Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[Numbers]

The PGP claim that annulment without referral by the CSC, as in the final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito is extremely rare and therefore is suspect.

However, an examination of statistics published by the CSC on its website shows that in 2015 there were 4530 cases of Annullamento senza rinvio in final criminal cases. There were 51,509 criminal cases reviewed by the CSC that year.

 

[Methos]

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.'

[...]

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.

If that is the case, please tell me, why 530.2 is in "Libro VII - Giudizio, Titolo III - Sentenza" of the codice procedura penale and not in "Libro V - Indagini preliminari e udienza preliminare"?

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).

Wait a second, just above you wrote that:

530,2 is exclusively used by lower courts before a 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.

On the first highlight: does that mean that all the prosecutors, lawyer Maresca and his team as well as Diya Lumumba and his lawyers fled the "Palazzaccio" once Bongiorno started to speak? Do you have a source for that?

On the second highlight: I think we've been here before, just for the record: the court started hearing the case on March 25th, 2015, and continued on March 27th, 2015 with no court date on March 26th, but who am I telling this?

On the third highlight: You are mixing up the written appeal with Bongiorno's speech here, I wonder why?

On the fourth highlight: You keep on quoting Garofano, who "was not cross-examined before the court, either.", why?

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]).

Nice conspiracy theory... I still want a source for the highlighted part...
But - from accountant to accountant - wouldn't it be easier and less costly for the one who allegedly paid those bribes, to bribe GIP Matteini, and stop the whole thing at the beginning, instead of going after appeals judges and experts and Supreme Court judges years later? I'd fire whoever came up with a strategy like that.

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.

Source, please, there is a statistic confirming that, isn't it?

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.

Nope, it was the only way for the system to keep their "bella figura". Hans on IA made quite clear back in November 2013, what the real problem was:

The real problem is, that the case now has become a political issue. If Knox and Sollecito are found guilty everything that happened during the investigation especially the undocumented questioning on Nov 5/6 th 2007 is justified. They could even say: "Hey, we treated her a little roughly, but hey she's a murderess and we solved the case."

The lifes of Knox and Sollecito are (in their mind) just a small price to pay. An "innocent" or "not guily" verdict would mean that they'll have to open "Pandora's Box" and to investigate the investigators. What really happened on the night of Nov 5/6th 2007, why was Guede released without charges five days before the murder of Meredith Kercher? Did PM Mignini had to minimize Guede's role in Meredith Kercher's murder to hide the fact that Meredith Kercher would be alive and well if the Italian authorities had done their job right? Even if they weren't able to put Guede into preliminary detention after the Milan incident (I doubt that), my guess is a night or two spent in a cell would have made Guede think twice if breaking into the house at Via della Pergola 7 was a good idea.

Both Bruno and Marasca are politically appointed judges, not career judges selected by merit and promotion.

Source, please.

 

[Bill Williams]

Nope, it was the only way for the system to keep their "bella figura". Hans on IA made quite clear back in November 2013, what the real problem was:



Source, please.

Hans back in 2013 has a surprising confirmation in 2016 of his point that Nencini had been directed to convict by the 2013 ISC.

It's what Francesco Maresca noted in his own 2016 memiors.

 

[Methos]

Hans back in 2013 has a surprising confirmation in 2016 of his point that Nencini had been directed to convict by the 2013 ISC.

It's what Francesco Maresca noted in his own 2016 memiors.

Interesting, isn't it? ...

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

I have a theory about this. I think it was a reactionary act by the judiciary (who write the code, and who were probably somewhat miffed by having the Council of Europe dictate to them (via the enforced changes to the Italian Constitution and then Italian legislation) how their criminal justice system can be run.

I think the senior judiciary members charged with amending the code deliberately fudged the matter. As I've written recently, it's abundantly clear (IMO) that the whole of 530 should effectively have been torn up and rewritten from scratch as one paragraph to properly reflect the "innocent until/unless proven guilty of a crime BARD" standard. Instead, IMO, those amending the code decided to leave 530.1 in as an exclamation of "ordained" acquittal, of the sort they were used to having the power and near-divine levels of authority to deliver. And this, IMO, is why 530.1 is almost exclusively used when a judge can proclaim, without ambiguity, that the accused is innocent (just like the "good old days"). So 530.1 covers instances where, for example, the court determines that no crime was even committed (ergo: the accused is factually innocent), or where the accused can conclusively prove his/her factual innocence to the court (although of course few if any such cases should ever make it to a court trial anyhow, and most should never even reach the charging stage).

