• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

Status
Not open for further replies.
She wrote some online article about it. It should be readily found on google.

Here we go: http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/07/26/italians-cops-harass-scientists-in-amanda-knox-trial/

Patience. See calunnia issues, above.

Thanks for this.

In fact, laughter broke out in the courtroom on Monday when the well-respected experts (Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti of La Sapienza University) used the DVD (yes, the one cops later tried to seize) to show police forensic scientists scrubbing the crime scene like cleaning ladies, without covering their heads or changing their booties when they strolled from room to room.

I am wondering why the prosecution would not already have had access to this footage?
 
Thanks for this.

In fact, laughter broke out in the courtroom on Monday when the well-respected experts (Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti of La Sapienza University) used the DVD (yes, the one cops later tried to seize) to show police forensic scientists scrubbing the crime scene like cleaning ladies, without covering their heads or changing their booties when they strolled from room to room.

I am wondering why the prosecution would not already have had access to this footage?

Manuela Comodi said she would decide what the defence would have a right to see. Therefore when C&V gave the defence material which the prosecution already had......

..... Vixen believes that to be illegal.

Right.

BTW - all this from the rare citations Vixen provides. No wonder she rarely provides them.
 
Thanks for this.

In fact, laughter broke out in the courtroom on Monday when the well-respected experts (Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti of La Sapienza University) used the DVD (yes, the one cops later tried to seize) to show police forensic scientists scrubbing the crime scene like cleaning ladies, without covering their heads or changing their booties when they strolled from room to room.

I am wondering why the prosecution would not already have had access to this footage?

Another excerpt from Dempsey's excellent article:

Imagine Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini’s horror when he woke up to the damning news stories from the U.S., U.K. and Italy. Indeed, he and the other two prosecutors (yes, the trial is beefed up as if for Mafiosi) couldn’t have missed these headlines today, emblazoned on newsstands in their hometown newspaper, Corriere Dell’Umbria. How these words must gnaw at the notoriously thin-skinned Perugia police.

The murder in Perugia: Experts reject the forensics investigation
Police used dirty gloves
The bra strap and knife are unreliable

The prosecution’s response was to threaten legal action. To hint at investigations. To grab the DVD.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/07/26/italians-cops-harass-scientists-in-amanda-knox-trial/
 
Another excerpt from Dempsey's excellent article:

Imagine Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini’s horror when he woke up to the damning news stories from the U.S., U.K. and Italy. Indeed, he and the other two prosecutors (yes, the trial is beefed up as if for Mafiosi) couldn’t have missed these headlines today, emblazoned on newsstands in their hometown newspaper, Corriere Dell’Umbria. How these words must gnaw at the notoriously thin-skinned Perugia police.

The murder in Perugia: Experts reject the forensics investigation
Police used dirty gloves
The bra strap and knife are unreliable

The prosecution’s response was to threaten legal action. To hint at investigations. To grab the DVD.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/07/26/italians-cops-harass-scientists-in-amanda-knox-trial/

Thanks should go to Vixen for reminding us of 5 1/2 years ago when Mignini's malicious wrongful prosecution came apart.

All from her quoting a source!! Hoots!!
 
Thanks should go to Vixen for reminding us of 5 1/2 years ago when Mignini's malicious wrongful prosecution came apart.

All from her quoting a source!! Hoots!!

Does the citing of this reference in a PGP post count as an "own goal" in an argument? The analogy being to when a soccer (football) goal is scored inadvertently by a defending team player striking the ball into the defending team's goal.
 
Here's the full text of CPP Article 530. It has 4 paragraphs. I have indicated the 5 specifications by enclosing an identifying number in { }.

Art. 530 - Sentenza di assoluzione
1. {1}Se il fatto non sussiste,
{2}se l'imputato non lo ha commesso,
{3}se il fatto non costituisce reato o non è previsto dalla legge come reato ovvero
{4}se il reato è stato commesso da persona non imputabile o non punibile per un'altra ragione,
il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione indicandone la causa nel dispositivo.
2. Il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione anche quando manca, è insufficiente o è contraddittoria la prova
{1}che il fatto sussiste,
{2}che l'imputato lo ha commesso,
{3}che il fatto costituisce reato o
{4}che il reato è stato commesso da persona imputabile.
3. Se vi è la prova
{5}che il fatto è stato commesso in presenza di una causa di giustificazione o di una causa personale di non punibilità ovvero vi è
{5}dubbio sull'esistenza delle stesse, il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione a norma del comma 1.
4. Con la sentenza di assoluzione il giudice applica, nei casi previsti dalla legge, le misure di sicurezza.

