• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill Williams said:
Not a quibble at all. I'm no expert and can't be bothered going for a citation to back it up....

..... but there's a lingering sense that judges at Cassation have wide latitude to say what they want in relation for the "specification" in relation to the use of Section 530 as the basis of an acquittal.

Meaning: they are not limited by the legislation with regard to the specification - for instance, Section 530.2 makes explicit mention of that section referring to 1) lack of evidence, 2) insufficient, and/or 3) contradictory evidence.....

But it does not look like they are bound by choosing one or more of those specifications. Substituting "did not commit the act" doesn't seem to raise many eyebrows, except for maybe Machiavelli's and Vixen's here......
Click to expand...

You do not understand that a law cannot contradict itself. In so doing it becomes void.

A law cannot both say 'insufficient evidence' AND 'did not commit the act'. It would be a contradiction in terms.

Now do you understand?
 
Stacyhs said:
It would be interesting to see if other motivations reports for acquittals found under 530.2 use the " did not commit the act" phrase. It would prove that M/B's use of it was not just a mistake, a typo, etc. etc. etc.
Click to expand...

As Grinder patiently tried to tell you, over and over again, 'did not commit the act' was merely a template error. IOW the clerk writing up the MR used a template and omitted to scrub out the erroneous phrase.
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
I made the mistake of once trying to impress a local prosecutor many years ago with my knowledge. Whatever it was we were discussing, I remember him saying that I was basically correct, but was being far far far too legalistic about the law and the Criminal Code.

I think we make that mistake here.
Click to expand...

Not really, because Judges are not free to interpret the law in Italy. They have to learn the CPP off by heart and stick to it, to the letter.
 
Stacyhs said:
I have no doubt that M/B used the phrase "did not commit the crime" intentionally and correctly. It's the ridiculous and unsupported claim by Vixen that it has "no legal standing" that prompted my post.
Click to expand...

It matters not a jot how intentional their usage. A judge does not have the authority to change a law.

Nowhere in Art 530,2 do the words 'did not commit the act' appear.

There is no way Marasca or you can wish it so.
 
Bill Williams said:
It's not odd at all. The Masons and US Media interests had it all set up. The right palms were greased to look the other way.... it's not that people are bad, but they do have to eat.

The PR machine even fixed it so that no matter who won the 2016 US Presidential election, a Knoxophile would be in the White House. It's probably best that Trump won the White House so that Clinton could continue to work diplomatic back channels out of the glare of Russia probes, etc. With all those Cassation judges to be bribed, because of all the pending criminal charges against people like Hellmann, Zanetti, Marasca, Bruno, Bruce Fischer, Numbers, Acbytesla, Stacyhs, LondonJohn (who'd better pray that the UK gets unhooked from the EU and therefore the ECHR), the PR machine needs to be prepared.

The PR Machine has spent a lot of money recently - particularly at law schools and bar associations. The appropriate threats needed to have been sent to rogue elements who'd ask "embarrassing questions" and go off-of Marriott's script. Of course Marriott would have had to have bought the "muscle" to drag out law school students who'd not follow the line, and still ask those questions - the muscle was there to drag them out and see that their grades would get docked as a result.
Click to expand...

Appealing to the crowd doesn't hack it, either.
 
Numbers said:
Now that's an excellent summary of the PGP position, but you left out how it's not possible to throw a 9 lb. boulder through a window and the remarkable forensic DNA findings of Stefanoni, as the case Knox v. Italy will not be reviewed by the ECHR at its headquarters in Brussels.
Click to expand...

I guess once you've lost a debate, weary cynicism is all there is left.

<fx kick a stone>
 
Stacyhs said:
It's already started. I received a registered letter this morning from the Perugia prosecutors stating I'm being sued by the police, Stefanoni, and Mignini for calunnia. But it's okay. I contacted Marriott, Clinton, and threw in Bruce Fisher for good measure. They all assured me they have my back and my lawyers will be paid for out of the Friends of Amanda treasury. Whew!
Click to expand...

...and then you woke up.
 
Vixen said:
You do not understand that a law cannot contradict itself. In so doing it becomes void.

A law cannot both say 'insufficient evidence' AND 'did not commit the act'. It would be a contradiction in terms.

Now do you understand?
Click to expand...

Vixen,
If there is insufficient evidence to convict, do you believe the correct conclusion is "they probably did it anyway it's just a bummer they didn't leave any evidence behind"?

In other words, do you think presumption of innocence is a bad thing? Does it get in the way of burning witches, err I mean locking the pagan she devil Amanda up in prison for life?
 
Numbers said:
To emphasize that the Convention, according to the ECHR, allows a conviction only if the accused is found "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", that the burden of proof is on the prosecution for each element of a charge, and if there is any doubt the "presumption of innocence" requires an acquittal or similar dismissal for that charge, here is another excerpt from Genov v. Bulgaria:

30. Furthermore, the applicant’s argument was clearly relevant, as national law did not criminalise the mere possession of counterfeit bank notes, but only the possession of such notes in large quantities .... This not being the case, the initial criminal charge against the applicant of possession of counterfeit bank notes was subsequently dropped ... and he was indicted and brought to court for having “acquired” such notes. However, acquiring counterfeit bank notes was criminalised only on 26 March 2005, which made it crucial to show both that the applicant had acquired the counterfeit notes after this date and that he had been aware that they were counterfeit, a requirement which was in line with the presumption of innocence, which places the burden of proof of all elements of the accusation on the prosecution and requires that any doubt should benefit the accused (see, for example, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, 6 December 1988, §§ 76-77, Series A no. 146, and Melich and Beck v. the Czech Republic, no. 35450/04, § 49, 24 July 2008).
Click to expand...

So ECHR case law which the Italian courts are obliged to follow is clear. Any doubt should benefit the accused.

Now as Vixen says
The Massei court adjudged:
The above observation leads to the deduction that whoever went into the bathroom at that point (after the stabbing of Meredith) must have had to do so to clean him/herself of Meredith’s blood with which he/she was staining the various things he/she touched or leaned against: the door, the light switch, the mat.

And it is probable - not necessary, but probable - that during the following act of scrubbing the hands to remove the blood, he/she left the mixed trace consisting of Meredith’s blood and of cells which had been removed by rubbing during the act of washing.

An entirely probable outcome given the likelihood of the act of scrubbing, yet not a necessary one, since the running water which was used in the shower stall or in the bidet or in the sink, or in several of these sanitary fittings, might well have rinsed away the washed-up blood and the cells which had been lost during this washing.

At this point, one may turn for the resulting evaluations to the trace specimens found in the sink, in the bidet, on the cotton-bud box, traces which tested positive for human blood and which were attributed to Meredith and to Amanda.

[301] While it is not possible to use the genetic scientific data (Dr. Stefanoni explained the impossibility of determining the date, the succession or the simultaneity in the depositing of the components of the mixed trace specimen and the impossibility of attributing the haematological component to one or the other of the contributors), the information previously put forward provides answers which are entirely consistent with the circumstantial evidence that has emerged and which the Court considers convincing.

Amanda was not wounded; in the days following no one spoke of wounds that she might have had; the examination which was carried out on her when measures restricting her personal freedom were taken ruled out the presence of wounds.

Meredith’s situation was the complete opposite.

In relation to this and to the circumstance by which haematological stains attributable to Meredith were found on the inside of the door, on the toilet-seat cover, on the light switch, it should be deduced that the haematological components found in the sink, in the bidet, on the box of cotton buds were also from Meredith.

Nor can it otherwise be argued for the presence of a drop of Amanda’s blood on the tap of the sink.

This consisted of a spot of coagulated blood, with respect to which Amanda explained that it came from her own ear having been pierced; this spot, furthermore, was located towards the inside of the sink: distinct, separate and morphologically different, therefore, from the trace found in the sink itself.

This Court also considers that the components of the mixed trace specimens were deposited simultaneously, and were deposited by Amanda.
Click to expand...

Now what Marasca understood and Massei did not is that the court does not have the freedom to choose the guilty explanation over an innocent one. Where Massei says "Dr. Stefanoni explained the impossibility of determining the date, the succession or the simultaneity in the depositing of the components of the mixed trace specimen and the impossibility of attributing the haematological component to one or the other of the contributors" he should have then said that "We have to therefore accept that Knox's DNA could have been deposited at a seperate time from the victim's, and we can deduce nothing from the presence of the defendant's DNA in her own bathroom."

It is Massei in his judgement who demonstrates ignorance of ECHR case law. Marasca et al return a not guilty verdict because there is insufficient evidence for a safe conviction.
 
Vixen said:
You do not understand that a law cannot contradict itself. In so doing it becomes void.

A law cannot both say 'insufficient evidence' AND 'did not commit the act'. It would be a contradiction in terms.

Now do you understand?
Click to expand...

Nice try in trying to turn this into an ad hominem aimed at me.

Fact is Sction 530.2 acquittals include acquittals when evidence is missing, and the phrase "did not commit the act" is quite appropriate to use when that kind of 530.2 Acquittal is found.

Quit trying to play lawyer.
 
Vixen said:
Citation please from the lower courts as to when the police were investigated and found to be so bad, the investigation to be so flawed, the amnesia to be so profound that referral to a lower court for reconsideration would serve no purpose.

Fact is, the lower courts found the pair guilty as charged. They are silent about the investigation. That was something the defence made up. Remember?
Click to expand...

Why are you asking for citations when you either do not provide one yourself, or when you do it is unrelated to the matter at hand.

Fact is - lower courts also acquitted. You always leave that part out.
 
NotEvenWrong said:
Vixen,
If there is insufficient evidence to convict, do you believe the correct conclusion is "they probably did it anyway it's just a bummer they didn't leave any evidence behind"?

In other words, do you think presumption of innocence is a bad thing? Does it get in the way of burning witches, err I mean locking the pagan she devil Amanda up in prison for life?
Click to expand...

It simply means they cannot say one way or another.

Nota Bene two merits courts decreed by a fair process that the pair are 'Guilty of Aggravated Murder'. BARD.
 
Vixen said:
You do not understand that a law cannot contradict itself. In so doing it becomes void.

A law cannot both say 'insufficient evidence' AND 'did not commit the act'. It would be a contradiction in terms.

Now do you understand?
Click to expand...

Nonsense!!

Of course law can contradict itself.

Example - OJ Simpson "not guilty" in a criminal court and "guilty" in a civil court. Civil law and criminal law often contradict.

Do you want an example of criminal law contradicting itself? Look no closer than my own country South Africa and Nelson Mandela.

Do you think "insufficient evidence" and "did not commit the act" are mutually exclusive? They are not.

...but hey...you're the expert. Let's just say you are correct. The law cannot contradict itself? Think about the own goal you just scored in the AK/RS case....

The final verdict is "not guilty"
The previous verdicts were "guilty", "not guilty", "guilty" and finally "not guilty" (hint: I deliberately avoided the term "innocent" to pre-empt a likely obtuse response).
Now you say the law cannot contradict itself which means...?
...all previous verdicts are trumped because the law cannot contradict itself.

At last we agree :D
 
Last edited:
Mike1711 said:
Nonsense!!

Of course law can contradict itself.

Example - OJ Simpson "not guilty" in a criminal court and "guilty" in a civil court. Civil law and criminal law often contradict.

Do you want an example of criminal law contradicting itself? Look no closer than my own country South Africa and Nelson Mandela.

Do you think "insufficient evidence" and "did not commit the act" are mutually exclusive? They are not.

...but hey...you're the expert. Let's just say you are correct. The law cannot contradict itself? Think about the own goal you just scored in the AK/RS case....

The final verdict is "not guilty"
The previous verdicts were "guilty", "not guilty", "guilty" and finally "not guilty".
Now you say the law cannot contradict itself which means...?
...all previous verdicts are trumped because the law cannot contradict itself.

At last we agree :D
Click to expand...

Your example has nothing to do with contradiction.

A criminal court requires proof 'Beyond a Reasonable Doubt' (and as decided by a jury or tribunal of judges equivalent).

A civil court only requires a probability of 51% to 49% for you to win your case.

It is a fact of contract law (and law is all about contracts of one sort or another) that if you have just one clause that contradicts another, the entire contract is repudiated (=worthless).
 
Vixen said:
It simply means they cannot say one way or another.

Nota Bene two merits courts decreed by a fair process that the pair are 'Guilty of Aggravated Murder'. BARD.
Click to expand...

And if they cannot say one way or another due to lack of evidence, the conclusion is innocent. This is presumption of innocence, Vixen. Do you understand that now?

The two merits courts were also overruled by the Italian Supreme Court because they exhibited extremely faulty logic and the investigation was completely botched. Do you remember that part?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom