Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

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.

You simply haven't done what you claimed. I and others have asked you to provide differences of consequences between the two and you have offered zip.

That Italy continues to list two different paragraphs to describe innocent and more innocent is really irrelevant. You and the guilters can go on and on about how they were not exonerated but in fact they were.

They are in fact more innocent than you or I as they can never face a legal action for this crime. Amanda and Raffaele went into these court proceedings presumed to be "not guilty" and when all is said and done they are still "not guilty". The difference is they no longer or will ever again stand legally accused of that crime.

 

[Numbers]

Innocence not equivalent to not guilty. Sounds right.

There is no such thing as a verdict of "innocence".

See (from Black's law dictionary):

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

What is VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY?
a verdict declaring the case is not proven against the defendant. It does not mean he is innocent.

Related Legal Terms VERDICT GUILTY, VERDICT NOT GUILTY, VERDICT OF GUILTY BUT INSANE, PARTIAL VERDICT, GENERAL VERDICT, NOT GUILTY, NOT GUILTY BY STATUTE, VERDICT PUBLIC, VERDICT PARTIAL, AIDER BY VERDICT
As I previously posted, no where in CPP Article 530 does the word "innocente" appear. It is about "assoluzione" which means "acquittal" or even "absolution".

Your whole argument is based on inferences that are yours and not in the text of the law.

 

[LondonJohn]

Innocence not equivalent to not guilty. Sounds right.

Holy mackerel. This is getting stupid.

A finding of actual innocence means a finding that the accused positively did not commit the crime.

A presumption of innocence does not equate to a finding of actual innocence.

A presumption of innocence is just that: a presumption that the accused is innocent. One can hold a presumption (whether legally, ethically or philosophically) without having proof of the thing being presumed.

A finding of "not guilty" in court equates to the preservation of the presumption of innocence.

Knox and Sollecito are, and forever will be, presumed innocent in the matter of the murder of Kercher. They cannot be said to be actually innocent, since they cannot prove their actual innocence. But (as I've tried to point out so very many times before), Mr and Mrs Bianchi (a hypothetical couple in their late 50s who lived near the girls' cottage in Perugia on the night of the murder and who spent the night of the murder alone together in their apartment with no way to prove their whereabouts) enjoy exactly the same presumption of innocence - and exactly the same absence of actual innocence.

 

[Grinder]

You simply haven't done what you claimed. I and others have asked you to provide differences of consequences between the two and you have offered zip.

Ah yes the old goal post move. While I don't claim falsely to be an Italain law expert, it is perfectly clear there is a difference. Now exactly how that plays out in every case I have no idea. I will speculate that if the calunnia acquittal is a para 1 it will bode badly for the PLE much more so than a para 2.

That Italy continues to list two different paragraphs to describe innocent and more innocent is really irrelevant. You and the guilters can go on and on about how they were not exonerated but in fact they were.

As Numbers points out to the detriment of his argument there is no mention of innocent in either paragraph.

There is no such thing as a verdict of "innocence".

See (from Black's law dictionary):

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

What is VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY?
a verdict declaring the case is not proven against the defendant. It does not mean he is innocent.
Related Legal Terms VERDICT GUILTY, VERDICT NOT GUILTY, VERDICT OF GUILTY BUT INSANE, PARTIAL VERDICT, GENERAL VERDICT, NOT GUILTY, NOT GUILTY BY STATUTE, VERDICT PUBLIC, VERDICT PARTIAL, AIDER BY VERDICT
As I previously posted, no where in CPP Article 530 does the word "innocente" appear. It is about "assoluzione" which means "acquittal" or even "absolution".

Your whole argument is based on inferences that are yours and not in the text of the law.

Yes they were not declared innocent. While the wording doesn't include the word innocent anyone can read it and see that a para one explicitly in the code states they didn't do it whereas a para two only says the evidence wasn't enough for a BARD conviction.

 

[acbytesla]

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

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

"Some Italians". 20,000 signatures worldwide who object is a big "so what?" The broadcaster probably loves that there is controversy. Italy has a population of 60 million people. If Raffaele does well it can only help him.

 

[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.)

Innocence not equivalent to not guilty. Sounds right.

You distorted the meaning of the post and its citation text by you excision.

