Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

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.

Bill I provide plenty and not "I've been told" sources. Why don't you provide something, anything that backs your claim that there is no difference.

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".

And you have provided nothing. Actually it was Vixen that provided the quote and when LJ wanted to see the source again I found it and linked to it. Also Cheli made it clear that when he found out it was a para 2 that meant it wouldn't be a clear cut case for innocence.

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.

Wow. Numbers and LJ (who was sure it was a para1) right much better than Cheli and a woman that received a real doctorate in Italy and is a professor of Italian history and culture a respected university.

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.

As has been demonstrated "not guilty" doesn't equate to innocent.

Of course I'm sure you think Amanda was silly to hope for an innocent verdict and not just a shortage of evidence.

 

[Grinder]

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?

Can you find a legal expert to confirm that there is no legal or perception difference between a 1 and a 2?

Can you demonstrate that they asked for a para 2 dismissal?

Can you find a quote from the defense lawyers that the kids may be guilty but the prosecution didn't make the case?

I will not state this again. There are no Italian legal experts posting here including myself. I do not know what the legal differences between a one and two are.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill I provide plenty and not "I've been told" sources. Why don't you provide something, anything that backs your claim that there is no difference.



And you have provided nothing. Actually it was Vixen that provided the quote and when LJ wanted to see the source again I found it and linked to it. Also Cheli made it clear that when he found out it was a para 2 that meant it wouldn't be a clear cut case for innocence.



Wow. Numbers and LJ (who was sure it was a para1) right much better than Cheli and a woman that received a real doctorate in Italy and is a professor of Italian history and culture a respected university.



As has been demonstrated "not guilty" doesn't equate to innocent.

Of course I'm sure you think Amanda was silly to hope for an innocent verdict and not just a shortage of evidence.

This is a classic battle of who can repeat their claim last. Still, you have not shown a difference in consequence, which is my bit for trying, vainly, to get in the last word.

There it sits.

 

[Numbers]

Can you find a legal expert to confirm that there is no legal or perception difference between a 1 and a 2?

Can you demonstrate that they asked for a para 2 dismissal?

Can you find a quote from the defense lawyers that the kids may be guilty but the prosecution didn't make the case?
I will not state this again. There are no Italian legal experts posting here including myself. I do not know what the legal differences between a one and two are.

1. I asked you to consult an Italian legal expert, and gave you what appears to be Maresca's web site and mailing address. I have read the CPP in translation by Italian professors of procedural law and their essays on the reforms of the CPP and feel confident in my opinions. While I am not an Italian legal expert, I am confident I understand the CPP as translated into English by Gialuz et al.

2. The legal teams of Knox and Sollecito did not ask for any specific paragraph of the CPP in terms of form of acquittal. They requested that the Nencini verdict be annulled, in the case of Sollecito either without (preferably) or with referral, while Knox requested that there be a referral to the Italian Constitutional Court for a review of the violations of her rights. In a second appeal, Sollecito requested a United Sections CSC review of the way evidence is collected and analyzed and how that affects the admissibility of evidence.

Thus, the goals of Knox and Sollecito in their appeals were far beyond the demands of their own cases but sought general improvement in the Italian judicial function.

3. Huh?

 

[Grinder]

1. I asked you to consult an Italian legal expert, and gave you what appears to be Maresca's web site and mailing address. I have read the CPP in translation by Italian professors of procedural law and their essays on the reforms of the CPP and feel confident in my opinions. While I am not an Italian legal expert, I am confident I understand the CPP as translated into English by Gialuz et al.

Please provide the quotes of Gialuz saying that the two paras have no legal difference. Precisely that and nothing about how much he hates it or it needs to be reformed or it was just a secretarial error that it exists.

2. The legal teams of Knox and Sollecito did not ask for any specific paragraph of the CPP in terms of form of acquittal. They requested that the Nencini verdict be annulled, in the case of Sollecito either without (preferably) or with referral, while Knox requested that there be a referral to the Italian Constitutional Court for a review of the violations of her rights. In a second appeal, Sollecito requested a United Sections CSC review of the way evidence is collected and analyzed and how that affects the admissibility of evidence.

So they didn't request a para 2 acquittal? There is nothing in either appeals that indicate they didn't want a full para 1 finding.

 

[Numbers]

Please provide the quotes of Gialuz saying that the two paras have no legal difference. Precisely that and nothing about how much he hates it or it needs to be reformed or it was just a secretarial error that it exists.



So they didn't request a para 2 acquittal? There is nothing in either appeals that indicate they didn't want a full para 1 finding.

1. I never indicated that Gialuz or the other editors/authors of the text stated that the two paragraphs have no legal difference. I showed that by stating the relevant CPP articles as translated into English by the Gialuz et al. group.