And 530.2 was, IMO, added (and then amended) as a sort of "these are the forms of acquittal that are now being forced upon us and which are somewhat alien to our tradition and practices". Therefore, 530.2 is used wherever there is a trial where a) the accused cannot PROVE his/her innocence, b) a crime has provably been committed by SOMEONE, and c) there is insufficient evidence to prove that the accused is guilty of committing the crime. Note, crucially, that for (c), "insufficient evidence" can range from zero evidence of guilt right up to evidence falling just short of the BARD standard. And therefore, in a very real sense, 530.2 maps onto almost all "not guilty" verdicts in US or England&Wales courts, and in fact most "not proven" verdicts in Scottish courts.

In the case of Knox and Sollecito, I am now certain that the only way they could ever have been acquitted under 530 (though as Numbers pointed out, they were actually acquitted under a totally different section of the code) would have been 530.2. I came to that conclusion some time ago, having initially been wrong in the way I was looking at 530 (which in turn was in the most part on account of the clumsy and inappropriate way in which it was amended to take account of the new adversarial system and BARD standard). Knox and Sollecito could not prove their innocence, a number of crimes clearly were committed (with the exclusion of the "staging" of the break-in, and the "transportation" of the knife.....), and there was not sufficient evidence to find Knox or Sollecito guilty BARD of any of these crimes (in fact, there was zero credible, reliable evidence of their guilt).

I do believe that Italian judges still - wrongly - use 530.1 when there is definitive innocence; this, as I say, is almost always only when the court finds that no crime was committed (e.g. a rape trial where the court finds that the sex was consensual) or the accused can prove his/her factual innocence (as I pointed out above, this ought to be extraordinarily rare in any cases which reach a court trial stage). But I don't think people should be in any doubt: if a guy was shot in a bar (a crime was clearly committed), and Mr A was tried for the murder, Mr A could not prove ha hadn't committed the murder, but the prosecution could not offer one credible, reliable piece of evidence that Mr A had pulled the trigger, then Mr A would, in Italy, be acquitted under 530.2.

Finally, as Numbers has pointed out so many times (and I fewer times...), the truth of the matter is that 530.1 and 530.2 have no differentiation in law. The only legal standard for acquittal in Italy (as in almost all modern liberalised democracies) is that the suspect has not been found guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. That's it. Whether it was because the prosecution could offer zero evidence of guilt, or whether that was because no crime had been committed, or whether it was because the accused could prove his/her innocence, or , or whether it was because loads of evidence of guilt was offered but just falling short of the BARD standard, is irrelevant in law. And ethics.

 

[LondonJohn]

(By the way, for Vixen's benefit, most countries in mainland Europe write commas for decimal points. Therefore an Italian would, for example, write 43,1 secondi where US and UK systems would write 43.1 seconds. And therefore where Italians write 531,1 and 530,2, we write 530.1 and 530.2. Just FYI.)

 

[Bill Williams]

Interesting, isn't it? ...

I hope they watch Hans like a hawk!

 

[abaddon]

(By the way, for Vixen's benefit, most countries in mainland Europe write commas for decimal points. Therefore an Italian would, for example, write 43,1 secondi where US and UK systems would write 43.1 seconds. And therefore where Italians write 531,1 and 530,2, we write 530.1 and 530.2. Just FYI.)

Is that not common knowledge? Well, to everyone but vixen who, for reasons unknown, is stuck in imperial measure. Nobody measures anything that way anymore.

 

[Vixen]

The PGP claim that annulment without referral by the CSC, as in the final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito is extremely rare and therefore is suspect.

However, an examination of statistics published by the CSC on its website shows that in 2015 there were 4530 cases of Annullamento senza rinvio in final criminal cases. There were 51,509 criminal cases reviewed by the CSC that year.

