Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

Thanks again for a post which highly entertaining due to its absurdity and misinformation.

As I have pointed out by reference to Italian procedural laws in many posts in this Forum, there is no legal difference between acquittals in Italy between those under CPP Article 530.1 and 530.2, and which are given the specification "because the accused did not commit the act (crime)".

Of course there's a difference, that's why they are two separate paragraphs. You need a keen legal brain to understand the subtleties between one para and another. In law, every word counts.

Para 1. Not guilty because innocent, four subsections.
Para 2. Not guilty due to insufficient evidence.

I can see the difference straight away.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh no! You are so embarrassing, and you don't even know it. Hello? A simile IS A METAPHOR.


Whoops! Semper malum.

Let's go through this slowly, so that you understand.

First, we'll start with a simple logic lesson:

A is a member of B

does NOT imply that

B is a member of A

Read that through again, so that you understand.

I'll give you an example as an illustration of the concept.

A Cat is a Four-Legged Animal

does not imply that

A Four-Legged Animal is a Cat

Read through that example a few times, and make sure you understand before we move on. Perhaps use a few examples of your own. You could, for example, use "A Sparrow" and "A Bird" for A and B respectively, or "Blue" and "A Colour".

So, let's assume now that you've got the grasp of that simple but important logic lesson. We can now move on with more confidence to the matter at hand.

I wrote: "You're as 100% wrong about this as you were about insisting a metaphor was a simile".

To rephrase that, my contention was this: "A metaphor is not a simile"

Let's repeat that: "A metaphor is not a simile".

I think you might be able to see what's coming, assuming you concentrated up to this point.

So you should be able to reel off the correct answer! Well done! It is, of course this:

"A metaphor is not a simile"

DOES NOT equate to

"A simile is not a metaphor".

And while a simile (e.g. "He was as fast as a leopard") can, in a loose sense, be considered a metaphor, the reverse categorically is NOT TRUE. A metaphor (e.g. "He was a lion in the way he fought for his opinion", or, to come back to the actual example under discussion, "Knox and Sollecito were lovebirds") is NOT a simile.

And, as you will no doubt recall, you wrote a metaphor ("Knox and Sollecito were lovebirds"), mistakenly called it a simile, then ludicrously refused to acknowledge your mistake.

So, in summary, all similes can (in a wide definition of terms) be called metaphors, but all metaphors CANNOT be called similes. In fact, no metaphor can be called a simile.

And that's the benefit of having a good education in Boolean logic and English figures of speech. If you have any questions or you're still having trouble grasping the concept, please let me know and I'll be more than unhappy to help

 

[LondonJohn]

Compared to the €6million (???) Amanda was ordered to pay the Kerchers, I rather think €258 - €2.5K is trifling piffle for someone keen to to overturn a sixteen year sentence and perhaps get €500K compo to boot.

Understand proportionality?

Utterly irrelevant.

Address the question: do you think Guede has ready access to up to 2,500 Euro in cash or liquid assets to pay a fine? If not, who do you think will pay it on his behalf?

 

[Vixen]

Deleted.

 

[Numbers]

As Grinder pointed out to you, the latter standard subclause is just part of the MR template. Fact is, it was not an 'innocent' verdict. It was an 'insufficient evidence' verdict, and as this section/para is normally used at preliminary trial stage, it implies that charges can still be brought if more evidence turns up.
As the petition has been drafted by specialist lawyers, we can be sure the wording is legally impeccable and will cite real grounds for a review.

Obviously, a court will always have the power to dismiss it.

Your fantasies (highlighted), expressed in your post, are tremendously entertaining, although I must stop wasting my time replying to them.

Don't hold your breath waiting for those "charges can still be brought if more evidence turns up". Try to understand the meaning of Italian procedural laws CPP Articles 648 and 649. In particular, Article 649.1:

The accused person who has been dismissed or convicted by a judgment or criminal decree that has become final shall not be prosecuted again for the same offense, even if his conduct is considered differently in terms of legal definition, stage of the offence or circumstances, without prejudice to Articles 69.2 and 345*

*Art. 69.2, charges were dismissed because the accused was mistakenly thought to be dead; Art. 345, charges were dismissed because a complaint, petition, request or authorisation to proceed was lacking, but the charges may be reinstated when the necessary documents are submitted.

 

[LondonJohn]

Professor Anna Bull Chelli (Bath).

