The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[Vixen]

Honestly, this is one of the silliest things I've ever heard you say, and you've said a lot of silly things. How can someone be "less innocent" than they were some time before? Is it like double secret probation ??

And btw, what I said was "they weren't proven innocent and they weren't exonerated." These two statements are factually true. Sadly for you guilters, it's all you've got left. Really, Vixen, you must work on your reading comprehension - it will be your undoing!

You're an American citizen, right? So you will be familiar with the concept of prosecutors considering there is 'probable cause' to bring a criminal case against a suspect. The case is listed for arraignment before a judge. However, on the day, the suspect's defence lawyer - or even the suspect, if representing himself -manages to persuade the residing judge not to list it for a hearing as the prosecutor's case is not strong enough (in England & Wales, we call this 'Reasonable Prospect of Success'). So the case is dismissed on the grounds of 'insufficient evidence' and not listed for trial.

Does this mean he is no longer a suspect? Does it mean he can no longer be prosecuted for the same crime, again? Does it mean the guy is 'proven innocent'? Or as innocent as someone who went to trial and was acquitted? IOW, that 'double jeopardy' kicks in and he can't be charged again for the same crime?

If you know anything about your own country, you'll know that it means nothing of the sort. You can, and often are charged for the same offence if the police and prosecutor are able to acquire a better case against you.

So no, being dismissed for 'insufficient evidence' is NOT the same as being found, 'Not Guilty' by your peers ( a judge and jury). Knox and Sollecito were NEVER found 'not guilty' by a jury. Quite the reverse. They were TWICE found 'guilty' of Aggravated Murder after a long and fair trial.

They had their sentence quashed by a couple of supreme court judges who never heard the case first hand and sat for just a couple of days in a paper-only environment, with Sollecito's barrister-for-the-mafia, Sicilian-born Bongiorno, being given five times the amount of hearing time than the other four parties put together.

 

[Bill Williams]

Not just that, but they must have had Raffaele's apology to Mignini and admission he lied about Mignini in his book purged from the news, too. No wonder they cost $2 million!

This one I'll give to Vixen. What else could it be? It must have been a huge PR payoff to major media outlets to keep Sollecito's and Gumbel's names out of the news, after their grovelling apology to Mignini!

I mean, have YOU ever seen the apology? Neither have I. But Vixen assures us that there'd been one. Who can argue with that?

Back to lurking.

 

[AnimalFriendly]

They had their sentence quashed by a couple of supreme court judges who never heard the case first hand and sat for just a couple of days in a paper-only environment, with Sollecito's barrister-for-the-mafia, Sicilian-born Bongiorno, being given five times the amount of hearing time than the other four parties put together.

Do let us know when even one half-way respectable Italian law journal similarly weighs in on this egregious miscarriage of justice. I mean, it's only been 4 years now.

 

[LondonJohn]

Do let us know when even one half-way respectable Italian law journal similarly weighs in on this egregious miscarriage of justice. I mean, it's only been 4 years now.

It's a pathetic attempt at "argument", isn't it.....?

 

[LondonJohn]

You're an American citizen, right? So you will be familiar with the concept of prosecutors considering there is 'probable cause' to bring a criminal case against a suspect. The case is listed for arraignment before a judge. However, on the day, the suspect's defence lawyer - or even the suspect, if representing himself -manages to persuade the residing judge not to list it for a hearing as the prosecutor's case is not strong enough (in England & Wales, we call this 'Reasonable Prospect of Success'). So the case is dismissed on the grounds of 'insufficient evidence' and not listed for trial.

Does this mean he is no longer a suspect? Does it mean he can no longer be prosecuted for the same crime, again? Does it mean the guy is 'proven innocent'? Or as innocent as someone who went to trial and was acquitted? IOW, that 'double jeopardy' kicks in and he can't be charged again for the same crime?

If you know anything about your own country, you'll know that it means nothing of the sort. You can, and often are charged for the same offence if the police and prosecutor are able to acquire a better case against you.