Source please. I looked this up and it gives two categories of 'annullment' for 'omicidio' (homicide):

• con rinvio
• senza rinvio

which means:

• with referral
• without referral

I take this to mean that the first group was remitted back to the appeal court, and the second group was not.

The percentages, out of all murder ISC hearings are, for the above two groups:

• 11.8%
• 10.9

respectively, of the above categories, of all murder cases in 2015 at the ISC.

In neither category does it give a breakdown of which were:

• Art. 530 para I
• Art. 530 para II

Once again we appear to see a logical fallacy creep into Numbers' assertion. Some might call it 'spin'. Numbers wants you to believe the first category means 530,1 and the other 530,2.

The statistics show further, that of the murder cases (and other serious crimes) 62% were upheld, i.e., the verdict of the lower courts, 'Guilty' or 'Not Guilty', 15% rejected, and the others annulled, as above. It does not say 5,430 out of 51,509 (= 10.5%) as applied to murder & serious crime is a 530 para II annulment, nor indeed, whether they are 530,1, or vice versa.

As I said, in serious crime (for example murder) if there is a question over the evidence, it must be 'referred' back to the appeal court, under the penal code.

I expect the ones that were annulled 'without referral' were overwhelmingly, 'Not Guilty' verdicts upheld from the merits courts, the 62% the ones upheld, as 'Guilty', or 'Not Guilty', in accordance with the merits courts, and the 15% remainder, rejected as not being within jurisdiction (admissible points of law).


In fact, if even 10% of the annulled verdicts without referral were Art 530,2, that still makes it 1% of all murder cases. Although I doubt it.


I am willing to confidently assert that the number of annulments 'without referral' in a serious crime case where the defendants were found 'Guilty' at both the trial stage and which was also upheld at the appeal (second instance) stage, is indeed vanishingly rare and not '10.5%' as claimed by Numbers. Or even 5,340 out of 51,509 numerically pro-rated to 'murder & serious crimes'.

Source: http://www.cortedicassazione.it/cassazione-resources/resources/cms/documents/AG2016_penale.pdf

 

[Vixen]

If that is the case, please tell me, why 530.2 is in "Libro VII - Giudizio, Titolo III - Sentenza" of the codice procedura penale and not in "Libro V - Indagini preliminari e udienza preliminare"?


Wait a second, just above you wrote that:




On the first highlight: does that mean that all the prosecutors, lawyer Maresca and his team as well as Diya Lumumba and his lawyers fled the "Palazzaccio" once Bongiorno started to speak? Do you have a source for that?

On the second highlight: I think we've been here before, just for the record: the court started hearing the case on March 25th, 2015, and continued on March 27th, 2015 with no court date on March 26th, but who am I telling this?

On the third highlight: You are mixing up the written appeal with Bongiorno's speech here, I wonder why?

On the fourth highlight: You keep on quoting Garofano, who "was not cross-examined before the court, either.", why?


Nice conspiracy theory... I still want a source for the highlighted part...
But - from accountant to accountant - wouldn't it be easier and less costly for the one who allegedly paid those bribes, to bribe GIP Matteini, and stop the whole thing at the beginning, instead of going after appeals judges and experts and Supreme Court judges years later? I'd fire whoever came up with a strategy like that.


Source, please, there is a statistic confirming that, isn't it?


Nope, it was the only way for the system to keep their "bella figura". Hans on IA made quite clear back in November 2013, what the real problem was:



Source, please.

Erratum, it should of course, read '[meant to be]' a pre-trial tool.

It's in the Justice code for criminal courts as a mechanism to dismiss a trial which is listed, but for whatever reason the prosecutor or the court wants to abandon it.

Just my opinion, based on other justice systems.

As you can see, accountant to accountant the debits and the credits balance, with the assets on my side and the liabilities on yours

That's my tax-free advice.

As for Hellmann, his attorney was heard bragging about it about a month ago by interested parties.

Why not Matteini? The shady dealings came into play with the hiring of Bongiorno. We see it in Hellmann's appointment and also in the Fifth Chambers.