The legendary Vixen commitment to accuracy (coupled with her astounding 99.99999999999%-accurate memory) shines through once again

I suspect that she means Prof Anna Cento Bull, not "Anna Bull Cheli"

Perhaps Vixen's astounding mind conflated Bull with Luca Cheli. No doubt we'll hear the "typo" excuse trotted out in due course

And yes, that would be, presumably, the Prof Anna Centro Bull who is a professor of Italian history and politics. And notably not a professor of (nor any sort of expert in) Italian law. THAT Prof Anna Centro Bull......?

 

[Vixen]

Utterly irrelevant.

Address the question: do you think Guede has ready access to up to 2,500 Euro in cash or liquid assets to pay a fine? If not, who do you think will pay it on his behalf?

His army of supporters on FB.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm hoping that the name of this thread can be changed from, "Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito" thread, to......

The Vixen Feedback Loop Non Sequitor thread.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. I fear this is what comes of having Google as your main reference to everything, instead of a proper grounding in composition. Oh my giddy aunt. When you have to resort to the American Merriam-Webster dictionary, you know you're in a pretty pass. (Cue Stacy lecturing on 'dead metaphors' LOL).

The irony of your persistent (yet unfounded, totally unsupported/unsupportable, and incorrect) attempts to demean my knowledge as having been "google-acquired", when coupled with your stunning inability to get even the most obvious - and easily-google-able - facts correct, is intensely amusing to those of us observing the charade. I genuinely enjoy it.

 

[Vixen]

The legendary Vixen commitment to accuracy (coupled with her astounding 99.99999999999%-accurate memory) shines through once again

I suspect that she means Prof Anna Cento Bull, not "Anna Bull Cheli"

Perhaps Vixen's astounding mind conflated Bull with Luca Cheli. No doubt we'll here the "typo" excuse trotted out in due course

And yes, that would be, presumably, the Prof Anna Centro Bull who is a professor of Italian history and politics. And notably not a professor of (nor any sort of expert in) Italian law. THAT Prof Anna Centro Bull......?

She is more an expert than you or Numbers.

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm hoping that the name of this thread can be changed from, "Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito" thread, to......

The Vixen Feedback Loop Non Sequitor thread.

It does seem like a weird vortex, doesn't it!

How I wish that there was at least someone making an intellectually-honest attempt to argue for guilt on this thread. It would challenge my (and many others') position and perhaps lead to greater learning and understanding. But not this clown show. All it has is amusement value. Tant pis........ (or should that be "pis tant"?)

 

[LondonJohn]

She is more an expert than you or Numbers.

Right-o

(What was her name again, Vixen........?)

 

[LondonJohn]

His army of supporters on FB.

Guede has an "army of supporters" on FB? Really? I didn't know that.

 

[Numbers]

To set the record straight, here is the relevant Italian procedural law for the revision trial Rudy Guede is seeking; I believe I have posted some of this information before:

CPP Article 629 Convictions subject to revision

The revision of judgments of conviction or judgments issued under Article 444, paragraph 2 {application of punishment upon request of the accused and prosecutor}, or of final criminal decrees of conviction may be performed at any time and the cases established by law in favour of the convicted person, even if the sentence has already been enforced or is extinguished.

CPP Article 630 Cases of revision

1. Revision may be requested:

a) if the facts underlying the judgment or the criminal decree of conviction are incompatible with the facts established in another final criminal judgment issued by the ordinary judge or a special judge;
....

CPP Article 631 Limitations to revision

Under penalty of inadmissibility of the request, the arguments underlying the request for revision must be such as to prove, if ascertained, that the convicted person must be dismissed under Articles 529, 530 or 531 {that is: Article 529, the prosecution should not have been initiated or continued; 530, the person should have been acquitted under one of the reasons provided by law and listed in the article*; 531, the offense is extinguished (conviction is time-barred by the statute of limitation).

*The criminal act did not occur, the person did not commit the act, the act was not an offense by law, the act was justified under law or the person exempted from punishment, or the person lacked mental capacity.

CPP Article 634 Declaration of inadmissibility

1. If the request is submitted for reasons other than those provided for in Articles 629 and 630 or it is submitted without complying with the provisions of Articles 631, 632, 633 and 641** or the request is proven to be manifestly groundless, the Court of Appeal shall issue an order declaring, also ex officio, its inadmissibility and may sentence the private person who submitted the request to the payment of a sum ranging from EUR 258 to EUR 2,065 to the Treasury of Fines.
....