Source: http://www.leggeonline.info/leggi/procedurapenale/art530/sentenza_di_assoluzione/

English translation is from The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation, ed. Gialuz, Luparia, and Scarpa; Wolters Kluwer Italia, (C) 2014.

CPP Article 530 Judgment of acquittal

1. {1}If the criminal act did not occur,
{2}the accused did not commit it,
{3}the act is not deemed an offence by law or
{4}it has been committed by a person who cannot be accused or punished for a different reason,
the judge shall deliver a judgment of acquittal,
mentioning the cause {that is, the specification} in the operative part of the judgment.

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

3. The judge shall deliver a judgment of acquittal under paragraph 1 if
{5} there is proof that the underlying causes of the committed act are either a reason for justification or a personal reason for exemption from punishment or
{5}there is a doubt on the existence of such reasons.

4. By means of the judgment of acquittal, the judge shall apply the security measures, in the cases provided for by law.

The 5 causes or specifications of acquittal may be summarized as follows (Source: Adapted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure):

{1}Perché il fatto non sussiste = Because the act (crime) did not occur

{2}Perché l'imputato non lo ha commesso = Because the accused did not commit the act (crime)

{3}Perché il fatto non costituisce reato = Because the act did not constitute a crime (or no longer constitutes a crime)

{4}Perché l'imputato non è punibile = Because the accused is not legally responsible or cannot legally be punished (for example, due to lack of mental capacity - may include minors)

{5}Perché il fatto è stato commesso in presenza di una causa di giustificazione o di una causa personale di non punibilità = Because the act was justified or exempted from punishment (by a legal justification*)

*Legal justifications include, for example (Source**: www.unife.it/...Italian-Criminal-Law/.../Introduction to italian%2...)

I) Consent of the person entitled to the right (Article 50 c.p.);
2) Exercise of a right (Article 51 c.p);
3) Performance of a duty (Article 5 1 c.p.);
4) Lawful use of arms (Article 53 c.p.);
5) Lawful defence (Article 52 c.p.);
6) Necessity (Article 54 c.p.).

** Introduction to Italian Criminal Law, Adriano Martufi, Lecturer in Criminal Law, University of Ferrara, Italy; PDF

Note that 4 of the 5 specifications are found in CPP Article 530.1 and 530.2, with the 5th found in 530.3. Sorry if my leaving out Article 530.3 as a source of a specification in an earlier post caused any confusion. There is, however, some conceptual overlap in Specification 4 of Article 530.1 and both Specification 4 of 530.2 and Specification 5 of 530.3.
 
Last edited:
Here's the full text of CPP Article 530. It has 4 paragraphs. I have indicated the 5 specifications by enclosing an identifying number in { }.

Art. 530 - Sentenza di assoluzione
1. {1}Se il fatto non sussiste,
{2}se l'imputato non lo ha commesso,
{3}se il fatto non costituisce reato o non è previsto dalla legge come reato ovvero
{4}se il reato è stato commesso da persona non imputabile o non punibile per un'altra ragione,
il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione indicandone la causa nel dispositivo.
2. Il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione anche quando manca, è insufficiente o è contraddittoria la prova
{1}che il fatto sussiste,
{2}che l'imputato lo ha commesso,
{3}che il fatto costituisce reato o
{4}che il reato è stato commesso da persona imputabile.
3. Se vi è la prova
{5}che il fatto è stato commesso in presenza di una causa di giustificazione o di una causa personale di non punibilità ovvero vi è
{5}dubbio sull'esistenza delle stesse, il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione a norma del comma 1.
4. Con la sentenza di assoluzione il giudice applica, nei casi previsti dalla legge, le misure di sicurezza.

Source: http://www.leggeonline.info/leggi/procedurapenale/art530/sentenza_di_assoluzione/

English translation is from The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation, ed. Gialuz, Luparia, and Scarpa; Wolters Kluwer Italia, (C) 2014.

CPP Article 530 Judgment of acquittal

1. {1}If the criminal act did not occur,
{2}the accused did not commit it,
{3}the act is not deemed an offence by law or
{4}it has been committed by a person who cannot be accused or punished for a different reason,
the judge shall deliver a judgment of acquittal,
mentioning the cause {that is, the specification} in the operative part of the judgment.

