The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

[Numbers]

There seems to be some confusion among one or more PGP about the compensation for unfair detention process in Italy. No one - not even Raffaele Sollecito - claiming compensation for unfair detention in Italy need be concerned about Illinois or Wisconsin laws, nor UK (neither England/Wales nor Scotland nor NI) laws. By the way, as far as I have been able to find, Wisconsin does not have a statute relating to a "certificate of innocence" while Illinois does have such a statute.

According to Merriam-Webster (online), quash means "to suppress or extinguish summarily and completely". Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quash

The legal definition of quash: Quash means to nullify, void or declare invalid. The procedure is used in both criminal and civil cases when there is an irregularity or defect in procedures. ... Source: https://definitions.uslegal.com/q/quash/

Now, regarding the likely next step in Sollecito's claim for compensation for unfair detention, his lawyer was quoted as stating she will take the case to the ECHR. Compensation for arrest and/or detention which violates the requirements listed in Convention Article 5 as determined by the ECHR (for example, in its existing case law) is required under the European Convention of Human Rights, Article 5.5, as well as Italian Constitution Article 24 and CPP Article 314. A quick search for such cases in HUDOC shows a listing of 226 ECHR judgments. Assuming that Sollecito and his lawyer(s) submit an application to the ECHR claiming that Italy violated his Convention rights by unfairly denying him compensation (likely to be complaints of violations of Article 5 and Article 6), it will be the eventual judgment of the ECHR that will determine Italy's actions according to international law (Italy's treaty obligations).

Sollecito's potential case against Italy for a violation of his Convention rights for the denial of compensation for unfair detention (under Convention Articles 5 and 6) would in all probability not be judged until after Knox v. Italy 76577/13 was final. Since the “reasoning” for Sollecito's arrest and detention and for the denial of compensation to Sollecito was based in part on the false allegations that were made against Amanda Knox, an ECHR judgment in her favor would likely be helpful to his case. A judgment in her favor is highly likely, based on ECHR case law.

 

[whoanellie]

Pardons have sometimes been used for exonerations in the US. It was to provide another mechanism for an exoneration that Illinois introduced the certificate of innocence. See: 735 ILCS 5/2-702, an excerpt of which I will again quote:

"Sec. 2-702. Petition for a certificate of innocence that the petitioner was innocent of all offenses for which he or she was incarcerated.
(a) The General Assembly finds and declares that innocent persons who have been wrongly convicted of crimes in Illinois and subsequently imprisoned have been frustrated in seeking legal redress due to a variety of substantive and technical obstacles in the law and that such persons should have an available avenue to obtain a finding of innocence so that they may obtain relief through a petition in the Court of Claims. The General Assembly further finds misleading the current legal nomenclature which compels an innocent person to seek a pardon for being wrongfully incarcerated. ..."

Interesting. I'm not sure if there are any statistics but pardons can also be given to people who are guilty and who acknowledge their guilt.

 

[Numbers]

Bill, I respect you and I don't want to rain on your parade but I do believe that you are misrepresenting Grinders position. His point was that certain people prematurely entertained the hope that the M/B verdict would be based on par. 1. Once it became clear that it wasn't a par 1 verdict, there was a shift to the view that there was no difference. Grinder, as was his wont, just wanted both sides to be intellectually honest and rigorous.

The point is that there is no practical or legal difference between an acquittal for "the accused did not commit the (criminal) act" under CPP Article 530.2 compared to one under Article 530.1. Those who thought otherwise prior to the Marasca CSC panel acquittal were wrong if they thought otherwise just as those who thought otherwise after the verdict. The "quality" of the verdict of acquittal is the same under either paragraph. It is the specification - in this case, "the accused did not commit the (criminal) act" - that is a significant qualifier.

Grinder did not agree that there was no difference until in a post, he stated that he had consulted an Italian lawyer who confirmed that there was no difference. One can also discern the lack of a practical or legal difference by reading the relevant texts in the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure.

