Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[js202]

otiose (o'she-ose) adj. - serving no practical purpose

There is no argument. Rudi spells his name with a 'y' but in court documents it is predominantly spelled with an 'i'. I unlike others don't cater to his desires.

This is merely preposterous.

Most, after a long stretch of grinding, perceive things have become admirably smooth. Others must not have anything to do with their time but to keep grinding til nothing is left.

 

[acbytesla]

This whole debate is silly. "Not guilty" does not necessarily mean innocent but it certainly may. In the AK and RS case they are both not guilty and certainly innocent.

How do I know this? ...because I'm not an idiot.

Another Amen! There was a time when we argued the actual case and the evidence. Which may have had some value. But this stuff is just really absurd. I don't mind if Raffaele or Amanda "spins" it that they were found "innocent". Considering the crap that has been made up about them and considering that they spent 4 years in prison for something they didn't do I say huzzah!

 

[Numbers]

The concept I have used of "legally innocent" is not a court verdict; it is my wording to explain the colloquial use of "innocent" for a verdict of "not guilty".

There is no verdict using the word "innocent" in either the US or Italy. CPP Article 530 does not include the word "innocente", which is the Italian translation of "innocent".

Those believing that CPP Article 530.1 is a verdict of "innocent" are making a personal inference. It is a verdict of "assoluzione" which is the Italian for "acquittal" (and also "absolution"); this is also the word used in Article 530.2. Verdicts under either paragraph use the same specifications (of the five specifications allowed by Article 530).

 

[Grinder]

Another Amen! There was a time when we argued the actual case and the evidence. Which may have had some value. But this stuff is just really absurd. I don't mind if Raffaele or Amanda "spins" it that they were found "innocent". Considering the crap that has been made up about them and considering that they spent 4 years in prison for something they didn't do I say huzzah!

Yes. Yes. Yes. If the PGP make up stuff that justifies PIP making up stuff.

I don't care if they want to say they were found innocent even though they weren't. But if people here claim it was a definitive verdict of innocence that's just more bs.

Why don't you find the MR from the calunnia trial?

 

[Bill Williams]

The concept I have used of "legally innocent" is not a court verdict; it is my wording to explain the colloquial use of "innocent" for a verdict of "not guilty".

There is no verdict using the word "innocent" in either the US or Italy. CPP Article 530 does not include the word "innocente", which is the Italian translation of "innocent".

Those believing that CPP Article 530.1 is a verdict of "innocent" are making a personal inference. It is a verdict of "assoluzione" which is the Italian for "acquittal" (and also "absolution"); this is also the word used in Article 530.2. Verdicts under either paragraph use the same specifications (of the five specifications allowed by Article 530).

Thanks, Numbers. What is clear is that anyone who associates "innocen" with 530.1 and not proven with 530.2 has an agenda for so advancing that perception. It's why the consideration of any consequence-difference between the two is revealing and determiative.

There is none.

 

[Grinder]

The concept I have used of "legally innocent" is not a court verdict; it is my wording to explain the colloquial use of "innocent" for a verdict of "not guilty".

There is no verdict using the word "innocent" in either the US or Italy. CPP Article 530 does not include the word "innocente", which is the Italian translation of "innocent".

Those believing that CPP Article 530.1 is a verdict of "innocent" are making a personal inference. It is a verdict of "assoluzione" which is the Italian for "acquittal" (and also "absolution"); this is also the word used in Article 530.2. Verdicts under either paragraph use the same specifications (of the five specifications allowed by Article 530).

Yes you are correct there is no difference in the code.

1. If the crime does not exist [ 541 2 542 ], if the accused has not committed [ 541 2 542 ], if the offense is not or is not required by law as a crime or if the crime was committed from person not attributable [cp 85 ] or not punishable for another reason, the judge pronounces acquittal on their cause in the device.
2. The judge pronounces acquittal even when there is insufficient or contradictory evidence that the thing certain, that the accused has committed it, that constitutes a criminal offense or the offense was committed by a person attributable to (1​

) .

Gee no mention of evidence being lacking, insufficient or contradictory in para one just "accused has not committed" but in para two "insufficient or contradictory evidence that the thing certain, that the accused has committed it"

Cheli understands the difference. The Italian professor understands the difference. Anton the Irish talk show guy doesn't understand the difference.

It would be great to see some para 1 verdict MRs.

 

[Grinder]

Thanks, Numbers. What is clear is that anyone who associates "innocen" with 530.1 and not proven with 530.2 has an agenda for so advancing that perception. It's why the consideration of any consequence-difference between the two is revealing and determiative.

There is none.

You thought Anton is Italian didn't you?

I'll write the prof and tell her. I'm sure she'll be surprised.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes. Yes. Yes. If the PGP make up stuff that justifies PIP making up stuff.

I don't care if they want to say they were found innocent even though they weren't. But if people here claim it was a definitive verdict of innocence that's just more bs.

Why don't you find the MR from the calunnia trial?

I don't care anymore Grinder.

