Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[TruthCalls]

RS only rang the carabinieri at circa 12:54 and they arrived about 1:30, as per CCTV footage.

And?? I think we all know when Raffaele called the Carabinieri and when they actually arrived. None of this has anything to do with what was being discussed.

I would remind you the initial discussion was you claiming them leaving town would have looked suspicious. You have since also argued their hanging around the cottage appeared suspicious. And so now that we've established you'd spin anything Amanda did as suspicious, you've now changed directions again, telling us what we already knew.

So now, how about you answer the question that we've been asking for days now;

Why would it [going to Gubbio] be any more suspicious than Laura, Filomena, and the boys downstairs not being there? Is it any more suspicious than Filomena being at the fair?

And while we're at it, YOU wrote: "Remember, Filomena rang her, not the other way round, so if Filomena hadn't rung, or the cops turn up, they would have gone."

To which I reminded you that Amanda called Filomena first. You were wrong. They called Filomena. They called the Carabinieri. They COULD have gone to Gubbio, which would NOT have been suspicious, but they didn't because they were facing the events that they discovered that morning. If they were actually guilty they would not have called Filomena, they would not have called the Carabinieri, and would have gone to Gubbio so that someone else could discover Meredith.

You were wrong, you tried to move the goal posts and you refuse to admit you were wrong. Shameful.

 

[TruthCalls]

That's exactly the problem with hypothetical scenarios and 'what-iffing'. All we can look at is what did happen and chronology can tell us a lot. It is desperately important to you they rang the police first because it looks highly suspicious they only rang after Vanessa advised them to and after the police had already arrived (so didn't need to).

No, the only thing important to me are the facts of the case.

No, it does not look "highly suspicious" they wanted to talk to Vanessa first, seeing as she was a member of the Carabinieri, and it's a proven fact Raffaele did in fact call the Carabinieri before the Postal Police arrive. The only one being desperate here is you.

 

[catsmate]

Only in your opinion, which you are perfectly entitled to hold, but it does not reflect the actual fact of the matter.

And the basis for your self professed legal expertise is?

 

[Vixen]

And the basis for your self professed legal expertise is?

A 'Not Guilty' verdict is a simple acquittal. This is a fact.

 

[catsmate]

A 'Not Guilty' verdict is a simple acquittal. This is a fact.

Is there a reason for this pointless non sequitur?

 

[Vixen]

Is there a reason for this pointless non sequitur?

You wrote and you are factually wrong:

catsmate said:
Seriously, this is even more incoherently nonsensical than your usual drivel. Knox's acquittal is by definition an 'exoneration', and thus her earlier conviction was a 'miscarriage of justice'.
Simples.

 

[TruthCalls]

You wrote and you are factually wrong:

catsmate said:
Seriously, this is even more incoherently nonsensical than your usual drivel. Knox's acquittal is by definition an 'exoneration', and thus her earlier conviction was a 'miscarriage of justice'.
Simples.

Definition of Exonerate (Oxford Dictionary): 1. (especially of an official body) absolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, especially after due consideration of the case.

Definition of Acquit (Oxford Dictionary): 1. free (someone) from a criminal charge by a verdict of not guilty.

As Amanda was acquitted of the charge of murder, that makes her not guilty, which means to absolve her from blame for a wrongdoing, and in this case it was absolutely from an official body and after due consideration of the case. Ergo, Amanda was exonerated. Seems to me you're the one who is factually wrong, though I can't wait to hear your explanation for this one.

 

[LondonJohn]

I can't wait to hear your explanation for this one.

I can.

 

[TruthCalls]

I can.

You may have a point...

 

[Stacyhs]

RS only rang the carabinieri at circa 12:54 and they arrived about 1:30, as per CCTV footage.

This is a perfect example of you cherry-picking only that which you want to believe. There was NO NEW CCTV footage presented to Nencini. Massei and Hellmann saw the same footage and heard the same testimony and found they arrived after the 112 call.

 

[Stacyhs]

That's exactly the problem with hypothetical scenarios and 'what-iffing'. All we can look at is what did happen and chronology can tell us a lot. It is desperately important to you they rang the police first because it looks highly suspicious they only rang after Vanessa advised them to and after the police had already arrived (so didn't need to).

