Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

If the perception in the Italian media is important about the finality and meanings of Supreme Court verdicts :

"From now officially innocent...
...the judges ..felt that the two former students "have not committed the crime"

http://www.lintraprendente.it/2015/03/italia-colpevole-di-colpevolismo/

There is no need to rehearse the arguments. I am just pointing out the perception in the Italian media. Thanks to MichaelB for original post on IIP.

"Se il materiale probatorio non esisteva o non era sufficientemente solido come mai si è arrivati a due condanne? Se invece era solido, come mai due assoluzioni, l’ultima definitiva? Se le“prove genetiche” non erano definitive e schiaccianti, come mai per due volte hanno determinato la condanna degli imputati? Da oggi ufficialmente innocenti, sono stati per quattro anni in carcere; una fama indesiderata da pubblico esame e relativo ludibrio li accompagnerà per il tempo della loro vita; tutta la verità resta sconosciuta perché l’unico colpevole, che ha confessato e scelto un rito abbreviato, viene riconosciuto tale ma in concorso, con chi non si sa. La sentenza precedente ieri è stata annullata senza rinvio, cancellata insomma, e questa è una decisione rara in Cassazione. Stando al dispositivo, i giudici della quinta sezione, presieduta da Gennaro Marasca, hanno ritenuto che i due ex studenti «non hanno commesso il fatto». "

The lawyer that responded to my question said the paragraphs are the same in law but perceived as different in the media. Perhaps others could find other Italian legal people to comment. I've seen mention of paragraph two in a number of stories.

The wording of not committing the act or crime seem merely to be pro forma but believe what you like.

 

[toto]

Hi Grinder,
I was commenting on the perception in this particular post. You can read what the Italian author wrote. I didn't say whether he was right or wrong. In this particular piece by the way the author's perception is clear.

 

[Vixen]

Please provide the list of MRs you've read?

This would be the section most significant: 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. -

If accurate this would mean the 5th division wasn't some second-rate civil court.

He probably wrote the glowing potted biography himself.

 

[toto]

I've seen mention of paragraph two in a number of stories.

Look forward to the links! (Genuinely!)

 

[Grinder]

Look forward to the links! (Genuinely!)

Really not interested in extending the debate again. You can do a search for yourself.

Generally the papers don't actually mention the code but just say something about the insufficient evidence.

ETA - okay here's a quick one:
BOLZANO. Andrea Bonazza, consigliere comunale uscente di Casapund, è stato assolto - con riferimento alla mancanza di prova certa (530 cpp, secondo comma) - dall'accusa di diffamazione aggravara ai danni dell'ex sindaco Luigi Spagnolli che aveva rinunciato a costituirsi parte civile. Al centro del caso c'era la diffusione via internet (sul sito di Casapound e su facebook) si un manifesto in cui era stata riportata la figura dell'allora primo cittadino palesemente manipolata, al fine di indicarlo ai cittadini sotto gli effetti di bevande alcoliche.

BOLZANO . Andrea Bonazza , the outgoing city councilor Casapund , was acquitted - with reference to the lack of certain evidence ( 530 cpp , second paragraph ) - aggravara of defamation accusations against Luigi Spagnolli former mayor who had given up a civil action. At the center of the case was the dissemination via the Internet ( on Casapound website and on Facebook) is a manifesto in which it was reported the figure of the then mayor blatantly manipulated , in order to indicate to citizens under the influence of alcohol .

Search Google.it 530,2 cpp and you'll find pages under news

 

[Bill Williams]

The lawyer that responded to my question said the paragraphs are the same in law but perceived as different in the media. Perhaps others could find other Italian legal people to comment. I've seen mention of paragraph two in a number of stories.

The wording of not committing the act or crime seem merely to be pro forma but believe what you like.

IMO this is the closest to summarizing what Luca Cheli wrote. The two paragraphs are the same in law....

But media (and others) play around with perception. Remember, Cheli is writing about the **motivation report**, not so much the verdict itself - a motivation report can go a long way to casting light on any remaining shadows; and Cheli criticizes M/B for leaving at least four big shadows.....

.... some as far as this case is concerned, but also shadows on the way things are often misperceived. Remember, the choice of paragraph is the least of the shadows Cheli points out.

And also remember, Cheli's purpose in writing is to lead up to the light M/B cast in its M/R, as well as the thunder which he hoped would be felt.

The lawyer who responded to your question is a good one IMO.