 

[Numbers]

Interesting. I'm not sure if there are any statistics but pardons can also be given to people who are guilty and who acknowledge their guilt.

Pardons may be given for any one of several reasons. Here is a definition:

pardon

1) v. to use the executive power of a Governor or President to forgive a person convicted of a crime, thus removing any remaining penalties or punishments and preventing any new prosecution of the person for the crime for which the pardon was given. A pardon strikes the conviction from the books as if it had never occurred, and the convicted person is treated as innocent. Sometimes pardons are given to an older rehabilitated person long after the sentence has been served to clear his/her record. However, a pardon can also terminate a sentence and free a prisoner when the chief executive is convinced there is doubt about the guilt or fairness of the trial, the party is rehabilitated and has performed worthy public service, or there are humanitarian reasons such as terminal illness. ....

Source: http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1443

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill, I respect you and I don't want to rain on your parade but I do believe that you are misrepresenting Grinders position. His point was that certain people prematurely entertained the hope that the M/B verdict would be based on par. 1. Once it became clear that it wasn't a par 1 verdict, there was a shift to the view that there was no difference. Grinder, as was his wont, just wanted both sides to be intellectually honest and rigorous.

The respect is truly mutual....

However, Grinder also did try an equivalency between the Scottish "not proven" and Paragraph 2 of the relevant Section. I have no appetite for going after his quotes; but he in fact did consult (off-line) an Italian expert and changed his view as a result.

And I concur that his intent was to get all to be more intellectually honest and rigorous. Indeed, the consultation with the Italian legal expert was such an example.

Heck, I may go find the proper citation. It sure beats playing whack-a-mole with Vixen.

 

[Bill Williams]

Here's a sample of Grinder arguing a "perceived difference" between paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 acquittals, as you can see he was claiming far more than the original confusion that it had been a paragraph 1 acquittal:

From your description it would seem the case could be tried again. But I don't really give a rat's ass about the case. We are discussing whether or not there is a difference between verdicts in Italy and there is. Vixen provided a quote from an professor in Italian history and culture that compared 530.2 to the Scottish "not proven". The cite was requested and I found it and linked to it.

Ever time this comes up a group of posters pat each other on the back about their deep understanding of Italian law and what the judges really meant. I don't think we have one expert in Italian law posting here. From all that has transpired since the M&B verdict and MR it is clear to me that there is at a minimum a perceived difference in a one and two verdict.​

I have not waffled. The perception is clear as Cheli let us know and the professor. Your rose colored glasses are just too thick to see. No one posting here knows whether or not a paragraph one would be beneficially at this point or in other cases.​

.... which proves my point. Still, after all the backs and forths, you have not answered the question as asked: what is the difference in legal consequence of #2 vs. #1? You can help with my rose coloured glasses by first answering that question - or finding an authoritative citation.

Yes - no one here knows. Yet you continue to imply that you know, that #2 is perceived as something different in consequence ah, er, perception than #2​

The "not proven" was brought up between Vixen and another and I provided the link. I don't know what "disinguish a difference" means.​

What is the difference in what can happen next legally?​

As I said, Grinder eventually came around to recognizing that the germane question was the one as posed immediately above. An acquittal is an acquittal is an acquittal.

C'mon, it's the one time I bested the guy! Once, and you won't even give me that!!!!

I miss Grinder.

 

[Bill Williams]

LOL!

It was Numbers who suggested to Grinder that he consult an Italian legal expert, since all of us were splitting hairs in the dark.

The next day (11 April 2016) Grinder took up the challenge, saying to Numbers:

If you would like to set up an account to fund hiring Maresca I'll handle the the rest. I've asked a law professor in Italy that had taught here and I've ask an Italian law professor here the question but alas they have not answered.
​

In the meantime, Grinder did more than claim that paragraph 1 was "a better verdict" for Amanda and Raffaele than paragraph 2, he tried to cite a conversation between Amanda and her lawyer as proof that there was some legal distinction, that 1 was somewhat better than 2. Both Numbers and LondonJohn disagreed vehemently with Grinder on this.

