Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[whoanellie]

You've only presented the definition of "innocent" not of "not guilty" and I'm thinking that "free from legal guilt" is not quite the same as a verdict of "not guilty". Actually I think a better term for this discussion would be "not proven".

I did a little more research and learned that "legal guilt" includes the necessity of being found guilty, i.e. "Legal guilt occurs when an offense is done to society as a whole, resulting in a guilty verdict". So I suppose one could argue that one who committed an offense against society but who has been found not guilty is not legally guilty and hence is "innocent". On the other hand, that same person would not be "free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil" . Above, I provided numerous links explaining how "not guilty" and "innocent" are not the same as those terms are commonly used in the U.S.

 

[whoanellie]

You are entitled to your opinion, and even to your own definitions.............
The "legal innocence" must not be confused with "moral innocence" or "actual innocence" in my definitions, and Webster's Dictionary definition 1c is the colloquial "legal innocence" being equivalent to a court judgment of "not guilty"

I've provided you with numerous links ranging from a website called "socialscienceforkids" to the websites of Penn and Cornell law schools that all explain the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent" as those terms are used in the US. I can do nothing more. It ain't me making up the definitions.

There's no such thing as a colloquial "legal innocence".

 

[Numbers]

I've provided you with numerous links ranging from a website called "socialscienceforkids" to the websites of Penn and Cornell law schools that all explain the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent" as those terms are used in the US. I can do nothing more. It ain't me making up the definitions.

There's no such thing as a colloquial "legal innocence".

By the term "legal innocence" I mean the colloquial use as a synonym for "found not guilty in a court of law".

I am fully aware the courts - at least in the US - do not issue verdicts of "innocent"; the verdict given is "not guilty". As you demonstrate, and as shown by the many definitions of "innocent" in Webster's Dictionary, that word has too many meanings to be well suited for a court verdict.

Again, it is you who are promoting an argument towards me and others. I think that this is based on your interpretation of the verdict of acquittal under CPP Article 530.1 as a verdict of "innocence" whiles a verdict of acquittal under Article 530.2 as a verdict of "not guilty because there wasn't enough evidence to convict" - propositions that I have not stated as my own and do not agree with. If one abandons the misconception that 530.1 is a verdict of "innocence" and accepts that it is the historical baggage of Italy's former inquisitorial judicial system, the "problem" is solved. In the inquisitorial system, judges were assumed by law to be able to devine whether an accused was guilty or not guilty after the judge read the investigative report from the police and prosecutor - the prosecutor supposedly including in the report mention of any exculpatory evidence he had found, with the defense allowed a proforma presentation.

The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP) used until recently (1988) was one drafted in 1930, during the fascist era. In the inquisitional system embodied in that code, there was an investigating judge who would direct the investigation to "ascertain the truth". He would hear witnesses and experts, perform searches, seizures, and experiments, and could summon the accused for questioning. No defense participation was allowed in this investigation phase. All the evidence obtained in this investigation would be recorded in a dossier that was given to the trial judge, who originally decided the case based on the dossier.

Some years after World War 2 ended, and the new Italian Constitution was adopted (1948), reforms began to be introduced into the inquisitorial system. These reforms, including decisions of the Italian Constitutional Court in the 1970's, allowed the defense opportunities to challenge or contradict the information in the investigative dossier, and there was some development of confrontation of witnesses and adversarial procedures for the trial. However, in most cases the trial phase did not add to or disavow the conclusion reached during the investigation. The defense was forbidden by law to conduct any investigation, and the investigative dossier was not disclosed to the defense until the trial. The trial often turned into an "official reading" of the record and conclusions formed during the investigation, a mere formality. In other words, there was a "presumption of guilt" rather than a "presumption of innocence".

While the Italian Parliament began a major reform to an adversarial, or hybrid adversarial - inquisitional, system in 1988, the reforms were resisted by the regular courts (which are totally independent of Parliament) and the Constitutional Court, which struck down many of the reforms as unconstitutional. Thus, it became necessary for the Italian Parliament to amend the Constitution for the reforms, when passed again, to become law.

The CPP was reformed again in keeping with certain amendments to the Constitution to provide specific legal procedures designed to make the judicial system more adversarial and provide rights to defendants similar to those in the US, UK, and other democracies and conforming more closely to the Convention. However, even this round of reforms met opposition from the courts and the Constitutional Court. Certain types of hearsay testimony and statements by witnesses that were not allowed to be cross-examined were permitted by Constitutional Court judgments, for example, based upon the ideological principle that the judge's ability to seek the truth should not be restricted by the rights of defendants, rights that were foreign to the inquisitorial system which the Constitution Court claimed was basic to the Constitution. In 1997, the Parliament responded by passing new reform laws designed to provide defendant's rights while seeming to follow the Constitution, but the Constitutional Court again struck down these reforms as unconstitutional as before. This battle between Parliament and the courts continued for several more years.

The Parliament decided it would need to further amend the Constitution to explicitly state the intended procedural system and provide for defense rights. Constitutional Law 2/1999 reformed Article 111 of the Constitution by introducing 5 new clauses; these were called the "fair trial reform". These clauses include that evidence in criminal cases must be heard before an impartial judge with the parties present and that guilt cannot be established by declarations of an accuser who has not allowed himself to be cross-examined {the prosecution attempted this in the Knox - Sollecito case by the introduction of the verdict and motivation report of Guede's fast-track trial, which included unchallenged accusations against Knox and Sollecito}.

