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

[Vixen]

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?

No, the verdict was the 'prosecco' one (proscoglio_? sp]. Case dismissed due to insufficient evidence Art 539 clause 2.

 

[Vixen]

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.


View attachment 63330

*corrected from original error "Zaroli"

Given Filomena's urgent message, he might have proceeded with greater speed than normal. In any case, google maps usually provides alternate routes to the one you selected, whilst the first route selected is usually based on the most major motorway rather than on back street short cuts.

 

[Vixen]

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".

You're giving the template jargon too much meaning. That's just the standard wording in Italian pronouncements of not guilty verdicts. It doesn't mean the same as the legal meaning of exoneration in English, as in having been found guilty and then having your verdict overturned.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Given it took about fifteen hours for Knox to have switched her phone back on since the night before and having got up about seven hours previously before she immediately gave Mez' two disposed of phones a quick call to register she had rang, before then ringing Filomena to say she was concerned about Mez, and FR urging her to call Mez. Knox didn't tell FR she had already rang but quickly rang again, anyway, obviously not expecting an answer. Filomena was freaking out even then, after Knox hinted she'd sensed something strange about the cottage. Now after all that time, with Knox claiming she'd had to pick up the mop from the cottage to mop up a leak she claimed was from the night before and about an hour after going back and RS got up at about 10:00 am (he claims!) over breakfast, she claims, she told him about worrying things back at the cottage. So, during all of that time they must have been fretting about how they were going to spin it, what with the mise-en-scène 'burglary'. Did she find the door shut, open or ajar..? What about the front door..? Only she had the key to shut it in the first place so, she'd have to say she found it open when they ask - as they surely will. And what about the reason for popping over there first thing, bright and breezy, when most students were enjoying a bank holiday lie-in? Ah, I could say I went to get a change of clothing and as the bathroom is still a bit wet from the early morning mopping, I'll have to say I took a shower and then dressed in the dark, as I can't mention the lamp was missing and accidentally locked in Mez' room...what else? Better leave some clothes spread out on the bed to look like the ones I changed out of - obvs not the ones covered in Mez' blood which we disposed of last night, after a long drive. So let's tell' em we were planning to go to Gubbio to see the St Francis of Assissi statue after our lovely romantic evening in, watching the Wonderful World of Amèlie, and I can wear my spanking clean white skirt so no-one will dare to even imagine it could be me what done it! Oh, and guess what, darling...? Rudy left his poop in Laura's loo, so I left it there and we must point it out to the police. Gosh, bambino, that is brilliant; you are so clever. I can't wait for Filomena to find the body...she'll be freaking out....<sfx hearty laughter and giggling>

Sequel: they did it! They got away with it. It was worth the three years in the clink just to be able to become famous and earn millions from the torture, police brutality and the human rights stuff. Finale: Knox to star as the reincarnation of Amèlie herself, with the wicked prosecutor begging for her forgiveness in a spooky catholic church. Reader: she finally went to Gubbio with her great ex-lover, Raffaele, Harry Potter lookalike. THE END.

 

[Mojo]

No, the verdict was the 'prosecco'

Does anyone know what this is about? I've done a forum search, but not found anyone apart from Vixen referring to it as "prosecco". It's possible that the search function still isn't working properly.

 

[Mojo]

Given it took about fifteen hours for Knox to have switched her phone back on since the night before and having got up about seven hours previously before she immediately gave Mez' two disposed of phones a quick call to register she had rang, before then ringing Filomena to say she was concerned about Mez, and FR urging her to call Mez. Knox didn't tell FR she had already rang but quickly rang again, anyway, obviously not expecting an answer. Filomena was freaking out even then, after Knox hinted she'd sensed something strange about the cottage. Now after all that time, with Knox claiming she'd had to pick up the mop from the cottage to mop up a leak she claimed was from the night before and about an hour after going back and RS got up at about 10:00 am (he claims!) over breakfast, she claims, she told him about worrying things back at the cottage. So, during all of that time they must have been fretting about how they were going to spin it, what with the mise-en-scène 'burglary'. Did she find the door shut, open or ajar..? What about the front door..? Only she had the key to shut it in the first place so, she'd have to say she found it open when they ask - as they surely will. And what about the reason for popping over there first thing, bright and breezy, when most students were enjoying a bank holiday lie-in? Ah, I could say I went to get a change of clothing and as the bathroom is still a bit wet from the early morning mopping, I'll have to say I took a shower and then dressed in the dark, as I can't mention the lamp was missing and accidentally locked in Mez' room...what else? Better leave some clothes spread out on the bed to look like the ones I changed out of - obvs not the ones covered in Mez' blood which we disposed of last night, after a long drive. So let's tell' em we were planning to go to Gubbio to see the St Francis of Assissi statue after our lovely romantic evening in, watching the Wonderful World of Amèlie, and I can wear my spanking clean white skirt so no-one will dare to even imagine it could be me what done it! Oh, and guess what, darling...? Rudy left his poop in Laura's loo, so I left it there and we must point it out to the police. Gosh, bambino, that is brilliant; you are so clever. I can't wait for Filomena to find the body...she'll be freaking out....<sfx hearty laughter and giggling>