Garofano was not cross-examined as he did not make representations to the supreme court.

 

[Bill Williams]

As for Hellmann, his attorney was heard bragging about it about a month ago by interested parties.

Why not Matteini? The shady dealings came into play with the hiring of Bongiorno. We see it in Hellmann's appointment and also in the Fifth Chambers.

Garofano was not cross-examined as he did not make representations to the supreme court.

Until you can provide citations for these assertions you should stop making them.

The last time you provided a cite, it actually disproved what you were claiming, then you said no one listened to the author you yourself provided us with! Hoots!

ETA - there was no intrigue in Hellmann's appointment by the president of the appeals court of Perugia. We've been over this with Machiavelli. He stopped claiming this when we found a link to the first judge approached who had declined because he was transferring to juvenile court.

Your conspiratorializing goes nowhere. But you sure are persistent!

 

[Numbers]

I have a theory about this. I think it was a reactionary act by the {1}judiciary (who write the code, and who were probably somewhat miffed by having the Council of Europe dictate to them (via the enforced changes to the Italian Constitution and then Italian legislation) how their criminal justice system can be run.
....

{2}In the case of Knox and Sollecito, I am now certain that the only way they could ever have been acquitted under 530 (though as Numbers pointed out, they were actually acquitted under a totally different section of the code) ....

{3}I do believe that Italian judges still - wrongly - use 530.1 when there is definitive innocence; this, as I say, is almost always only when the court finds that no crime was committed ....

{4}Finally, ..., the truth of the matter is that 530.1 and 530.2 have no differentiation in law. The only legal standard for acquittal in Italy (as in almost all modern liberalised democracies) is that the suspect has not been found guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. That's it. ....

LJ, some questions/comments:

1. Do you have a source stating that the judiciary writes the CPP or other code articles?

I thought it was written by a Parliamentary committee* after a law was passed, but I may be incorrect - I only know that in one example, the text of the recently enacted CP Article 375 Fraud and Misdirection in the Criminal Trial and/or Investigative Process, which makes certain official misconduct including fabricating or withholding evidence in a criminal case by anyone in authority a crime punishable by imprisonment, originated from a Parliament website - but I don't know who drafted it, although it must be based upon law. The CP and CPP articles in their most complete context include a list of the amendments passed by Parliament.

*For example, the Italian Senate has a Justice Committee that originates and considers legislation on criminal and civil law:

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://www.senato.it/&prev=search

2. I think there is some confusion here. Knox and Solecito were finally acquitted under CPP Article 530.2 by the Marasca CSC panel. They were provisionally acquitted by the Hellmann court under CPP Article 605, which gives the Court of Appeals the authority to confirm or amend the appealed judgment. The provisional acquittal cited one of the specifications, the accused did not commit the act, explicit in CPP Article 530.

3. There has been some commentary from the PGP that an acquittal under CPP Article 530.2 is extremely rare and that most acquittals are under CPP Article 530.1. I am skeptical about this claim, since no statistical data was presented by the PGP in support. My belief or hypothesis is that in post-2006 Italy, judges would rarely if ever use 530.1, because all judgments according to the Constitution require a statement of reasons and that must include an examination or evaluation of the evidence (to demonstrate that the accused IS or IS NOT guilty BARD, per CPP Article 533.1). Note that the Boninsegna MR merely listed Article 530 (no paragraph) for its acquittal, but the MR went through an evaluation of evidence, showing implicitly, IMO, that it fell under 530.2 and perhaps 530.3. I would like to see statistical evidence of how acquittals are handled before I would come to any conclusion.

4. YES!

 

[Vixen]

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.

LOL

 

[Vixen]

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.

There is little risk of that.

 

[Vixen]

I have a theory about this. I think it was a reactionary act by the judiciary (who write the code, and who were probably somewhat miffed by having the Council of Europe dictate to them (via the enforced changes to the Italian Constitution and then Italian legislation) how their criminal justice system can be run.