 

[Bill Williams]

I was referring to when I posted it here but the story came out Wednesday, April 20, 2016
15:14

Ah, ok. Noted.

 

[Grinder]

IMO this is the closest to summarizing what Luca Cheli wrote. The two paragraphs are the same in law....

But media (and others) play around with perception. Remember, Cheli is writing about the **motivation report**, not so much the verdict itself - a motivation report can go a long way to casting light on any remaining shadows; and Cheli criticizes M/B for leaving at least four big shadows.....

.... some as far as this case is concerned, but also shadows on the way things are often misperceived. Remember, the choice of paragraph is the least of the shadows Cheli points out.

And also remember, Cheli's purpose in writing is to lead up to the light M/B cast in its M/R, as well as the thunder which he hoped would be felt.

The lawyer who responded to your question is a good one IMO.

Do you get paid for repetition of factoids or creating them?

Cheli couldn't be clearer in saying the paragraph two verdict meant it wasn't going to be a clear-cut verdict of innocent.

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.​

Really Bill he couldn't have said it more clearly. To him (and many Italians) a paragraph two verdict means there was reasonable doubt not clear cut innocence. While we don't have more than one option for acquittal they do.

ETA - we have two main issues on this. Is there a legal difference? I have said I don't know but did finally get a response from an Italian lawyer that said no difference in law but the media still sees a difference.

I have provided a couple of articles, one just today, in which the paper directly refers to 530,2.

 

[Grinder]

Here is a Google translate of what might well be an interesting discussion of the codes. It would be great to get a real translation.

The principle of reasonable doubt in almost ten years after the amendment of art. 533 Code of Criminal Procedure: the state
Posted in Criminal Procedural Law on 02/03/2016

Author:
48017 Antonio Di Tullio D'Elisiis

The aim of this paper is to do " the point of the situation " on the principle of reasonable doubt after they have been almost ten years since the amendment of art. 533, co. 1, Code of Criminal Procedure which took place by virtue of Article. 5 of the l. February 20, 2006, n. 46 which, as is known, it was determined that the "judge pronounces sentence if the accused is guilty of the offense complained of beyond a reasonable doubt" [1].
It 's interesting fact to highlight how this principle of law has evolved, although not consistently, in recent years with a view to its progressive autonomy from similar institutions, or rather, closely related to it such as insufficient or contradictory nature of the evidence sought to be able to issue, as is well known, an acquittal ruling.
this being, immediately after the entry into force of law no. 46 of 2006, was immediately detected, when nomophylactic, that reference the words "in to the beyond of every reasonable doubt ", as a condition for emitting a conviction, did not represent a new element in the legal setting our national being was noted that the "amendment of art. 533 Criminal Procedure Code by art. 5, 46 ln 2006, with the provision that the judge pronounces sentence if the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, is merely descriptive, rather than substantive, since even before the "reasonable doubt" the guilt of the accused it involved the acquittal pursuant to art. 530, paragraph 2, of the Criminal Procedure Code "[2].
In particular, it was noted by the Supreme Court that, with the introduction of this principle, the legislature had merely formalized" into law a principle already acquired, present for years with increasing frequency in the jurisprudence of this Court and indisputable even as current international conventions signed by Italy, so in the judgment sentencing the accused is possible only if there is a trial certainty of the guilt of the accused, and when the test it is incomplete imposes the acquittal

(v. for all Cass. n. 43324/2005, omitted; Cass. n. 41052/2005, omitted; Cass. n. 41176/2005, omitted; Cass. sect. 6 ^, n. 1518/1997 Rv. 208 144 ; Cass. sect. 2 ^, n. 3777/1995, Rv. 203118) "[3].
in other words, it was specified, always of legitimacy, such as dell '" rule beyond any reasonable doubt "impose" the pronounce sentence, when the evidence established fact leaves out only remote possibility, even abstractly formulated and reasonable possibilities as possible in rerum Natura, but whose concrete realization of the specific case does not find the slightest reflected in procedural emergencies, placing itself outside the order natural order of things and the normal human rationality "[4] in such a way that, as even here already" expressed in some recent judgments of the United Sections of this Court (Cass., Sec. a. April 21, 1995, n. 11, rV . 202001; Cass., Sec. A. 10 July 2002, n. 30328, rV. 222 139; Cass., Sec. A. 30 October 2003, n. 45276, rV. 226094) "[5], the" logical process (...) not unlike the sequence of inferential reasoning dictated regarding circumstantial evidence art. 192 Code of Criminal Procedure, paragraph 2, (...) must lead to the conclusion characterized by a high degree of rational credibility, then the "trial certainty" that excluded the interference of alternative elapsed, the conduct is attributable to the agent as made ​​their own "[ 6].
Tal that even in light of this existing nomofilattico orientation to the 2006 reform, the legitimacy of ordinary judges, on the assumption that "the circumstantial evidence is that which allows the reconstruction of the facts in terms of certainty which exclude the prospettabilità of any other reasonable solution, but also not to exclude the most abstract and remote of the possibility that, in contrast with each and any likelihood and as result of a hypothetical, unusual combine to unexpected and unpredictable factors, the reality has been different from that reconstructed on the basis of available evidence​