Parliament then passed law 63/2001 to reintroduce the reforms of the CPP previously struck down by the Constitutional Court. That Court now declared the laws constitutional.

But there were additional reforms passed by Parliament to bring Italian law into alignment with the legal practices of the democracies and the Convention. These are germane to the discussion of CPP Article 530.

The reforms of 1988 intended to eliminate the acquittal for insufficient evidence, which was inherited from the inquisitorial system based upon the presumption of guilt. The Constitution and Convention requires a presumption of innocence (no person shall be considered guilty until finally convicted); therefore, Article 530.2 was introduced, with the intent that one is not guilty if the evidence does not support guilt. However, the wording of 530.2 itself was considered unclear for establishing the required standard for guilt, so in 2002 the Joint Chambers of the CSC decided that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" was required as the standard for conviction. Parliament confirmed this by passing law 46/2006 which incorporated the BARD standard into CPP Article 533.1.
So, after this rather long exposition the complexities of Italian criminal law legislation and judicial action, the reason for the strange wording of CPP Article 530 is simply that the Italian Parliament decided to insert 530.2 without deleting 530.1, and the reason was to bring the Italian criminal law system into consistency with the BARD standard. There was no intent for paragraph 1 to be a "better" acquittal than a paragraph 2. It is important to realize that Italy was doing this to convert from a system where an accused was presumed to be guilty to one where an accused was presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sources: The frustrated turn to adversarial procedure in Italy (Italian Criminal Procedure Code of 1988), Giulio Illuminati; 4 Wash U Glob Stud L Rev 567(2005)

https://www.researchgate.net/public...Italy_Italian_Criminal_Procedure_Code_of_1988

Gialuz, Luparia, and Scarpa, eds. The Italian Code of Criminal Behavior: Critical essays and English translation, Wolters Kluwer Italia (C) 2014

 

[Numbers]

I've provided you with numerous links ranging from a website called "socialscienceforkids" to the websites of Penn and Cornell law schools that all explain the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent" as those terms are used in the US. I can do nothing more. It ain't me making up the definitions.

There's no such thing as a colloquial "legal innocence".

In my opinion, the issue is a lack of information of many people about the history of Italian criminal procedure, and why CPP Articles 530.2 and 533.1 were introduced. I've posted a rather long essay, mostly copied from my sources, to try to explain to those interested.

Again, the point is that the CPP Article 530.2 acquittal is not some inferior type of acquittal but a measure used to bring Italian law into consistency with the laws of other democracies, the Italian Constitution, and the European Convention on Human Rights.

I am not asking that you accept the terminology "legal innocence". I certainly don't go about using that term except in these odd discussions; I made it up specifically for such use. And that whole discussion about the meaning of "innocence" is really beside the point.

What I expect you to do, if you are supporting your position, is to show that Italian media - not PGP blogs or PGP wikis - are stating that the 530.2 acquittal of Knox and Sollecito was not a full acquittal, or that it indicates that the judges considered them guilty or maybe guilty but that there just wasn't enough evidence to justify a conviction. That is the real issue you bring up.

If, on the other hand, your position is that one or more posters predicted that Knox and Sollecito would be given a CPP Article 530.1 acquittal and that it was better before the judgment, but reversed to now saying that the 530.2 acquittal is equivalent to the 530.1 now that we've learned the verdict .... so what? I suggest that some of those who made that prediction may not have known the history of the introduction of 530.2.

There were posters who mistakenly thought the Boninsegna verdict was a 530.1 after it was issued, because of a perceived ambiguity in the text: the Italian grammatical article liaised to the words as "l'art. 530" was mistaken as being "Article 530.1"; actually, it reads "Article 530" without identifying a paragraph. (Shown correctly in the translation on www.amandaknoxcase.com; I have posted on the mistaken reading by a poster previously.) This paragraph issue does not have the importance you and the PGP, or even some PIP, ascribe to it. The PQM of the MR reads:

Pursuant to article 530 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure,
acquits Knox Amanda Marie for the charge under letter a), because the facts do not exist, and for the charge under letter b), because the facts do not exist and because the act does not constitute an offense, as regards the accusations addressed to Dr. Giuliano Mignini.

Hellmann's acquittal, apparently mistaken by some PIP as being under 530.1, was actually under CPP Article 605, but used, as required by CPP Article 530, a specification, just as the Boninsegna acquittal includes two different specifications.

Again, as posters become more familiar with the real content and history of Italian criminal law, these seeming issues about the paragraphs of Article 530 will be seen to be trivialities (except to the PGP, of course).

I suggest that any verdict of acquittal that has a motivation report that discusses evidence is logically an Article 530.2 acquittal or its equivalent - that is, one based on the evaluation of evidence. In the inquisitorial system, where Article 530.1 was the criteria for acquittal, it's not clear to me that the trial judge issue a motivation report justifying the acquittal based on the evaluation of evidence. In the current Italian Constitution, the issuance of a motivation report is required (It. Const. Article 111, "All judicial decisions shall include a statement of reasons.") suggesting that even an acquittal under 530.1 must include an evaluation of the evidence; the judge cannot simply state that the person is acquitted (or "innocent", for those who think that is the verdict resulting from Article 530.1).

