Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

I have not waffled. The perception is clear as Cheli let us know and the professor. Your rose colored glasses are just too thick to see. No one posting here knows whether or not a paragraph one would be beneficially at this point or in other cases.



The "not proven" was brought up between Vixen and another and I provided the link. I don't know what "disinguish a difference" means.




The single biggest shadow was M&B truly believing there were multiple killers. In terms of the current discussion, Cheli intro stating that he knew from the the paragraph two verdict it wouldn't be a clear case of innocence.

The MR didn't say "later that night". Cherry picking is one thing but just making stuff up like that is other. I posted a large part of the article.

Regardless of Cheli's main thesis as seen through those geeky rose colored glasses, he clearly states the paragraph two verdict made it clear it would be a MR that didn't provide for clear innocence.

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.​

But of course the different paragraphs mean nothing that why Cheli didn't know the MR would not be a clear-cut one-sided proclamation of innocence - I'm shocked he would even notice the paragraph since everyone knows the law is arcane and opposed by the entire legislature.

Once the PIP understand that (a) multiple attackers (>one) and (b) the burglary was faked, both beyond a shadow of doubt, are established facts, then the confusion that reigns in PIP logic falls away.

Once the aforesaid facts are grasped, you can see the difficulty in declaring the kids innocent, as police are not looking for anyone else in connection with the crime.

The fact the PIP had to get a super-tall skilled professional rock climber as the only person they could find to scale the 12'4" sheer wall should say it all, and even then, they had to doctor the video.

 

[Vixen]

Bill I have provided many points in favor of showing there is a clear difference in perception at a minimum. You have provided absolutely nothing to demonstrate there is no difference in perception. I have stated over and over that in both paras they are found not guilty but no one here knows if there is no consequence of not getting a para one. Go back to the time after the verdict and read the discussion as to whether it was a one or a two a see for yourself that people here definitely thought it mattered and was a one.



You don't know?

Let's try to stick to Cheli's article for the moment, so thanks for so quickly coming back to it. Cheli is expressing an opinion about perception in relation to #2 vs. #1, because (as implied by the four main points he makes) there will always be those who will take those four main M/B shadows to mean something "in law" which they do not mean.

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.
​

Cheli makes it perfectly clear that the para two selection has meaning.

We were told my a PGP that supreme court rulings have given extra value to a para one dismissal. We were told that a para two dismissal doesn't protect the defendant from subsequent legal action in the civil arena. If I were to provide a source I would be charged with appealing to authority

I have consistently said I don't know Italian law and that no one here is an Italian legal expert. We have someone that has been respected for his opinions on the PI side that tells us the paragraph two verdict meant something when he heard it. The discussion boards made speculation as to which it was a hot topic. People sure at the time it was a one now say a one was always impossible.

Nope. It's no good, Grinder. Bill has put back on his rose-coloured glasses wherein bits of **** look like cherries.

 

[Vixen]

This really is one of those events where time makes a huge difference.How long has it been since Amanda and Raffaele were released? About 4 years. And since that time both have been model citizens. Both graduated from college. Neither has received as much as a traffic ticket. Amanda writes for a hometown newspaper and the city supports her. Raffaele has been an entrepreneur getting money for a new business (even though I'm skeptical of his business) And now reporting on TV can only help him.

There will always be crazy idiots who can't face the truth, but even most of them will get bored at some time and put it behind them.. I fully expect Italy to compensate Raffaele and the ECHR will also rule in Amanda's favor. I just wonder if Italy will also pay Amanda off.

Something nags at me that they will try and weasel out of it.

Gosh. The kids should audition for the Waltons.

 

[Vixen]

Here's one of the first posts on 530:
The second paragraph of Article 530 is the one which refers to insufficient evidence; the acquittal is still "for not having committed the offence" even if this paragraph applies. It would be very helpful to have the dispositivo so that we could know for sure, though. There's some possibility the journalists are relying on Maresca saying the acquittals were for insufficient evidence, and he's not exactly trustworthy (i.e. he also tried to claim Hellman's acquittal might have been for insufficient evidence, when he knew full well it wasn't). Still the Italian media do seem to be saying that the judge cited paragraph 2 - maybe the foreign media just hasn't understood what that means.