The problem is when you look at 'what did happen and chronology' and see the opposite of what the preceding two courts (including a convicting court) found based on the exact same CCTV footage and testimony.
Odd how neither postale saw or heard 4 1/2 minutes of phone calls by RS and two minutes of A's phone calls.

 

[Stacyhs]

A 'Not Guilty' verdict is a simple acquittal. This is a fact.

Another example of you refusing to accept anything you don't want to believe despite repeatedly being provided quote and cited evidence you are wrong. For a least the 3rd of 4th time. From La Legge per Tutti:

"How does absolution work for not committing the fact?
The acquittal for not having committed the fact is pronounced by the judge whenever the crime has been committed, but not by the accused.

This is the case, for example, of the classic "exchange of persons", in which one subject is wrongly accused instead of another.

In conclusion: the acquittal for not having committed the fact completely exonerates the accused, who has nothing to do with the crime being tried.

Precisely because this type of absolution enshrines the total innocence of the accused from all guilt, it is said that it falls within the hypothesis of "absolution with full formula". "

Therefore, under Italian law, Knox and Sollecito were found to be legally "innocent", not just "not guilty". But you, apparently, know more about Italian law than Italian lawyer Mariano Acquaviva.

 

[Numbers]

A 'Not Guilty' verdict is a simple acquittal. This is a fact.

Your post makes no sense in terms of Italian law. There is no literal "Not Guilty" (Non Colpevole; Google translation) verdict in Italian legal terminology. CPP Article 530 provides for verdicts called "Sentenza di assoluzione" which translates to "Judgment of Acquittal" or "Acquittal" (Reverso Context translation). "Not Guilty" is a verdict used in some other countries, such as the US, and means the same as an "acquittal" in US legal terminology.

In the Italian legal system, CPP Article 530 provides that the judge (court) provide a short formula, one of those specified in that law, to specify briefly the reason for the acquittal. The formulas allowed by law include the following, according to paragraph 1 of Article 530:

il fatto non sussiste (The act [of the crime] did not occur)

l'imputato non lo ha commesso il fatto (The accused did not commit the act [of the crime])

il fatto non costituisce reato (The act was not a crime [under Italian law])

il reato è stato commesso da persona non imputabile o non punibile (The crime was committed by a person not punishable or accountable)

Paragraph 3 provides another specification, that the act was justifiable or allowed by law.



What is your definition of a "simple" acquittal? Are you suggesting there is a category of acquittal that is a "complex" acquittal? What country and legal system are you discussing?

 

[TruthCalls]

The problem is when you look at 'what did happen and chronology' and see the opposite of what the preceding two courts (including a convicting court) found based on the exact same CCTV footage and testimony.
Odd how neither postale saw or heard 4 1/2 minutes of phone calls by RS and two minutes of A's phone calls.

Not only that, but on one of the calls to the Carabinieri, Raffaele is on the phone but he is talking to Amanda, and she is responding, so apparently the two of them were out of sight of the Postal Police, except, IIRC, Marzi testified he was with Amanda the whole time. At least he is the one who went into the small bathroom with her as she showed him the blood.

 

[Stacyhs]

Not only that, but on one of the calls to the Carabinieri, Raffaele is on the phone but he is talking to Amanda, and she is responding, so apparently the two of them were out of sight of the Postal Police, except, IIRC, Marzi testified he was with Amanda the whole time. At least he is the one who went into the small bathroom with her as she showed him the blood.

Stop confusing the issue with facts, TC!

Vixen has yet to address the phone log evidence that:
3)Zaroli calls Altieri at 12:45:35 and asks Altieri* to pick him up at his house. Call ends at 12:45:55 (Altieri phone log)

That would only give Altieri 5 minutes to drive to Zaroli's house and from there to the cottage which is impossible considering the locations. Here is the fastest route from Altieri's house to Zaroli's to the cottage stating 12 min drive time. Adding 12 min. to the earliest departure time at 12:46 has the earliest possible arrival time at the cottage at 12:58. That is still 7 minutes before RS' first call to 112 at 12:51 and almost 2 min. after his second call ending at 12:55:54.




*corrected from original error "Zaroli"

 

[Numbers]

Another example of you refusing to accept anything you don't want to believe despite repeatedly being provided quote and cited evidence you are wrong. For a least the 3rd of 4th time. From La Legge per Tutti:



Therefore, under Italian law, Knox and Sollecito were found to be legally "innocent", not just "not guilty". But you, apparently, know more about Italian law than Italian lawyer Mariano Acquaviva.

