The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

[Vixen]

Do you mean Art 530.2?

(We in UK (and US) use the full stop punctuation mark to indicate digital fraction separations, whereas most continental European countries - including Italy - use the comma punctuation mark)

As a Finn I am allowed to use the comma.

 

[LondonJohn]

As a Finn I am allowed to use the comma.

Er yeah, you would be if you were writing in Finnish. Not if you are writing in English. As it appears that you are. I think.

Dear oh dear.

 

[abaddon]

Did you not read the article I cited in The Irish Examiner called 'Pringle is no Death Row Poster Boy' by Michael Clifford.

Here's an excerpt that proves Pringle was never under any threat of being executed.



OK?

Still wrong. First, that is unfounded opinion, second, of four cases under appeal at the time, only Pringle had a scheduled execution date, third, there were no moves afoot to change the law until after Pringle's scheduled execution date.

 

[Vixen]

Still wrong. First, that is unfounded opinion, second, of four cases under appeal at the time, only Pringle had a scheduled execution date, third, there were no moves afoot to change the law until after Pringle's scheduled execution date.

In effect, he was on Death Row no longer than six months at most, right?

And not 15 years, as he claims?

 

[Vixen]

As of the date Pringle was sentenced, the situation was this:

Capital punishment in Ireland was prohibited in statute law in 1990, having been abolished in 1964 for most offences including ordinary murder.
When Seán Brady asked in February 1963, minister Charles Haughey announced "that the death penalty for murder generally will be abolished but it will be retained for certain specific types of murder."[53]

In 1984 Haughey said, "Very shortly after becoming minister for justice, I went up to Mountjoy to see the condemned cell and I was so revolted by the whole atmosphere that I resolved to do away with the death penalty."[15]

The Criminal Justice Act 1964 abolished the death penalty for piracy, some military crimes, and most murders. It continued to be available for:

<snip>

"capital murder", i.e.
of an Garda or prison officer "acting in the course of his duty";
<snip>

Death sentences were passed on 11 people after the 1964 Act, for 5 different incidents involving the capital murder of a total of 6 Gardaí (police). All were imposed by the Special Criminal Court.

Of the 11 sentenced to death, 2 had the conviction for capital murder quashed on appeal, and were convicted instead of ordinary murder.[62] The death sentences of the other 9 were commuted by the President on the advice of the government, to 40 years' imprisonment without parole.[62] One conviction was overturned in 1995. [This would be Pringle]

Noel Browne introduced a private member's bill to abolish the death penalty in March 1981.

So, there was never any real possibility of Pringle being executed, despite allegedly being involved in the killing of Irish policemen.

 

[Bill Williams]

As of the date Pringle was sentenced, the situation was this:



So, there was never any real possibility of Pringle being executed, despite allegedly being involved in the killing of Irish policemen.

If it were only an allegation, let's hope there was never any real possibility!

 

[Numbers]

Thank you, then, for confirming Mike1711's view that Section 530.2 covers the acquittals where evidence is lacking; as in the case against AK and RS.

​

As I have attempted to explain in an earlier post, the Italian text of CPP Article 530.2 uses the word "manca" which translates to: absent, missing, none, or lacking. It primarily means the absolute absence of something in the Collins Reverso examples. In the context of Article 530.2, "manca" is part of a phrase: "manca, è insufficiente o è contraddittoria". The word "insufficiente" translates to: insufficient, incomplete, poor, lacking (not enough), or inadequate. It is not likely that the Italian text would have a word meaning "insufficient or incomplete" following a word that means "lacking" in the sense of "incomplete", but rather in the sense of "totally missing". Thus, "manca" would be better understood translated as "absent" or "missing".

Collins Reverso gives some examples of usage; here are a few:

Quindi dobbiamo capire cosa manca nel falso.
Which means we need to find out what the forgery is missing.

Aveva qualcosa che manca agli altri omicidi.
It had something that none of the other murders had.

Evidentemente al Consiglio manca la volontà politica.
There is obviously a lack of political will in the Council.

Abbandonato per quantità di acqua insufficiente.
Abandoned because of insufficient amount of water.

