find obscure Turkish cases no luck with para 2 verdicts.

They did annul the verdict because of insufficient evidence - that's what a para 2 is. If they wanted to be clear she was innocent and not just not guilty they could have used a para 1.

The narrative of M&B certainly doesn't say they were clearly innocent - not guilty BARD yes - innocent no.

 

[bagels]

Apparently many Italians are not pleased with Raf's TV gig.

https://www.change.org/p/no-a-raffa...VQarRf9BxYxd43c0EX25brPljujTFB0PBm9WsoTT/f2d5

I feel bad for the students because the average knuckle dragger on the street will go to their graves thinking them guilty of a crime scenario they couldn't even describe if you put a gun to their head.

But with that being said Raff really hasn't made one really good decision since this whole thing started.

 

[Grinder]

"A finding of actual innocence, as that term has come to be used in federal habeas corpus jurisprudence, is not the equivalent of a finding of not guilty by a jury or by a court in a bench trial.” Lambert v. Blackwell, 134 F.3d 506, 509 (3d Cir. 1997).

Innocence not equivalent to not guilty. Sounds right.

 

[Grinder]

I feel bad for the students because the average knuckle dragger on the street will go to their graves thinking them guilty of a crime scenario they couldn't even describe if you put a gun to their head.

But with that being said Raff really hasn't made one really good decision since this whole thing started.

Always good to see you. I totally agree. Whether you or anyone here will admit it, a clear cut innocent verdict under para 1 and a narrative without presence in the cottage during the murder and multiple attackers would be helping them. Amanda was right to hope for a declaration of innocence.