 

[Vixen]

By the term "legal innocence" I mean the colloquial use as a synonym for "found not guilty in a court of law".

I am fully aware the courts - at least in the US - do not issue verdicts of "innocent"; the verdict given is "not guilty". As you demonstrate, and as shown by the many definitions of "innocent" in Webster's Dictionary, that word has too many meanings to be well suited for a court verdict.

Again, it is you who are promoting an argument towards me and others. I think that this is based on your interpretation of the verdict of acquittal under CPP Article 530.1 as a verdict of "innocence" whiles a verdict of acquittal under Article 530.2 as a verdict of "not guilty because there wasn't enough evidence to convict" - propositions that I have not stated as my own and do not agree with. If one abandons the misconception that 530.1 is a verdict of "innocence" and accepts that it is the historical baggage of Italy's former inquisitorial judicial system, the "problem" is solved. In the inquisitorial system, judges were assumed by law to be able to devine whether an accused was guilty or not guilty after the judge read the investigative report from the police and prosecutor - the prosecutor supposedly including in the report mention of any exculpatory evidence he had found, with the defense allowed a proforma presentation.

The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP) used until recently (1988) was one drafted in 1930, during the fascist era. In the inquisitional system embodied in that code, there was an investigating judge who would direct the investigation to "ascertain the truth". He would hear witnesses and experts, perform searches, seizures, and experiments, and could summon the accused for questioning. No defense participation was allowed in this investigation phase. All the evidence obtained in this investigation would be recorded in a dossier that was given to the trial judge, who originally decided the case based on the dossier.

Some years after World War 2 ended, and the new Italian Constitution was adopted (1948), reforms began to be introduced into the inquisitorial system. These reforms, including decisions of the Italian Constitutional Court in the 1970's, allowed the defense opportunities to challenge or contradict the information in the investigative dossier, and there was some development of confrontation of witnesses and adversarial procedures for the trial. However, in most cases the trial phase did not add to or disavow the conclusion reached during the investigation. The defense was forbidden by law to conduct any investigation, and the investigative dossier was not disclosed to the defense until the trial. The trial often turned into an "official reading" of the record and conclusions formed during the investigation, a mere formality. In other words, there was a "presumption of guilt" rather than a "presumption of innocence".

While the Italian Parliament began a major reform to an adversarial, or hybrid adversarial - inquisitional, system in 1988, the reforms were resisted by the regular courts (which are totally independent of Parliament) and the Constitutional Court, which struck down many of the reforms as unconstitutional. Thus, it became necessary for the Italian Parliament to amend the Constitution for the reforms, when passed again, to become law.

The CPP was reformed again in keeping with certain amendments to the Constitution to provide specific legal procedures designed to make the judicial system more adversarial and provide rights to defendants similar to those in the US, UK, and other democracies and conforming more closely to the Convention. However, even this round of reforms met opposition from the courts and the Constitutional Court. Certain types of hearsay testimony and statements by witnesses that were not allowed to be cross-examined were permitted by Constitutional Court judgments, for example, based upon the ideological principle that the judge's ability to seek the truth should not be restricted by the rights of defendants, rights that were foreign to the inquisitorial system which the Constitution Court claimed was basic to the Constitution. In 1997, the Parliament responded by passing new reform laws designed to provide defendant's rights while seeming to follow the Constitution, but the Constitutional Court again struck down these reforms as unconstitutional as before. This battle between Parliament and the courts continued for several more years.

The Parliament decided it would need to further amend the Constitution to explicitly state the intended procedural system and provide for defense rights. Constitutional Law 2/1999 reformed Article 111 of the Constitution by introducing 5 new clauses; these were called the "fair trial reform". These clauses include that evidence in criminal cases must be heard before an impartial judge with the parties present and that guilt cannot be established by declarations of an accuser who has not allowed himself to be cross-examined {the prosecution attempted this in the Knox - Sollecito case by the introduction of the verdict and motivation report of Guede's fast-track trial, which included unchallenged accusations against Knox and Sollecito}.

Parliament then passed law 63/2001 to reintroduce the reforms of the CPP previously struck down by the Constitutional Court. That Court now declared the laws constitutional.

But there were additional reforms passed by Parliament to bring Italian law into alignment with the legal practices of the democracies and the Convention. These are germane to the discussion of CPP Article 530.

The reforms of 1988 intended to eliminate the acquittal for insufficient evidence, which was inherited from the inquisitorial system based upon the presumption of guilt. The Constitution and Convention requires a presumption of innocence (no person shall be considered guilty until finally convicted); therefore, Article 530.2 was introduced, with the intent that one is not guilty if the evidence does not support guilt. However, the wording of 530.2 itself was considered unclear for establishing the required standard for guilt, so in 2002 the Joint Chambers of the CSC decided that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" was required as the standard for conviction. Parliament confirmed this by passing law 46/2006 which incorporated the BARD standard into CPP Article 533.1.
So, after this rather long exposition the complexities of Italian criminal law legislation and judicial action, the reason for the strange wording of CPP Article 530 is simply that the Italian Parliament decided to insert 530.2 without deleting 530.1, and the reason was to bring the Italian criminal law system into consistency with the BARD standard. There was no intent for paragraph 1 to be a "better" acquittal than a paragraph 2. It is important to realize that Italy was doing this to convert from a system where an accused was presumed to be guilty to one where an accused was presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sources: The frustrated turn to adversarial procedure in Italy (Italian Criminal Procedure Code of 1988), Giulio Illuminati; 4 Wash U Glob Stud L Rev 567(2005)

https://www.researchgate.net/public...Italy_Italian_Criminal_Procedure_Code_of_1988

Gialuz, Luparia, and Scarpa, eds. The Italian Code of Criminal Behavior: Critical essays and English translation, Wolters Kluwer Italia (C) 2014

No, 530,2 does not date from 1988. It was used in the 60's/70's to deal with terrorist charges in respect of political activitists, whom they could not prove were the actual culprits for acts against the state.