I'm thoroughly convinced of their innocence. I want for the two of them to have the world remember that a great injustice was done to them. They don't deserve to have people believing that like OJ or Casey Anthony that they got away with murder.

 

[Bill Williams]

You thought Anton is Italian didn't you?

I'll write the prof and tell her. I'm sure she'll be surprised.

Might take it as a compliment!!!

 

[Grinder]

I don't care anymore Grinder.

I'm thoroughly convinced of their innocence. I want for the two of them to have the world remember that a great injustice was done to them. They don't deserve to have people believing that like OJ or Casey Anthony that they got away with murder.

Well you'll always have Bertha.

 

[Grinder]

Might take it as a compliment!!!

Why would she take "What is clear is that anyone who associates "innocen" with 530.1 and not proven with 530.2 has an agenda for so advancing that perception." as a compliment? Do you think she has an agenda that she is proud of?

Come on and answer, when you said: Grinder is arguing (falsely IMO) that Luca Cheli writes that one of the "shadows" emanating from the M/B report is that it was not a clear declaration of innocence. Grinder is wanting at some level to argue the Italian view of the M/B report on the grounds of perception.

Well..... Anton sure seems to perceive the action of the M/B panel of the ISC to have declared them innocent.

you thought Anton was Italian. Screech the sound of the point coming to a halt - the only Italian that has dealt with this point besides Mach is Cheli - Anton is Irish. Lol

Oh and when Cheli says it was not a clear-cut declaration of innocence what do you think he meant?

Since the acquittal is based on paragraph 2 of article 530 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for a judge to pronounce a verdict of acquittal “when evidence is lacking, insufficient or contradictory”, it was to be expected that it would not have been a clearcut, one-sided proclamation of innocence.

 

[acbytesla]

Well you'll always have Bertha.

And why isn't she moving?

 

[Bill Williams]

Why would she take "What is clear is that anyone who associates "innocen" with 530.1 and not proven with 530.2 has an agenda for so advancing that perception." as a compliment? Do you think she has an agenda that she is proud of?

Come on and answer, when you said: Grinder is arguing (falsely IMO) that Luca Cheli writes that one of the "shadows" emanating from the M/B report is that it was not a clear declaration of innocence. Grinder is wanting at some level to argue the Italian view of the M/B report on the grounds of perception.

Well..... Anton sure seems to perceive the action of the M/B panel of the ISC to have declared them innocent.

you thought Anton was Italian. Screech the sound of the point coming to a halt - the only Italian that has dealt with this point besides Mach is Cheli - Anton is Irish. Lol

Oh and when Cheli says it was not a clear-cut declaration of innocence what do you think he meant?

Since the acquittal is based on paragraph 2 of article 530 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for a judge to pronounce a verdict of acquittal “when evidence is lacking, insufficient or contradictory”, it was to be expected that it would not have been a clearcut, one-sided proclamation of innocence.

Dude - you've repeated your view enough that most can render it from memory! You need to reread Numbers.....

 

[Desert Fox]

I don't care anymore Grinder.

I'm thoroughly convinced of their innocence. I want for the two of them to have the world remember that a great injustice was done to them. They don't deserve to have people believing that like OJ or Casey Anthony that they got away with murder.

There will always be people who consider them guilty. . . . .Having read the comments on cases where I believe the defendants are clearly innocent, there are still those who consider them guilty.

 

[Stacyhs]

And who cares? Also Black's Law is a references for US Law not Italian.

The fact is Amanda and Raffaele ARE INNOCENT. They ACTUALLY had nothing to do with Meredith's murder. The evidence proved that to me a long long time ago. And if I'm not mistaken you too are convinced of their actual innocence.

So why are we beating this dead horse over and over and over?

So many dead horses are being beaten here that I'm beginning to think some members resemble the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

 

[Stacyhs]

No, why don't we argue whether Rudy spells his name with a y or an i?

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to fix quote tags and to remove possible breach of rule 8

 

[Grinder]

And why isn't she moving?

She's at a pit stop being prepping for her next leg which will involve going where she can't be rescued.

 

[Grinder]

Dude - you've repeated your view enough that most can render it from memory! You need to reread Numbers.....

Dude you've oh never mind.

Anton is Irish - ROFLMAO

Bill you keep with your distortions of Cheli and most everything.

You go chat with Numbers.

 

[Stacyhs]

There is no argument. Rudi spells his name with a 'y' but in court documents it is predominantly spelled with an 'i'. I unlike others don't cater to his desires.

A person's name should be spelled the way that person spells it. The courts' changing it to an Italian spelling is wrong. My name isn't "Staci" or "Stacey" or "Stacie", it's Stacy. Spelling Guede's name correctly isn't "catering" to him, it's just being accurate.

 

[acbytesla]

She's at a pit stop being prepping for her next leg which will involve going where she can't be rescued.

I actually know Grinder. But thanks. This was supposed to be "up to a month" for maintenance. It's been a month and DOT is saying they will give us a two week notice before they shut the viaduct down for the restart and 2 week closure. So the "up to a month" looks like it will extend to 2 months.

I'm starting to wonder if they are doing more to Bertha than what they have been saying.