Before it was perfectly clear and gee no big debate, but many here still thought Maresca was lying. The post above was done by an Italian speaking PIP.

She was thanked for it.

Then LJ responded to her explanation thusly:

But at the same time, the overwhelmingly prevailing opinion was that if this was a "reasonable doubt" case in the eyes of the SC, then the case would without doubt have been sent back down to the appeal court level for (yet) another trial. The fact that this didn't happen, and that the SC totally acquitted, would seem to strongly support a belief that the SC ruled that there was entirely no case to answer. In other words, a "Paragraph 1" acquittal. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the media were reporting Maresca's "creative" interpretation of the ruling, rather than anything explicitly issued by the SC itself.

Incidentally, don't these SC rulings only consist, at this stage, of extremely curt and brief verdicts, with little or no supporting explanation? If so, then surely the SC wouldn't even have gone into this much detail yet over exactly what sort of acquittal it was etc.

Clearly people here were interested in whether it was a one or two. If it makes no difference, why the interest?

Would this be the same "LondonJohn" who writes: this sort of misleading hyperbole continues to be deemed necessary by some.....?

 

[Vixen]

For me it has been an education going through it all. I would have dropped it long ago save for some who are maintaining the **perception** that #2 is a lesser acquittal than #1. The **perception** that #2 means something akin to, "they were obviously guilty, but the lower courts lacked the evidence."

Or that #2 is akin to the Scottish verdict "not proven."

Through it all I've asked for a cite that there is some difference in legal consequence betwwen #2 and #1, and you have quite kindly taken the initiative to contact some experts - response pending.

Numbers and LJ have made a convincing case, albeit as laymen, that there is no legal difference in consequence from either's use. To this you're seemingly trying to make the case that everyone's early misunderstandings somehow effect the reality of Italian law!!!

Of course people back then were interested in which type of **acquittal** was used, but it turns out that in terms of consequence (which is what is important as people, including Maresca, move on) there is only an acquittal, regardless of type.

Whether by in-vitro or by old fashioned sex, there's only one type of pregnancy. Cheli cautions that many will perceive #2 as a lesser pregnancy, and judging by your opinions - man oh man did he get that right.

He also said that M/B cast a virtual fog over when Knox (and/or RS) over the issue of a potential presence at the cottage. That fear, too, jas been borne out, people claiming M/B "ruled" with certainty when in Cheli's opinion M/B left a fog over the issue. A fog mainly to preserve the appearance of ISC Panel continuity.

No one has said "it makes **no** difference", that's a wee bit of a strawman. What I continue to ask for is a difference in consequence.

So far crickets.

To carry on your analogy with pregnancy, well the latest Bonsegnia (_sp?) MR is certainly misconceived, actually defective and is a miscarriage of the law as it directly contradicts higher court judges MR's which outrank his legal analysis.

What do you mean, "A fog mainly to preserve the appearance of ISC Panel continuity."?

Apart from mixing metaphors, the law is applied as per statute. The personal opinion of a judge doesn't come into it, any more than say you were an architectural draughtsman measuring the length of a wall. If Bruno-Marasca of the lofty supreme court have established as legal fact Amanda was not coerced to incriminate Patrick, then some upstart from a lower court in a relatively minor trial does not have the remit to trump them.

 

[LondonJohn]

Your use of clever adverbs fail to conceal that that your statement - which you present as learned fact - is utter, complete, arrant nonsense.

Only one of those is an adverb - the other is an adjective. You're welcome

And what I've written is wholly correct. Your use of clever adjectives adverbs adjectives fails (singular) to conceal that your statement - which you present as learned fact - is nonsense. I suggest it's you who needs to deal with it

 

[Vixen]

I've really tried to keep out of this argument. Frankly I don't understand what Grinder Is saying. Grinder has seemingly admitted that there are no ACTUAL differences of consequence but only of perception. Isn't that what the rest of us are saying?

Except Grinder also seems to be painting some ominous cloud hanging over the couple's head. The nuances of this pointless argument is way over my head.

Thank you for your frank admission.

Perhaps fluffy bunny rabbits and kittens are a better source for your reflections than criminal law which is full of awfully difficult nuances.

 

[Vixen]

Marasca/Bruno try to justify “conflitto in giudicato” as practised by the ISC, nowhere more so than with this issue. Not only does the M/B report discount coercion, they go farther saying.....

Knox was interrogated in a “context institutionally immune to anomalous psychological pressures”.

This is the dance Marasca/Bruno danced to try as they might to be seen in alignment with the Chieffi panel which had signed off on calunnia against Lumumba.

What will the ISC do down the road with the calunnia against the cops? This looks to be one of those other instances where two lower courts acquit on the evidence, but some future ISC panel convicts anyway - so as to avoid.....

“Conflitto in giudicato” as practised by the ISC. Judicial truths will rule and hang the evidence.

Of course there has to be alignment. Suppose a Family Law court decrees you now divorced. Do you really think another judge can then come along and determine you are still married.

Nothing to do with choice. The law is a rod of iron.

 

[LondonJohn]

Thank you for your frank admission.

Perhaps fluffy bunny rabbits and kittens are a better source for your reflections than criminal law which is full of awfully difficult nuances.

I know - it's already abundantly clear that it's well beyond the intellect of most pro-guilt commentators, n'est-ce pas?

 

[Vixen]

I think people were hoping the Italians "got it right."

The PIP view is that if M&B definitely ruled Knox was present at the scene, they're wrong in the same way Massei was wrong about (almost anything), and if Knox didn't get the equivalent of a legal exoneration, M&B are wrong. That anything less than an exoneration was a compromised verdict, in their view M&B bending over for the system at the expense of the correct just outcome.

I wouldn't disagree with that view, especially for Knox. There was a slightly better case against Raffaele, if a case must be made.

They might be wrong, but, hey, they're the supreme court = final.

 

[Grinder]

Haven't the PGP maintained that the 5th section was a civil and inferior section?

CSM appoints Judge reggino Paul Bruno President of the Court of Cassation

Wednesday, April 20, 2016
15:14
paolobruno
By resolution approved yesterday unanimously, the High Judicial Council appointed the judge reggino Paul Bruno President of the Court of Cassation.
It is a prestigious executive office, which marks an important stage in a bright and rewarding career .
Entered the Judiciary at the age of twenty-five years, President Bruno started the judicial activities of Vibo Valentia Court and moved a few years later, the General Court and then the Court of Appeal in Reggio Calabria, distinguishing, for preparation and professionalism , both in the civil sector and in the penalty.
he presided over the assize Court reggina for three years, defining three important national processes: the process to "Cosa Nostra" for the murder of the judge Nino Scopelliti; two processes to the Calabrian crime, for the murders of the President of the Ferrovie dello Vico Ligato State and Baron Antonino Cordopatri.
Winner of a competition based on qualifications and merits processional, in 1998 Dr. Bruno moved to Rome, at the Office of Massimario (research department) of the Supreme Court. Appointed councilor, was assigned to the Fifth Criminal Division where he worked, as part of the bench or presenter, of some of the most important processes of the Italian judicial history: the G8 summit in Genoa, the massacre of Piazza della Loggia in Brescia, countless processes organized crime and terrorism; the murders of Marta Russo, Marco Biagi, Merdith Kercher and Chiara Poggi.
And 'it drafted major decisions, such as the sentence for the murder of Professor. Marco Biagi by the Red Brigades; The verdict against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, accused of the murder of Meredith Kercher; different pronunciations in company and insolvency matters, most recently on the subject of "false evaluation".
- See more at: http://www.strill.it/citta/2016/04/...lla-corte-di-cassazione/#sthash.T6SzZdCG.dpuf

 

[Bill Williams]

They might be wrong, but, hey, they're the supreme court = final.

Twenty-two posts in 2 hours and 20 minutes. Welcome back, Vixen!

 

[Bill Williams]

Marasca/Bruno try to justify “conflitto in giudicato” as practised by the ISC, nowhere more so than with this issue. Not only does the M/B report discount coercion, they go farther saying.....

Knox was interrogated in a “context institutionally immune to anomalous psychological pressures”.

This is the dance Marasca/Bruno danced to try as they might to be seen in alignment with the Chieffi panel which had signed off on calunnia against Lumumba.

What will the ISC do down the road with the calunnia against the cops? This looks to be one of those other instances where two lower courts acquit on the evidence, but some future ISC panel convicts anyway - so as to avoid.....

“Conflitto in giudicato” as practised by the ISC. Judicial truths will rule and hang the evidence.

Of course there has to be alignment. Suppose a Family Law court decrees you now divorced. Do you really think another judge can then come along and determine you are still married.

Nothing to do with choice. The law is a rod of iron.

If it is an appeals' court judge, yes!

Reading your 22 posts (my bad) it is amazing how you glean as factual "judicial truths".

 

[Vixen]

Vixen I must ask. Do you believe these judges were bent? Do you think the powerful Knox family was able to buy off these judges?

Since the reportage would have the MR in as close to direct contradiction of the calunnia conviction, how will this work with judicial truths?

Mach please come back.

Hi All, back from 'the call of the wild', as you may have noticed. Had to keep in touch with my vulpes vulpes side

Judges certainly have wide-ranging powers, albeit strictly limited to the issues pleaded. For example, the guy in his 60's charged with underage sex of some 14 yr old girl (IIRC) ; they had to send it back down as the prosecutor had omitted to include a breach of the law which allows a 14-year old girl to have consensual sex if she is 'in love'. The guy claimed that was his case. Yet there was an outcry in Italy about the 'judges condoning child sex' because people didn't understand how pleading works.

Yet judges are not all together exempt from corrupting forces their vow of allegiance to the court notwithstanding, just like there are bent doctors and bent lawyers. Even bent accountants (Enron, Worldpay com). How does this manifest itself? When attending a Money Laundering seminar a few years back, I was fascinated to learn of a lawyer for a drug smuggler. He was only caught because detectives put him under surveillance and one day, as he was stepping off a helicopter, they discovered clouds of white dust all over him. He was in collaboration with his client in drrug smuggling, and what's more to get him off the hook (instead of honouring his hitherto sworn allegiance to HM's Court).

Even in the UK, as we witnessed in Italy, we have the spectacle of power struggles going on between judges and different levels of court. Just as Italian higher courts love to slap down the lower ones, we often can read in England & Wales judgments higher courts soundly putting lower courts in their place. To do this, ever more elegant and intellectual written reasons get handed down, some of the House of Lords rulings in England & Wales have become classics.

Italy likewise has judges appointed politically who have not done the career route of excelling themselves judicially and thus, we saw people like Hellmann, more used to civil cases, going badly astray. Marasca and Bruno were similarly politically appointed and thus were open to other agendas going on. There is little doubt the Bruno-Marasca ruling was subject to outside forces. They wheeled out Section 530 para 2 because that was the only opt-out clause they had, probably suggested to them by Avv Bongiorno who got Andreotti off the mafia hook using this para. Strictly speaking, it is a preliminary court tool, so yes, MB were definitely defective in using it IMV.

In time, we will find out the full story.

 

[Bill Williams]

For me it has been an education going through it all. I would have dropped it long ago save for some who are maintaining the **perception** that #2 is a lesser acquittal than #1. The **perception** that #2 means something akin to, "they were obviously guilty, but the lower courts lacked the evidence."

Or that #2 is akin to the Scottish verdict "not proven."

Through it all I've asked for a cite that there is some difference in legal consequence betwwen #2 and #1, and you have quite kindly taken the initiative to contact some experts - response pending.

Numbers and LJ have made a convincing case, albeit as laymen, that there is no legal difference in consequence from either's use. To this you're seemingly trying to make the case that everyone's early misunderstandings somehow effect the reality of Italian law!!!

Of course people back then were interested in which type of **acquittal** was used, but it turns out that in terms of consequence (which is what is important as people, including Maresca, move on) there is only an acquittal, regardless of type.

Whether by in-vitro or by old fashioned sex, there's only one type of pregnancy. Cheli cautions that many will perceive #2 as a lesser pregnancy, and judging by your opinions - man oh man did he get that right.

He also said that M/B cast a virtual fog over when Knox (and/or RS) over the issue of a potential presence at the cottage. That fear, too, jas been borne out, people claiming M/B "ruled" with certainty when in Cheli's opinion M/B left a fog over the issue. A fog mainly to preserve the appearance of ISC Panel continuity.
No one has said "it makes **no** difference", that's a wee bit of a strawman. What I continue to ask for is a difference in consequence.

So far crickets.

To carry on your analogy with pregnancy, well the latest Bonsegnia (_sp?) MR is certainly misconceived, actually defective and is a miscarriage of the law as it directly contradicts higher court judges MR's which outrank his legal analysis.

What do you mean, "A fog mainly to preserve the appearance of ISC Panel continuity."?

Apart from mixing metaphors, the law is applied as per statute. The personal opinion of a judge doesn't come into it, any more than say you were an architectural draughtsman measuring the length of a wall. If Bruno-Marasca of the lofty supreme court have established as legal fact Amanda was not coerced to incriminate Patrick, then some upstart from a lower court in a relatively minor trial does not have the remit to trump them.

First off - thanks for bumping this post to the top of the thread, so that readers are reminded of what Cheli actually wrote.

Second - the process that has led to a provisional acquittal for Knox on the calunnia charge (defamation brought by PLE for saying she was hit) is not complete yet. There needs to be an appeals' level, then an ISC sign-off at some point in the future. More than likely the statute of limitations will run out as Italy tries to forget any of this ever happened.

What you regard now as a "a lower court in a relatively minor trial does not have the remit to trump (the higher court)," can only be sorted out if and when the ISC receives the case. Then a new panel can do as you suggest, or......

....... a United Sections panel of ISC can sort out the conflict.

What is clear, though, is that it will not get that far. We are told that the Bonsegnia (sp?) MR will be grist for the mill for the ECHR in sorting out the calunnia conviction: re Lumumba. Apparently the ECHR is not bound by the judicial truths that Italian courts seem paranoid about.

So we shall see what we shall see.

 

[Vixen]

Once the ECHR rules in AK's favor the PGP will finally be forced to concede the Italians botched the interrogation. Then the new narrative will be if only they taped the interrogation and we heard her freely implicate Patrick, which is the return of the circular argument that if there was good evidence the evidence would have been good. Ie if this happened in the UK or US they would have had better forensic evidence, and CCTV of Amanda walking around with a giant knife, etc.

That judgement is only 6 to 8 business years away, hold on to your butts

Even if the police botched the process due to some "technical irregularity", it doesn't make the kids innocent. cf The Ohio case where two friends (19) murdered some 18-year old. The police interviewed one of them, without realising the other suspect could hear every word through the thin walls. It didn't affect one of them getting life without parole and the other the death penalty, as the 'mastermind'.

Has Amanda put in a claim for compo?

 

[Vixen]

Alternatively, I'm banking on the argument that the ECHR, like Gill, Douglas, et al., were in on the Marriott payroll. Dastardly organization, that Marriott. On the scale of sinister, up there with the House of Borgia.

Oh, wait, the Borgias were Italian!

What Americans don't realise is that we Brits don't take the ECHR seriously. Prime Minister David Cameron and Home Secretary Theresa May have started arrangements to opt out of the European Human Rights Act all together.

 

[Vixen]

Where do you get the idea he's Mormon?

He can't smell the coffee.