"Actual innocence" is established by finding that some additional evidence beyond what had been originally considered leads, or would lead, to a verdict of "not guilty". It is not necessarily a proof of absolute innocence, but a only a stronger indication that the defendant was indeed NOT Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Grinder]

"Some Italians". 20,000 signatures worldwide who object is a big "so what?" The broadcaster probably loves that there is controversy. Italy has a population of 60 million people. If Raffaele does well it can only help him.

How many sigs did the petition not to extradite her get here?

20,000 signatures in week is a lo

 

[acbytesla]

Ah yes the old goal post move. While I don't claim falsely to be an Italain law expert, it is perfectly clear there is a difference. Now exactly how that plays out in every case I have no idea. I will speculate that if the calunnia acquittal is a para 1 it will bode badly for the PLE much more so than a para 2.



As Numbers points out to the detriment of his argument there is no mention of innocent in either paragraph.





Yes they were not declared innocent. While the wording doesn't include the word innocent anyone can read it and see that a para one explicitly in the code states they didn't do it whereas a para two only says the evidence wasn't enough for a BARD conviction.

Most places don't use the word "innocent"

But here's the dictionary definition of "innocent";
in·no·cent
ˈinəsənt/Submit
adjective
1. not guilty of a crime or offense.
I rest my case.

 

[acbytesla]

How many sigs did the petition not to extradite her get here?

20,000 signatures in week is a lo

It is what it is. It's great for ratings.

 

[Grinder]

You distorted the meaning of the post and its citation text by you excision.

"Actual innocence" is established by finding that some additional evidence beyond what had been originally considered leads, or would lead, to a verdict of "not guilty". It is not necessarily a proof of absolute innocence, but a only a stronger indication that the defendant was indeed NOT Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Actual innocence is not equal to not guilty. Can a trial court find "actual innocence"? Nope.

Amanda understood the difference. She hoped for a "innocent" verdict not a shortage of evidence verdict. Unlike our system the Italian system allows for a clear statement the defendant didn't commit the crime.

Anyway, after the verdict there was a debate as to whether it was a one or a two that was at least partially fueled by the reaction of the defense right after the verdict. Some thought it had to be a one because it wasn't sent down. Some thought Maresca was lying and that if the PGP said it was a two, it must be a one.

Defendants are presumed innocent for the purpose of the trial and insuring a BARD conviction. Clearly being found not guilty BARD isn't a defense for another charge for the same act whether civil or criminal. (OJ, King)

 

[Grinder]

Most places don't use the word "innocent"

But here's the dictionary definition of "innocent";
in·no·cent
ˈinəsənt/Submit
adjective
1. not guilty of a crime or offense.
I rest my case.

And you would lose your case by summary judgment. Go back this has been covered. While an innocent person is not guilty, a not guilty person isn't necessarily innocent.

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

What is VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY?
a verdict declaring the case is not proven against the defendant. It does not mean he is innocent.

 

[Numbers]

Actual innocence is not equal to not guilty. Can a trial court find "actual innocence"? Nope.

Amanda understood the difference. She hoped for a "innocent" verdict not a shortage of evidence verdict. Unlike our system the Italian system allows for a clear statement the defendant didn't commit the crime.

Anyway, after the verdict there was a debate as to whether it was a one or a two that was at least partially fueled by the reaction of the defense right after the verdict. Some thought it had to be a one because it wasn't sent down. Some thought Maresca was lying and that if the PGP said it was a two, it must be a one.

Defendants are presumed innocent for the purpose of the trial and insuring a BARD conviction. Clearly being found not guilty BARD isn't a defense for another charge for the same act whether civil or criminal. (OJ, King)

I won't deal with all the errors in your post, but will point out that I have previously posted that under Italian procedural law, there are no new civil trials allowed in Italy for cases (facts) that have been tried as civil cases joined to criminal cases previously, and in which there was an acquittal under any specification in CPP Article 530. There also cannot be a new civil case by the same parties on the same facts if there was a civil trial joined to a criminal trial and there was a conviction. The cite is CPP Article 654, Effects of the criminal judgment of conviction or acquittal in other civil or administrative trials.

The laws in Italy differ than the US laws in two respects:

1. Civil trials are not joined to criminal trials in the US, in part because the standard of proof is different for civil and criminal trials.

2. Civil trials on the same facts are allowed in the US after the conclusion of a criminal trial, without regard to the verdict reached in the criminal trial.