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

3. The judge shall deliver a judgment of acquittal under paragraph 1 if
{5} there is proof that the underlying causes of the committed act are either a reason for justification or a personal reason for exemption from punishment or
{5}there is a doubt on the existence of such reasons.

4. By means of the judgment of acquittal, the judge shall apply the security measures, in the cases provided for by law.

The 5 causes or specifications of acquittal may be summarized as follows (Source: Adapted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure):

{1}Perché il fatto non sussiste = Because the act (crime) did not occur

{2}Perché l'imputato non lo ha commesso = Because the accused did not commit the act (crime)

{3}Perché il fatto non costituisce reato = Because the act did not constitute a crime (or no longer constitutes a crime)

{4}Perché l'imputato non è punibile = Because the accused is not legally responsible or cannot legally be punished (for example, due to lack of mental capacity - may include minors)

{5}Perché il fatto è stato commesso in presenza di una causa di giustificazione o di una causa personale di non punibilità = Because the act was justified or exempted from punishment (by a legal justification*)

*Legal justifications include, for example (Source**: www.unife.it/...Italian-Criminal-Law/.../Introduction to italian%2...)

I) Consent of the person entitled to the right (Article 50 c.p.);
2) Exercise of a right (Article 51 c.p);
3) Performance of a duty (Article 5 1 c.p.);
4) Lawful use of arms (Article 53 c.p.);
5) Lawful defence (Article 52 c.p.);
6) Necessity (Article 54 c.p.).

** Introduction to Italian Criminal Law, Adriano Martufi, Lecturer in Criminal Law, University of Ferrara, Italy; PDF

Note that 4 of the 5 specifications are found in CPP Article 530.1 and 530.2, with the 5th found in 530.3. Sorry if my leaving out Article 530.3 as a source of a specification in an earlier post caused any confusion. There is, however, some conceptual overlap in Specification 4 of Article 530.1 and both Specification 4 of 530.2 and Specification 5 of 530.3.

Thanks
So:

Out of the following, A and R's acquittal comes under the second option summarised here.

The 5 causes or specifications of acquittal may be summarized as follows (Source: Adapted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italia...al_Procedure):

{1}Perché il fatto non sussiste = Because the act (crime) did not occur

{2}Perché l'imputato non lo ha commesso = Because the accused did not commit the act (crime)

{3}Perché il fatto non costituisce reato = Because the act did not constitute a crime (or no longer constitutes a crime)

{4}Perché l'imputato non è punibile = Because the accused is not legally responsible or cannot legally be punished (for example, due to lack of mental capacity - may include minors)

{5}Perché il fatto è stato commesso in presenza di una causa di giustificazione o di una causa personale di non punibilità = Because the act was justified or exempted from punishment (by a legal justification*)

Although I note that is Wikipedia's summary, which some may question?
 
Last edited:
Thanks
So:

Out of the following, A and R's acquittal comes under the second option summarised here.

The 5 causes or specifications of acquittal may be summarized as follows (Source: Adapted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italia...al_Procedure):

{1}Perché il fatto non sussiste = Because the act (crime) did not occur

{2}Perché l'imputato non lo ha commesso = Because the accused did not commit the act (crime)

{3}Perché il fatto non costituisce reato = Because the act did not constitute a crime (or no longer constitutes a crime)

{4}Perché l'imputato non è punibile = Because the accused is not legally responsible or cannot legally be punished (for example, due to lack of mental capacity - may include minors)

{5}Perché il fatto è stato commesso in presenza di una causa di giustificazione o di una causa personale di non punibilità = Because the act was justified or exempted from punishment (by a legal justification*)

Although I note that is Wikipedia's summary, which some may question?

Yes, the main acquittal falls under {2}, they did not commit the act (crime). Note, however, that Hellmann also cited {1} for one charge.

I changed (adapted) Wikipedia's summary with regard to to {3} and {5}. I may have erred in doing so. Here is how Wikipedia treated those:

{3} Perché il fatto non costituisce reato = Because the action committed by the defendant is not considered a crime, for he was excused (e.g. self defense)

{5} Perché il fatto non è previsto dalla Legge come reato = Because law no longer considers the action committed by the defendant to be a crime

One of the specifications should also account for the act not having been a crime under law at the time the act occured.
 
Thanks
So:

Out of the following, A and R's acquittal comes under the second option summarised here.

