Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[LondonJohn]

Thanks for your opinion.

However, it is not supported by Grinder's own posts where he resolved his "agnositicism" in stating that he had consulted an Italian lawyer and found that there was no legal difference, only a difference in perception.

Initially, Grinder had suggested in a post that there may be a legal difference, but that was secondary to his issue that there was a difference in perception.

I certainly never disagreed with him that some persons in Italy or elsewhere perceived CPP Article 530.1 and 530.2 as somehow different in legal effect. However, this is a false perception - there is no difference in legal consequences under either Italian civil or criminal law between acquittals under these paragraphs.

The discussion, which I participated in, about whether or not there was a legal difference certainly existed and may be found in thread Continuation 21. Whether this discussion was or was not "lively" is, of course, a subjective judgment. Some may have found it overly long and an indication that Grinder should have checked with an Italian lawyer or other sources he trusted and that were reliable earlier than he did. The sources he initially used were not reliable.

IMO this is a wholly-accurate and properly-supported interpretation of the situation.

 

[Numbers]

Thank you for providing this information.

The plain meaning difference between paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 is clear to me . First there is the part in paragraph 2 that I've highlighted. Second that the negation in specifications 1 through 3 of paragraph 1 are not present in paragraph 2. The plain meaning 1{2} is that the defendant is innocent. The plain meaning of 2{2} is that the defendant may have commited the act but there is insufficient evidence to safely convict. In both cases, of course, the defendant is acquitted and free to go.

Here is my question, if you were on trial for a crime in Italy and you were acquitted (hopefully correctly) would you rather the motivation report mention 1{2} or 2{2} as the cause?

In my opinion, you are reading these paragraphs incorrectly and without reference to Italian legal history. Paragraph 2 is simply a statement of the empirical evaluation that the judge employs to acquit an accused, based upon evidence. Paragraph 2 was made necessary by the reform of the Italian judicial system from an inquisitorial to an adversarial system, and by the introduction into law of CPP Article 533.1, that the judge may only convict an accused in there is proof (evidence) of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, in 2006.

I would have no problem if I were accused in Italy with an acquittal under CPP Article 530.2. That is equivalent to a finding of "not guilty" in the US.

Your question does show that you apparently may believe there is some legal consequence of the difference in CPP Article 530.1 and 530.2.

Furthermore, one must be aware of the meaning assigned to the word "innocent". When I use that term in a legal context, I generally mean it in the colloquial sense that a defendant has been found "not guilty". One must understand, however, that just as there are wrongful convictions, there may be wrongful acquittals. Other people may use that term differently, as suggesting an absolute or god-like knowledge of guilt or non-guilt, which is not practically obtainable for humans.

One should also be aware that in the US, the term "actual innocence" has been applied, in some jurisdictions, to the status of those convicted of, for example, rape, but for which there was no DNA evidence supporting the conviction , other evidence was lacking and/or unreliable, and DNA evidence showed that another person had committed the rape. This is precisely the situation of Knox and Sollecito in the case of Kercher's rape and murder in Italy.

 

[toto]

The entire wiki on the case has been constantly tampered with by the PR-brigade, which is why 'www.themurderofmeredithkercher' was set up.

I would take most of the stuff on the wiki page with a pinch of salt. You have no way of knowing what is factual and what a Friend of Amanda Knox spin.

No, the Wikipedia article quoted was about Italian Law; it has nothing to do with any Amanda Knox Wikipedia article per se.

 

[Numbers]

The near-certain genesis of the confusion on this matter is that the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure was changed in order to reflect the changes in the Italian constitution and legislation. But instead of doing a proper rewrite of the old sections of the code, a clumsy and inappropriate series of amendments took place to "shoehorn" the new constitutional and legislative changes into the existing code.

Clearly what should have happened is that 530 should have been torn up and rewritten along the lines of:

530 The judge shall announce acquittal if:
530.1
{1}the criminal act did not occur,
{2}there is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime,
{3}the crime is not deemed an offence by law or
{4}the crime has been committed by a person who cannot be accused or punished

The clumsy amendment of 530 means that, in reality, the sections of 530 are more-or-less meaningless in the context of what constitutes an acquittal (or conviction) under the Italian Constitution and Italian law. And it cannot be stated clearly enough: if someone were charged with a crime and the prosecution presented not one iota of evidence of guilt, the acquittal would fall under 530.2, not 530.1.

There is only one way to get acquitted in Italy if you are a defendant of sound mind: if the court is not presented of proof BARD that you committed the criminal act with which you were charged (which also encapsulates the scenario where the court deems that no crime was committed). There are not "grades" of acquittal.