Perhaps someone can ask this guy but I have no idea if he speaks English.

ETA - example of pro forma

 

[Numbers]

Really not interested in extending the debate again. You can do a search for yourself.

Generally the papers don't actually mention the code but just say something about the insufficient evidence.

ETA - okay here's a quick one:
BOLZANO. Andrea Bonazza, consigliere comunale uscente di Casapund, è stato assolto - con riferimento alla mancanza di prova certa (530 cpp, secondo comma) - dall'accusa di diffamazione aggravara ai danni dell'ex sindaco Luigi Spagnolli che aveva rinunciato a costituirsi parte civile. Al centro del caso c'era la diffusione via internet (sul sito di Casapound e su facebook) si un manifesto in cui era stata riportata la figura dell'allora primo cittadino palesemente manipolata, al fine di indicarlo ai cittadini sotto gli effetti di bevande alcoliche.

BOLZANO . Andrea Bonazza , the outgoing city councilor Casapund , was acquitted - with reference to the lack of certain evidence ( 530 cpp , second paragraph ) - aggravara of defamation accusations against Luigi Spagnolli former mayor who had given up a civil action. At the center of the case was the dissemination via the Internet ( on Casapound website and on Facebook) is a manifesto in which it was reported the figure of the then mayor blatantly manipulated , in order to indicate to citizens under the influence of alcohol .

Search Google.it 530,2 cpp and you'll find pages under news

Did your search lead you to this item? This was one of a number of abstracts and citations on the site.

Source: http://www.laleggepertutti.it/codice-proc-penale/art-530-cod-proc-penale-sentenza-di-assoluzione

There is the interest of the accused to bring an appeal against the acquittal because the crime does not exist, pronounced art. 530, paragraph 2, Code of Criminal Procedure - For lack, insufficiency or contradictory evidence - as this formulation does not mean less significance of the judgment of acquittal or signals residual doubts about the innocence of the accused, nor does it explain the lower value with reference to civil lawsuits, as evidenced by the wording of art. 652 and 654 c.p.p .; Therefore, it can not in any way be compared to the acquittal for lack of evidence provided by the previous code rite. (Declares inadmissible Giud.pace Rovereto, 19/04/2013)

Criminal Cassation sect. V 26 September 2014 n. 49580
-------
There is the interest of the accused, acquitted because the crime does not exist in accordance with art. 530, paragraph 2, of the Criminal Procedure Code, to bring an appeal, since that formula - concerning the failure, the failure or inconsistency of the test - does not mean less significance of the judgment of acquittal, or signals residual doubts on the innocence of the accused, nor it entails detrimental effects to appeals and that the interest should not lean in a claim, merely theoretical and abstract, legal or accuracy of pronunciation, however, that it does not lead to any modification of the effects of the decision. (Dismisses App. Brescia, 27/11/2012)

Criminal Cassation sect. III 7 March 2014 n. 23485

____
The above CSC decisions (from 2014) indicate that there is no legal difference in consequences of 530.2 compared to 530.1. The first decision indicates that previously (in the old 1930 code of criminal procedure) there was an acquittal for lack of evidence.

The current 530.2 is not to be interpreted under law as less than a full acquittal, according to the CSC decisions.

Of course, the media and lay people may interpret it differently. In particular, they may perceive it as a restatement of the old 1930 CPP idea of an acquittal for lack of evidence. But it is not, according to Italian law.

I have previously pointed out some mention of the reforms in Italian law as discussed by Italian professors of law in their essays - Illuminati, Gialuz, and Luparia. I am pleased that your online research has now lead you to some information on that topic.

 

[Bill Williams]

Do you get paid for repetition of factoids or creating them?

Cheli couldn't be clearer in saying the paragraph two verdict meant it wasn't going to be a clear-cut verdict of innocent.