So no, being dismissed for 'insufficient evidence' is NOT the same as being found, 'Not Guilty' by your peers ( a judge and jury). Knox and Sollecito were NEVER found 'not guilty' by a jury. Quite the reverse. They were TWICE found 'guilty' of Aggravated Murder after a long and fair trial.

They had their sentence quashed by a couple of supreme court judges who never heard the case first hand and sat for just a couple of days in a paper-only environment, with Sollecito's barrister-for-the-mafia, Sicilian-born Bongiorno, being given five times the amount of hearing time than the other four parties put together.

Yeah...... you don't understand law. End of.

 

[LondonJohn]

This one I'll give to Vixen. What else could it be? It must have been a huge PR payoff to major media outlets to keep Sollecito's and Gumbel's names out of the news, after their grovelling apology to Mignini!

I mean, have YOU ever seen the apology? Neither have I. But Vixen assures us that there'd been one. Who can argue with that?

Back to lurking.

I know. And Vixen assures us she only ever makes claims based on facts and reputable sources. So I'm as confused as you are on this one, because I've never seen (or even heard of) this apology either. Please enlighten us further, Vixen.

Oh and Vixen! How about that evidence showing David Marriott (or even your second pulled-out-of-thin-air guess, Knox's family itself) stated that the Knox family had received $2 million of PR work? I mean, we've been waiting what, nearly a week now. I'm beginning to think you DON'T HAVE any evidence to back your claim. But at the same time, you reassure us that you simply don't make absurd and unsupportable claims, because your claims are based on facts and reliable sources. So, again, I'm all confused, Vixen. Please set me (and many others) straight on the evidence to support your claim.

(Or, I mean, you could always retract the claim and admit you made it up to support your own agenda? Intellectual honesty in argumentation is always a good quality, Vixen....)

 

[Bill Williams]

I know. And Vixen assures us she only ever makes claims based on facts and reputable sources. So I'm as confused as you are on this one, because I've never seen (or even heard of) this apology either. Please enlighten us further, Vixen.

Oh and Vixen! How about that evidence showing David Marriott (or even your second pulled-out-of-thin-air guess, Knox's family itself) stated that the Knox family had received $2 million of PR work? I mean, we've been waiting what, nearly a week now. I'm beginning to think you DON'T HAVE any evidence to back your claim.

I'm still waiting for Vixen, or anyone, to quote one - just one - forensic DNA expert who concurs with Scientific Police's Stefanoni's work in the case.

Just one. Not Prof. Novello, because he also said that Stefanoni's methods did not conform to international standards. Not that other guy either (Methos?) who'd later conceded that the negative controls had not been available to him.

But still waiting.

 

[TruthCalls]

So no, being dismissed for 'insufficient evidence' is NOT the same as being found, 'Not Guilty' by your peers ( a judge and jury). Knox and Sollecito were NEVER found 'not guilty' by a jury. Quite the reverse. They were TWICE found 'guilty' of Aggravated Murder after a long and fair trial.

They had their sentence quashed by a couple of supreme court judges who never heard the case first hand and sat for just a couple of days in a paper-only environment, with Sollecito's barrister-for-the-mafia, Sicilian-born Bongiorno, being given five times the amount of hearing time than the other four parties put together.

Apparently you forgot about the Hellmann court. And before you claim Hellmann was annulled, I'll remind you the same applies to Nencini.

It was five judges, not two, and I don't recall you having any issues with the Chieffi court annulling Hellmann.

P.S. Do NOT go into your nonsensical 'being acquitted is not the same as being found innocent' ramble.. we've heard it all before - several times - and it has been addressed several times.

 

[Stacyhs]

You're an American citizen, right? So you will be familiar with the concept of prosecutors considering there is 'probable cause' to bring a criminal case against a suspect. The case is listed for arraignment before a judge. However, on the day, the suspect's defence lawyer - or even the suspect, if representing himself -manages to persuade the residing judge not to list it for a hearing as the prosecutor's case is not strong enough (in England & Wales, we call this 'Reasonable Prospect of Success'). So the case is dismissed on the grounds of 'insufficient evidence' and not listed for trial.