I will also point out that the prohibition of double jeopardy is absolute in the US, and sort-of-absolute in Italy.

Finally, not only do trial courts not find persons "actually innocent", they do not find persons "innocent". And this is true in Italy as well as the US.

Your error in this last part is your confusion of your inference with what the court verdict actually states. The Italian acquittal verdict will have a specification such as "the act (crime) did not occur" or "the accused did not commit the act (crime)". The same specifications are used for CPP Article 530.1 and 530.2 acquittals. Acquittals under either paragraph have exactly the same legal (criminal or civil) consequences.

In the US, one may not be tried for the same facts and charges in the same jurisdiction after an acquittal. One may be tried before a federal court for the same facts, but for a different charge (such as a civil rights law violation) that one has been acquitted for in a state court (such as an acquittal for murder).

In Italy, double jeopardy only applies after the final (definitive) acquittal or conviction.

 

[acbytesla]

And you would lose your case by summary judgment. Go back this has been covered. While an innocent person is not guilty, a not guilty person isn't necessarily innocent.

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

What is VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY?
a verdict declaring the case is not proven against the defendant. It does not mean he is innocent.

We are talking "legally". People's own perceptions are what they are.

It is not the task of the courts to determine innocence but guilt. Was the case proven? I would love to know just how many acquittals in Italy use Paragraph 1. I just went back and read the Hellman and couldn't find whether he used Paragraph 1 or 2.

But I'm still waiting for you to tell us what the difference of consequence between Paragraph 1 and 2 are.

 

[Numbers]

Actual innocence is not equal to not guilty. Can a trial court find "actual innocence"? Nope.

Amanda understood the difference. She hoped for a "innocent" verdict not a shortage of evidence verdict. Unlike our system the Italian system allows for a clear statement the defendant didn't commit the crime.

Anyway, after the verdict there was a debate as to whether it was a one or a two that was at least partially fueled by the reaction of the defense right after the verdict. Some thought it had to be a one because it wasn't sent down. Some thought Maresca was lying and that if the PGP said it was a two, it must be a one.

Defendants are presumed innocent for the purpose of the trial and insuring a BARD conviction. Clearly being found not guilty BARD isn't a defense for another charge for the same act whether civil or criminal. (OJ, King)

I won't deal with all the errors in your post, but will point out that I have previously posted that under Italian procedural law, there are no new civil trials allowed in Italy for cases (facts) that have been tried as civil cases joined to criminal cases previously, and in which there was an acquittal under any specification in CPP Article 530.

The laws in Italy differ than the US laws in two respects:

1. Civil trials are not joined to criminal trials in the US, in part because the standard of proof is different for civil and criminal trials.

2. Civil trials on the same facts are allowed in the US after the conclusion of a criminal trial, without regard to the verdict reached in the criminal trial.

I will also point out that the prohibition of double jeopardy is absolute in the US, and sort-of-absolute in Italy.

In the US, one may not be tried for the same facts in the same jurisdiction after an acquittal. One may be tried before a federal court for the same facts, but for a different charge (such as a civil rights law violation) that one has been acquitted for in a state court (such as an acquittal for murder).

In Italy, double jeopardy only applies after the final (definitive) acquittal or conviction.

Just as there is no legal verdict of "actually innocent", there is no legal verdict of "innocent", not even in Italy. The legal consequences - civil and criminal - of an acquittal under either paragraph of CPP Article 530 are the same. Your inference or that of others that one implies "innocence" and the other does not has no validity in the explicit text.

 

[Grinder]

The laws in Italy differ than the US laws in two respects:

1. Civil trials are not joined to criminal trials in the US, in part because the standard of proof is different for civil and criminal trials.

2. Civil trials on the same facts are allowed in the US after the conclusion of a criminal trial, without regard to the verdict reached in the criminal trial.

I will also point out that the prohibition of double jeopardy is absolute in the US, and sort-of-absolute in Italy.

In the US, one may not be tried for the same facts and charges in the same jurisdiction after an acquittal. One may be tried before a federal court for the same facts, but for a different charge (such as a civil rights law violation) that one has been acquitted for in a state court (such as an acquittal for murder).

In Italy, double jeopardy only applies after the final (definitive) acquittal or conviction.

Your lack of understanding basics of the law is truly stunning.

Your inability to track a discussion, likewise.

We all know the laws are different between the countries but you jump back and forth trying desperately to make your case.

Unlike the US/UK Italy has a more than one verdict to acquit. One that states in the code that the crime didn't exist or that the defendant didn't commit the crime. Whether or not the word innocent is in the code it is clear that a para one is preferable to a two because it clearly states the defendant didn't do it. As one of our posters repeats, that level of certainty by the court is a very difficult task to accomplish, but when it is the person is innocent.

The prohibition for double jeopardy is similar between the countries only in Italy it takes up to three levels to come to a final not guilty verdict.

In the US a not guilty verdict doesn't protect a defendant from other charges.

The ISC ruling posted by Mach indicated that a para one is a protection from further prosecution. I don't believe all civil action must be done at the same time as the criminal trial and most here protested (rightfully) that Massei shouldn't have allowed the calunnia case or (not as vehemently ) the civil case by the Kerchers.

You may continue as much misdirection as you can muster but the fact remains that in law a not guilty verdict is not equal to being innocent.

 

[Grinder]

The Supreme Court agreed that actual innocence is a special circumstance, but the exception is narrow. The Court set a high bar for a showing of innocence, holding that petitioners must prove that “it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in the light of the new evidence.” The Court remanded the case to the Sixth Circuit, instructing it to adopt the district court’s finding that Mr. Perkins’ evidence was insufficient to meet this actual innocence standard. While the Court’s decision may not provide relief for Mr. Perkins, this ruling could affect the habeas corpus petitions of prisoners across the country, including those on death row, who can now argue that courts should consider the merits of their claims of innocence rather than rejecting them as procedurally defaulted under AEDPA

Probably hard to understand for you but "actual innocence" is the case where presumption of guilt is assumed because the defendant has been convicted. In essence the convict must prove his innocence not just that he isn't guilty.

 

[Numbers]

Your lack of understanding basics of the law is truly stunning.

Your inability to track a discussion, likewise.

We all know the laws are different between the countries but you jump back and forth trying desperately to make your case.

Unlike the US/UK Italy has a more than one verdict to acquit. One that states in the code that the crime didn't exist or that the defendant didn't commit the crime. Whether or not the word innocent is in the code it is clear that a para one is preferable to a two because it clearly states the defendant didn't do it. As one of our posters repeats, that level of certainty by the court is a very difficult task to accomplish, but when it is the person is innocent.

The prohibition for double jeopardy is similar between the countries only in Italy it takes up to three levels to come to a final not guilty verdict.

In the US a not guilty verdict doesn't protect a defendant from other charges.

The ISC ruling posted by Mach indicated that a para one is a protection from further prosecution. I don't believe all civil action must be done at the same time as the criminal trial and most here protested (rightfully) that Massei shouldn't have allowed the calunnia case or (not as vehemently ) the civil case by the Kerchers.

You may continue as much misdirection as you can muster but the fact remains that in law a not guilty verdict is not equal to being innocent.

You continue to misrepresent.

The acquittal under Article 530 has five specifications. The specifications are the same whether under paragraph 1 or 2. They are not "pro forma", they are the acquittal rationale "bottom line".

You keep mentioning the OJ case, which was in the US, not Italy. Therefore, I thought it appropriate to point out the differences in law. Then you claim I am jumping back and forth between legal systems, when it is you have inappropriately used a US case to try to say something about an Italian case.

I suggest applying a skeptic's caution to the information supplied by Mach. The full context was not supplied, and is not easily understood by those of us who must rely on Google translate.

If you would consult the CPP, available, btw, on the CSC website, under the bullet "Normattiva", you will find the CPP in its Italian text, organized by Book and Section etc. and also CPP article number. You can find the Italian text of any CPP article and then proceed to translate using Google or whatever means is available. The text of the Italian Constitution is also available on the site, as well as the various other Italian law codes.

CSC Normattiva CPP site is at:

http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2...el.presidente.della.repubblica:1988-09-22;447

Full list of Constitution and Codes available at the CSC Normattiva site:

http://www.normattiva.it/static/codici.html

 

[Grinder]

You continue to misrepresent.

The acquittal under Article 530 has five specifications. The specifications are the same whether under paragraph 1 or 2. They are not "pro forma", they are the acquittal rationale "bottom line".

The proforma part is the language after the code is named in the verdict. You must have missed the articles on 530.2 acquittal all using the same language of for not committing.