A South African lawyer Mike1171 piped in with what was really real after Grinder had finally conceded....

Right Mike did your prof 30 years ago tell you that? You have no idea if there are differences legally. Tell me, can a person found not guilty para one be sued civilly later? I know that isn't a criminal consequence but of course I have never maintain there is a legal criminal consequence - straw man.​

Freedom is freedom, Grinder, and the consequence of a 1 or 2 ruling is total and absolute freedom. One does not allow for greater freedom than the other.

Criminal and civil law are different ambits of law (as you know ). 530.1 and 530.2 are ambits of a criminal code.

I assume you left out the word different. This admission settles the debate. It is after all criminal law that we're dealing with here and not civil law.

Could one be sued after an acquittal under 530.1 and 530.2? Unless you can show a law in Italy which precludes a 530.1 civil case one can. If you want to argue that a 530.1 verdict has different civil outcomes then show the civil law which states this.

There you go. Your project for the day . It's you who is trying to prove a negative so the burden of proof rests with you. I'm not about to prove Yeti doesn't exist. I may be wrong, but I am not about to try to prove I'm right. If you think the Yeti exists or a civil law exists, show us. Nattering on about it doesn't mean a thing.​

A timeline of events is enough to prove their complete and utter innocence....unless of course we have quantum physics at play here.

Why Mignini and his monsters didn't do this or the lower Italian courts will remain the single biggest bungling of this whole mess.​

Since the acquittal is based on paragraph 2 of article 530....“...when evidence is lacking, insufficient or contradictory...”.

The elephant in the room. To argue that in this context that lacking and insufficient are the same is a subjective argument for repetition. Why would the Italian's repeat themselves? The logical answer is to take on board the definition of "lacking" in its absolute. There is none.

In the AK/RS the evidence is lacking....there is none.​

In my view it is that which settled the argument and we were one big happy family again.

 

[Numbers]

LOL!

It was Numbers who suggested to Grinder that he consult an Italian legal expert, since all of us were splitting hairs in the dark.

The next day (11 April 2016) Grinder took up the challenge, saying to Numbers:

​

In the meantime, Grinder did more than claim that paragraph 1 was "a better verdict" for Amanda and Raffaele than paragraph 2, he tried to cite a conversation between Amanda and her lawyer as proof that there was some legal distinction, that 1 was somewhat better than 2. Both Numbers and LondonJohn disagreed vehemently with Grinder on this.

A South African lawyer Mike1171 piped in with what was really real after Grinder had finally conceded....

​

​

​

​

In my view it is that which settled the argument and we were one big happy family again.

To revisit old times ... Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) Article 652 and Article 654 establish that there can be no difference between an Article 530.2 and an Article 530.1 final acquittal since both have binding effect with regard to civil (or administrative) trials, as long as the specification is "the accused did not commit the (criminal) act" or "the criminal act did not occur" or "the act was carried out to perform a duty or to exercise a legal right", provided that the injured party had joined the (criminal trial) proceedings as a civil party or had been given the possibility to do so. The final criminal judgment of conviction or acquittal delivered after a trial has binding effect on the accused person, the civil party, and the person with civil liability for damages who has appeared or intervened in the criminal proceedings.

So all the wishful thinking by the PGP that there could be a "new" civil suit against Knox and/or Sollecito for the murder/rape of Kercher is fantasy under Italian law. And final acquittals are indeed final criminal trials even if the circumstances or conduct of the (criminal) act are considered differently in terms of legal definition (CPP Articles 648 and 649). Only final convictions can be subject to possible revision trials, and revision trials are only allowed under special circumstances, for example, after a final judgment of a violation of Convention Article 6 by the ECHR requires a reopening of proceedings (Italian Constitutional Court judgment 113 of 2011) or any of the circumstances defined in CPP Article 630, and only if such circumstances indicate that there should have been an acquittal or other dismissal (CPP Article 631).