The Italian Penal Code may have been formulated circa the 1930's, but you are making the logical fallacy of mistaking cause and effect (post-hoc ergo propter hoc), as the inquistorial system has been around in Latin Europe for much longer (Roman Law)and is also the system in France, which was never fascist. Italy as a country did not exist until fairly recently, circa 1860, so your claim the Italian Penal Code is based on fascism, and that 530,2 was included as a result of 1988 reforms is just plain wrong.

 

[toto]

Originally posted by MichaelB Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:02 am on InjusticeAnywhereForum

My bold and highlighting

Interesting to see the perception from an Italian point of view

Italia colpevole. Di colpevolismo

Otto anni e cinque sentenze diverse: già questo la dice lunga sul nostro sistema-giustizia. Intanto, sui giornali e in rete si scatenano i giacobini che volevano la condanna a priori. Siamo un Paese che soffre di un non-garantismo cronico, e che assegna ai giudici una funzione salvifica estranea alle democrazie liberali

di Maria Giovanna Maglie

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

Eight years and five different judgments: that in itself says a lot about our court system. Meanwhile, in the newspapers and on the net are unleashed the Jacobins who wanted the condemnation a priori. We are a country that suffers from a chronic non-guarantor, and that gives the judges a salvific function stranger to liberal democracies

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were convicted at first instance and acquitted on appeal. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling on appeal and ordered a new trial. The appeal bis Amanda and Raffaele were again convicted. Yesterday the Supreme Court canceled the sentence and no referral has finally acquitted the two defendants. Eight years and five different judgments against the same evidentiary material ?

If the evidence does not exist or was not sufficiently solid as ever we come to two sentences? If, however, was solid as ever two acquittals, the last final? If the "genetic tests" were not definitive and overwhelming, why twice led to the condemnation of the accused? From today officially innocent , have been for four years in prison; fame junk from public scrutiny and ridicule its will accompany them for the time of their lives; all truth remains unknown because the only culprit, who confessed and chose a summary procedure, but it is recognized that in competition with those who do not know. The previous ruling yesterday was canceled without reference, deleted words, and this is a rare decision to the Supreme Court. According to the device, the judges of the fifth section, chaired by Gennaro Marasca, felt that the two former students " have not committed the crime . " If they had come to the opposite conclusion, would confirm the verdict of Florence, as requested by the attorney general; if they had identified errors of law, what the responsibility of the Supreme Court, would have postponed the trial to another Court of Assizes. Instead they filed the story, over forever.
Special treatment in a so-called Daddy's boy? Even long arm , the US influence on a decision so clear? And when the acquittal was canceled, was also the influence, and to whom? In the United States have certainly followed with great concern the story, but because there we have the principle of clear " double jeopardy ", or if you prefer as the source is the Roman law, the" ne bis in idem ", or that once acquitted the first time, the story ended there, since the appeal logically and with the spirit of guarantee only permitted if convicted. Also ends if the next day you were to uncover evidence of guilt. Also there is worth the reasonable doubt , it only takes one and only one member of the jury, but also in the case of a judgment given directly by a judge, to be called by the system to perform. Here doubt there were hundreds.

[/hilite]The judges of the Supreme Court have shown considerable courage [/hilite] . This is perhaps the only positive aspect of the long story of Amanda and Raffaele. However colpevolisti have already unleashed on Facebook and other social, of many newspapers and TV talk. It is just the beginning. The judgments that are not discussed are clearly not those of crime . But woe to retain it only crime, is the exact mirror of the judicial system and the nation, albeit with an unexpected outcome for once. Italy suffers from chronic way of a guarantor does not spread , a broader suspicion that the search for truth and the judicial review of the functioning of the system does not care. People look for the culprit at all costs and suspected plots when a judge does not go beyond its task, but respect the law and apply it. The judge is expected saving function , the sanction of the collective fury , expressed with the empire of power. But then it is useless and grotesque complain of excessive power of the judiciary in all fields of society, because it is also for this reason that one of the judges has become a corporation of untouchables, who believes to represent the good of the country, the only healthy part, a directory Jacobin in permanent service. Finally, significant detail, investigations here do not know how to do right, and if you do not find evidence within forty-eight hours almost always do not find them anymore, and as the coordinator of a public prosecutor and the defense does not have any information either say, for going to have to invent a process suggestive thesis , that like the people waiting for the spectacle of the guillotine instead of the duty of the law, and appiccicarci tests that will prove to be bogus. This is how the high-profile cases of bad justice , so constantly increases the number of cases that after thirty years waiting for a culprit. Who is indignant today for an acquittal late and due, think of this collective guilt.

