The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[Vixen]

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

Oh dear.

 

[Stacyhs]

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.

Read Methos.

He acknowledges the Marasca-Bruno verdict is defective.

Oh, good lord. This is getting ridiculous. From the Italian Wiki entitled Sentenza di proscioglimento (Sentence/Award of Acquittal):

Il termine proscioglimento indica, nel diritto processuale penale italiano , la sentenza di non doversi procedere o la sentenza di assoluzione nei confronti dell' imputato .
La sentenza di proscioglimento è emessa al termine del ; in casi particolari, può essere emessa immediatamente dopo la chiusura delle indagini preliminari , prima del dibattimento (cosiddetta sentenza anticipata di proscioglimento ).

Google translation:

The term acquittal indicates, in Italian criminal procedural law , the sentence of not having to proceed or the acquittal sentence against the accused .
The acquittal sentence is issued at the end of the trial ; in special cases, it can be issued immediately after the preliminary investigations are closed, before the trial (so-called early acquittal ).

"Oh, dear" indeed. Just stop embarrassing yourself with your refusal to ever admit you are wrong despite overwhelming evidence that you are. When a hole gets too deep, it tends to collapse in on the digger. Learn when to stop digging.

 

[Stacyhs]

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.

Regarding the first highlighted part, the Italian Supreme Court in 2008 and the ECHR disagree with you. Her rights to a lawyer during the interrogation were violated. I know you don't want to accept that, but you don't get everything you want in life.

Regarding the second highlighted part, I know it's hard for you to understand that Marasca annulled the Nencini conviction and also acquitted Knox and Sollecito as it clearly stated in the MR and which has been quoted for you.

 

[LondonJohn]

Read Methos.

He acknowledges the Marasca-Bruno verdict is defective.

Ermmmmmm...no he doesn't, Vixen.

That would just be your jaundiced misinterpretation of what he wrote.

I suggest reading through his post again, slowly and carefully. And reading up on the relevant sections of Italian law and their criminal procedure codes.

It may then become clear.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Hahahaha SO delusional and ignorant.

The whole point is this: Knox (and Sollecito), while not having been declared official suspects at the time of their 5/6 Nov interrogations, should have been declared official suspects. And by deliberately not declaring them suspects - even though it's as clear as day that they were being treated as suspects of at least one of a series of criminal offences* - the police and PM were pursuing a well-practised choreography whereby they made the person(s) under interrogation "buckle" (as per de Felice), without having informed the person(s) of their rights or given them access to legal counsel. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT, Vixen.

Once again, PLEASE read through the ECHR adjudication in particular, slowly and carefully. It may (though probably not by this point...) become clear to you what the true issue actually is here. Oh and it would also be a great idea for you to read the report by the European Criminal Bar Association, written right around the right time: the report explicitly details what appears to be an endemic problem in Italy of police and prosecutors deliberately choosing not to declare as an official suspect a person whom they in practice DO consider to be a suspect of a criminal offence, and explains exactly why the police and prosecutors engage in this subterfuge. It's exactly what happened to Knox and Sollecito on that fateful night. Please get an education on the subject. Thanks in advance.


* Ranging from suspicion of lying to police to protect a murderer, through to suspicion of engaging in a post-murder cover-up, and right up to suspicion of murder itself

 

[Bill Williams]

Read Methos.

He acknowledges the Marasca-Bruno verdict is defective.

No, he didn't. Typical of you.

Typical, in that your post ignores my post - namely that at times you push that verdict as defective, but then turn around and claim that that court had been definitive on some matters.

Typical. Typical cherry-picking as well as ignoring the point of criticisms aimed at you.

What's not typical? Me going back to lurking....

 

[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.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

(I thought I'd throw that in, on Vixen's behalf. Remember when Knox's - sorry, Knox' - forensic presence was proven to be absent in the murder room? The best that the nutters could do back then, was say [the above] as if that absolutely proved she'd been in the room. So as a prophylactic measure, I include it here.)

 

[Stacyhs]

Come on guys, Vixen has pointed out that the Marasca Bruno court erred. We should be seeing it thrown out any minute now. Any minute. tick tock tick tick tick tick tick tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock...

 

[Methos]

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

Well, me stating that judges Marasca and Bruno's use of the term "proscioglimento" instead of "assoluzzione" is a hint on them thinking "This nonsense should have neve gone to trial" is - of course - just my interpretation, close to the border of CT territory.

But, heck, playing word games and fighting about semantics seems to be all we have left to pass the time until there are real news about how "Italy" will deal with the ECHR decision

 

[Methos]

"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?"
[...]

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.

Well, no... You are just playing word games, as I said above...

Judges Marasca and Bruno (perfectly within their remit) used art 620.l to throw out the case: page 52:

visti gli artt. 620 lett. l) e 530, comma 2 cod. proc. pen.; esclusa l'aggravante di cui all'art. 61 n, 2 cod. pen., in relazione al delitto di calunnia, annulla senza rinvio la sentenza impugnata in ordine ai reati di cui ai capi a), d) ed e) della rubrica per non avere i ricorrenti commesso il fatto.

Art. 620 reads:

1. Oltre che nei casi particolarmente previsti dalla legge, la corte pronuncia sentenza di annullamento senza rinvio:[...]
l) se la corte ritiene di poter decidere, non essendo necessari ulteriori accertamenti di fatto, o di ridetermianre la pena sulla base delle statuizioni del giudice di merito o di adottare i provvedimenti necessari, e in ogni altro caso in cui ritiene superfluo il rinvio.