What I believed happened, in addition to what you point out, was that the Italians wished to maintain the system of "specifications" or "causes" of acquittal that they had traditionally used (by law) in the inquisitorial system, and thus "shoe-horned" in a similar paragraph but showing that the judge decides based on an evaluation of the evidence, and thus consistent with guilty only if proven BARD as introduced fully into Italian law only in 2006.

 

[Vixen]

Thank you for providing this information.

The plain meaning difference between paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 is clear to me . First there is the part in paragraph 2 that I've highlighted. Second that the negation in specifications 1 through 3 of paragraph 1 are not present in paragraph 2. The plain meaning 1{2} is that the defendant is innocent. The plain meaning of 2{2} is that the defendant may have commited the act but there is insufficient evidence to safely convict. In both cases, of course, the defendant is acquitted and free to go.

Here is my question, if you were on trial for a crime in Italy and you were acquitted (hopefully correctly) would you rather the motivation report mention 1{2} or 2{2} as the cause?

What you have to be aware of is the following:

1 530,1 is a straighforward, 'not guilty', as opposed to 'guilty.

2. 530,2 is exclusively used by lower courts before a trial as grounds for a trial not going ahead, 'Insufficient evidence.'

There is an equivalent in both England & Wales and the USA, when a person is charged and brought before a court. A lawyer successfully argues there are insufficient grounds for a charge - or the Crown Prosecution/District Attorney decides it jumped the gun. In England & Wales and the USA this is equivalent to 'charges dropped. In Italy, because the penal code has to be quoted so it will say acquitted under para 530,2.

In other words it is a legal tool for defendants who have not stood trial. The difference between that and 530,1, is that in 530,1, the defendant has stood trial and that was the outcome.

Now, ever since political unrest in Italy, with anarchist and terrorist groups planting bombs and carrying out assassinations, instead of issuing 530,1 acquittals, 530,2 were used instead (i,e., post -trial).

The rationale for the acquittals was within a political context - similar to that of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four in England & Wales - in which active members of urban guerilla organisations (the provisional IRA in the latter two cases). These active members were arrested and stood trial. Ultimately, it was impossible to prove that they were the specific persons who planted the bombs, so the 530,2 was seen as a way of not declaring the defendants 'not guilty, but rather, 'insufficient evidence', with the implication - as in England and Wales and in the USA, that such an acquittal - unlike 530,1, that should 'sufficient evidence' come to light they could still be charged, with the difference being, in England & Wales/USA this verdict only happens in preliminary hearings (pre-trial).

In other words, in italy, 530,2, has been used in a political context. The proof of this is Berlusconi getting off on 530,2 (Finzi) and also ex-president Andreotti, charged with Mafia conspiracy. Interestingly, the 530,2 acquittal of Andreotti (who had - unlike the kids - been found 'not guilty' in the first instance merits court) was conjured up by Bongiorno who represented him. I daresay it was her who suggested to Bruno-Marasca they do the same for the kids. Who knows, as the other parties' counsels were not present when Bongiorno had her marathon two and a half days of submitting her appeal for Raff, including a long appendix by Gill, whose legal points were res judicata and should not have been admitted, notwithstanding he was not cross-examined before the court, either.

So, we see, the kids were acquitted on 530,2 as a 'loop hole', based on Italy's political legal skirmishes in the past, but applied to a common or garden aggravated murder case. Bongiorno knew that, with two upheld 'guilty' verdicts, Bruno-Marasca did not have the legal power to acquit under 530,1, so nudged Bruno-Marasca t a political verdict, which, of course it was, with Hellmann bribed with US$500K as admitted by Hellmann's brief recently. Senator Cantwell of Seattle got involved, as did Donald Trump
- who despite not having paid any tax for twenty (???) years, it is claimed by his detractors, by filing a 'loss' - who still managed to make a substantial contribution to Amanda's legal fund.

The US State Department got involved, writing on a leaked report 'case closed', after the Hellmann verdict (which was deemed most irregular, his verdict expunged and sent back down to another court in another region.
[Nencini, Tuscany]).

So when you puzzle over the difference between 530,1 and 530,2, you need to be aware that 530,2 is vanishingly rare and almost only ever crops up in exceptional political circumstance in the supreme court, being a lower court legal tool, to 'drop charges' against someone who could still be charged should more grounds come up. For example, Berlsuconi, Andreotti and Italian terrorist activists and anarchists several decades ago.