 

[whoanellie]

Numbers, thank you for most recent responses. I agree with much of what you've written and always have. I've made a few comments below.

In my opinion, the issue is a lack of information of many people about the history of Italian criminal procedure, and why CPP Articles 530.2 and 533.1 were introduced. I've posted a rather long essay, mostly copied from my sources, to try to explain to those interested.

Again, the point is that the CPP Article 530.2 acquittal is not some inferior type of acquittal but a measure used to bring Italian law into consistency with the laws of other democracies, the Italian Constitution, and the European Convention on Human Rights.

I value your mini-essays about the history of Italian law very much. I understand that 530.2 was added on fairly recently and fully appreciate your comments above about 530.1 assuming that judges can somehow divine the truth. Unfortunately, 530.1 remains, I'm not sure why, and can give the impression that there are two types of acquittals.

I am not asking that you accept the terminology "legal innocence". I certainly don't go about using that term except in these odd discussions; I made it up specifically for such use. And that whole discussion about the meaning of "innocence" is really beside the point.

Then "legal innocence" is not colloquial. I wrote here that O.J. Simpson was not guilty of murder but was not innocent. You responded by saying I was confused. I believe my use of those terms is standard and I leave it to others to decide for themselves.

What I expect you to do, if you are supporting your position, is to show that Italian media - not PGP blogs or PGP wikis - are stating that the 530.2 acquittal of Knox and Sollecito was not a full acquittal, or that it indicates that the judges considered them guilty or maybe guilty but that there just wasn't enough evidence to justify a conviction. That is the real issue you bring up.

I've never mentioned the Italian media and have no intention of discussing it.
I don't read or speak Italian and have no basis for discussing what is or isn't in the Italian media. The real issue I've brought up recently is that Grinder never claimed that there was a difference in legal consequence between 530.1 versus a 530.2 acquittal.

If, on the other hand, your position is that one or more posters predicted that Knox and Sollecito would be given a CPP Article 530.1 acquittal and that it was better before the judgment, but reversed to now saying that the 530.2 acquittal is equivalent to the 530.1 now that we've learned the verdict .... so what? I suggest that some of those who made that prediction may not have known the history of the introduction of 530.2.

This is a reasonable summation of my position - and I believe Grinder's. For me the only "so what?" is to correct what I beleve was a posthumous misrepresentation of Grinder's position on an issue that had generated a lively discussion. Whether you see my position as worthy of discussion is up to you.

 

[Numbers]

Numbers, thank you for most recent responses. I agree with much of what you've written and always have. I've made a few comments below.



I value your mini-essays about the history of Italian law very much. I understand that 530.2 was added on fairly recently and fully appreciate your comments above about 530.1 assuming that judges can somehow divine the truth. Unfortunately, 530.1 remains, I'm not sure why, and can give the impression that there are two types of acquittals.



{1}Then "legal innocence" is not colloquial. I wrote here that O.J. Simpson was not guilty of murder but was not innocent. You responded by saying I was confused. I believe my use of those terms is standard and I leave it to others to decide for themselves.


I've never mentioned the Italian media and have no intention of discussing it.
I don't read or speak Italian and have no basis for discussing what is or isn't in the Italian media. The real issue I've brought up recently is that Grinder never claimed that there was a difference in legal consequence between 530.1 versus a 530.2 acquittal.



This is a reasonable summation of my position - and I believe Grinder's. For me the only "so what?" is to correct what I beleve was a posthumous misrepresentation of Grinder's position on an issue that had generated a lively discussion. Whether you see my position as worthy of discussion is up to you.

1. I showed you the definition 1c in Webster's. Must we keep going around on this BS issue? I never said that the Webster's definition was necessarily a technical legal definition; it is a common, colloquial definition.

You are confusing how people commonly refer to someone who has been acquitted - found "not guilty" - as "innocent" and which I clarify with "legally innocent" with whether or not that person has "actually not committed the act" which is another definition of "innocent", which may be called "actually innocent" or "factually innocent". Remember that there is a legal term "presumption of innocence"; if you like, we could call this the "presumption of not guilty". Does changing "presumption of innocence" to "presumption of not guilty" help explain the confusion in use of the word "innocence"?

2. In terms of Grinder's position, your statement is not fully correct. Grinder maintained that there may be a real difference, although he suggested that it was a secondary issue. In my recollection, he cited one or more PGP "sources" claiming that there was a possibility of a civil trial following acquittal for Knox and Sollecito as in the OJ Simpson case. There was, if I remember, also some suggestions of a criminal trial do-over from some, based on a redefinition of the crime. Several other posters, certainly myself, disagreed, since Maresca, the Kercher's lawyer had been quoted in Italian media as stating the case against Knox and Sollecito was over following the CSC final acquittal. I found and cited the relevant CPP articles, explaining Italian criminal law; for example:

Article 648 Final criminal trials are those which by law cannot be appealed, such as verdicts issued by the CSC and those where the time limit to appeal lapses with no valid appeal filed.

Article 649 No double jeopardy; neither a finally acquitted nor a finally convicted person may be retried for the same offense or actions, even if the legal definition or charges are considered differently. If such a retrial of a finally convicted or acquitted person is started, the judge is authorized to stop the proceedings at any stage, specifying the cause.