** Article 631 states that the arguments in the request for revision must be such as to make a case for dismissal under grounds otherwise provided for dismissals, for example, acquittal. Article 632 provides that the request must be brought by the convicted person or that person's next of kin or guardian (or heir if the person is deceased), and/or by the General Public Prosecutor attached to the Court of Appeal in the relevant district. Article 633 provides instructions detailing the form and manner of delivery to the Court Clerk of the request. Article 641 provides that a request found inadmissible may only be resubmitted if it is based on different arguments than the one(s) previously found inadmissible.
____

Applying the above to Guede's case, it would appear he has every right to file a request for revision. However, if the Court of Appeal finds that there was no incompatibility between Guede's conviction and the acquittal of Knox and Sollecito, his request would be ruled inadmissible and he may be required to pay a fine***; in no case would his prison sentence be altered due to submission of an inadmissible request.

***PGP may wish to consider a fund-raising effort for such eventuality.

The question the Court of Appeal must consider for Guede's case is: Are the facts underlying his final conviction incompatible with the facts established by the final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito?

There are several issues relating to this question.

1) There is no assurance, based on the arbitrary court decisions rendered by Italian courts in the Knox - Sollecito case, that the Italian Court of Appeal hearing Guede's revision case would consider this matter objectively.

2) If one assumes an objective evaluation, then the question becomes, which facts are alleged to be incompatible between the two final court judgments, and are they indeed objectively incompatible?

One issue is whether or not Guede's final conviction establishes (even if unfairly or illegally according to Italian law or the European Convention of Human Rights) as a judicial "fact" that he acted together with Knox and Sollecito, or instead that he acted together with persons unnamed.

On the other hand, the final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito establishes the judicial fact that they did not participate in the crime, but is (IIRC) silent as to whether or not Guede in Section 4.3.1 of the Marasca CSC panel motivation report maintains, in agreement with the Giordano CSC panel motivation report supporting the final conviction of Guede that Guede acted with others.
ETA: Source for the CPP information:
The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation, ed. M. Gialuz, L. Luparia, and F. Scarpa (C) 2014 Wolters Kluwer Italia

Note my correction above. I was privately informed that I had forgotten Section 4.3.1 of the Marasca CSC panel MR, and it very clearly agrees that Guede committed the crimes against Kercher with the assistance of others. The text includes, among more details, the statement: We are referring to multiple elements, linked to the complex reconstruction of the crime, which rule out Guede having acted alone.

Thus, it will be exceeding difficult for Guede and his lawyers to establish an incompatibility of verdicts.

 

[Vixen]

It does seem like a weird vortex, doesn't it!

How I wish that there was at least someone making an intellectually-honest attempt to argue for guilt on this thread. It would challenge my (and many others') position and perhaps lead to greater learning and understanding. But not this clown show. All it has is amusement value. Tant pis........ (or should that be "pis tant"?)

French is not an inflected language. At least, not nearly as inflected as Latin. And how amusing your schoolboy amusement at tant pis.

 

[LondonJohn]

f

Note my correction above. I was privately informed that I had forgotten Section 4.3.1 of the Marasca CSC panel MR, and it very clearly agrees that Guede committed the crimes against Kercher with the assistance of others. The text includes, among more details, the statement: We are referring to multiple elements, linked to the complex reconstruction of the crime, which rule out Guede having acted alone.

Yes, but the acquittals of Knox and Sollecito actually have no legal bearing upon this factor. The acquittals of Knox and Sollecito in no way imply, in a legal sense, that Guede had to have committed the murder alone.

And furthermore, judicial guilt is different from factual guilt in any case (though in this case it's a near-certainty that Knox and Sollecito are factually innocent). But to use a hypothetical scenario to illustrate the point: suppose that two people were seen by multiple reliable witnesses stabbing a victim in a park. Suppose that one person, "A", was quickly caught by police and there was an abundance of solid evidence against him, he opted for a quick trial and was convicted of participating in the murder alongside one other attacker. Suppose that the police then arrested and charged another person, "B", but that there was actually almost no reliable evidence of his participation in the crime. And when B was brought to trial, he was acquitted on the (just) grounds of insufficient proof. B's acquittal would not change the circumstances of A's conviction, and nor in fact would it mean that B could not have been the person committing the murder alongside A - all that it would mean was that there was insufficient proof to convict B of the crime.

 

[Bill Williams]

But you don't understand LondonJohn.

Vixen has been told by a local ( in Britain) university expert that Italy has a "not proven" option.

Vixen has not provided a name for this expert, nor anyone in Italy - save for Machiavelli - who believes the same.

Again, subsequent Italian judges refer to it as an exoneration; but that gets in the way of the nonstop factoidization of the evidence Vixen provides this thread.

Professor Anna Bull Chelli (Bath).