Does this mean he is no longer a suspect? Does it mean he can no longer be prosecuted for the same crime, again? Does it mean the guy is 'proven innocent'? Or as innocent as someone who went to trial and was acquitted? IOW, that 'double jeopardy' kicks in and he can't be charged again for the same crime?

If you know anything about your own country, you'll know that it means nothing of the sort. You can, and often are charged for the same offence if the police and prosecutor are able to acquire a better case against you.

So no, being dismissed for 'insufficient evidence' is NOT the same as being found, 'Not Guilty' by your peers ( a judge and jury). Knox and Sollecito were NEVER found 'not guilty' by a jury. Quite the reverse. They were TWICE found 'guilty' of Aggravated Murder after a long and fair trial.

They had their sentence quashed by a couple of supreme court judges who never heard the case first hand and sat for just a couple of days in a paper-only environment, with Sollecito's barrister-for-the-mafia, Sicilian-born Bongiorno, being given five times the amount of hearing time than the other four parties put together.

Moving the goal post much there, Vix? The topic was not about 'probable cause' to bring a case to court. Nor was it about a case not going to trial and then, later, brought to trial. No. It was about the fact that, under the Italian Constitution, a person is considered legally innocent until, and only until, a definitive verdict of guilty has been issued. Your claim was that a person is less innocent after a trial, even when acquitted, than before the trial. All the above mumbo jumbo misdirection has nothing to do with your ludicrously wrong statement.

Knox and Sollecito were NEVER found 'not guilty' by a jury.

I know you like to ignore Hellmann as if he never existed and tout Massei, but that claim is so wrong... especially considering you "base everything on facts and reputable sources".

ACQUITSboth 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;

(Hellmann MR)

Would you like to now claim that an 'acquittal' is not the same thing as being found 'not guilty'?
ETA: Ninja'd by TruthCalls


By the way, your Trumpish attack on Bongiorno is just sad.

 

[Vixen]

Moving the goal post much there, Vix? The topic was not about 'probable cause' to bring a case to court. Nor was it about a case not going to trial and then, later, brought to trial. No. It was about the fact that, under the Italian Constitution, a person is considered legally innocent until, and only until, a definitive verdict of guilty has been issued. Your claim was that a person is less innocent after a trial, even when acquitted, than before the trial. All the above mumbo jumbo misdirection has nothing to do with your ludicrously wrong statement.



I know you like to ignore Hellmann as if he never existed and tout Massei, but that claim is so wrong... especially considering you "base everything on facts and reputable sources".


(Hellmann MR)

Would you like to now claim that an 'acquittal' is not the same thing as being found 'not guilty'?
ETA: Ninja'd by TruthCalls


By the way, your Trumpish attack on Bongiorno is just sad.

It's true, isn't it? And now - no surprise - she is an ardent frothing at the mouth far-right fascist politician.

 

[Stacyhs]

It's true, isn't it? And now - no surprise - she is an ardent frothing at the mouth far-right fascist politician.

I note that you fail to address the points of my post and, predictably, continue only to attack Bongiorno with more childish insults.

 

[Methos]

[...]
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'. [...]

"merely annulled"?

According to PM Crini as quoted here and here about the Hellmann verdict, means: "razed to the ground". The original quote can be found on page 9 of PM Crini's closing arguments:

Chi si vede, come dire, recapitare un fascicolo di questo tipo, con una sentenza d’appello sostanzialmente rasa al suolo, certamente signori, avrà necessità di capire come mai.

...and according to PQ of TJMK annulled means "wiped off the books" ...
...as "The TJMK Main Posters" stated here (for the Hellmann verdict):

Second the court that Knox thinks found her innocent no longer exists as a legal fact. It seems to endemically escape Knox that the Hellmann outcome was annulled. Annulled. As in: wiped off the books.

...and here for PM Mignini's "conviction".

False Charges And A False Verdict Against Dr Mignini Were ANNULLED

Annulled means “wiped off the books” as the Supreme Court’s First Chambers wiped off the books most of Hellmann’s appeal verdict in 2013.

So I guess that means that, judge Nencini's verdict was also (just merely? ) "razed to the ground" and "wiped off the books"...

[..]
"Proscioglimento" translates to "acquittal".

It does. And it's normaly used for cases that get "thrown out" before trial while "Assoluzione" is normally used for acquittals after a trial.

By using "Proscioglimento" instead of "Assoluzione" judges Marasca and Bruno seem to say:

"This nonsense should have never gone to trial."

A slap in the faces of judges Matteini, Micheli and Massei.

That would be in line with them stating (on pages 42/43):

Insomma, il ricorso alla logica ed all'intuizione non può in alcun modo supplire a carenze probatorie o ad inefficienze investigative. A fronte di una prova mancante, insufficiente o contraddittoria il giudice deve limitarsi a prenderne atto ed emettere sentenza di proscioglimento, ai sensi dell'art. 530, comma 2, cod. proc. pen., pur se animato da autentico convincimento morale della colpevolezza dell'imputato.

...the second highlight could be seen as a reference to the interview judge Nencini gave to Fiorenza Sarzanini where judge Nencini said:

«Non è così, noi avevamo massima agibilità. Il vincolo era solo che in caso di assoluzione avremmo dovuto motivare in maniera logica. Non c’era alcun paletto».

and:

«Effettivamente la particolarità del processo era proprio questa: una persona già condannata con rito abbreviato e in via definitiva per concorso nello stesso omicidio. La Cassazione ci chiedeva di valutare il ruolo dei concorrenti. Noi avremmo potuto dire che non erano i due imputati, motivandolo in maniera convincente. Ma non abbiamo ritenuto fosse questa la verità».

...

The final Marasca/Bruno verdict leaves the case as if it had been thrown out before trial (as it should have been). All the previous verdicts have been "thrown out", "razed to the ground" and "wiped off the books" with the hint that those verdicts never should have been... Something to think about, if you ask me To say it with Alanis Morissette "Isn't it ironic?"

As a sidenote: A certain PM of course has a different opinion and laments about that in this suit against Sollecito lawyer Maori and a magazine that apparently went nowhere back in 2016... but that, just for the record

ETA: I googled: "aggravation murder". Google (Germany) asked: "Meintest du (did you mean): aggravated murder "? (just for the record )

 

[Bill Williams]

As a sidenote: A certain PM of course has a different opinion and laments about that in this suit against Sollecito lawyer Maori and a magazine that apparently went nowhere back in 2016... but that, just for the record

Thanks Methos! Mignini scored an own-goal with that one, but the brief he wrote remains the play-book of the remaining guilter-nutters. If for no other reason than to get into the mind of a guilter-nutter, one should read Mignini's synopsis of what he thought of the Maresca-Bruno ruling. It remains the sole source of what guilter-nutters espouse to this day.

 

[Bill Williams]

So no, being dismissed for 'insufficient evidence' is NOT the same as being found, 'Not Guilty' by your peers ( a judge and jury). Knox and Sollecito were NEVER found 'not guilty' by a jury. Quite the reverse. They were TWICE found 'guilty' of Aggravated Murder after a long and fair trial.

They had their sentence quashed by a couple of supreme court judges who never heard the case first hand and sat for just a couple of days in a paper-only environment, with Sollecito's barrister-for-the-mafia, Sicilian-born Bongiorno, being given five times the amount of hearing time than the other four parties put together.

Make up your mind. First you say that they had never been acquitted. That the charges against them were simply "dismissed", and that they potentially face a renewed prosecution....

Then..... you say that those who acquitted them did so fraudulently.

It's hard to keep up with the latest conspiracy you're advancing.

Back to lurking.

 

[Numbers]

"merely annulled"?

According to PM Crini as quoted here and here about the Hellmann verdict, means: "razed to the ground". The original quote can be found on page 9 of PM Crini's closing arguments:

...and according to PQ of TJMK annulled means "wiped off the books" ...
...as "The TJMK Main Posters" stated here (for the Hellmann verdict):

...and here for PM Mignini's "conviction".



So I guess that means that, judge Nencini's verdict was also (just merely? ) "razed to the ground" and "wiped off the books"...



It does. And it's normaly used for cases that get "thrown out" before trial while "Assoluzione" is normally used for acquittals after a trial.

By using "Proscioglimento" instead of "Assoluzione" judges Marasca and Bruno seem to say:

"This nonsense should have never gone to trial."

A slap in the faces of judges Matteini, Micheli and Massei.

That would be in line with them stating (on pages 42/43):

...the second highlight could be seen as a reference to the interview judge Nencini gave to Fiorenza Sarzanini where judge Nencini said:
and:
...

The final Marasca/Bruno verdict leaves the case as if it had been thrown out before trial (as it should have been). All the previous verdicts have been "thrown out", "razed to the ground" and "wiped off the books" with the hint that those verdicts never should have been... Something to think about, if you ask me To say it with Alanis Morissette "Isn't it ironic?"

As a sidenote: A certain PM of course has a different opinion and laments about that in this suit against Sollecito lawyer Maori and a magazine that apparently went nowhere back in 2016... but that, just for the record

ETA: I googled: "aggravation murder". Google (Germany) asked: "Meintest du (did you mean): aggravated murder "? (just for the record )

According to the online Collins Reverso Italian-English dictionary, "proscioglimento" has three possible English translations:

1. acquittal
2. exoneration
3. dismissal

Also from Collins Reverso, "assoluzione" has two possible English translations:

1. acquittal
2. absolution

(I suspect that "assoluzione" is a cognate of "absolution", which, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, entered English from the Anglo-French version of a Latin word meaning to "set free".)

In the Codice di Procedura Penale (the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure), the three articles (529, Non-Prosecution; 530, Acquittal; and 531, Extinguishment because of Statute of Limitations) each relating to one of the three types of dismissal are headed by the phrase "Sentenza di proscioglimento". In the Gialuz, Luparia, and Scarpa text, ''proscioglimento" in that heading is translated as "dismissal".

In conclusion, "proscioglimento" is a more general term for legal dismissals than "assoluzione", but may be translated as any of the following, depending on context: "dismissal", "acquittal", "exoneration".

I should add that some PGP may be claiming that the Italian use of the legal term "dismissal" ("proscioglimento") is that is less than an "acquittal" ("assoluzione") in significance. This is not at all true, as the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure considers an acquittal ("assoluzione") as one of the three types of dismissal ("proscioglimento") allowed under Italian law.

Sources:

https://dictionary.reverso.net/italian-english/proscioglimento

https://dictionary.reverso.net/italian-english/assoluzione

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absolution

https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N...el.presidente.della.repubblica:1988-09-22;447

 

[Numbers]

According to the online Collins Reverso Italian-English dictionary, "proscioglimento" has three possible English translations:

1. acquittal
2. exoneration
3. dismissal

Also from Collins Reverso, "assoluzione" has two possible English translations:

1. acquittal
2. absolution

(I suspect that "assoluzione" is a cognate of "absolution", which, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, entered English from the Anglo-French version of a Latin word meaning to "set free".)

In the Codice di Procedura Penale (the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure), the three articles (529, Non-Prosecution; 530, Acquittal; and 531, Extinguishment because of Statute of Limitations) each relating to one of the three types of dismissal are headed by the phrase "Sentenza di proscioglimento". In the Gialuz, Luparia, and Scarpa text, ''proscioglimento" in that heading is translated as "dismissal".

In conclusion, "proscioglimento" is a more general term for legal dismissals than "assoluzione", but may be translated as any of the following, depending on context: "dismissal", "acquittal", "exoneration".

I should add that some PGP may be claiming that the Italian use of the legal term "dismissal" ("proscioglimento") is that is less than an "acquittal" ("assoluzione") in significance. This is not at all true, as the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure considers an acquittal ("assoluzione") as one of the three types of dismissal ("proscioglimento") allowed under Italian law.

Sources:

https://dictionary.reverso.net/italian-english/proscioglimento

https://dictionary.reverso.net/italian-english/assoluzione

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absolution

https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N...el.presidente.della.repubblica:1988-09-22;447

It should also be understood that the legal term "dismissal" as used in the US legal system is not equivalent to the legal term "proscioglimento" (translation: dismissal, acquittal, exoneration) as used in Italy. In Italy, "proscioglimento" is used as a general term for a case ending in favor of the accused, as in cases where any one of the following apply: CPP Article 529, non-prosecution (the court finds that the prosecution should not have been initiated or continued), CPP Article 530, acquittal, or CPP Article 531, extinguishment due to statute of limitations.

In the US, "a dismissal in a criminal prosecution is a decision of a court, which has exercised its discretion prior to trial or before a verdict is reached, that terminates the proceedings against the defendant. .... The legal effect of a dismissal in a criminal prosecution is dependent upon the type that is granted by the court.

Dismissal with Prejudice: A dismissal with prejudice bars the government from prosecuting the accused on the same charge at a later date. The defendant cannot subsequently be reindicted because of the constitutional guarantee against Double Jeopardy. A dismissal with prejudice is made in response to a motion to the court by the defendant or by the court sua sponte (on its own initiative).

Dismissal without Prejudice: A dismissal without prejudice that permits the reindictment or retrial of a defendant on the same charge at a subsequent date may be granted by a court acting sua sponte or after the prosecuting attorney has made a motion to do so."*

Conclusion: The PGP attempt to confuse the legal consequences of "dismissal without prejudice" as used in the US (and some other common-law countries, possibly including the UK) with the legal term "dismissal" ("proscioglimento" in one of its Italian legal meanings). Every accused in Italy who has been acquitted has also had their case dismissed in the Italian sense, because the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure lists acquittal ("assoluzione") as one type of dismissal ("proscioglimento").**

Specifically, Knox and Sollecito were acquitted of the murder/rape charges by the Marasca CSC panel as stated in the short-form verdict (the PQM, For These Reasons) because that verdict invoked CPP Article 530, paragraph 2, and specified the reason as the accused had not committed the criminal act.

The "annulment" in the PQM was the quashing of the Nencini appeal court verdict of conviction. In the PQM, in relation to Knox's conviction for aggravated calunnia, the Marasca CSC panel were clear that they were only quashing the "aggravated" part of that conviction, and that the prior calunnia conviction and retroactive prison sentence by the Hellmann appeal court, affirmed by the Chieffi CSC panel, stood.

It was that calunnia conviction which the ECHR judgment in Knox v. Italy found to be in violation of international law (the Convention). The Committee of Ministers is now awaiting Italy's Action Plan or Report detailing how Italy will redress its violation of Knox's rights.

*Source: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/dismissal

**Source: https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N...el.presidente.della.repubblica:1988-09-22;447

 

[Stacyhs]

I have to laugh just thinking of Vixen accusing us of not understanding the law regarding the SC's acquittal of AK and RS!

 

[Vixen]

"merely annulled"?

According to PM Crini as quoted here and here about the Hellmann verdict, means: "razed to the ground". The original quote can be found on page 9 of PM Crini's closing arguments:

...and according to PQ of TJMK annulled means "wiped off the books" ...
...as "The TJMK Main Posters" stated here (for the Hellmann verdict):

...and here for PM Mignini's "conviction".



So I guess that means that, judge Nencini's verdict was also (just merely? ) "razed to the ground" and "wiped off the books"...



It does. And it's normaly used for cases that get "thrown out" before trial while "Assoluzione" is normally used for acquittals after a trial.

By using "Proscioglimento" instead of "Assoluzione" judges Marasca and Bruno seem to say:

"This nonsense should have never gone to trial."

A slap in the faces of judges Matteini, Micheli and Massei.

That would be in line with them stating (on pages 42/43):

...the second highlight could be seen as a reference to the interview judge Nencini gave to Fiorenza Sarzanini where judge Nencini said:
and:
...

The final Marasca/Bruno verdict leaves the case as if it had been thrown out before trial (as it should have been). All the previous verdicts have been "thrown out", "razed to the ground" and "wiped off the books" with the hint that those verdicts never should have been... Something to think about, if you ask me To say it with Alanis Morissette "Isn't it ironic?"

As a sidenote: A certain PM of course has a different opinion and laments about that in this suit against Sollecito lawyer Maori and a magazine that apparently went nowhere back in 2016... but that, just for the record

ETA: I googled: "aggravation murder". Google (Germany) asked: "Meintest du (did you mean): aggravated murder "? (just for the record )

So there we have it: as confirmed by Methos, himself.

The Marasca-Bruno court erred in using a verdict that is intended for pre-trial arraignment hearings.

 

[Vixen]

Make up your mind. First you say that they had never been acquitted. That the charges against them were simply "dismissed", and that they potentially face a renewed prosecution....

Then..... you say that those who acquitted them did so fraudulently.

It's hard to keep up with the latest conspiracy you're advancing.

Back to lurking.

Read Methos.

He acknowledges the Marasca-Bruno verdict is defective.

 

[Vixen]

According to the online Collins Reverso Italian-English dictionary, "proscioglimento" has three possible English translations:

1. acquittal
2. exoneration
3. dismissal

Also from Collins Reverso, "assoluzione" has two possible English translations:

1. acquittal
2. absolution

(I suspect that "assoluzione" is a cognate of "absolution", which, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, entered English from the Anglo-French version of a Latin word meaning to "set free".)

In the Codice di Procedura Penale (the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure), the three articles (529, Non-Prosecution; 530, Acquittal; and 531, Extinguishment because of Statute of Limitations) each relating to one of the three types of dismissal are headed by the phrase "Sentenza di proscioglimento". In the Gialuz, Luparia, and Scarpa text, ''proscioglimento" in that heading is translated as "dismissal".

In conclusion, "proscioglimento" is a more general term for legal dismissals than "assoluzione", but may be translated as any of the following, depending on context: "dismissal", "acquittal", "exoneration".

I should add that some PGP may be claiming that the Italian use of the legal term "dismissal" ("proscioglimento") is that is less than an "acquittal" ("assoluzione") in significance. This is not at all true, as the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure considers an acquittal ("assoluzione") as one of the three types of dismissal ("proscioglimento") allowed under Italian law.

Sources:

https://dictionary.reverso.net/italian-english/proscioglimento

https://dictionary.reverso.net/italian-english/assoluzione

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absolution

https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N...el.presidente.della.repubblica:1988-09-22;447

Legal words have much stricter narrower meaning than common or garden words.

A good example of how people get confused is in the use of the word 'suspect'. In latin countries 'Suspect' is a specific legal term. For example, it could be said that 'some people view the McCanns as suspects' and in their vernacular this may be entirely correct usage of the word. Imagine their confusion when the Portuguese police made them 'Arguido' [=suspects]. These same people, such as Stacyhs, LondonJohn and yoruself, just cannot get your head around the idea that someone can be a 'suspect' [vernacular] and also a 'suspect' [=specific legal term] and thus keep arguing that 'Knox should have had a lawyer provided by the police as she was a suspect', when in fact she did not have official suspect [=arguido] status until she committed the crime of falsely accusing Patrick of rape and murder at which point the interview was terminated and she was provided with a lawyer for the rest of the case.

Other examples of legal words having a more precise meaning than the colloquial verison are 'acquitted' and 'annulled'. Likewise, the use of the word 'shall' means it is mandatory and cannot be cross-interpreted to mean, 'could' or 'may', or 'might'. It means absolutely will.


I know it is hard for some to understand that annulled does not mean acquitted or exonerated and reaching for Merriam-Webster to prove it does simply causes those in the legal profession to face -palm.