The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[LondonJohn]

Correct. There is no "innocent" finding in Italian law. There is only "acquitted". Which they were.

Yes. And indeed, on top of the fact that criminal courts in Italy (just as in, for example, the US and UK) are neither empowered nor required to find acquitted persons "innocent"*....

.... a person on trial is never required to prove his/her innocence in any event. The reason for this should be obvious to any intellectually-enabled person: it's very often impossible for a person to prove his/her factual innocence of any particular crime, even when they truly have had factually nothing whatsoever to do with it**.



* Notwithstanding the fact - in both law and ethics - that an acquitted person must resume the PRESUMPTION of innocence.

** E.g. the (true) example I've employed frequently to illustrate this point: several years ago someone was stabbed to death at about 3am, around 1/2 a mile from where I live. There were no witnesses to the murder. At the time of the murder, I was asleep alone. I don't believe that at that time there was any CCTV coverage of the route between my flat and the scene of the murder. There was therefore literally NO WAY I could have proved my innocence of this murder.

 

[Stacyhs]

Indeed, LondonJohn. Under Italian law, a person is considered INNOCENT unless definitively convicted. Since neither Knox nor Sollecito was definitively convicted, under the law, they are deemed INNOCENT. That is a tough one for some people to understand.

 

[Bill Williams]

The pair were not found innocent.

This is the most ignorant, in the strictest sense of ignorance, post you continually make.

Under Italian law, neither AK nor RS had ever been deemed anything other than innocent. From the start of the process on Nov 6, 2007, to March 27, 2015. There had not been one second in that interval when they'd been anything else but 100% innocent.

In this sense, they'd been innocent since the beginning. It was up to the State to prove otherwise. Which they never did. The Supreme Court's Sept 2015 report explains why.

 

[Bill Williams]

Indeed, LondonJohn. Under Italian law, a person is considered INNOCENT unless definitively convicted. Since neither Knox nor Sollecito was definitively convicted, under the law, they are deemed INNOCENT. That is a tough one for some people to understand.

Ok, you beat me to it. Rats. I'd better stick to lurking.

 

[TruthCalls]

Indeed, LondonJohn. Under Italian law, a person is considered INNOCENT unless definitively convicted. Since neither Knox nor Sollecito was definitively convicted, under the law, they are deemed INNOCENT. That is a tough one for some people to understand.

Oh, they understand it, they just don't want to accept it. After 12 years of getting everything about this case wrong, it has come down to this for the few remaining guilters - they weren't proven innocent and they weren't exonerated. If they find that a soothing balm, then good for them.

 

[Stacyhs]

Oh, they understand it, they just don't want to accept it. After 12 years of getting everything about this case wrong, it has come down to this for the few remaining guilters - they weren't proven innocent and they weren't exonerated. If they find that a soothing balm, then good for them.

True. A soothing balm indeed for those chafing Supreme Court and ECHR decisions. They went from the highs of the Massei and Nencini convictions to the lows of March 2015 and Jan. 2019.

It reminds me of the Miss Universe snafu when Miss Colombia was announced the winner but it turned out Miss Philippines actually won:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/entertai...-universe-wrong-contestant-sanchez-newday.cnn

 

[Numbers]

Indeed, LondonJohn. Under Italian law, a person is considered INNOCENT unless definitively convicted. Since neither Knox nor Sollecito was definitively convicted, under the law, they are deemed INNOCENT. That is a tough one for some people to understand.

Not only were Knox and Sollecito definitively and finally acquitted of the murder/rape of Kercher - which means that the presumption of innocence applies to them - but the presumption of innocence applied throughout the proceedings, including after the preliminary convictions by the Massei and Nencini courts.

It should also be pointed out that since the ECHR has found that Italy violated Knox's rights under international law (and thus Italian law) to a fair trial in convicting her of calunnia against Lumumba, she is rightfully to be presumed innocent of that charge as well. It is now Italy's responsibility, under international law, to revise or otherwise reverse the calunnia conviction.

 

[Vixen]

Honestly for you to continue to state this, as plain fact, at this point in time after the Italian Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights rulings makes it seem you are completely disconnected from reality and are in need of professional help. I used to think you were trolling and playing along, but you didn't continue this time with any crazy made-up nonsense that could get people riled up -- you just stated it as if it were fact. That worries me, and makes it appear that in some ways you aren't just trolling and actually believe what you say. Have you talked to anyone about this?



Err no. What makes you think I was talking about you? I have no idea who you are. I'm just making a general comment about the kinds of people one interacts with on the internet who are into this kind of thing -- slandering people over their looks and sexual proclivities, spreading lies/misinformation/gossip about them to make them "look bad", joining hate communities, etc. How many successful people do you know who do that kind of thing? My answer is a flat zero.