The 5 causes or specifications of acquittal may be summarized as follows (Source: Adapted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italia...al_Procedure):

{1}Perché il fatto non sussiste = Because the act (crime) did not occur

{2}Perché l'imputato non lo ha commesso = Because the accused did not commit the act (crime)

{3}Perché il fatto non costituisce reato = Because the act did not constitute a crime (or no longer constitutes a crime)

{4}Perché l'imputato non è punibile = Because the accused is not legally responsible or cannot legally be punished (for example, due to lack of mental capacity - may include minors)

{5}Perché il fatto è stato commesso in presenza di una causa di giustificazione o di una causa personale di non punibilità = Because the act was justified or exempted from punishment (by a legal justification*)

Although I note that is Wikipedia's summary, which some may question?

Yes, the main acquittal falls under {2}, they did not commit the act (crime). Note, however, that Hellmann also cited {1} for one charge.

I changed (adapted) Wikipedia's summary with regard to to {3} and {5}. I may have erred in doing so. Here is how Wikipedia treated those:

{3} Perché il fatto non costituisce reato = Because the action committed by the defendant is not considered a crime, for he was excused (e.g. self defense)

{5} Perché il fatto non è previsto dalla Legge come reato = Because law no longer considers the action committed by the defendant to be a crime

One of the specifications should also account for the act not having been a crime under law at the time the act occured.

In deciphering which specifications are used under Italian law, and how they are discussed, in is also important to look at other articles of the CPP besides 530.

Here, for example, are the specifications (which may not include all the specifications of CPP Article 530) as used in another article (translation is that of Gialuz, Luparia, and Scarpa):

CPP Article 652 Effects of the criminal judgment of acquittal in trials for civil or administrative damages

1. The final criminal judgment of acquittal delivered after a trial shall have binding effect, with relation to either the ascertainment that

{1} the criminal act did not occur, or

{2} the accused did not commit it, or

{3} the act has been carried out to perform a duty or to exercise a legal right,

in the civil or administrative trial for the restitution and compensation of damages brought by the injured person or in his interest, provided that the injured has joined the proceedings as a civil party or has been given the possibility to join the proceedings, unless the injured has already brought the action in civil court, under Article 75, paragraph 2.
____
Of interest here is that CPP Article 530 is not referred to explicitly, but some of the specifications from Article 530 are called out, while others are omitted. This suggests that CPP Article 652 would not apply to an accused acquitted for not being punishable for reason of diminished mental capacity, or acquitted because a change in the law made the action no longer a crime.

Here is the Italian text of the relevant part of Article 652:

Art. 652 - Efficacia della sentenza penale di assoluzione nel giudizio civile o amministrativo di danno
1. La sentenza penale irrevocabile di assoluzione pronunciata in seguito a dibattimento ha efficacia di giudicato, quanto all'accertamento

{1}che il fatto non sussiste o
{2}che l'imputato non lo ha commesso o
{3}che il fatto è stato compiuto nell'adempimento di un dovere o nell'esercizio di una facoltà legittima,

nel giudizio civile o amministrativo per le restituzioni e il risarcimento del danno promosso dal danneggiato o nell'interesse dello stesso, sempre che il danneggiato si sia costituito o sia stato posto in condizione di costituirsi parte civile, salvo che il danneggiato dal reato abbia esercitato l'azione in sede civile a norma dell'articolo 75, comma 2 .
 
Last edited:
Manuela Comodi said she would decide what the defence would have a right to see. Therefore when C&V gave the defence material which the prosecution already had......

..... Vixen believes that to be illegal.

Right.

BTW - all this from the rare citations Vixen provides. No wonder she rarely provides them.

That is not the legal point at all. During the course of a trial, any evidence to be presented, must be provided to all parties... 'Independent' haha 'expert' LOL witnesses Conti & Vecchiotti breached all kinds of standards: ethics, protocol, due process, objectivity, impartiality, respect for the court, when they produced their DVD for defence eyes only.

Even the bent Mr Pratillo Hellmann had to direct the pair to provide the court and the prosecution a copy of their supposed damning DVD.

The pyrotechnics of Perry Mason or Crown Court, when a witness bursts into the court room at the last minute to make explosive revelations announcing the REAL murderer or with a piece of irrefutable evidence waving in their hand, like some kind of latterday Jim 'Liar, Liar' Carey, exist only in the minds of scriptwriters.
 
Thanks for this.

In fact, laughter broke out in the courtroom on Monday when the well-respected experts (Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti of La Sapienza University) used the DVD (yes, the one cops later tried to seize) to show police forensic scientists scrubbing the crime scene like cleaning ladies, without covering their heads or changing their booties when they strolled from room to room.