I think the senior judiciary members charged with amending the code deliberately fudged the matter. As I've written recently, it's abundantly clear (IMO) that the whole of 530 should effectively have been torn up and rewritten from scratch as one paragraph to properly reflect the "innocent until/unless proven guilty of a crime BARD" standard. Instead, IMO, those amending the code decided to leave 530.1 in as an exclamation of "ordained" acquittal, of the sort they were used to having the power and near-divine levels of authority to deliver. And this, IMO, is why 530.1 is almost exclusively used when a judge can proclaim, without ambiguity, that the accused is innocent (just like the "good old days"). So 530.1 covers instances where, for example, the court determines that no crime was even committed (ergo: the accused is factually innocent), or where the accused can conclusively prove his/her factual innocence to the court (although of course few if any such cases should ever make it to a court trial anyhow, and most should never even reach the charging stage).

And 530.2 was, IMO, added (and then amended) as a sort of "these are the forms of acquittal that are now being forced upon us and which are somewhat alien to our tradition and practices". Therefore, 530.2 is used wherever there is a trial where a) the accused cannot PROVE his/her innocence, b) a crime has provably been committed by SOMEONE, and c) there is insufficient evidence to prove that the accused is guilty of committing the crime. Note, crucially, that for (c), "insufficient evidence" can range from zero evidence of guilt right up to evidence falling just short of the BARD standard. And therefore, in a very real sense, 530.2 maps onto almost all "not guilty" verdicts in US or England&Wales courts, and in fact most "not proven" verdicts in Scottish courts.

In the case of Knox and Sollecito, I am now certain that the only way they could ever have been acquitted under 530 (though as Numbers pointed out, they were actually acquitted under a totally different section of the code) would have been 530.2. I came to that conclusion some time ago, having initially been wrong in the way I was looking at 530 (which in turn was in the most part on account of the clumsy and inappropriate way in which it was amended to take account of the new adversarial system and BARD standard). Knox and Sollecito could not prove their innocence, a number of crimes clearly were committed (with the exclusion of the "staging" of the break-in, and the "transportation" of the knife.....), and there was not sufficient evidence to find Knox or Sollecito guilty BARD of any of these crimes (in fact, there was zero credible, reliable evidence of their guilt).

I do believe that Italian judges still - wrongly - use 530.1 when there is definitive innocence; this, as I say, is almost always only when the court finds that no crime was committed (e.g. a rape trial where the court finds that the sex was consensual) or the accused can prove his/her factual innocence (as I pointed out above, this ought to be extraordinarily rare in any cases which reach a court trial stage). But I don't think people should be in any doubt: if a guy was shot in a bar (a crime was clearly committed), and Mr A was tried for the murder, Mr A could not prove ha hadn't committed the murder, but the prosecution could not offer one credible, reliable piece of evidence that Mr A had pulled the trigger, then Mr A would, in Italy, be acquitted under 530.2.

Finally, as Numbers has pointed out so many times (and I fewer times...), the truth of the matter is that 530.1 and 530.2 have no differentiation in law. The only legal standard for acquittal in Italy (as in almost all modern liberalised democracies) is that the suspect has not been found guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. That's it. Whether it was because the prosecution could offer zero evidence of guilt, or whether that was because no crime had been committed, or whether it was because the accused could prove his/her innocence, or , or whether it was because loads of evidence of guilt was offered but just falling short of the BARD standard, is irrelevant in law. And ethics.

Bloody Italians!

Why can't they be more like...er...

 

[Vixen]

(By the way, for Vixen's benefit, most countries in mainland Europe write commas for decimal points. Therefore an Italian would, for example, write 43,1 secondi where US and UK systems would write 43.1 seconds. And therefore where Italians write 531,1 and 530,2, we write 530.1 and 530.2. Just FYI.)

It is a mannerism I picked up from Grinder.

Any objections?

 

[whoanellie]

History will speak well of my contribution to this thread.

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

Bill, I will always speak well of you...

 

[Vixen]

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.

roflmaolol bloody bastards!

 

[Vixen]

Is that not common knowledge? Well, to everyone but vixen who, for reasons unknown, is stuck in imperial measure. Nobody measures anything that way anymore.

At least I know how many pecks in a bushel.

 

[Vixen]

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).

Arrgh! Please make it stop. Make it stop!