The answer is the merits courts found ample evidence the pair are guilty, as charged. Their acquittal under 530,2 is simply a tool used illegally by Bruno to pervert the course of justice. Both Bruno and Marasca are politically appointed judges, not career judges selected by merit and promotion.

 

[Numbers]

In my opinion, you are reading these paragraphs incorrectly and without reference to Italian legal history. Paragraph 2 is simply a statement of the empirical evaluation that the judge employs to acquit an accused, based upon evidence. Paragraph 2 was made necessary by the reform of the Italian judicial system from an inquisitorial to an adversarial system, and by the introduction into law of CPP Article 533.1, that the judge may only convict an accused in there is proof (evidence) of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, in 2006.

I would have no problem if I were accused in Italy with an acquittal under CPP Article 530.2. That is equivalent to a finding of "not guilty" in the US.

Your question does show that you apparently may believe there is some legal consequence of the difference in CPP Article 530.1 and 530.2.

Furthermore, one must be aware of the meaning assigned to the word "innocent". When I use that term in a legal context, I generally mean it in the colloquial sense that a defendant has been found "not guilty". One must understand, however, that just as there are wrongful convictions, there may be wrongful acquittals. Other people may use that term differently, as suggesting an absolute or god-like knowledge of guilt or non-guilt, which is not practically obtainable for humans.

One should also be aware that in the US, the term "actual innocence" has been applied, in some jurisdictions, to the status of those convicted of, for example, rape, but for which there was no DNA evidence supporting the conviction , other evidence was lacking and/or unreliable, and DNA evidence showed that another person had committed the rape. This is precisely the situation of Knox and Sollecito in the case of Kercher's rape and murder in Italy.

Another issue that may be present generating this "discussion" is that CPP Article 530.2 begins:

2. The judge shall deliver a judgment of acquittal ALSOin case of insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof that

Apparently, the meaning of "ALSO" may not be clear to some.

It means that the acquittal of paragraph 2 is the SAME as the acquittal of paragraph 1; the 530.2 acquittal is in addition to those of 530.1, with no indication that it is a lesser acquittal.

Consider what the word "ALSO" means in English:


Definition of also

1
: likewise 1 <They also liked it.>

2
: in addition : besides, too <She's a talented singer and also a fine actress.>

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/also

In addition; too.
‘a brilliant linguist, he was also interested in botany’
‘dyslexia, also known as word-blindness’

Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/also

 

[Vixen]

No, the Wikipedia article quoted was about Italian Law; it has nothing to do with any Amanda Knox Wikipedia article per se.

Yes, and as of the time we discussed this issue in detail, the 530,2 para was missing, and Numbers was claiming it was the same as 530,1 as 'wikipedia says so.'

 

[Vixen]

In my opinion, you are reading these paragraphs incorrectly and without reference to Italian legal history. Paragraph 2 is simply a statement of the empirical evaluation that the judge employs to acquit an accused, based upon evidence. Paragraph 2 was made necessary by the reform of the Italian judicial system from an inquisitorial to an adversarial system, and by the introduction into law of CPP Article 533.1, that the judge may only convict an accused in there is proof (evidence) of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, in 2006.

I would have no problem if I were accused in Italy with an acquittal under CPP Article 530.2. That is equivalent to a finding of "not guilty" in the US.

Your question does show that you apparently may believe there is some legal consequence of the difference in CPP Article 530.1 and 530.2.

Furthermore, one must be aware of the meaning assigned to the word "innocent". When I use that term in a legal context, I generally mean it in the colloquial sense that a defendant has been found "not guilty". One must understand, however, that just as there are wrongful convictions, there may be wrongful acquittals. Other people may use that term differently, as suggesting an absolute or god-like knowledge of guilt or non-guilt, which is not practically obtainable for humans.

One should also be aware that in the US, the term "actual innocence" has been applied, in some jurisdictions, to the status of those convicted of, for example, rape, but for which there was no DNA evidence supporting the conviction , other evidence was lacking and/or unreliable, and DNA evidence showed that another person had committed the rape. This is precisely the situation of Knox and Sollecito in the case of Kercher's rape and murder in Italy.

No, Marasca's use of 530,2 is not an accidental random one. It is a deliberately chosen one.

 

[Vixen]

The near-certain genesis of the confusion on this matter is that the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure was changed in order to reflect the changes in the Italian constitution and legislation. But instead of doing a proper rewrite of the old sections of the code, a clumsy and inappropriate series of amendments took place to "shoehorn" the new constitutional and legislative changes into the existing code.