Se lo spazio è insufficiente aggiungere altri fogli.
If space is insufficient, you can add additional sheets

Sources:

http://www.leggeonline.info/leggi/procedurapenale/art530/sentenza_di_assoluzione/

http://context.reverso.net/translation/italian-english/manca

http://context.reverso.net/translation/italian-english/insufficiente

 

[Bill Williams]

As I have attempted to explain in an earlier post, the Italian text of CPP Article 530.2 uses the word "manca" which translates to: absent, missing, none, or lacking. It primarily means the absolute absence of something in the Collins Reverso examples. In the context of Article 530.2, "manca" is part of a phrase: "manca, è insufficiente o è contraddittoria". The word "insufficiente" translates to: insufficient, incomplete, poor, lacking (not enough), or inadequate. It is not likely that the Italian text would have a word meaning "insufficient or incomplete" following a word that means "lacking" in the sense of "incomplete", but rather in the sense of "totally missing". Thus, "manca" would be better understood translated as "absent" or "missing".

Why then are we (me included!) even engaging with Vixen when she claims that 530.2 is a lesser acquittal than 530.1, on the wrong grounds that 530.2 is reserved for "not enough evidence" acquittals only?

It is clear from reading the Marasca-Bruno report, that they say that the one irresistible, unassailable fact of this case is that no forensics of either AK or RS are found in the murder room - thus they should never have been convicted.

Note, they should never have been convicted even if it were true that they were at the cottage, because the signs that they might have been would have had to have placed them there after the murder and in another room....

..... which no one contests!

 

[LondonJohn]

As of the date Pringle was sentenced, the situation was this:



So, there was never any real possibility of Pringle being executed, despite allegedly being involved in the killing of Irish policemen.

Ok..............

You see the bit where it says "it (the death penalty) will be retained for certain specific types of murder"?

Well, guess what? One of those "specific types of murder" for which the death penalty still WAS very much in force in Ireland in 1980 was........ well, can you perhaps guess?

Probably not.

So I'll enlighten you:

One of those "specific types of murder" for which the death penalty still WAS very much in force in Ireland in 1980 was THE MURDER OF A POLICE OFFICER (member of the Gardai) IN THE LINE OF DUTY.


Can you perhaps guess the crime for which Pringle was convicted - and SENTENCED TO DEATH - in 1980.....?

Ah! The penny drops!!

 

[LondonJohn]

Why then are we (me included!) even engaging with Vixen when she claims that 530.2 is a lesser acquittal than 530.1, on the wrong grounds that 530.2 is reserved for "not enough evidence" acquittals only?

It is clear from reading the Marasca-Bruno report, that they say that the one irresistible, unassailable fact of this case is that no forensics of either AK or RS are found in the murder room - thus they should never have been convicted.

Note, they should never have been convicted even if it were true that they were at the cottage, because the signs that they might have been would have had to have placed them there after the murder and in another room....

..... which no one contests!

It's not a question of "engagement" as such, Bill.

It's more a question of simply reiterating the absolute facts that a) a 520.2 acquittal is exactly the same type of acquittal in Italian law as a 530.1 acquittal, and b) unless the crime never even took place, or unless the person on trial can factually PROVE his/her innocence, then if that person is acquitted it will effectively have to be under 530.2. That's the case whether there is plenty of evidence of guilt but just "insufficient" to prove guilt BARD, or whether there is ZERO evidence of guilt presented to the court.

It's not a matter of debate any longer. Sad really that the facts need to be continually rammed home in the face of ignorant or wilfully-deceptive "arguments" to the contrary.

 

[Bill Williams]

It's not a question of "engagement" as such, Bill.

It's more a question of simply reiterating the absolute facts that a) a 520.2 acquittal is exactly the same type of acquittal in Italian law as a 530.1 acquittal, and b) unless the crime never even took place, or unless the person on trial can factually PROVE his/her innocence, then if that person is acquitted it will effectively have to be under 530.2. That's the case whether there is plenty of evidence of guilt but just "insufficient" to prove guilt BARD, or whether there is ZERO evidence of guilt presented to the court.

It's not a matter of debate any longer. Sad really that the facts need to be continually rammed home in the face of ignorant or wilfully-deceptive "arguments" to the contrary.

There are a few wanting to still debate. Machiavelli was here a few weeks ago trying to peddle that the word "hypothetical" had no meaning when used in the Marasca-Bruno report.

That's the level of debate.

 

[TruthCalls]

There are a few wanting to still debate. Machiavelli was here a few weeks ago trying to peddle that the word "hypothetical" had no meaning when used in the Marasca-Bruno report.

That's the level of debate.

And Vixen is trying to argue "did not commit the act", as written in the M/B report, is nothing more than a typo or copy/paste error. Compared to that, claiming an annulment is 'less than' an acquittal almost makes sense. At the end of the day Vixen, Mach and the other remaining PGP make these ludicrous claims as a way to assuage their hurt feelings. They had everything about this case wrong and they'll be damned if they're going to admit it.

 

[Stacyhs]

In effect, he was on Death Row no longer than six months at most, right?

And not 15 years, as he claims?

I've been looking and I can't find anywhere Pringle himself has said he was on "death row for 15 years". Journalists have said that in their articles about Pringle. I've looked at several articles and videos and he always says he spent 15 years in prison, not on "death row". He explains that his sentence was commuted to 40 years in prison.

As for him never being in danger of actually being executed, that is your opinion but that's not what Pringle thought. He was sentenced on Nov. 27 to hang just three weeks later and came within 11 days of being executed:

I heard three jailers discussing what role they might have to play in my execution.
The conclusion they had come to was that when my body would go down through the gallows when I was hanged, there would be two jailers underneath, so each one would be obliged to pull on my leg to make sure my neck was broken.

(Irish News, 19 Sept, 2016)

If you can provide an example of Pringle himself saying he was on death row for 15 years, then do so. At least you've stopped claiming that he was NEVER on death row. That's progress.

 

[Stacyhs]

determined to commute [/I]the death penalty". You said "when Ireland had already abolished it as of the time he was convicted".

Pringle was sentenced to death in 1980. The death penalty was not abolished until 1990. Pringle was sentenced to death under a special provision because the victims were gardai


http://www.thejournal.ie/death-penalty-state-papers-3135198-Jan2017/

Yes, his sentence was commuted, but that has never been the issue here. The issue was your claim that "Pringle was never on Death Row" (comment #1897) when, in fact, he certainly was.

As for you last comment above, resorting to such a disgusting accusation says far more about you than me.

Ok..............

You see the bit where it says "it (the death penalty) will be retained for certain specific types of murder"?

Well, guess what? One of those "specific types of murder" for which the death penalty still WAS very much in force in Ireland in 1980 was........ well, can you perhaps guess?

Probably not.

So I'll enlighten you:

One of those "specific types of murder" for which the death penalty still WAS very much in force in Ireland in 1980 was THE MURDER OF A POLICE OFFICER (member of the Gardai) IN THE LINE OF DUTY.


Can you perhaps guess the crime for which Pringle was convicted - and SENTENCED TO DEATH - in 1980.....?

Ah! The penny drops!!

Yes. I pointed that out to Vixen hours ago. We are making headway, though. She at least admits he was actually on death row now.

 

[Stacyhs]

Has Vixen provided a real quote and citation regarding Gill saying that DNA doesn't transfer after 24 hours? I thought I might have overlooked it.

 

[Bill Williams]

And Vixen is trying to argue "did not commit the act", as written in the M/B report, is nothing more than a typo or copy/paste error. Compared to that, claiming an annulment is 'less than' an acquittal almost makes sense. At the end of the day Vixen, Mach and the other remaining PGP make these ludicrous claims as a way to assuage their hurt feelings. They had everything about this case wrong and they'll be damned if they're going to admit it.

Consider this post by Machiavelli made last month......

M/B uses the word ipotizzato, which does not mean "hypothetical". The word ipotizzato is another word that doesn't exist in common language. It's legalese, it's technical jargon.