I am wondering why the prosecution would not already have had access to this footage?

Laughter from the bullying criminal element, I am sure.
 
Another excerpt from Dempsey's excellent article:

Imagine Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini’s horror when he woke up to the damning news stories from the U.S., U.K. and Italy. Indeed, he and the other two prosecutors (yes, the trial is beefed up as if for Mafiosi) couldn’t have missed these headlines today, emblazoned on newsstands in their hometown newspaper, Corriere Dell’Umbria. How these words must gnaw at the notoriously thin-skinned Perugia police.

The murder in Perugia: Experts reject the forensics investigation
Police used dirty gloves
The bra strap and knife are unreliable

The prosecution’s response was to threaten legal action. To hint at investigations. To grab the DVD.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/07/26/italians-cops-harass-scientists-in-amanda-knox-trial/


The same reaction they had to, 'The glove doesn't fit!'

Nobody takes Candace Dempsey seriously, a two-bit hack who tried to cash in with a slimline paperback of about 100 pages in large print and small size.


The type of hack who gives hacks a bad name.
 
Does the citing of this reference in a PGP post count as an "own goal" in an argument? The analogy being to when a soccer (football) goal is scored inadvertently by a defending team player striking the ball into the defending team's goal.

No, it counts as 'Nayim from the half way line, Nayim from the half way line...'


https://youtu.be/UsbBSj4vm30
 
Another point is that CPP Article 530 may be considered to have a unity, in that its paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 lead to the same effect - acquittal, while paragraph 4 states only that the judge take the appropriate measures for security (that is, releasing the acquitted from detention if there are no longer any pending charges requiring detention, for example).

This unity is displayed in references to Article 530 in other articles, such as:

CPP Article 631 Request for revision

1. 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.

(Translation from Gialuz, Luparia, and Scarpa.)

Note that CPP Article 530 is called out without reference to paragraph - there is no distinction between paragraphs 1, 2, or 3.

On the other hand, in CPP Article 652, Article 530 is not called out, but rather only certain specifications {aka causes} of acquittal, that are mentioned as causes for acquittal in Article 530.
 
Here's the full text of CPP Article 530. It has 4 paragraphs. I have indicated the 5 specifications by enclosing an identifying number in { }.

Art. 530 - Sentenza di assoluzione
1. {1}Se il fatto non sussiste,
{2}se l'imputato non lo ha commesso,
{3}se il fatto non costituisce reato o non è previsto dalla legge come reato ovvero
{4}se il reato è stato commesso da persona non imputabile o non punibile per un'altra ragione,
il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione indicandone la causa nel dispositivo.
2. Il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione anche quando manca, è insufficiente o è contraddittoria la prova
{1}che il fatto sussiste,
{2}che l'imputato lo ha commesso,
{3}che il fatto costituisce reato o
{4}che il reato è stato commesso da persona imputabile.
3. Se vi è la prova
{5}che il fatto è stato commesso in presenza di una causa di giustificazione o di una causa personale di non punibilità ovvero vi è
{5}dubbio sull'esistenza delle stesse, il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione a norma del comma 1.
4. Con la sentenza di assoluzione il giudice applica, nei casi previsti dalla legge, le misure di sicurezza.

Source: http://www.leggeonline.info/leggi/procedurapenale/art530/sentenza_di_assoluzione/

English translation is from The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation, ed. Gialuz, Luparia, and Scarpa; Wolters Kluwer Italia, (C) 2014.

CPP Article 530 Judgment of acquittal

1. {1}If the criminal act did not occur,
{2}the accused did not commit it,
{3}the act is not deemed an offence by law or
{4}it has been committed by a person who cannot be accused or punished for a different reason,
the judge shall deliver a judgment of acquittal,
mentioning the cause {that is, the specification} in the operative part of the judgment.

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

3. The judge shall deliver a judgment of acquittal under paragraph 1 if
{5} there is proof that the underlying causes of the committed act are either a reason for justification or a personal reason for exemption from punishment or
{5}there is a doubt on the existence of such reasons.

