Grinder raised "perception" also in relation to what Luca Cheli had written.... the latter of whom summarized the M/B report into a few shadows, and some thunder which would have reverberated through the Italian judiciary because of it.
Yet who really cares about what people perceive? It's not even one of Cheli's shadows which would linger.....
The difference between a Paragraph 1 and 2 acquittal is non-existent, yet what has highlighted the comment on this case is that these perceptions predate anything the M/B report would have written either way.
But you are correct, Grinder had wanted to talk about things at that level, presumably to expose PIP hypocrisy.
It's interesting that there was little or no discussion on ISF of the significance of the article of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP) used by the Hellmann court in its acquittal. The Hellmann court, as a court of appeal, in its acquittal cited CPP Article 605 rather than CPP Article 530. CPP Article 605 lacks the detailed language of CPP Article 530, but Hellmann used the specific rationales of "the accused did not commit the (criminal) act" {for charges A, B, C, and D} and "the act did not take place" {for charge E} found in CPP Article 530. It is such specific rationales as listed in CPP Article 530 that are legally significant rather than whether CPP Article 530.1 or 530.2 or, for an appeal court judgment, CPP Article 605, is invoked in the verdict.
Here's the text of CPP Article 605:
Art. 605 - Sentenza
1. Fuori dei casi previsti dall'articolo 604, il giudice di appello pronuncia sentenza con la quale conferma o riforma la sentenza appellata.
2. Le pronunce del giudice di appello sull'azione civile sono immediatamente esecutive.
3. Copia della sentenza di appello, con gli atti del procedimento, è trasmessa senza ritardo, a cura della cancelleria, al giudice di primo grado, quando questi è competente per l'esecuzione e non è stato proposto ricorso per cassazione.
Source:
http://www.leggeonline.info/leggi/procedurapenale/art605/sentenza/
In translation:
Article 605 Judgment
1. With the exception of the cases provided for in Article 604 {cases of nullity}, the appeal judge shall deliver a judgment confirming or amending the appealed judgment.
2. The decisions of the appeal judge on civil actions shall be immediately enforceable.
3. A copy of the appeal judgment, along with the case file, shall be forwarded without delay by the Judge's Clerk's Office to the first-instance judge, if he has competence for enforcement and no appeal has been lodged with the Court of Cassation.
Source: The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation, editors: M. Gialuz, L. Luparia, and F. Scarpa; Wolters Kluwer Italia (c) 2014
Here's the short form verdict (PQM, For these reasons) from the English translation of the Hellmann court motivation report:
FOR THESE REASONS [P.Q.M.]
The Corte di Assise di Appello of Perugia,
pursuant to
C.P.P. Article 605 ,
in partial modification of the ruling announced on the date of December 4-5, 2009 by the Perugia Corte di Assise of first level in the matter of Amanda Marie Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, appealed by them and [also] incidentally by the Prosecutor of the Republic of Perugia,
DECLARES
Amanda Marie Knox guilty of the crime under Charge F, without the aggravating circumstance of C.P. Article 61 no. 2, and with mitigating circumstances equivalent to the aggravating circumstance under C.P. Article 368; and sentences her to three years of confinement; confirming, with regard to this charge only, the civil sanctions of the ruling under appeal, sentencing Amanda Marie Knox to the payment of court costs and attorney’s fees incurred at the present level [of appeal] by Patrick Diya Lumumba, in the total amount of 22,170 euros for rights and fees in addition to the reimbursement of general expenses and accessories of law;
ACQUITS
both of the defendants of the crimes attributed to them under Charges A,B,C, and D
for not having committed the act, and of the crime under Charge E
because the act did not take place; rejecting the request made against them by civil party Aldalia Tattanelli; ...
{Note that the conviction under charge F, made final by the Chieffi CSC panel, is the subject of the case Knox v. Italy, alleging that Italy violated Knox's rights under the Convention, currently pending before the ECHR.}
Source:
https://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/contents/order/