It is a neutral word, in the sense that it does not express any position on the part of the judge or lawyer within the statement in which it is used. An accusation, a charge or the evidence of a crime, if it refers to a crime which has been identified as specific or to a specific person, is called ipotesi di reato. Judges never talk about crimes, they always talk about hypotheses of crime. Like it or not, this is the talk. It does not mean that the judge agrees with the hypotheses, nor that he disagrees with it, neither that he thinks that the crime or evidence is certain, nor that he thinks that it is uncertain. It does not put any distance between the judge and the hypothesis reported. A kind of politically correct of judiciaries which is actually meant as technically correct. It is in fact meant to express the absolute neutrality of the judge within a specific phrase, his being external to it, in the sense that it expresses the point that that when a judiciary uses the terms ipotizzato or ipotesi di reato, within that phrase he is reporting something while not mentioning his own position at all. I mean, no position at all can be inferred from the word ipotizzato. Not a judge's belief, and not a doubt either. We don't know if he agrees, or if he disagrees. It is a technical word designed to avoid any possibility of inference from it regarding the person who reports. It has become a normal reporting jargon.

The use of the word ipotizzato is normal in all sentences, both guilty and non guilty ones. Obviously the use of the word in some phrases does not change a iota about the fact that B/M states certain things as factual findings. I don't see how you may think you could deny B/M statements. There's no way you could deny them.​

Despite the contortions of rhetoric, note how Machiavelli actually refutes the very point he was trying to make about the word "ipotizzato"....

It is a neutral word, in the sense that it does not express any position on the part of the judge

It is in fact meant to express the absolute neutrality of the judge within a specific phrase, his being external to it

It does not mean that the judge agrees with the hypotheses, nor that he disagrees with it​

Wait a minute, hold on..... I thought Machiavelli was arguing that Marasca-Bruno were (in turn) stating the factuality of those things hypothesized?

These are the contortions used to justify a PGP reading of the M/B report. (This was pointed out by one of the neutral Italian speakers who saw this, someone otherwise who knows little of the case itself....)

 

[Numbers]

Why then are we (me included!) even engaging with Vixen when she claims that 530.2 is a lesser acquittal than 530.1, on the wrong grounds that 530.2 is reserved for "not enough evidence" acquittals only?

It is clear from reading the Marasca-Bruno report, that they say that the one irresistible, unassailable fact of this case is that no forensics of either AK or RS are found in the murder room - thus they should never have been convicted.

Note, they should never have been convicted even if it were true that they were at the cottage, because the signs that they might have been would have had to have placed them there after the murder and in another room....

..... which no one contests!

It's not a question of "engagement" as such, Bill.

It's more a question of simply reiterating the absolute facts that a) a 520.2 acquittal is exactly the same type of acquittal in Italian law as a 530.1 acquittal, and b) unless the crime never even took place, or unless the person on trial can factually PROVE his/her innocence, then if that person is acquitted it will effectively have to be under 530.2. That's the case whether there is plenty of evidence of guilt but just "insufficient" to prove guilt BARD, or whether there is ZERO evidence of guilt presented to the court.

It's not a matter of debate any longer. Sad really that the facts need to be continually rammed home in the face of ignorant or wilfully-deceptive "arguments" to the contrary.

And let's not forget the third element* of CPP Article 530.2, where the judge shall (= compelled by law, must) deliver a judgment of acquittal when the evidence is "contraddittoria", which translates to "contradictory".

As LondonJohn states, CPP Article 530.2 defines the rationale of most acquittals - the evidence is absent, insufficient or incomplete, or contradictory - and therefore there is reasonable doubt of guilt. And any reasonable doubt regarding the allegations against the accused implies that there cannot be a judgment of guilt (according to CPP Article 533) and there must be an acquittal. To briefly describe the reason for the acquittal in the disposition (short form verdict, the "PQM"), as required by CPP Article 530, the judge selects from the specified reasons of Article 530.

This holds true even for an acquittal under CPP Article 605 (which makes no explicit mention of the specified reasons to be cited in the PQM), which gives an appeal judge the legal authority to deliver an appeal court judgment that confirms or amends the appealed lower court judgment. The Hellmann appeal court judgment followed the law in CPP Article 530 requiring listing of specified reasons** for acquittals in its PQM, and that judgment cited CPP Article 605 as its authority and did not explicitly cite CPP Article 530.

*"Il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione anche quando {1.} manca, è {2.} insufficiente o è {3.} contraddittoria la prova ...."

**Two different ones: "the accused did not commit the (criminal) act" for Charges A, B, C, and D; and "the act did not occur" for Charge E.

The above summary reflects the real procedures of Italian law, which are contrary to the inaccurate and agenda-driven statements of PGP.

 

[Bill Williams]

And let's not forget the third element* of CPP Article 530.2, where the judge shall (= compelled by law, must) deliver a judgment of acquittal when the evidence is "contraddittoria", which translates to "contradictory".

This reflects a principle that if more than one conclusion can be derived from the evidence, then the default position for an Italian court should be the one most favourable to the accused. Why?

Because they are innocent until proven guilty BARD. The reason why M/B argues the way it does in Section 9 is exactly on those grounds - except that in this case none of even the contradictory reasons to suspect they may be guilty......

....... overcomes the one unassailable fact that there is no evidence of them in the murder room. None.

The best Vixen or Machiavelli can do is cherrypick one piece of evidence which M/B says originates from the lower court, claiming that M/B regarded that one as factual......

....... plucked from the larger argument of Section 9 that all the lower court had in front of it was contradictions. Therefore, on the law, Nencini should have acquitted.

The few remaining PGP always ignore the structure of M/B's argument in Section 9. We now know why.

 

[Bill Williams]

LOL!

The edit to the Wikipedia page about Giuliano Mignini cited by Vixen as factual lasted 11 days.

The edit had been to include Machiavelli's/Vixen's theory that the M/B report said that Knox had been at the scene of the murder - as a fact. Note: this was an edit to Mignini's page.

Eleven days later, that edit was removed. It was replaced with:

The conviction of Knox and Sollecito was eventually annulled by the Supreme Court of Cassation On March 27, 2015. It ruled that the case was without foundation, thereby definitively acquitting them of the murder. Rather than merely declaring that there were errors in the earlier court cases or that there was not enough evidence to convict, the court ruled that Knox and Sollecito were innocent of involvement in the murder. On September 7, 2015, the Court published the report on the acquittal, citing "glaring errors," "investigative amnesia," and "guilty omissions," where a five-judge panel said that the prosecutors who won the original murder conviction failed to prove a "whole truth" to back up the scenario that Knox and Sollecito killed Kercher. They also stated that there were "sensational failures" (clamorose defaillance) in the investigation, and that the lower court had been guilty of "culpable omissions" (colpevoli omissioni) in ignoring expert testimony that demonstrated contamination of evidence.​

....... and the editor cited the reason for the change was so that the Mignini article would line up with the "Amanda Knox" article on Wikipedia.

Given that Vixen has cited Wikipedia as an authority in determining truth here, does Vixen now acknowledge the new edit as factual?

 

[TruthCalls]

LOL!

The edit to the Wikipedia page about Giuliano Mignini cited by Vixen as factual lasted 11 days.

The edit had been to include Machiavelli's/Vixen's theory that the M/B report said that Knox had been at the scene of the murder - as a fact. Note: this was an edit to Mignini's page.

Eleven days later, that edit was removed. It was replaced with:

​

....... and the editor cited the reason for the change was so that the Mignini article would line up with the "Amanda Knox" article on Wikipedia.

Given that Vixen has cited Wikipedia as an authority in determining truth here, does Vixen now acknowledge the new edit as factual?

Bill, do you have the original edit by Vixen?

ETA: Never mind.. was able to view the history. Are you sure this was Vixen? The original edit included "...which resulted in their acquittal, in March 2015." while Vixen continues to insist it wasn't an acquittal.

Adding here in case anyone else was interested.

Mignini came to wider public attention as the prosecutor who led the 2007 investigation into the murder of Meredith Kercher, and the subsequent prosecution of Rudy Guede, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. The conviction of Knox and Sollecito was eventually annulled by the Supreme Court of Cassation invokeing the provision of art. 530 § 2. of Italian Procedure Code ("reasonable doubt") and ordered that no further trial should be held, which resulted in their acquittal, in March 2015. The Court, however, acknowledged that it is a "proven fact" that Knox was at the murder scene when the murder was committed while it was not proven "beyond reasonable doubt" that Knox and Sollecito had an "active participation" to the "killing action", and invoked the legal categories of "non punishable connivence" or "concurring in the crime committed by others"; the sentence also acknowledges as "incontrovertible" the fact that Kercher was killed by more than one person and that Guede concurred in committing the murder "together with others"