I agree with your post, although "not having committed the act" is only one of the specifications where the accused is "innocent" as well as "acquitted". For example, "the act [of the crime] did not occur" is another. Knox was acquitted of calunnia against the police and Mignini under that specification. While not relevant to the Knox - Sollecito case, an acquittal with the specification that the act had been carried out as a duty or to exercise a legal right (for example, self defense) would also be considered "innocence" in that no civil trial penalties could be brought against an accused who was thus acquitted (as long as the civil trial was joined to the criminal trial). See CPP Article 652.

 

[Stacyhs]

I agree with your post, although "not having committed the act" is only one of the specifications where the accused is "innocent" as well as "acquitted". For example, "the act [of the crime] did not occur" is another. Knox was acquitted of calunnia against the police and Mignini under that specification. While not relevant to the Knox - Sollecito case, an acquittal with the specification that the act had been carried out as a duty or to exercise a legal right (for example, self defense) would also be considered "innocence" in that no civil trial penalties could be brought against an accused who was thus acquitted (as long as the civil trial was joined to the criminal trial). See CPP Article 652.

True. But the only one ever claimed not to be an exoneration is "not having committed the act". The others are obvious that a person cannot possibly be guilty of committing a crime that "did not occur".

 

[Numbers]

True. But the only one ever claimed not to be an exoneration is "not having committed the act". The others are obvious that a person cannot possibly be guilty of committing a crime that "did not occur".

Part of the problem with a discussion of "exoneration" is that the word has a general meaning in US English and also, in US legal terminology, it has gained a more specific meaning. Because of fundamental differences in the US and Italian legal systems, it's important to understand what meaning of the word is being used and for which legal system.

Here's the general meaning, from Merriam Webster:*

1. to relieve of a responsibility, obligation, or hardship
2. to clear from accusation or blame

Synonyms:
exculpate, absolve, exonerate, acquit, vindicate mean to free from a charge.

A special legal definition has become useful:**

Being exonerated means an individual has been officially cleared of a crime for which they were previously convicted, based on proof of their actual innocence. This legal declaration signifies that the person did not commit the offense.

* https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exonerate

** https://legalclarity.org/what-does-it-mean-to-be-exonerated/

Here's the legal system difference: in Italy, if you are convicted, you are still considered "presumed innocent" unless the conviction is final. That is not true in the US. Knox and Sollecito were never finally convicted of the murder/rape charges; Knox has been finally convicted - twice - on the charge of calunnia harming the police and Mignini.

I feel it's perfectly correct to state that Knox and Sollecito were exonerated on the murder/rape charges.

 

[Stacyhs]

Part of the problem with a discussion of "exoneration" is that the word has a general meaning in US English and also, in US legal terminology, it has gained a more specific meaning. Because of fundamental differences in the US and Italian legal systems, it's important to understand what meaning of the word is being used and for which legal system.

Here's the general meaning, from Merriam Webster:*


A special legal definition has become useful:**



* https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exonerate

** https://legalclarity.org/what-does-it-mean-to-be-exonerated/

Here's the legal system difference: in Italy, if you are convicted, you are still considered "presumed innocent" unless the conviction is final. That is not true in the US. Knox and Sollecito were never finally convicted of the murder/rape charges; Knox has been finally convicted - twice - on the charge of calunnia harming the police and Mignini.

I feel it's perfectly correct to state that Knox and Sollecito were exonerated on the murder/rape charges.

What? Knox has never been convicted of calunnia regarding the police and Mignini. She was acquitted of the charge brought by the police and Mignini withdrew his lawsuit.

 

[Vixen]

Another example of you refusing to accept anything you don't want to believe despite repeatedly being provided quote and cited evidence you are wrong. For a least the 3rd of 4th time. From La Legge per Tutti:



Therefore, under Italian law, Knox and Sollecito were found to be legally "innocent", not just "not guilty". But you, apparently, know more about Italian law than Italian lawyer Mariano Acquaviva.

Er no! A verdict doesn't become official until the legal process is over. It simply is not possible to be 'exonerated' if you were not found guilty in the first place. Were the Calunnia conviction ever to be overturned, that would be an exoneration.