 

[Welshman]

<fx faint> Now you are asking the right questions.

Vixen still refuses to answer the question.

 

[Welshman]

My point was in regard to your ""kind gentle warm-hearted fellow" description of Lumumba who, in fact, LIED about Knox being fired amongst other defamatory lies in that DM story.

I also said it's your opinion that she was not in fear of Lumumba, and not a fact. She did not KNOW that Lumumba was not the killer as the police were leading her to believe. Remember the whole "you texted him" and "met him later" fiasco?
Do try and comprehend what is actually written.

Vixen constantly bangs on about Amanda lying. Lumumba spreads lies about Amanda and PGP defend him. Yet another example of PGP defending liars whilst viciously attacking Amanda and Raffaele for lying. This hypocrisy is disgusting.

 

[LondonJohn]

She wrote it as Norn, and so did everybody else.

She might have written the "Northern" part of it as "Norn". But she didn't refer to NI as "Norn". She referred to it as "Norn Irn" or "Norn Iron". "Norn" simply means "Northern". I'm gently surprised you cannot seem to see the rather simple logic which drives the understanding that nobody would ever refer to "Northern Ireland" as "Northern".

But I give up. And of course it's rather peripheral to the exoneration of Knox and Sollecito on murder charges.......

 

[LondonJohn]

To revisit old times ... Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) Article 652 and Article 654 establish that there can be no difference between an Article 530.2 and an Article 530.1 final acquittal since both have binding effect with regard to civil (or administrative) trials, as long as the specification is "the accused did not commit the (criminal) act" or "the criminal act did not occur" or "the act was carried out to perform a duty or to exercise a legal right", provided that the injured party had joined the (criminal trial) proceedings as a civil party or had been given the possibility to do so. The final criminal judgment of conviction or acquittal delivered after a trial has binding effect on the accused person, the civil party, and the person with civil liability for damages who has appeared or intervened in the criminal proceedings.

So all the wishful thinking by the PGP that there could be a "new" civil suit against Knox and/or Sollecito for the murder/rape of Kercher is fantasy under Italian law. And final acquittals are indeed final criminal trials even if the circumstances or conduct of the (criminal) act are considered differently in terms of legal definition (CPP Articles 648 and 649). Only final convictions can be subject to possible revision trials, and revision trials are only allowed under special circumstances, for example, after a final judgment of a violation of Convention Article 6 by the ECHR requires a reopening of proceedings (Italian Constitutional Court judgment 113 of 2011) or any of the circumstances defined in CPP Article 630, and only if such circumstances indicate that there should have been an acquittal or other dismissal (CPP Article 631).

Exactly.

In terms of the legal (and ethical, for that matter) construct of "acquittal" or "conviction" in Italian criminal justice, none of the paragraphs of 530 actually makes a jot of difference. Under Italian legislation (the only thing that ultimately matters in this issue), a person can only be acquitted or convicted of a criminal charge. It's a binary matter. No shades of grey. (This was, let's remember, rather forced upon the Italian state by the EU and the Council of Europe in order to try to (at least partially) fix its horrible - and fascist-hangover - statute book in respect of criminal justice legislation and practices).

What has clearly happened though is that 530 has not been properly cleaned up, and that judges - almost certainly through derived custom and practice, as well as the crazy rule that they must state under which paragraph of 530 they are acquitting - have assigned 530.1 and 530.2 acquittals under the following circumstances:

530.1 - if the court deems that the crime didn't even exist (e.g. a rape charge which the court deems was consensual sex and thus no crime was ever committed), or if the accused person can PROVE his/her factual innocence to the satisfaction of the court.

530.2 - if the conditions required by 530.1 were not met, but if the court believes that there was insufficient evidence of guilt to provide proof BARD - all the way from absolutely ZERO evidence of guilt, right up to evidence just falling short of proof BARD.


If one were to map those onto, say, the Scottish judicial system, then this is what would happen. Again, listen very carefully at the back of the class:

1) A small number of those found "not guilty" in a Scottish court would map onto 530.1. These would be those accused who could factually prove their innocence to the court (very uncommon if a case has got as far as trial.....), or where the court determines that no crime was committed (see the rape example above).

2) The remainder of those found "not guilty" in a Scottish court would map onto 530.2

3) All of those found "not proven" in a Scottish court would also map onto 530.2


So it's incorrect to claim that 530.2 maps directly onto "not proven" in the Scottish system. In fact, it maps onto most "not guilty" verdicts in Scotland, plus all "not proven" verdicts.


Full. Stop.

(Any questions from the back of the class........?)

 

[Bill Williams]

I dreamt about Grinder last night. We were doing rhetorical battle. He kicked my ass.

One day I will learn.

 

[Vixen]

I know what the courts said. As has been pointed out several times, the courts to not find the defendants "innocent" or use the word "exonerated". They either acquit, convict, or annul. So why would either of those words appear in the motivation reports?

The words "per non avere i ricorrenti commesso il fatto " (did not commit the act) certainly do appear in the Marasca Bruno report:

visti gli artt. 620 lett. I) e 530, comma 2 cod. proc. pen.; esclusa l'aggravante dicui all'art. 61 n, 2 cod. pen., in relazione al delitto di calunnia, annulla senza rinvio la sentenza impugnata in ordine ai reati di cui ai capi a), d) ed e) della rubrica per non avere i ricorrenti commesso il fatto.

No matter how you try and spin it, they are there.

It is not in the statute so has no legal meaning.

 

[Stacyhs]

Exactly.

In terms of the legal (and ethical, for that matter) construct of "acquittal" or "conviction" in Italian criminal justice, none of the paragraphs of 530 actually makes a jot of difference. Under Italian legislation (the only thing that ultimately matters in this issue), a person can only be acquitted or convicted of a criminal charge. It's a binary matter. No shades of grey. (This was, let's remember, rather forced upon the Italian state by the EU and the Council of Europe in order to try to (at least partially) fix its horrible - and fascist-hangover - statute book in respect of criminal justice legislation and practices).

What has clearly happened though is that 530 has not been properly cleaned up, and that judges - almost certainly through derived custom and practice, as well as the crazy rule that they must state under which paragraph of 530 they are acquitting - have assigned 530.1 and 530.2 acquittals under the following circumstances:

530.1 - if the court deems that the crime didn't even exist (e.g. a rape charge which the court deems was consensual sex and thus no crime was ever committed), or if the accused person can PROVE his/her factual innocence to the satisfaction of the court.

530.2 - if the conditions required by 530.1 were not met, but if the court believes that there was insufficient evidence of guilt to provide proof BARD - all the way from absolutely ZERO evidence of guilt, right up to evidence just falling short of proof BARD.


If one were to map those onto, say, the Scottish judicial system, then this is what would happen. Again, listen very carefully at the back of the class:

1) A small number of those found "not guilty" in a Scottish court would map onto 530.1. These would be those accused who could factually prove their innocence to the court (very uncommon if a case has got as far as trial.....), or where the court determines that no crime was committed (see the rape example above).

2) The remainder of those found "not guilty" in a Scottish court would map onto 530.2

3) All of those found "not proven" in a Scottish court would also map onto 530.2


So it's incorrect to claim that 530.2 maps directly onto "not proven" in the Scottish system. In fact, it maps onto most "not guilty" verdicts in Scotland, plus all "not proven" verdicts.


Full. Stop.

(Any questions from the back of the class........?)

Me! Me! Pick me! OK.....so could this possibly explain why the Marasca-Bruno report does not actually use the words "innocent" or "exonerated" in their report as Vixen pointed out?

Not even Hellmann used "innocent" or "exonerated" in his report even though he later clearly stated that he believes AK and RS to be truly "innocent".

 

[Vixen]

Ah...instead of admitting your errors, you attempt to side step with a non-issue. Buying a gun illegally for her husband in no way is evidence that Jacobs shot the police officers. Walter Rhodes, who testified Jacobs and Tafero were the real killers in exchange for prosecutors not seeking the death penalty, later recanted his testimony three times. Even the officers' families agreed to the plea bargain knowing she'd be released from prison.

Every single time an exoneration has been brought up, you've opined that they were really guilty despite the evidence of innocence. Why is that? Is anyone ever falsely convicted in your mind?

Jacobs buying guns for her criminal cop-killer psycho partner and teaming up with another alleged cop-killer - also falsely claiming he was exonerated from the death penalty, when Ireland had already abolished it as of the time he was convicted, says it all for me.

Amanda Knox teaming up with this awful pair, claiming them to be her 'Innocence Project Buddies' and sitting on a sofa declaring her and 'Sunny' [shurely shome mishtake] as 'Sistas Togevver' tells you what a big fake phoney she is and all three of them are.

Sociopaths have no shame at all.

 

[Bill Williams]

Jacobs buying guns for her criminal cop-killer psycho partner and teaming up with another alleged cop-killer - also falsely claiming he was exonerated from the death penalty, when Ireland had already abolished it as of the time he was convicted, says it all for me.

Amanda Knox teaming up with this awful pair, claiming them to be her 'Innocence Project Buddies' and sitting on a sofa declaring her and 'Sunny' [shurely shome mishtake] as 'Sistas Togevver' tells you what a big fake phoney she is and all three of them are.

Sociopaths have no shame at all.

That this post has to devolve into enflamed rhetoric says it all.

Its own rebuttal is built in!! Great job!

 

[Vixen]

She might have written the "Northern" part of it as "Norn". But she didn't refer to NI as "Norn". She referred to it as "Norn Irn" or "Norn Iron". "Norn" simply means "Northern". I'm gently surprised you cannot seem to see the rather simple logic which drives the understanding that nobody would ever refer to "Northern Ireland" as "Northern".

But I give up. And of course it's rather peripheral to the exoneration of Knox and Sollecito on murder charges.......

She certainly did and she was/is a high up civil servant directly briefing this minister. (This was a few years ago.)

 

[Vixen]

Oh, lordy... back to that again? And yet...and yet...you, good old Pete, Ergon, Machiavelli, no one has provided a publicly available criminal record in the US for Amanda. Which, of course, she would have if the US recognized her calunnia conviction as equivalent to a federal "obstruction of justice" conviction. Why is that again?

You cannot know what the spooks have on their files on her.

 

[Vixen]

To revisit old times ... Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) Article 652 and Article 654 establish that there can be no difference between an Article 530.2 and an Article 530.1 final acquittal since both have binding effect with regard to civil (or administrative) trials, as long as the specification is "the accused did not commit the (criminal) act" or "the criminal act did not occur" or "the act was carried out to perform a duty or to exercise a legal right", provided that the injured party had joined the (criminal trial) proceedings as a civil party or had been given the possibility to do so. The final criminal judgment of conviction or acquittal delivered after a trial has binding effect on the accused person, the civil party, and the person with civil liability for damages who has appeared or intervened in the criminal proceedings.

So all the wishful thinking by the PGP that there could be a "new" civil suit against Knox and/or Sollecito for the murder/rape of Kercher is fantasy under Italian law. And final acquittals are indeed final criminal trials even if the circumstances or conduct of the (criminal) act are considered differently in terms of legal definition (CPP Articles 648 and 649). Only final convictions can be subject to possible revision trials, and revision trials are only allowed under special circumstances, for example, after a final judgment of a violation of Convention Article 6 by the ECHR requires a reopening of proceedings (Italian Constitutional Court judgment 113 of 2011) or any of the circumstances defined in CPP Article 630, and only if such circumstances indicate that there should have been an acquittal or other dismissal (CPP Article 631).

You are not very good at law, as you omit to mention that Art 530,2 does NOT include the words 'did not do it'.