4. By means of the judgment of acquittal, the judge shall apply the security measures, in the cases provided for by law.

The 5 causes or specifications of acquittal may be summarized as follows (Source: Adapted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Code_of_Criminal_Procedure):

{1}Perché il fatto non sussiste = Because the act (crime) did not occur

{2}Perché l'imputato non lo ha commesso = Because the accused did not commit the act (crime)

{3}Perché il fatto non costituisce reato = Because the act did not constitute a crime (or no longer constitutes a crime)

{4}Perché l'imputato non è punibile = Because the accused is not legally responsible or cannot legally be punished (for example, due to lack of mental capacity - may include minors)

{5}Perché il fatto è stato commesso in presenza di una causa di giustificazione o di una causa personale di non punibilità = Because the act was justified or exempted from punishment (by a legal justification*)

*Legal justifications include, for example (Source**: www.unife.it/...Italian-Criminal-Law/.../Introduction to italian%2...)

I) Consent of the person entitled to the right (Article 50 c.p.);
2) Exercise of a right (Article 51 c.p);
3) Performance of a duty (Article 5 1 c.p.);
4) Lawful use of arms (Article 53 c.p.);
5) Lawful defence (Article 52 c.p.);
6) Necessity (Article 54 c.p.).

** Introduction to Italian Criminal Law, Adriano Martufi, Lecturer in Criminal Law, University of Ferrara, Italy; PDF

Note that 4 of the 5 specifications are found in CPP Article 530.1 and 530.2, with the 5th found in 530.3. Sorry if my leaving out Article 530.3 as a source of a specification in an earlier post caused any confusion. There is, however, some conceptual overlap in Specification 4 of Article 530.1 and both Specification 4 of 530.2 and Specification 5 of 530.3.


That is 530 Paragraph 1.
 
Yes, the main acquittal falls under {2}, they did not commit the act (crime). Note, however, that Hellmann also cited {1} for one charge.

I changed (adapted) Wikipedia's summary with regard to to {3} and {5}. I may have erred in doing so. Here is how Wikipedia treated those:

{3} Perché il fatto non costituisce reato = Because the action committed by the defendant is not considered a crime, for he was excused (e.g. self defense)

{5} Perché il fatto non è previsto dalla Legge come reato = Because law no longer considers the action committed by the defendant to be a crime

One of the specifications should also account for the act not having been a crime under law at the time the act occured.


You have been told before, wikipedia has been edited incorrectly.
 
You have been told before, wikipedia has been edited incorrectly.

Yet the words "the appellants did not commit the act" do appear on the original declaration and the motivation report. As pro forma template declararations go (before you tell me that again!) it is one of the best!
 
The translations I get are the following:



http://www.leggeonline.info/leggi/codicepenale/art368/calunnia/


(Translation: Babylon)
President - ...in part of its plea, understood that there were two analyzes made, understood, to obtain information from Amanda Knox and then, once obtained the information, was reassured the Amanda Knox on the fact that it was no longer HIV positive. Now, since all this activity, if it had occurred, and I understand that has not occurred, with these objectives, would have the profiles of a criminal offense, and this Court... AVV. FROM THE WIDOW - Certainly.

The defence were directed by the judge Nencini that their bringing up the HIV issue had nothing to do with his court, not because he believed it to be 'calunnia'.

In a court case, only listed issues can be discussed. These issues are decided in advance by all parties at the preliminary stages. You can't just suddenly start talking about the weather, you know.

It is a judge's job to keep control of the court room.

If that is the case please tell me, why is judge Nencini quoting the calunnia article to dalla Vedova? And why does your translation does not include that interesting bit? :(
PRESIDENTE - ...nella parte della sua arringa, si capiva che vi erano state due analisi fatte, si capiva, per ottenere delle informazioni dalla Amanda Knox e poi, una volta ottenute le informazioni, si era tranquillizzata la Amanda Knox sul fatto che non era più sieropositiva. Ora, siccome tutta questa attività, se fosse avvenuta, e mi pare di capire che non è avvenuta, con queste finalità, avrebbe dei profili di rilevanza penale, e questa Corte...AVV. DALLA VEDOVA – Certo.
PRESIDENTE - ...aveva l’obbligo...AVV. DALLA VEDOVA – Certo.
PRESIDENTE - ...di segnalarli, io ho voluto chiarire questo aspetto, perché poi verba volant, scripta manent. Il verbale è qualcosa che deve corrispondere alla realtà. Oggi, ora viene fuori in maniera molto esatta, che fu fatto quindi un accertamento su Amanda, che fu sbagliato, come tante volte capita, fu ripetuto e fu... e queste notizie provengono da Amanda Knox. Adesso è chiarito l’aspetto, ma non era un’attività, come dire, cervellotica della Corte.
AVV. DALLA VEDOVA – No.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom