Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

My views:

1. I disagree with the statement. The wording of Article 530.2 goes far beyond what you write above. You are focusing on only the specification "the accused did not commit the crime" when 530.2 covers other specifications as well. The text of 530.2 has been presented (by me, and I had to type it out, copying the book, so it wasn't literally a computer software-enabled cut and paste) in this forum several times before. According to the translation by Gialuz et al., the text is:

"The judge shall deliver a judgment of acquittal also in case of insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof (1) that the criminal act occurred, (2) {that} the accused committed it, (3) {that} the act is deemed an offense by law, (4) {that} the offense was committed by a person with mental capacity."

In the quote above, I added numbers in parentheses to show that there are FOUR acquittal specifications listed in Article 530.2, and I have highlighted each of them. I also added "{that}" for clarity before three of the specifications.

So, to be accurate and precise, the language states that 530.2 requires acquittal when the evidence of guilt (which is equivalent to "proof" in this context) is "insufficient, contradictory or lacking" which includes the special case of "not enough evidence" which itself may mean that there was anywhere from zero evidence to not quite enough.

2. O. J. was found not guilty of criminal charges of murder, which means he was found "legally innocent" of those charges, or, "innocent" of those charges.

He was subsequently found to have civil liability for wrongful death of the murdered persons in a later civil trial. Despite that, he was found innocent and remains innocent by law in relation to the criminal charges of murder.

3. I don't know how to find Italian verdicts of any variety. And the Knox - Sollecito case has been my first exposure to Italian law. I believe that verdicts may be accessible through the CSC website:

http://www.cortedicassazione.it/corte-di-cassazione/

There's a button on the site labeled "SentenzeWeb" which leads to a list of verdicts and then to a PDF of the selected verdict. But I don't know enough Italian or Italian legal terminology to understand how to do a search!

ETA: I have looked at a few of the criminal verdicts on the site, and checked the PQM (bottom line at the end) but none of those that I checked had CPP numbers cited in the PQM.

That's incorrect. What you are highlighting there, Sir (I take it from your tone you are a schoolmaster), is actually Section 530 para 1.

Do pay more attention at the back.

 

[Vixen]

My intent is to not do anything which would not serve to keep the thread open to discuss/review Amanda's acquittal on the charge of calunnia against the police, and, if possible (because we may all have withered away by then) to discuss/review the ECHR actions in the case Amanda has brought against Italy for wrongfully convicting her of calunnia against Lumumba.

I will put away my dictionary for now.

We are pleased to note Numbers has put away his dic. <phew!>

 

[Vixen]

My late father-in-law was a 32nd degree Freemason. I wonder if he had his finger in the behind the scenes machinations to free Amanda?

What happened to the 33rd degree...?

 

[Vixen]

I hope I have got this correct.

I am taking the translation as being accurate.

Charges were: A- the murder, D- theft of money and credit cards, E- the staging of the break in.






It looks like an article 530 para 2 ruling.

However, far from being the equivalent of not proven, it seems the court decided the accused did not commit the crime.

If the court decrees the accused did not commit the crime, the accused must be innocent.

It doesn't say, we think they done it but the evidence is insufficient, or, we strongly suspect they done it but the police cocked up the investigation, or, we know they done it but can't prove it.

If all the above is correct, 530 para 2 can mean innocent, and Dalla Vedova was correct to tell Knox that she was indeed found innocent.

Yes. Of a lower court.

 

[Vixen]

The legal definition is innocent until proven guilty.

The law decides whether a person is guilty or not guilty of the crime(s) they are being tried for.

They are presumed innocent unless found guilty.

If they are found not guilty they remain innocent of the crime(s).

There is no innocent verdict offered to a jury in England and Wales. The question is do you find the defendant guilty or not guilty.

If we are to go by your definition, anybody tried for a crime can never call themselves legally innocent of that crime again.

But there is in Italy, Mr Fied.

 

[Vixen]

I am not saying the court has made a declaration of innocence.

I am saying , legally the accused remains innocent, because they haven't been found guilty.

No. The kids were brought to trial and the verdict was 'not proven' due to 'insufficient evidence'.

Clear now?

 

[Vixen]

I feel bad for the students because the average knuckle dragger on the street will go to their graves thinking them guilty of a crime scenario they couldn't even describe if you put a gun to their head.

But with that being said Raff really hasn't made one really good decision since this whole thing started.

Oh, don't worry. From what I can see, Raff is thoroughly enjoying his notoreity.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Do you think before you write?

 

[Vixen]

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.

No, it won't, because the supreme court trumps a lower court every time.

IMV it's defective to use Section 530.2 once it is deemed there is enough evidence for a trial to proceed.

 

[Vixen]

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.

You will find the difference in consequence will be reflected in the level of compo due, if any.

 

[Vixen]

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

No, they are not. Your claims are built on a false premise.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Nonsense. Bill you are talking out of your <sfx March of the Valkyries theme>. Only the government/state has the power to exonerate.

A judge is limited to verdicts written within the statutes, and 'exoneration' is not a verdict open to him or her.

When Amanda claims she is "exonerated" she is once again lying.

 

[Vixen]

No, why don't we argue whether Rudy spells his name with a y or an i? BTW, what happened to Vixen? Did she hang up her spurs and riding crop? Or did she get banned?

As Albert Schwarzeneggar (_sp?) said, "I'm baaa-aack!"

 

[Vixen]

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!

LOL. I get it now. You are simply parodying a shill.

 

[Vixen]

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.

LOL You are so funny. Ever thought of stand-up comedy?

 

[Vixen]

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.

ROFLMAO. I haven't laughed so hard since OJ was chased down the motorway by a convoy of police cars and a squad of helicopters.

 

[Vixen]

Yes. Where is Vixen? She just disappeared. Now, I wonder why that is?

I'm here. I was on holiday in the last frontier.

 

[Vixen]

The Reid Technique's nine steps of interrogation are:
1.Direct confrontation. Advise the suspect that the evidence has led the police to the individual as a suspect. Offer the person an early opportunity to explain why the offense took place.

The police told Amanda they had "hard evidence" that she was at the cottage the night of the murder. They told her Raff had withdrawn her alibi.

2.Try to shift the blame away from the suspect to some other person or set of circumstances that prompted the suspect to commit the crime. That is, develop themes containing reasons that will psychologically justify or excuse the crime. Themes may be developed or changed to find one to which the accused is most responsive.

The police coerced her into blaming Lumumba and saying he "liked" Meredith and wanted to have sex with her.


3.Try to discourage the suspect from denying his or her guilt.

Every time Amanda told the truth, they told her she wasn't remembering correctly or smacked her on the back of the head.


4.At this point, the accused will often give a reason why he or she did not or could not commit the crime. Try to use this to move towards the confession.

Amanda said she was with Raff but the police tell her he says she went out. Donnino tells her she has amnesia and isn't remembering what really happened.

5.Reinforce sincerity to ensure that the suspect is receptive.

Donnino becomes "motherly" and tries to get Amanda to relate to her by relating her own story of "amnesia" and her broken leg. As Donnino said, she tried to "cultivate a rapport" with Amanda.


6.The suspect will become quieter and listen. Move the theme discussion towards offering alternatives. If the suspect cries at this point, infer guilt.
7.Pose the “alternative question”, giving two choices for what happened; one more socially acceptable than the other. The suspect is expected to choose the easier option but whichever alternative the suspect chooses, guilt is admitted. There is always a third option which is to maintain that they did not commit the crime.

The police led Amanda to believe Lumumba met up with her and wanted Amanda to take him to the cottage so he could have sex with Meredith. They do not accuse HER of the murder but let her accuse Lumumba while she is in the kitchen.

8.Lead the suspect to repeat the admission of guilt in front of witnesses and develop corroborating information to establish the validity of the confession.

There was always more than one police officer in the interrogation room plus Donnino as witnesses.

9.Document the suspect's admission or confession and have him or her prepare a recorded statement (audio, video or written)

The police write up her "confession" and have her sign it.

Seems pretty much a classic Reid Technique interrogation to me.

So you're claiming Donnino was not just a language interpreter/mediator, but a cop trained in the Reid technique? Why are we sceptical?

 

[Bill Williams]

This is how far reaching the conspiracy is, the conspiracy that some here continue to claim falsely got Raffaele and Amanda acquitted 13 months ago.

One of the acquitting judges of the ISC has just been unanimously elected Cassazione's president!

http://www.strill.it/citta/2016/04/csm-nomina-giudice-reggino-paolo-bruno-presidente-di-sezione-della-corte-di-cassazione/

(English Machine translation)

Appointed to the Board, he was assigned to the 5th criminal division where he worked, as part of the formation of the Court or the rapporteur, of some of the most important processes of Italian judicial history: the G8 Summit in Genoa, the massacre of Piazza della Loggia in Brescia, innumerable processes of organized crime and terrorism; murder of Marta Russo, Marco Biagi, Merdith Kercher and Chiara Poggi. It was very important, as the rulings of judgment for the murder of prof. Marco Biagi at the hands of the Red Brigades; the ruling against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, accused of the murder of Meredith Kercher. different pronunciations on corporate and bankruptcy law, most recently on the subject of "false measurement".​

 

[Bill Williams]

So you're claiming Donnino was not just a language interpreter/mediator, but a cop trained in the Reid technique? Why are we sceptical?

I don't know, why are you skeptical? You should be critical that she acted as if a mediator, and in that played a key role in one of the steps people trained in the R.T. use to induce a confession.