You might call it cut and paste, but since the text was in a book (paper pages variety), I had to type in their translated CPP texts.

Sorry if you missed all those posts of mine.

2. There was no specific request for an acquittal under either paragraph that I could find.

Amanda's appeal document (in Italian) did refer to CPP Articles 533 and 530, but only to state that guilt must not be determined by probability under Italian law, as done by the Nencini court, but by the standard "beyond a reasonable doubt". In the text, there was a typo - Article 533 was erroneously written as 543.

Check for yourself. The documents are available as PDFs and online, in Italian, and some with English translation, on amandaknoxcase.com.

 

[Numbers]

This was posted earlier on IIP by MichaelB. It is of specific relevance to the current discussion (which someone claims I am unable to follow) because the interviewer, Anton, states words to the effect that the Marasca CSC judgment established that Raffaele and Amanda were "not only not guilty but were definitively innocent". Raffaele does not disagree. I am sure some here will find that interesting.

Raffaele Sollecito speaks to Anton

http://www.todayfm.com/player/podcasts/ ... _To_Anton_

The show is one from April 12, 2016.

 

[acbytesla]

This was posted earlier on IIP by MichaelB. It is of specific relevance to the current discussion (which someone claims I am unable to follow) because the interviewer, Anton, states words to the effect that the Marasca CSC judgment established that Raffaele and Amanda were "not only not guilty but were definitively innocent". Raffaele does not disagree. I am sure some here will find that interesting.

Raffaele Sollecito speaks to Anton

http://www.todayfm.com/player/podcasts/ ... _To_Anton_

The show is one from April 12, 2016.

That was very fascinating. What I have to believe is that Raffaele is a little bit paranoid. Not that you can blame him.

Which really is natural as he is famous and some people think the wrong thing about him. But most of the people probably are looking because they are simply curious. But one must feel a little like being in a fish bowl.

I think it is very smart of him to take the job as a TV crime analyst. (If he's articulate in his own language) In time if things go well, people will think of him more from the show than the case. Basically, he gets to use that he is renowned for his own purposes.

Good luck Raffaele.

 

[RoseMontague]

I think this round and round about not guilty vs innocent is pretty silly. I'm fine either way and the result is the same as far as I'm concerned. If the investigation had been handled properly the alibi would have been confirmed from both the computer evidence and the missing security camera tapes along the routes to the cottage.

 

[Annella]

I think this round and round about not guilty vs innocent is pretty silly. I'm fine either way and the result is the same as far as I'm concerned. If the investigation had been handled properly the alibi would have been confirmed from both the computer evidence and the missing security camera tapes along the routes to the cottage.

Brava Rose! And this would have helped also..


http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-your-cell-phone-cant-tell-the-police

 

[analemma]

This was posted earlier on IIP by MichaelB. It is of specific relevance to the current discussion (which someone claims I am unable to follow) because the interviewer, Anton, states words to the effect that the Marasca CSC judgment established that Raffaele and Amanda were "not only not guilty but were definitively innocent". Raffaele does not disagree. I am sure some here will find that interesting.

Raffaele Sollecito speaks to Anton

http://www.todayfm.com/player/podcasts/ ... _To_Anton_

The show is one from April 12, 2016.

the Marasca CSC judgment established that Raffaele and Amanda were "not only not guilty but were definitively innocent".

If enough commentators repeat that Raffaele and Amanda were "not only not guilty but were definitively innocent", it will become a "media truth" that will eventually cancel out all the hate speech from Andrea Vogt, the nonsense form the ugly troll from the examyner, the psycho rants from TJMK, and the nit picking from Grinder.

 

[analemma]

That was very fascinating. What I have to believe is that Raffaele is a little bit paranoid. Not that you can blame him.

Which really is natural as he is famous and some people think the wrong thing about him. But most of the people probably are looking because they are simply curious. But one must feel a little like being in a fish bowl.

I think it is very smart of him to take the job as a TV crime analyst. (If he's articulate in his own language) In time if things go well, people will think of him more from the show than the case. Basically, he gets to use that he is renowned for his own purposes.

Good luck Raffaele.

I quite agree that Raf can only benefit from being in the public spotlight and
that most will be watching because they are curious.
I seem to remember that his presentations on Italian television in the period before the before 3/28 acquittal were very articulate and very well received by the Italian public.
If he continues to be a media personality, I agree that "people will think of him more from the show than the case".
This strategy seems to beat anything else on offer.

Good luck Raf.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think this round and round about not guilty vs innocent is pretty silly. I'm fine either way and the result is the same as far as I'm concerned. If the investigation had been handled properly the alibi would have been confirmed from both the computer evidence and the missing security camera tapes along the routes to the cottage.