I'm sure you are intelligent enough to see how spreading misinformation over the internet far and wide in the social media age is negative PR, which you claim "bores you stiff". Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't you, for example, talked about Amanda's personal life on here once or twice? (but just once or twice, certainly no more than that)

At first, I thought this post was Numbers gone completely bananas (or rather, more so) but then I checked the name of the poster and everything was in perfect character and all is well with the world. It is well [it is well].

 

[Vixen]

No one said it was Guede's. But it could have come in on him. After all, according to Carolina, the Spanish girl who lived above Guede, he was dancing with a girl with long, blonde hair at Domus the morning of Nov. 2, the day he later killed Meredith.

The hair was 'lost'? What citation do you have for that? If it were, then the police were very careless with evidence, wouldn't you agree? If there is no citation for it being 'lost', then I'd suggest it proved of no value and was merely never entered into evidence. You do know that hair dye can be identified to its manufacturer? If it could be matched to Amanda's hair dye (if it was even a dyed hair), it would have been of great importance, possibly putting Amanda in the murder room.

ETA: Please find that citation that shows Marriott was the source of the "$2 million PR campaign" cost. As you said yourself:

"If you want to make an allegation, the onus is on you to prove it, or at least show probable cause."
(ISF part 28, #2443)

Check quotes of Curt Knox as he stood on some steps giving a press conference.

He and Edda invested their funds in PR instead of legal counsel as they knew their daughter did it.

 

[Stacyhs]

At first, I thought this post was Numbers gone completely bananas (or rather, more so) but then I checked the name of the poster and everything was in perfect character and all is well with the world. It is well [it is well].

I hope you are not personalising your post.

Anything more on David Marriott being the source for the "$2 million PR campaign"?

No?

Thought not.

 

[Vixen]

Indeed, LondonJohn. Under Italian law, a person is considered INNOCENT unless definitively convicted. Since neither Knox nor Sollecito was definitively convicted, under the law, they are deemed INNOCENT. That is a tough one for some people to understand.

You just don't get law do you?

Before a trial one is presumed innocent.

Knox and Sollecito had a trial and their conviction for aggravation murder - i.e., 'aggravated' because of the sexual assault and which would qualify as first degree murder in the USA - was merely annulled due to 'insufficient evidence'.

In other words, they are not deemed as innocent as a person before a trial. The final verdict is that Knox was present during the murder, did wash off the victim's blood from her person and did name Lumumba to cover up for Guede. Sollecito is deemed 'almost certainly' also present, with Knox.

When will the penny drop?

 

[Vixen]

Oh, they understand it, they just don't want to accept it. After 12 years of getting everything about this case wrong, it has come down to this for the few remaining guilters - they weren't proven innocent and they weren't exonerated. If they find that a soothing balm, then good for them.

No, they have not been exonerated.

Why do you think Raff's claim for compo was kicked out of court with the howls of laughter from the judges ringing out after him.

 

[Vixen]

Not only were Knox and Sollecito definitively and finally acquitted of the murder/rape of Kercher - which means that the presumption of innocence applies to them - but the presumption of innocence applied throughout the proceedings, including after the preliminary convictions by the Massei and Nencini courts.

It should also be pointed out that since the ECHR has found that Italy violated Knox's rights under international law (and thus Italian law) to a fair trial in convicting her of calunnia against Lumumba, she is rightfully to be presumed innocent of that charge as well. It is now Italy's responsibility, under international law, to revise or otherwise reverse the calunnia conviction.

The verdict was not 'acquitted'. If you look at the Italian records, it clearly states, 'annulled'.

 

[Stacyhs]

Check quotes of Curt Knox as he stood on some steps giving a press conference.

He and Edda invested their funds in PR instead of legal counsel as they knew their daughter did it.

Do you really expect ME to go looking through the internet for some alleged article that may or may not even exist in order to substantiate YOUR claim?

Once again, I'll remind you of your own words:

"If you want to make an allegation, the onus is on you to prove it, or at least show probable cause."

(ISF part 28, #2443)

Face it, Vix...if you had the evidence, you'd have provided it. You obviously don't.

 

[Stacyhs]

You just don't get law do you?

Before a trial one is presumed innocent.

Knox and Sollecito had a trial and their conviction for aggravation murder - i.e., 'aggravated' because of the sexual assault and which would qualify as first degree murder in the USA - was merely annulled due to 'insufficient evidence'.

In other words, they are not deemed as innocent as a person before a trial. The final verdict is that Knox was present during the murder, did wash off the victim's blood from her person and did name Lumumba to cover up for Guede. Sollecito is deemed 'almost certainly' also present, with Knox.

When will the penny drop?

Italian Constitution, Art. 27, paragraph 2:

The defendant is not considered guilty until final judgment is passed.

If they're not considered 'guilty' then they must be considered innocent. Final judgment was passed and they were not found guilty. When will the penny drop?

Italy also operates under the presumption of innocence

The Italian criminal system is broadly an adversarial system and is governed by the presumption of innocence. The burden of proof falls on the Public Prosecutor, who must prove the guilt of an accused person. The standard of proof required is "beyond a reasonable doubt". Unless this standard is met the defendant must be acquitted. The court must consider and evaluate any doubt a reasonable person could have.

When will the penny drop?

In other words, they are not deemed as innocent as a person before a trial.

LOL!! You're seriously saying that a person who is acquitted of a crime is not deemed as innocent as before the trial? Seriously?

(the guilty verdict) was merely annulled due to 'insufficient evidence'

.

Hardly!

according to articles 620 lett. I) and 530, chapter 2 of the code of criminal procedure, in relation to the crime of slander, annuls without appeal the challenged sentence in relation to the crime of paragraph a), d) and e) of the rubric for having not committed the act

The court annulled under 530, chapter 2 for "not having committed the act". Let me translate that for you: They didn't do it.It did not annull because "we think they did it, but we just don't have quite enough evidence".

Let me translate that for you: They didn't do it.

 

[Stacyhs]

No, they have not been exonerated.

Why do you think Raff's claim for compo was kicked out of court with the howls of laughter from the judges ringing out after him.

Your pathological need to just make up crap reminds me of someone...hmm...just who could that be? Someone with a fake tan comes to mind.

His comp suit was denied because the judges believed he contributed to his imprisonment because he 'lied'...even though his 'lies' were extracted during an interrogation where he was denied a lawyer and it was unrecorded.

 

[Stacyhs]

The verdict was not 'acquitted'. If you look at the Italian records, it clearly states, 'annulled'.

Your pedantry is noted. The SC used the word 'annulled' because, technically, they do not acquit since it's not a trial but the end result is the same. Which is why all the media reports referred to the pair being acquitted.

According to this legal website:

Being acquitted means that the person could not be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

https://www.nolandefenseattorneys.c...aside-a-case-vs-dismissing-a-case-in-arizona/

And what did Marasca Bruno rule? They annulled the conviction because Nencini did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[RoseMontague]

Art 27 of the Italian Constitution...

Art. 27
Criminal responsibility is personal.
The defendant is not considered guilty until final judgment is passed.
Punishment cannot consist in treatment contrary to human dignity and must aim at
rehabilitating the condemned.
The death penalty is not permitted, except in cases provided for in martial law.

 

[LondonJohn]

You just don't get law do you?
Before a trial one is presumed innocent.

Knox and Sollecito had a trial and their conviction for aggravation murder - i.e., 'aggravated' because of the sexual assault and which would qualify as first degree murder in the USA - was merely annulled due to 'insufficient evidence'.

In other words, they are not deemed as innocent as a person before a trial. The final verdict is that Knox was present during the murder, did wash off the victim's blood from her person and did name Lumumba to cover up for Guede. Sollecito is deemed 'almost certainly' also present, with Knox.

When will the penny drop?

Oh thanks again.

My new industrial strength Irony-o-meter has just gone up in smoke.

On account of the fact that everything you wrote after that highlighted sentence shows no understanding whatsoever of law.

Seriously, please, read some books on the subject. Or talk with someone who understands it. Both in general, but also specifically in respect of the following pieces of ignorance in the above post:

1) Acquittal in a criminal trial DOES preserve a continuity of presumption of innocence. Full stop.

2) There are no "degrees of acquittal" in Italian courts, just as there in US or E&W courts. And, since you keep trying to make (ignorant) comparisons to the Scottish legal framework, you should probably know that a "not proven" acquittal in Scottish law absolutely preserves the presumption of innocence as well. Please, seek out some education.

3) You still don't understand the meaning of the term "insufficient evidence" as it applies to Italian criminal verdicts. Even though you've now been told numerous times. Please become better-informed. (Hint, though: "insufficient evidence" means everything from "just falling short of enough evidence to prove guilt BARD" right down to "no evidence whatsoever to indicate guilt"....)

4) For the umpteenth time, please read the Marasca verdict MR, together with the ECHR adjudication, very carefully, repeatedly, and for comprehension.


When will the penny drop, indeed........?

 

[LondonJohn]

No, they have not been exonerated.

Why do you think Raff's claim for compo was kicked out of court with the howls of laughter from the judges ringing out after him.

"The howls of laughter from the judges ringing out after him"?

Pray, tell us, from where did you glean this *interesting* evidence? You didn't just make it up, did you?

(Oh and the entire basis for the rejection of Sollecito's compensation claim was that he'd "changed his story" during his interviews/interrogations. Of course they didn't take into account the unlawful coercion to which he'd been subjected. But that's Italy for ya)