You keep mentioning the OJ case, which was in the US, not Italy. Therefore, I thought it appropriate to point out the differences in law. Then you claim I am jumping back and forth between legal systems, when it is you have inappropriately used a US case to try to say something about an Italian case.

The OJ case is used to demonstrate that "not guilty" doesn't equate to innocent in a case all are familiar. It was also used when you were using an English dictionary vainly attempting to prove not guilty equals innocent which it doesn't.

I suggest applying a skeptic's caution to the information supplied by Mach. The full context was not supplied, and is not easily understood by those of us who must rely on Google translate.

Oh I'm skeptical but I believe that ISC rulings are part of Italian law formation. The CPPs are not all the law which you seem to believe.

If you would consult the CPP, available, btw, on the CSC website, under the bullet "Normattiva", you will find the CPP in its Italian text, organized by Book and Section etc. and also CPP article number. You can find the Italian text of any CPP article and then proceed to translate using Google or whatever means is available. The text of the Italian Constitution is also available on the site, as well as the various other Italian law codes.

CSC Normattiva CPP site is at:

http://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2...el.presidente.della.repubblica:1988-09-22;447

Full list of Constitution and Codes available at the CSC Normattiva site:

http://www.normattiva.it/static/codici.html

I'm more interested in verdicts. As I said above the law isn't just what the legislators have written.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

You simply haven't done what you claimed. I and others have asked you to provide differences of consequences between the two and you have offered zip.
That Italy continues to list two different paragraphs to describe innocent and more innocent is really irrelevant. You and the guilters can go on and on about how they were not exonerated but in fact they were.

They are in fact more innocent than you or I as they can never face a legal action for this crime. Amanda and Raffaele went into these court proceedings presumed to be "not guilty" and when all is said and done they are still "not guilty". The difference is they no longer or will ever again stand legally accused of that crime.

It's hard to know how to respond to Grinder, when Grinder keeps avoiding answering the question as asked..... provide a difference in consequence between #2 and #1. A citation would be nice, and then we can all line up behind Grinder's stubbornness if the citation backs him up.

So far he's cited an Italian professor of history (or some such other discipline) to claim that #2 is a lesser acquittal of some sort - claiming that it is a rough equivalent to the Scottish "not proven".

So far it's Grinder, a few guilters and an Italian history professor. Grinder should send off an e-mail to Francesco Maresca to clear this up, because so far both Numbers and LondonJohn have elucidated this as per what a plain reading of the whole section 530 is divvied up amongst.... and Maresca sure is acting, and counselling his clients, that this thing is over. Done. Exactly the same way (presumably) as if the circumstances had fit a #1 acquittal.

And none of 530 suggests that any of the sub-paragraphs of what an acquittal is (in Italy) makes a difference in consequence.

And as someone has pointed out upthread, an acquittal is an exoneration - in that before the acquittal they stood accused of heinous acts, and were exonerated from those accusations.

This thread will reach the 30th continuation, I'm sure.

 

[Numbers]

The proforma part is the language after the code is named in the verdict. You must have missed the articles on 530.2 acquittal all using the same language of for not committing.



The OJ case is used to demonstrate that "not guilty" doesn't equate to innocent in a case all are familiar. It was also used when you were using an English dictionary vainly attempting to prove not guilty equals innocent which it doesn't.



Oh I'm skeptical but I believe that ISC rulings are part of Italian law formation. The CPPs are not all the law which you seem to believe.



I'm more interested in verdicts. As I said above the law isn't just what the legislators have written.

Do you have any citation of a 530.1 verdict?

Can you cite any article by a professor of Italian law (not one of Italian history/culture) that there is a difference in legal consequences for a verdict under 530.1 compared to 530.2?

Can you otherwise demonstrate a difference in legal consequences, with citations we can follow as skeptics, in a verdict under 530.1 compared to 530.2?

Can you show, with one or more citations, that CPP Article 530.1 is not merely a vestigial relic of the Code of Criminal Procedure from before the 1988 and 2006 reforms?

Can you show any explicit reference, with line citation, in the appeals of Knox and/or Sollecito that either defense team had asked for an acquittal under CPP Article 530.1 rather than some other acquittal or annulment?

Are you aware that "certificates of innocence" or "writs of innocence" are available from courts in some US states for those who can establish that they were wrongfully convicted?