Clearly what should have happened is that 530 should have been torn up and rewritten along the lines of:

530 The judge shall announce acquittal if:
530.1
{1}the criminal act did not occur,
{2}there is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime,
{3}the crime is not deemed an offence by law or
{4}the crime has been committed by a person who cannot be accused or punished

The clumsy amendment of 530 means that, in reality, the sections of 530 are more-or-less meaningless in the context of what constitutes an acquittal (or conviction) under the Italian Constitution and Italian law. And it cannot be stated clearly enough: if someone were charged with a crime and the prosecution presented not one iota of evidence of guilt, the acquittal would fall under 530.2, not 530.1.

There is only one way to get acquitted in Italy if you are a defendant of sound mind: if the court is not presented of proof BARD that you committed the criminal act with which you were charged (which also encapsulates the scenario where the court deems that no crime was committed). There are not "grades" of acquittal.

That is not so. The Italian Penal Code - actually, not unlike England and Wales - is set in stone, until such time the legislature via the government changes it.

IOW 530,1 subsection 2, cannot be interpreted as, 530,2. They are two completely separate legal paragraphs.

Italian judges do not have the jurisdiction to 'interpret' what is meant.

530,1 (with four/five subsections) is not and cannot be interpreted as, 530,2.

Law doesn't work that way.

 

[Vixen]

In my opinion, you are reading these paragraphs incorrectly and without reference to Italian legal history. Paragraph 2 is simply a statement of the empirical evaluation that the judge employs to acquit an accused, based upon evidence. Paragraph 2 was made necessary by the reform of the Italian judicial system from an inquisitorial to an adversarial system, and by the introduction into law of CPP Article 533.1, that the judge may only convict an accused in there is proof (evidence) of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, in 2006.

I would have no problem if I were accused in Italy with an acquittal under CPP Article 530.2. That is equivalent to a finding of "not guilty" in the US.

Your question does show that you apparently may believe there is some legal consequence of the difference in CPP Article 530.1 and 530.2.

Furthermore, one must be aware of the meaning assigned to the word "innocent". When I use that term in a legal context, I generally mean it in the colloquial sense that a defendant has been found "not guilty". One must understand, however, that just as there are wrongful convictions, there may be wrongful acquittals. Other people may use that term differently, as suggesting an absolute or god-like knowledge of guilt or non-guilt, which is not practically obtainable for humans.

One should also be aware that in the US, the term "actual innocence" has been applied, in some jurisdictions, to the status of those convicted of, for example, rape, but for which there was no DNA evidence supporting the conviction , other evidence was lacking and/or unreliable, and DNA evidence showed that another person had committed the rape. This is precisely the situation of Knox and Sollecito in the case of Kercher's rape and murder in Italy.

No, 530,2 was not created 'to help Italy change from inquisitorial to adversarial'. It goes back a long way and is similar to 'charges dropped', pre-trial on grounds of insufficient cause. It began to be used in the 60's for political cases by the supreme court, even though it was designed for the lower courts. The supreme court were nodding to the fact it was impossible to prove that individuals were specifically responsible for specific bombs, but were loath to declare them, 'not guilty' in the usual meaning of the words, either.

 

[Numbers]

Again, in discussing "perception", skeptics should be aware of the difference between "perception" and "reality" and, because of the limitations of human knowledge, the limitations of confidence in particular models of "reality".

A perception by some - and we are not sure who are these individuals perceiving, besides the PGP - is that there is a difference in LEGAL CONSEQUENCES or in QUALITY between an acquittal under CPP Article 530.2 compared to 530.1. But there is no difference in legal consequences or quality detectable in Italian law. There is only a lesser quality in the perception of those who believe that an accused person is guilty unless that person can somehow prove himself "innocent"; those who understand that the generally accepted standard in democracies is otherwise, that an accused is to be considered not guilty - colloquially, "innocent" - unless proven (by reliable evidence) to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

This standard - that an accused is only guilty if proven so by reliable evidence (that the accused is entitled to challenge, with the assistance of a defense lawyer) is the entitled right of persons (residents or visitors) within the States of the Council of Europe, including Italy. That is one reason why Italy changed its law (CPP Article 533.1) to conform to that standard. And the attempt by Italy to make its law conform to the standards of the Council of Europe (that is, the European Convention on Human Rights and European Court of Human Rights case law), when previously that standard was not explicitly present in Italy's formerly inquisitorial judicial system, largely explains why CPP Article 530.2 reads as it does.