Article 652 The final criminal judgment of acquittal delivered after a trial has binding effect on the civil trial heard during the criminal proceedings, provided that the acquittal specification was that the crime did not occur, the accused did not commit it, or that the act was carried out to perform a duty or exercise a legal right. The acquitted will be not be responsible for any claimed damages or restitution in such cases.

Article 654 The final criminal judgment of conviction or acquittal delivered after a trial shall have binding effect in the civil trial on the accused person, the civil party, and the person with civil liability for damages who has appeared or intervened in the criminal proceedings for the same acts as subject in the proceedings.
___
Grinder apparently accepted that the final acquittal under Article 530.2 had no legal criminal or civil consequence after he consulted an Italian lawyer, as he stated in a post. He stated, however, that the specifications such as "did not commit the act" was a pro forma statement - suggesting, I believe, that is was not meaningful but an empty formality. His statement is not supported by Italian law as shown in the CPP articles cited and summarized above: the wording of the specification has legal consequences (Article 652). The specification statement in an acquittal is of legal consequence, while the paragraph 1 or 2 of Article 530 is not.

3. It is clear that many persons have been mislead about the meaning of paragraphs 1 and 2 in Article 530. Italian law is different from US and English (& Wales) law and has a radically different history. It is possible that some Italians and others believe or perceive that an acquittal under 530.2 is of lesser quality than one under 530.1, but there is no difference in legal consequences between the two.

Furthermore, a court in a Council of Europe State cannot legally render a verdict that states a person is not guilty or acquitted, but goes on to state or imply that the person is almost guilty or that the judges believe the person to be guilty in spite of the verdict. Such a verdict or statement would be considered to be a violation of rights under the Convention. This would be referred to as a violation of the "presumption of innocence" or, if one prefers, the "presumption that one is not guilty if found not guilty".

 

[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.

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.

This has been an education for all of us (!), and I know I have not had a very good learning curve. Indeed, I recently backslid back into one of my first preconceived notions about 530 which resulted in a well earned, "No, no, no, no Bill...." from you.

It was not only Grinder, it was all of us - in March 2015, we'd come to assume that the M/B panel had acquitted using 530.1, and perhaps some mistakenly implied, "Thank goodness it wasn't a 530.2 acquittal, because that would have left some room for doubt."

Then in Sept 2015 it comes up as a 530.2 acquittal and all hell breaks loose. It breaks loose on preconceived notions of some hypothetical difference.

I do agree that Grinder's point was probably more aimed at those of us on the innocentisi side who'd gone well beyond their own knowledge level (me included) and said things which were not justifiable In fact, I think that was the origin of him saying there was a perception issue.

But moving beyond that - there are two other issues. I believe I was successful in getting him to consider perception vs. actual legal impact/consequence which he resolved the proper way - citing an authority.

But the second point is that the legal consequence was not initially Grinder's concern.

So, moving beyond all that - let's all assume (Vixen will assume differently I am sure) that there IS NO difference in legal consequence between 530.1 and 530.2.

This is now beyond the time when that debate had been had. The issue now, and a challenge I'd put forth to you, Numbers, is precisely on the perception issue.

I've already said that in my reading of the Italian press and the few official motivation reports which have come from satellite prosecutions, it is clear, crystal clear, that there isn't a perception difference in this case.

Perhaps theoretically Italian legal experts write peer-reviewed articles, or a newspaper writes an editorial about how some gangster, "got off on a technicality, that's why the court used 530.2 to signal this....", but it is clear that in this case, that is not so.

LondonJohn colloquially characterized 530.1 as "completely innocent," and 530.2 to represent a range of acquittals, from "completely innocent", to "innocent by a hair." By dealing with this at the perception level. we are dealing with it at the colloquial level....

.... and I have read nothing that speaks of anything but, "completely innocent", other than from the perception of nutty guilters. The caveat to this is that both Grinder and Machiavelli DID pull news accounts which seemed to be saying to the M/B panel, "not so fast,", or "what about the......." They did find some chatter which did not pin the perception needle at the "totally innocent" of the perception spectrum.

Rudy himself has a group around him wanting to cast doubt in a differing direction. Rudy has publicly implied that at least AK is guilty, and is wisely agnostic about RS. But does anyone other than his core-Italian group believe him?

 

[Numbers]

I believe the perception issue in Italy does not revolve around the paragraph of 530 used to acquit, but the heavy prejudicial press campaign that had been instigated by the police and prosecution, with the compliance of tabloid-style media, and the accusations and provisional convictions.

There's a recent Italian media report I have found out about (from another person) where Raffaele Sollecito states this:

Quanto è difficile il riscatto sociale?

«Molto. Cerco di vivere la mia vita tranquillamente, senza nascondermi. Vedo lo sguardo delle persone, i loro commenti e i sorrisi mentre mi guardano. A volte si avvicinano e mi manifestano solidarietà o conforto. Però la mia immagine a livello popolare è stata distrutta. La Giustizia mi ha dichiarato innocente in tribunale, ma non ha fatto nulla per aiutarmi a recuperare la mia esistenza. Mi aspettavo che spiegasse bene a tutti perché sono innocente, ma ho capito che devo recuperare da solo la mia immagine sociale, altrimenti l’opinione pubblica rimarrà col dubbio. Purtroppo, a livello personale e lavorativo, prima della mia persona arriva l’immagine che è stata data di me. Devo distruggere le metastasi del pregiudizio».

Google tranlated:

How difficult is the social redemption?

"Very. I try to live my life peacefully, without hiding. I see the eyes of the people, their comments and smiles while looking at me. Sometimes they approach me and express solidarity or comfort. But my image at the grassroots level has been destroyed. Justice told me {I was} innocent in court, but did nothing to help me retrieve my existence. I expected it to explain well at all because they are innocent, but I realized that I have to recover from only my social image, otherwise public opinion will remain in doubt. Unfortunately, on a personal and business level, before my person he gets the picture that was given to me. I have to destroy the metastases of the injury. "

Source: http://www.ilrestodelcarlino.it/modena/cronaca/sollecito-amanda-carpi-1.2819923?wt_mc=fbuser

 

[Bill Williams]

There's a recent Italian media report I have found out about (from another person) where Raffaele Sollecito states this:

But my image at the grassroots level has been destroyed. Justice told me {I was} innocent in court, but did nothing to help me retrieve my existence.​

At the risk of being Grinder-like, that is a separate issue. "Retrieving one's existence" is a deep-melancholy that life would have been very much different if not for the wrongful prosecution. Indeed, when someone glances at you from across a mall, one never knows what they're thinking or assuming. It screws with one's mind.

As Lennon said, life is what happens when you've made other plans.

Or as the man in Australia said when he and his wife were finally exonerated for the "dingo" deaths - you never know how precious your innocence is until someone says you're not.

 

[Numbers]

This has been an education for all of us (!), and I know I have not had a very good learning curve. Indeed, I recently backslid back into one of my first preconceived notions about 530 which resulted in a well earned, "No, no, no, no Bill...." from you.

....

It's not easy to understand Italian law; there's the language difference and the differences in history and concepts. People who (probably) should know better also intentionally confuse issues, and the Italian courts have a tendency to revert to their inquisitorial roots, even violating current Italian procedural law, as shown by the Massei, Nencini, and Chieffi court decisions and motivation reports.

 

[Numbers]

At the risk of being Grinder-like, that is a separate issue. "Retrieving one's existence" is a deep-melancholy that life would have been very much different if not for the wrongful prosecution. Indeed, when someone glances at you from across a mall, one never knows what they're thinking or assuming. It screws with one's mind.

As Lennon said, life is what happens when you've made other plans.

Or as the man in Australia said when he and his wife were finally exonerated for the "dingo" deaths - you never know how precious your innocence is until someone says you're not.

It is of course, a separate issue. But it is the one which may be more real to the affected person - a victim of a violation of his rights by State authorities - than our attempts at academic discussion about the perceptions and legal consequences of Italian acquittals.

 

[whoanellie]

1. I showed you the definition 1c in Webster's. Must we keep going around on this BS issue? I never said that the Webster's definition was necessarily a technical legal definition; it is a common, colloquial definition.

Definitions in dictionaries are often given in an order corresponding to the frequency that they are used. I believe 1a and 1b are far more commonly used and the highlighted part above is incorrect in my opinion. Perhaps more importantly, it was clear from context the sense in which both Grinder and I used "innocent". Your insistence that we are confused because we're not using your definition is not exactly sporting and I've given you multiple citations supporting my usage. Have you looked at them? Here's one that specifically mentions OJ.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/acquittal

 

[whoanellie]

This has been an education for all of us (!), and I know I have not had a very good learning curve. Indeed, I recently backslid back into one of my first preconceived notions about 530 which resulted in a well earned, "No, no, no, no Bill...." from you.

It was not only Grinder, it was all of us - in March 2015, we'd come to assume that the M/B panel had acquitted using 530.1, and perhaps some mistakenly implied, "Thank goodness it wasn't a 530.2 acquittal, because that would have left some room for doubt."

Then in Sept 2015 it comes up as a 530.2 acquittal and all hell breaks loose. It breaks loose on preconceived notions of some hypothetical difference.

I do agree that Grinder's point was probably more aimed at those of us on the innocentisi side who'd gone well beyond their own knowledge level (me included) and said things which were not justifiable In fact, I think that was the origin of him saying there was a perception issue.

But moving beyond that - there are two other issues. I believe I was successful in getting him to consider perception vs. actual legal impact/consequence which he resolved the proper way - citing an authority.

But the second point is that the legal consequence was not initially Grinder's concern.

So, moving beyond all that - let's all assume (Vixen will assume differently I am sure) that there IS NO difference in legal consequence between 530.1 and 530.2.

This is now beyond the time when that debate had been had. The issue now, and a challenge I'd put forth to you, Numbers, is precisely on the perception issue.

I've already said that in my reading of the Italian press and the few official motivation reports which have come from satellite prosecutions, it is clear, crystal clear, that there isn't a perception difference in this case.

Perhaps theoretically Italian legal experts write peer-reviewed articles, or a newspaper writes an editorial about how some gangster, "got off on a technicality, that's why the court used 530.2 to signal this....", but it is clear that in this case, that is not so.

LondonJohn colloquially characterized 530.1 as "completely innocent," and 530.2 to represent a range of acquittals, from "completely innocent", to "innocent by a hair." By dealing with this at the perception level. we are dealing with it at the colloquial level....

.... and I have read nothing that speaks of anything but, "completely innocent", other than from the perception of nutty guilters. The caveat to this is that both Grinder and Machiavelli DID pull news accounts which seemed to be saying to the M/B panel, "not so fast,", or "what about the......." They did find some chatter which did not pin the perception needle at the "totally innocent" of the perception spectrum.

Rudy himself has a group around him wanting to cast doubt in a differing direction. Rudy has publicly implied that at least AK is guilty, and is wisely agnostic about RS. But does anyone other than his core-Italian group believe him?

Bill,
This is an excellent summary of the issues at hand and, I do believe, presents and accurate history of the discussion. One issue that I would like to raise, and perhaps Numbers can provide some insight, is why 530.1 was left in the code rather than simply replace by 530.2.

 

[Bill Williams]

It is of course, a separate issue. But it is the one which may be more real to the affected person - a victim of a violation of his rights by State authorities - than our attempts at academic discussion about the perceptions and legal consequences of Italian acquittals.

Agreed.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill,
This is an excellent summary of the issues at hand and, I do believe, presents and accurate history of the discussion. One issue that I would like to raise, and perhaps Numbers can provide some insight, is why 530.1 was left in the code rather than simply replace by 530.2.

History will speak well of my contribution to this thread.

Why will history speak well of me? Because I shall write it!

 

[Numbers]

Bill,
This is an excellent summary of the issues at hand and, I do believe, presents and accurate history of the discussion. One issue that I would like to raise, and perhaps Numbers can provide some insight, is why 530.1 was left in the code rather than simply replace by 530.2.

Because the people making the laws were Italian?

I don't know the reason, it may be a conservative desire to preserve a tradition.

Whether or not the concept that an accused is "guilty (only) if proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is compatible with Italian legal tradition continues to be somewhat controversial in Italy. Look at the motivation report from the Hellmann court and there is a mini-essay by Hellmann on the CSC judgments supporting this concept. Massei used a standard of subjective probability to support the prosecution case, IIRC in some cases even inventing scenarios not apparently in the evidence. This shows the resistance to the adversarial system and the persistence of the inquisitorial system.

 

[Numbers]

{L}et's all assume (Vixen will assume differently I am sure) that there IS NO difference in legal consequence between 530.1 and 530.2.

This is now beyond the time when that debate had been had. The issue now, and a challenge I'd put forth to you, Numbers, is precisely on the perception issue.
I've already said that in my reading of the Italian press and the few official motivation reports which have come from satellite prosecutions, it is clear, crystal clear, that there isn't a perception difference in this case.

Perhaps theoretically Italian legal experts write peer-reviewed articles, or a newspaper writes an editorial about how some gangster, "got off on a technicality, that's why the court used 530.2 to signal this....", but it is clear that in this case, that is not so.

LondonJohn colloquially characterized 530.1 as "completely innocent," and 530.2 to represent a range of acquittals, from "completely innocent", to "innocent by a hair." By dealing with this at the perception level. we are dealing with it at the colloquial level....

.... and I have read nothing that speaks of anything but, "completely innocent", other than from the perception of nutty guilters. The caveat to this is that both Grinder and Machiavelli DID pull news accounts which seemed to be saying to the M/B panel, "not so fast,", or "what about the......." They did find some chatter which did not pin the perception needle at the "totally innocent" of the perception spectrum.

Rudy himself has a group around him wanting to cast doubt in a differing direction. Rudy has publicly implied that at least AK is guilty, and is wisely agnostic about RS. But does anyone other than his core-Italian group believe him?

Bill, your knowledge on the perception issue in Italy relating to the acquittal is greater than mine.

And I believe that the perception issue from the wrongful provisional convictions and prejudicial media reports - promoted or instigated by the State authorities - is the more serious issue for the victims.

I recall a statement from Douglas Preston's and Mario Spezi's book, Monster of Florence, where they state that an Italian prosecution not only seeks to convict an accused, it wants to destroy the accused as a person.

I see this case as Mignini and his colleagues attempting to destroy the lives of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito as part of the wrongful prosecution.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill, your knowledge on the perception issue in Italy relating to the acquittal is greater than mine.

I am hampered for the obvious reason of not speaking Italian. Yet when Grinder and Machiavelli pressed me on this, the only recourse was to invite them to do their own digging. Each found one piece - and IIRC they each were only moderately critical of M/B, one because of the rare action of the ISC acquitting without referral back to the appeals level.

There it sits, at least for the purposes of this thread. Who knows, maybe someone is sitting on a volcano of guilt about to go off. The nutty guilters looked to Rudy's revision for that, but they've since been reduced to calling for others to stalk the pair, vigilante style.

And I believe that the perception issue from the wrongful provisional convictions and prejudicial media reports - promoted or instigated by the State authorities - is the more serious issue for the victims.

I recall a statement from Douglas Preston's and Mario Spezi's book, Monster of Florence, where they state that an Italian prosecution not only seeks to convict an accused, it wants to destroy the accused as a person.

I see this case as Mignini and his colleagues attempting to destroy the lives of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito as part of the wrongful prosecution.

That much is plain. If Mignini's own words in the Netflix documentary is any guide, even he now is willing to consider the possibility of their innocence. What a weasel.