Just for the record:
Judges Marasca and Bruno involved art 530.2, for reasons only known to them, it wasn't necessary, but their use of art 620.l clearly is a slap in the faces of judges Matteini, Micheli, Massei and Nencini, isn't it?

 

[RoseMontague]

Word games is all the PGP has left. The reality is something they won't accept so they invent fantasy, pretending not guilty really means something else.

 

[Rolfe]

Are there many PGP left? I only see Vixen here, but are there others still posting in the .org and .net threads and elsewhere?

 

[bagels]

Are there many PGP left? I only see Vixen here, but are there others still posting in the .org and .net threads and elsewhere?

There's a few left on twitter and such, and a flock of tabloid idiots anytime a story about her gets posted.

I don't think there's any left that are wanting to have a rational discussion about the case. But then again that's more or less been true since Hellmann really.

 

[Rolfe]

If seems to me to be very strange still to be banging the guilter drum when the whole case has been so comprehensively trashed. I suppose it's something to do while waiting for the final resolution of the ECHR verdict.

 

[LondonJohn]

There's a few left on twitter and such, and a flock of tabloid idiots anytime a story about her gets posted.

I don't think there's any left that are wanting to have a rational discussion about the case. But then again that's more or less been true since Hellmann really.

I mean, there is in any event only one rational position to hold about this case (and, erm, it's not the pro-guilt position....).

It is genuinely akin to topics such as the Moon landing "debate" or the 9/11 "debate": all the rational, objective, science-led analyses of the available evidence in each case (together, of course, with an appropriate analysis of the credibility and reliability of each piece of evidence) lead to the inexorable conclusions that humans truly did land on the Moon and Al Qaeda truly was responsible for the 9/11 attacks (and the US Government truly had no knowledge of, or complicity in, the attacks), respectively.

And therefore - almost by definition - anyone trying to "argue" that (to use the above two comparators again) the Moon landings were faked or that the US Government had knowledge of/involvement in the 9/11 attacks is either deluded, ignorant, of insufficient intellect, incapable of conducting logical science-based analysis, evangelically wedded to their position, suffering from some psychiatric "need" to hold their belief, or somehow directly or indirectly involved in something related to the event (or a combination of some or all of these).

It's exactly the same with any "debate" about the Knox/Sollecito trials process. That is to say: there IS no debate. There is a correct (inasmuch as any "lay" commentators - or jurists - can possibly know) set of conclusions and an incorrect set of conclusions.

 

[Rolfe]

And yet at the outset it was the pro-innocence posters who were regularly subjected to allegations that they were conspiracy theorists and calls for the thread to be moved to the CT forum.

It's a good example of the dangers of allowing mindless slurs of "conspiracy theory" to substitute for a rational examination of the evidence and arguments being put forward.

 

[bagels]

And yet at the outset it was the pro-innocence posters who were regularly subjected to allegations that they were conspiracy theorists and calls for the thread to be moved to the CT forum.

It's a good example of the dangers of allowing mindless slurs of "conspiracy theory" to substitute for a rational examination of the evidence and arguments being put forward.

It should be moved to the CT forum. Vixen's argument is the mafia working with Raffaele's defense lawyer rigged the Supreme Court verdict.

 

[LondonJohn]

If seems to me to be very strange still to be banging the guilter drum when the whole case has been so comprehensively trashed. I suppose it's something to do while waiting for the final resolution of the ECHR verdict.

Well firstly, it's sometimes difficult (especially given certain *ahem* circumstances) to admit that one's argument is/was incorrect.

But secondly, there are other factors that come into play in situations such as these (again, especially given certain circumstances): if one convinces oneself somehow that Big Government or Dark Forces have malignly intervened to influence the outcome, this can lead to the zealot-warrior mentality of "speaking truth to power". And, paradoxically, the more the prevailing narrative gains traction and credence, the more (for these zealot-warriors) it can appear that "The Man" is distorting that narrative, and thus the stronger grows their need to "Stick it to The Man".

And again with reference to my previous post, this is precisely mirrored in the Conspiracy Theorist approach to, say, the Moon landings or 9/11: the more it becomes generally accepted as fact that man landed on the Moon or that 9/11 was entirely orchestrated by Al Qaeda - even if/when the evidence supporting those conclusions becomes clearer and clearer - the more the Conspiracy Theorists are prone to believing that this is just the US Government or its agents (in both those cases) becoming more and more malevolent in misleading the public. And thus even stronger (in their minds) becomes the need to speak out as "the lone voices of truth in the wilderness" - they almost even see it as their DUTY.

As with the Moon landings or 9/11, so also with the Knox/Sollecito trial process and the murder of Meredith Kercher in general.......

 

[Stacyhs]

And yet at the outset it was the pro-innocence posters who were regularly subjected to allegations that they were conspiracy theorists and calls for the thread to be moved to the CT forum.

It's a good example of the dangers of allowing mindless slurs of "conspiracy theory" to substitute for a rational examination of the evidence and arguments being put forward.

As it stands now, it's the PGP who have become the CTheorists; AK and RS were acquitted because of Mafia connections (supported by Francesco attending Rocco's memorial and Raff lying about the Dominican Republic beaches with gangsters), Masonic interference, 'bent' judges, a 'bent' FBI profiler, and several corrupt forenesic experts and/or the interference of the US State Department who had no bigger fish to fry than getting some unknown, random Seattle co-ed off on murder charges. Gotta love it.

 

[Stacyhs]

And thus even stronger (in their minds) becomes the need to speak out as "the lone voices of truth in the wilderness" - they almost even see it as their DUTY.

(LondonJohn)

All for Meredith. All for Meredith.