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.​

Really Bill he couldn't have said it more clearly. To him (and many Italians) a paragraph two verdict means there was reasonable doubt not clear cut innocence. While we don't have more than one option for acquittal they do.

ETA - we have two main issues on this. Is there a legal difference? I have said I don't know but did finally get a response from an Italian lawyer that said no difference in law but the media still sees a difference.

I have provided a couple of articles, one just today, in which the paper directly refers to 530,2.

Yes, Grinder, I get paid. You write the receipts. What an inane comment.

You are cherry-picking the least of Cheli's concerns and blowing it out of proportion. He couldn't be clearer - indeed, you quoted an unnamed lawyer who basically summarizes what Cheli said.

I will cut and paste it here....

ETA - we have two main issues on this. Is there a legal difference? I have said I don't know but did finally get a response from an Italian lawyer that said no difference in law but the media still sees a difference.​

Cheli could not be clearer - on this minor point of his, which you cherry pick. Without a clear-cut statement in the motivations report; yes "it was to be expected that it would not have been a clearcut, one-sided proclamation of innocence."

It's why Cheli refers to it as shadows. Shadows, Grinder, shadows. You're saying he's clear, he's calling it viewable in shadows. I don't know why you are so obstinate on this. Consider this - you and I are in fundamental agreement, yet you are making laughable claims about me.

This is the fundamental agreement:

1) there is no difference in law between the two paragraphs. In law, both are acquittals with the same force
2) it is others who drive this into the shadows - notably the media.​

Shadows. Meaning, something that s seen as unclear. Cheli describes one of the shadows of the M/B report to be a veritable fog. You are saying he is saying something clearly, when his whole point is to say that M/B themselves missed an opportunity on four points to cast some light or create some thunder.

I think it's time you go on ignore.

 

[Bill Williams]

Grinder - Cheli is not writing what he believes. He's writing what can be discerned from the M/B report; and some of the shadows M/B let linger about the case. When that clicks in to you, send me a PM and you'll come back off of ignore.

 

[Grinder]

Did your search lead you to this item? This was one of a number of abstracts and citations on the site.

I was asked to provide news articles that mentioned 530,2 specifically. I produced a couple three of those.

Unlike you I have contacted real Italian lawyers and reported the only response which indicated there is no difference in law but often in perception.

In the cut and paste of yours this did stand out - nor does it explain the lower value with reference to civil lawsuits which seems to be saying that the different verdicts DO have a legal impact even if it shouldn't by the writer's reckoning.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder - Cheli is not writing what he believes. He's writing what can be discerned from the M/B report; and some of the shadows M/B let linger about the case. When that clicks in to you, send me a PM and you'll come back off of ignore.

I don't give a rat's ass about shadows and thunder. He clearly states there is a different perception.

 

[Samson]

I don't see what you see with Williams, sorry. I originally got interested in this case when I watched a forensic files. It was suppose to promote their guilt and I just thought that it was BS. My sister saw it though and thought it showed that they were guilty. I wish I could find that episode online.

My argument is that Ford was able to get full confessions from sailors, whom in some cases were both tough and intelligent (Tice and Wilson). The Italian police were ionly able to get a half-ass confession from Amanda.

How much you want to bet that Ford could have broken Amanda and Raff?

The sailors were accustomed to acknowledging authority as the greater force in life. Killer, black man Ballard, was insulted at the suggestion he shared the crime with nerdy whites. If only Guede had been similarly offended at the suggestion, 8 years and this thread avoided. But alas, he had learned the trappings of effete Europeans. Duck and weave.

 

[Desert Fox]

The sailors were accustomed to acknowledging authority as the greater force in life. Killer, black man Ballard, was insulted at the suggestion he shared the crime with nerdy whites. If only Guede had been similarly offended at the suggestion, 8 years and this thread avoided. But alas, he had learned the trappings of effete Europeans. Duck and weave.

Do you honestly think that Amanda and Raff would not have been broken to confessing whatever he wanted if interrogated by Ford?

 

[Samson]

Do you honestly think that Amanda and Raff would not have been broken to confessing whatever he wanted if interrogated by Ford?

Ford is good. Probably the best, but only one important parallel. Note the families of the victims behave disgracefully, like the Kerchers, in the face of conclusive evidence they hated the wrong people.

 

[Desert Fox]

Ford is good. Probably the best, but only one important parallel. Note the families of the victims behave disgracefully, like the Kerchers, in the face of conclusive evidence they hated the wrong people.