 

[Vixen]

It matters not what 'perception' is in law. In the Italian Penal Code, Paragraph 530,2 is to deal with preliminary pretrial hearings where there is 'insufficient evidence', as deemed by the judge to proceed to a full trial. Paragraph 530,1 is to deal with persons who have stood trial and this is the final verdict.

Para 530,2 although a lower court tool, which enables the prosecution on behalf of the state, to still bring charges should further cause arise, has been used in exceptional - highly politically charged - cases such as the extraordinary case of Italian statesman, Andreotti, high-profile (Berlusconi) and the civil unrest cases in the 60's/70's.

Bruno-Marasca crookedly used 530,2 because of the history of these exceptions, to subvert the internationally high profile Knox-Sollecito case.

 

[Vixen]

Deleted.

 

[Methos]

Hellmann's counsel is quoted as saying Hellmann received a sum of US$500K.

Perhaps Welshman can tell us all what this sum was for.

Source, please...

 

[Vixen]

Source, please...

I cannot reveal my source. However, it is a reliable one.

 

[Bill Williams]

Thanks for your opinion.

However, it is not supported by Grinder's own posts where he resolved his "agnositicism" in stating that he had consulted an Italian lawyer and found that there was no legal difference, only a difference in perception.

Initially, Grinder had suggested in a post that there may be a legal difference, but that was secondary to his issue that there was a difference in perception.

That is a fair rendering of the journey Grinder took through this. The best contribution he'd made was amending his view after consulting an actual Italian lawyer.

Then again, I've not read an Italian source which butresses the current nutter view, that somehow the Section 2 acquittal was inferior to a Section 1 acquittal. Now that Rudy's revision has been denied, we can read that body of reasoning too!

BTW - mostly crickets from the nutters who claimed Rudy's revision would end up in reversing RS and AK's acquittals. Hoots!

 

[Methos]

I cannot reveal my source. However, it is a reliable one.

Of course you can't, I wonder why I asked... ?

 

[Bill Williams]

I cannot reveal my source. However, it is a reliable one.

Your source is one of the nuuters. Machiavelli made this very claim in these very threads years ago.

However, he would not reveal his source either. Therefore you are spreading gossip, and the opinion mentioned is not worth the electrons that fill the screen with it.

ETA - it's this type of thing which caused Jimbo Wales to lower the boom on the 2011 moderation of the MoMK page on Wikipedia. Nutter-guilters did not feel need to provide sources.

 

[Bill Williams]

It matters not what 'perception' is in law. In the Italian Penal Code, Paragraph 530,2 is to deal with preliminary pretrial hearings where there is 'insufficient evidence', as deemed by the judge to proceed to a full trial. Paragraph 530,1 is to deal with persons who have stood trial and this is the final verdict.

Para 530,2 although a lower court tool, which enables the prosecution on behalf of the state, to still bring charges should further cause arise, has been used in exceptional - highly politically charged - cases such as the extraordinary case of Italian statesman, Andreotti, high-profile (Berlusconi) and the civil unrest cases in the 60's/70's.

Bruno-Marasca crookedly used 530,2 because of the history of these exceptions, to subvert the internationally high profile Knox-Sollecito case.

You are the only one - outside of the nutter-guilter websites - who claims this. There is NO Italian legal opinion which sides with you. Both the Boninsegna court, as well as Rudy's revision court (which denied his request for revision) do not believe this.

It is a guilter fantasy - all to prop up an incompetent prosecutor, a prosecutor who was subsequently censored by his very own professional association. You obviously have not seem Mignini's own admissions in the Netflix documentary.

 

[Bill Williams]

The Jimmy Wales wiki was been constantly interfered with by the same people who write on 'AmandaKnox' case webpage that, 'Rudy Guede was an unemployed criminal, drug dealer and burglar'.

None of this is factual, it is pure agitprop.

You know nothing about Wikipedia. You know even less about why in 2011 intervention on the article was necessary. It payently was not to transfer power over the article from guilters to innocentisi. Peoplefrom both sides were banned.

What it returned to was the core prinicples of Wikipedia. There's always going to be dispute over an item within, you even have the powrr to user-edit what you think is wrong with it.

But unlike the fake-wiki your edit will be moderated. Acc. to principles of NPOV and verifiablity. Please note, NPOV does not mean that tbe edit itself is unbiased, just that it arises from a reputable source.

In other words, everything the fake-wiki isn't. It's why your complaints about the present MoMK article are so silly. If you think it is wrong - edit it!!!!!