Both silly and bizarre.

You've pointed out something else. Nothing reveals confirmation bias more than when some think that M/B's reference to an inept investigation means that if there'd been a competent one, that they then would have convicted.

The context of M/B is plain. If there'd been a competent investigation neither Knox nor Sollecito would have been arrested - at the very least released when Guede was finally ID'ed.

 

[Numbers]

I think this round and round about not guilty vs innocent is pretty silly. I'm fine either way and the result is the same as far as I'm concerned. If the investigation had been handled properly the alibi would have been confirmed from both the computer evidence and the missing security camera tapes along the routes to the cottage.

Both silly and bizarre.

You've pointed out something else. Nothing reveals confirmation bias more than when some think that M/B's reference to an inept investigation means that if there'd been a competent one, that they then would have convicted.

The context of M/B is plain. If there'd been a competent investigation neither Knox nor Sollecito would have been arrested - at the very least released when Guede was finally ID'ed.

Another thought:

In the US, men have been convicted of rape or rape/murder and after conviction, the DNA evidence was shown to exclude them - and there was no other credible or reliable evidence. The wrongfully convicted person's DNA was not on or in the victim, but someone else's was. Those wrongfully convicted individuals have been released, and in some cases issued (depending on state law) "certificates of innocence" or "writs of innocence" by state courts.

I suggest that the evidence and proceedings in the Knox - Sollecito case are similar. There was no credible, reliable evidence of the involvement of either Knox or Sollecito in the rape/murder of Kercher, yet they were provisionally convicted twice by courts that violated Italian procedural law and the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. Knox and Sollecito were finally and definitively acquitted by the CSC based on the evidence being totally inadequate to convict them, IMO, and thus, based on the lack of reliable, credible evidence against them, I am confident in stating that they are innocent. They are as innocent as those in the US who receive certificates or writs of innocence.

 

[Stacyhs]

I think this round and round about not guilty vs innocent is pretty silly. I'm fine either way and the result is the same as far as I'm concerned. If the investigation had been handled properly the alibi would have been confirmed from both the computer evidence and the missing security camera tapes along the routes to the cottage.

Hallelujah!! It passed silly and became tiresome pages ago. Nothing new has been said. It's just the same things repeated ad nauseam.

 

[Grinder]

This was posted earlier on IIP by MichaelB. It is of specific relevance to the current discussion (which someone claims I am unable to follow) because the interviewer, Anton, states words to the effect that the Marasca CSC judgment established that Raffaele and Amanda were "not only not guilty but were definitively innocent". Raffaele does not disagree. I am sure some here will find that interesting.

Raffaele Sollecito speaks to Anton

http://www.todayfm.com/player/podcasts/ ... _To_Anton_

The show is one from April 12, 2016.

Oh my god Anton Savage said the ISC definitively found innocent. Oh yes as an Italian lawyer his English is perfect. Oh my god he says they aren't best friends, oh no.

I'll trust in Cheli and the professor over a pod cast host. Para one is definitively innocent, I must have missed where they changed it to a one.

The comment about repeating over and over misinformation will eventually produce a factoid is true because after all that's definition of a factoid.

I hope Amanda and her supporters will make hay over the calunnia acquittal which seems to be a paragraph one which perhaps will allow a case against the PLE for calunnia which would be rich. If they say there was no crime then the PLE made it up or she was hit. I can't see how they could say she was innocent if she wasn't hit. It may well be that statute of limitations will run out but I think they should file if they can.

 

[sept79]

Oh my god Anton Savage said the ISC definitively found innocent. Oh yes as an Italian lawyer his English is perfect. Oh my god he says they aren't best friends, oh no.

I'll trust in Cheli and the professor over a pod cast host. Para one is definitively innocent, I must have missed where they changed it to a one.

The comment about repeating over and over misinformation will eventually produce a factoid is true because after all that's definition of a factoid.

I hope Amanda and her supporters will make hay over the calunnia acquittal which seems to be a paragraph one which perhaps will allow a case against the PLE for calunnia which would be rich. If they say there was no crime then the PLE made it up or she was hit. I can't see how they could say she was innocent if she wasn't hit. It may well be that statute of limitations will run out but I think they should file if they can.

Please, give it a rest . . .

 

[acbytesla]

Please, give it a rest . . .

Amen

 

[Grinder]

Please, give it a rest . . .

Depends what false claims are made. And who says amen.

There are plenty of places for cheerleaders to gather. Ask and you can join one of their FB groups and really put me down.

 

[acbytesla]

Depends what false claims are made. And who says amen.

There are plenty of places for cheerleaders to gather. Ask and you can join one of their FB groups and really put me down.

I haven't read any false claims, just picky bs.