The legendary Vixen commitment to accuracy (coupled with her astounding 99.99999999999%-accurate memory) shines through once again

I suspect that she means Prof Anna Cento Bull, not "Anna Bull Cheli"

Perhaps Vixen's astounding mind conflated Bull with Luca Cheli. No doubt we'll hear the "typo" excuse trotted out in due course

And yes, that would be, presumably, the Prof Anna Centro Bull who is a professor of Italian history and politics. And notably not a professor of (nor any sort of expert in) Italian law. THAT Prof Anna Centro Bull......?

That's it. This is proof that the Vixen account is really Bruce Fischer running a false flag operation.

The only question is, why would Fischer do it?

ETA - Vixen still has not provided the name of the Bath University "expert". LondonJohn has! Hoots!

 

[LondonJohn]

French is not an inflected language. And how amusing your schoolboy amusement at tant pis.

Oooooh I think you'll find French IS an inflected language. It just keeps getting better and better!

(This'll amuse and annoy you in equal parts probably: check out the wikipedia entry for Fusional Languages*:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fusional_languages

Look carefully under "F" in the list........)

(NB: "Fusional Language" is synonymous with "Inflected Language", FVI )


Oh and in departing, I note another crass (and incorrect) rush to judgement in your strange assertion that I used the phrase "tant pis" because I found it somehow amusing (I'm assuming that in your mind, my amusement was deriving from the proximity of the French word "pis" to the English slang word "piss", but correct me if my inference is wrong here....). That is not why I employed that French phrase at that point. How very odd.

 

[Numbers]

Yes, but the acquittals of Knox and Sollecito actually have no legal bearing upon this factor. The acquittals of Knox and Sollecito in no way imply, in a legal sense, that Guede had to have committed the murder alone.

And furthermore, judicial guilt is different from factual guilt in any case (though in this case it's a near-certainty that Knox and Sollecito are factually innocent). But to use a hypothetical scenario to illustrate the point: suppose that two people were seen by multiple reliable witnesses stabbing a victim in a park. Suppose that one person, "A", was quickly caught by police and there was an abundance of solid evidence against him, he opted for a quick trial and was convicted of participating in the murder alongside one other attacker. Suppose that the police then arrested and charged another person, "B", but that there was actually almost no reliable evidence of his participation in the crime. And when B was brought to trial, he was acquitted on the (just) grounds of insufficient proof. B's acquittal would not change the circumstances of A's conviction, and nor in fact would it mean that B could not have been the person committing the murder alongside A - all that it would mean was that there was insufficient proof to convict B of the crime.

I agree that legally, in a rational judicial system in a country that respected the rule of law and human rights, the conviction of Guede, where his sentence was mitigated because the court accepted the allegation that he committed the crime with others, cannot be affected by the acquittal of two individuals, Knox and Sollecito, who were wrongfully accused of being those others.

The issue is the allegation (based on news reports of the lawyer's statement) that Guede is requesting a revision trial based upon a supposed incompatibility between his conviction and the acquittal of Knox and Sollecito. It is clear that the Marasca CSC panel MR, in Section 4.3.1, reiterated that Guede was assisted by others - as stated in the Giordano CSC panel MR. Possibly, Marasca repeated this to avoid the appearance of an incompatibility of facts which might, depending on the vagaries of the Italian judicial system, be interpreted by an Italian court (such as the Nencini court) as being an "incompatibility with the facts" between two final judgments.

 

[Vixen]

Oooooh I think you'll find French IS an inflected language. It just keeps getting better and better!

(This'll amuse and annoy you in equal parts probably: check out the wikipedia entry for Fusional Languages*:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fusional_languages

Look carefully under "F" in the list........)

(NB: "Fusional Language" is synonymous with "Inflected Language", FVI )


Oh and in departing, I note another crass (and incorrect) rush to judgement in your strange assertion that I used the phrase "tant pis" because I found it somehow amusing (I'm assuming that in your mind, my amusement was deriving from the proximity of the French word "pis" to the English slang word "piss", but correct me if my inference is wrong here....). That is not why I employed that French phrase at that point. How very odd.

All languages are inflected to some degree. However, when linguists refer to inflected languages, they are generally being very specific. You just cannot admit you were wrong about Latin, so you have to go to extremes to pretend you are right.

inflected language
noun [ C ] UK ​ /ɪnˌflek.tɪd ˈlæŋ.ɡwɪdʒ/ US ​ /ɪnˌflek.tɪd ˈlæŋ.ɡwɪdʒ/
​
a language that changes the form or ending of some words when the way in which they are used in sentences changes:
Latin, Polish, and Finnish are all highly inflected languages.http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/inflected-language

For the record: French has no cases, English three, German four, Latin seven and Finnish fifteen. Clear now?

I'll let you have the last word.