In honesty, I think in both cases the family believes the defendants are guilty. When the police tell you that a person is guilty, it is hard to believe otherwise.

 

[Stacyhs]

What? No, I was referring to the size 42 prints. Giovanni Arcudi is quoted as saying, " That footprint does not possess clear and definite characteristics."

I urge you to bring yourself up to speed on the facts of this case.

I urge you not to resort to partial quotes that misrepresent what was actually said.

"Another expert, Professor Giovanni Arcudi from Tor Vergata University in Rome, said the footprint "does not possess clear and definite characteristics" that link it to Sollecito's Nike shoe. (Telegraph 24 Nov 2007)

"All the bloody shoeprints in the room where Kercher was found were compatible with the size 11 Nike Outbreak 2 shoes believed to be Guede’s, Rinaldi said, except for one smaller, unattributed shoeprint found on the pillow that was under Kercher’s body." (Andrea Vogt)

There were no size 42 prints as Guede wears a 44-45 (Giobbi). the print found on the pillow was not a woman's print nor was it claimed to be a size 42.


"Presiding Judge Giancarlo Massei asked Rinaldi what size that shoe print was, he responded “37 or 38.” He then asked what size Knox wears, and Rinaldi said according to other shoes sequestered from the crime scene, she wears a 37. A second print expert later testified that he believed the shoeprint to be that of a woman’s size 37.5 Asics tennis shoe. No Asics tennis shoes were among the 22 pairs sequestered by police from the three’s apartments."

Nor was there any evidence that Amanda had ever owned a pair of Asics.
Vinci, using crimescope unlike any of the prosecution experts, found that print to match Guede's Nike.

"“With the use of Crimescope which helps to select prints, treated chemically with fluorescing products, he found on the pillow case five good prints (3 superimposed) of a left shoe that delineates a sole that corresponds and measures exactly to a Nike Outbreak 2, size 45. Thus the foot of Guede. The disconcerting thing is that on that pillowcase the forensic police found only 2 traces: one of Guede and the other of a woman size 37.” (Oggi)


"A left shoe print was found on Meredith’s pillow, estimated to be between size 36 and 38. Knox wears a size 37. A defence expert (Professor Vinci) made a comparison of the sole pattern with Guede’s right shoe, and argued that the print could have been made by him. The Massei Court noted the conflicting theories without expressing a specific opinion but commented that it could not be excluded that “…Guede alone tr[od] on the cushion lying on the floor, to the exclusion of Knox…” (http://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Brutal-Killing-Meredith-Kercher-–-Part-3)

 

[toto]

Really not interested in extending the debate again. You can do a search for yourself.

Generally the papers don't actually mention the code but just say something about the insufficient evidence.

ETA - okay here's a quick one:
BOLZANO. Andrea Bonazza, consigliere comunale uscente di Casapund, è stato assolto - con riferimento alla mancanza di prova certa (530 cpp, secondo comma) - dall'accusa di diffamazione aggravara ai danni dell'ex sindaco Luigi Spagnolli che aveva rinunciato a costituirsi parte civile. Al centro del caso c'era la diffusione via internet (sul sito di Casapound e su facebook) si un manifesto in cui era stata riportata la figura dell'allora primo cittadino palesemente manipolata, al fine di indicarlo ai cittadini sotto gli effetti di bevande alcoliche.

BOLZANO . Andrea Bonazza , the outgoing city councilor Casapund , was acquitted - with reference to the lack of certain evidence ( 530 cpp , second paragraph ) - aggravara of defamation accusations against Luigi Spagnolli former mayor who had given up a civil action. At the center of the case was the dissemination via the Internet ( on Casapound website and on Facebook) is a manifesto in which it was reported the figure of the then mayor blatantly manipulated , in order to indicate to citizens under the influence of alcohol .

Search Google.it 530,2 cpp and you'll find pages under news

I am fine with you not wanting to extend the debate. To be honest that's why I said in my post that "there is no need to rehearse the arguments". Also, by the way, my post was directed at Vixen, but you were very welcome to jump in. I did find your lawyer's comments that the "paragraphs are the same in law" very interesting. When you added the point about being "perceived as different in the media" I found it faintly ironic that one example of the Italian media which I quoted had a perception that was quite favourable to Amanda. I was just the messenger of course in quoting the journalist! I think perception is a bit of a dodgy concept, if there really is no difference in law.