Perhaps you should re-listen.
Why would you even post it if it is just a guy-on-the-street's opinion? Sure seemed like you trying to substantiate your POV.
Should I quote some of the 21000 that have signed the petition to remove Raf from the TV show?
ETA - here's what you wrote earlier - 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.
So do you disagree that it is of specific relevance? I knew that you would find the wording that Anton (Savage) used interesting and thought-provoking.
I didn't write that Anton was an expert in Italian law or that what he stated was correct or not.
One proposition, to help people understand part of the confusion of words and definitions here, is that ONE definition of "innocent" is "not guilty" as found by a court of law. This may be a common or colloquial definition. It is what I mean when I write "legally innocent".
Another definition, which may be what Black's dictionary is using, is that "innocent" means "absolutely innocent" - that is, if we knew all the facts, even beyond those entered into evidence - as God would know, for example - then we would know for sure whether or not that person had committed or not committed the crime. The trier of fact, whether judge or jury, is not perfect and can render a wrongful "not guilty" just as it can render a wrongful "guilty" verdict.
Another possibility which Black's may be pointing at is that the "not guilty" finding could be the result of, for example, a finding that police added false incriminating evidence to the case, and this was detected in the trial, and the trier (judge or jury) thus delivered a "not guilty" verdict, even though possibly the defendant was indeed factually guilty, or that some violation of procedural law led to the finding of "not guilty".
Now, in my opinion, the evidence - which is essentially a lack of any reliable or credible evidence of guilt, and to a lesser degree the evidence that Raffaele and Amanda were, as they stated when not under police pressure, together at his apartment throughout the night (which seems reasonable for a couple in a relationship), indicates that they are "not guilty" = "legally innocent" and "actually innocent" insofar as humans can determine.
As for the question of the meaning of CPP Article 530.2 compared to 530.1, in my opinion it means something quite different than what either Grinder or even LondonJohn propose.
I believe CPP Article 530.1 means that the judge, in a miraculous sense, knows, or is informed by the Chief Inquisitor (historically) or by an investigating judge or prosecutor (in more recent times) that the accused should be acquitted. That is how acquittals occurred in the inquisitorial system, IIUC.
In contrast, CPP Article 530.2, added in 1988 as part of a reform to create an adversarial trial system in conformance with Italian obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (which mandates that trials be adversarial), forces the judge to evaluate evidence and to acquit in the case that there was insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof of guilt (or that the criminal act occurred, or that the act was an offense under the law, or that the accused had the mental capacity to be held criminally responsible). This was at attempt to state that a guilty verdict was to be based on "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".
The Italian parliament, after some experience with the 1988 reform and the resistance to it by the Italian courts, decided to firm up the concept of convicting only when guilt was proven BARD and thus adopted a law in 2006 which is codified as CPP Article 533: The judge shall deliver a judgment of conviction if the accused is proven to be guilty of the alleged offence beyond a reasonable doubt.
There are no differences in legal consequences for an acquittal under CPP Article 530.1 compared to 530.2. Looking at the grammatical structure of the two paragraphs, one can see that the second paragraph is tied to the first. The end of the first paragraph (530.1) is "...the judge shall deliver a judgment of acquittal, mentioning the cause {this means one or more of the 5 specifications} in the operative part {this means the short-form verdict and PQM of the motivation} of the judgment." The beginning of the second paragraph (530.2) is "The judge shall deliver a judgment of acquittal
ALSO...." The "
ALSO" is one indication that the acquittals are, and are meant to be, equivalent legally, IMO.
Of course, people are free to have whatever perceptions or opinions they wish on this matter. But I am confident, based on my reading, that my analysis is the reality.