 

[Vixen]

Grinder, here is another, similar comment.

Source: http://www.aol.com/article/2015/03/...tion-overturned-by-italy-high-court/21158712/

1. "Finished!" Knox's lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova exulted after the decision was read out late Friday. "It couldn't be better than this."

2. In a rare decision, the supreme Court of Cassation overturned last year's convictions by a Florence appeals court and declined to order another trial. 3. The judges declared that the two did not commit the crime, a stronger exoneration than merely finding that there wasn't enough evidence to convict.

In a statement issued from her home in Seattle, Knox said she was "relieved and grateful" for the decision.

4. "The knowledge of my innocence has given me strength in the darkest times of this ordeal," she said, thanking her supporters for believing in her.
1. Amanda's lawyer says "it couldn't be better than this" ... but my reading is that this applies to "Finished!", that is, there will be no referral trial (which was a real possibility) and it is an acquittal, which means there can be no further criminal trials on the charges (and no new civil trials on the matter either, if one believes that the Italian courts will follow the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure). The "Finished" agrees with the point the author of the article makes in statement 2.

The writer's statement 3 is plain wrong. An acquittal verdict specification in Italy never states that there was not enough evidence to convict. Remember, this was written before the reasoning was released, and only the short-form verdict was available, and it clearly cites CPP Article 530.2 as well as stating that "the applicants did not commit the act". That statement is the standard specification of acquittal due to failure of the prosecution to prove the case against the accused BARD, whether under Article 530.1 or 530.2.

4. Having been acquitted, Amanda is to be considered legally innocent - not guilty - of the alleged crimes. This is called the presumption of innocence. In fact, she was legally innocent throughout the trial. One is only guilty in Italy if finally convicted. It is in the Italian Constitution, Article 27.

You may not like these points of law, but they are the law.

And look out for media writers who don't fully understand what they are writing about.

This underlines it was defective for the supreme court to even cite section 530 par 2. Clearly there was sufficient evidence to bring it to trial.

 

[Vixen]

Well, you are associating "paragraph 1" and "paragraph 2" with Amanda's statements. It is not in the original, is it?

And I didn't see Amanda's statement that you are allegedly quoting in your citation. Is it in the new afterword of her book? I'll take a look, if it's available. Do you have a citation?

ETA

I checked the afterword; parts are available on Amazon.com. It says nothing explicitly about 530.1 compared to 530.2. It does state that she asked her lawyer:

"Does acquitted mean not enough evidence to convict? Or did they find us innocent?"

Dalla Vedova replied: "They found you innocent. Amanda! It's the best result possible!"
Now what can this exchange mean, since Dalla Vedova knew that the acquittal was given under CPP Article 530.2?

I suggest that possibly Amanda thought that somehow "acquitted" in Italy could mean "not enough evidence to convict" rather than "not guilty". So she may have shared that misapprehension with others. Or maybe she was just seeking reassurance, or making a point for her book. But "acquitted" means one of five specifications in Italy, and she and Raffaele were acquitted under the specification "the accused did not commit the act", which means not guilty or legally innocent.

Other specifications include: the act did not occur; there was a legal right to commit the act; the act is no longer considered a crime; and the accused did not have mental capacity. Again, one is not acquitted in Italy under the specification "there was not enough evidence to convict the accused". If the court judges that there is not enough evidence to convict the accused, the acquittal verdict specification is "the accused did not commit the crime."

Grinder, if you don't comprehend these legal principles, I can only suggest that you do more reading. And don't limit yourself to news articles or even books by non-lawyers, such as Amanda. You can start by reading the Italian Constitution, the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, and follow-up with discussions with actual experts in Italian law, such as Italian lawyers. Don't rely on anonymous posters on the Internet, such as the author of this post.

An envelope at the back of which this had been hastily scribbled down, omits to include what Vella Vedova (sp_?) says next. I can now reveal the next words he uttered were:


















scroll down


























scroll down
























"When can I expect my €250K fee plus the bonus for getting you off?"