Sequel: they did it! They got away with it. It was worth the three years in the clink just to be able to become famous and earn millions from the torture, police brutality and the human rights stuff. Finale: Knox to star as the reincarnation of Amèlie herself, with the wicked prosecutor begging for her forgiveness in a spooky catholic church. Reader: she finally went to Gubbio with her great ex-lover, Raffaele, Harry Potter lookalike. THE END.

Cool story, bro.

 

[catsmate]

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.

Wrong. As usual.

 

[LondonJohn]

Given it took about fifteen hours for Knox to have switched her phone back on since the night before and having got up about seven hours previously before she immediately gave Mez' two disposed of phones a quick call to register she had rang, before then ringing Filomena to say she was concerned about Mez, and FR urging her to call Mez. Knox didn't tell FR she had already rang but quickly rang again, anyway, obviously not expecting an answer. Filomena was freaking out even then, after Knox hinted she'd sensed something strange about the cottage. Now after all that time, with Knox claiming she'd had to pick up the mop from the cottage to mop up a leak she claimed was from the night before and about an hour after going back and RS got up at about 10:00 am (he claims!) over breakfast, she claims, she told him about worrying things back at the cottage. So, during all of that time they must have been fretting about how they were going to spin it, what with the mise-en-scène 'burglary'. Did she find the door shut, open or ajar..? What about the front door..? Only she had the key to shut it in the first place so, she'd have to say she found it open when they ask - as they surely will. And what about the reason for popping over there first thing, bright and breezy, when most students were enjoying a bank holiday lie-in? Ah, I could say I went to get a change of clothing and as the bathroom is still a bit wet from the early morning mopping, I'll have to say I took a shower and then dressed in the dark, as I can't mention the lamp was missing and accidentally locked in Mez' room...what else? Better leave some clothes spread out on the bed to look like the ones I changed out of - obvs not the ones covered in Mez' blood which we disposed of last night, after a long drive. So let's tell' em we were planning to go to Gubbio to see the St Francis of Assissi statue after our lovely romantic evening in, watching the Wonderful World of Amèlie, and I can wear my spanking clean white skirt so no-one will dare to even imagine it could be me what done it! Oh, and guess what, darling...? Rudy left his poop in Laura's loo, so I left it there and we must point it out to the police. Gosh, bambino, that is brilliant; you are so clever. I can't wait for Filomena to find the body...she'll be freaking out....<sfx hearty laughter and giggling>

Sequel: they did it! They got away with it. It was worth the three years in the clink just to be able to become famous and earn millions from the torture, police brutality and the human rights stuff. Finale: Knox to star as the reincarnation of Amèlie herself, with the wicked prosecutor begging for her forgiveness in a spooky catholic church. Reader: she finally went to Gubbio with her great ex-lover, Raffaele, Harry Potter lookalike. THE END.

Jeez, your febrile mind does construct some disturbing fantasies. I should seek professional help if I were you.

Oh and "hearty laughter and giggling" is not a special effect. Are you really still so slow as to not realise this?

 

[LondonJohn]

Does anyone know what this is about? I've done a forum search, but not found anyone apart from Vixen referring to it as "prosecco". It's possible that the search function still isn't working properly.

Vixen still doesn't understand that "insufficient evidence" means the entire spectrum from "zero evidence of guilt" right up to "only just too little evidence to prove guilt BARD". In the case of Knox's and Sollecito's murder-related charges, the Marasca SC panel made it abundantly clear that there was effectively zero evidence of guilt. Marasca's panel rode a coach and horses right through the previous courts' incompetence and unlawfulness, and the police/PM's egregiously disgraceful "investigation" and prosecution. End of story (pending Knox sorting out the unlawful criminal slander "conviction".)

 

[Mojo]

Vixen still doesn't understand that "insufficient evidence" means the entire spectrum from "zero evidence of guilt" right up to "only just too little evidence to prove guilt BARD". In the case of Knox's and Sollecito's murder-related charges, the Marasca SC panel made it abundantly clear that there was effectively zero evidence of guilt. Marasca's panel rode a coach and horses right through the previous courts' incompetence and unlawfulness, and the police/PM's egregiously disgraceful "investigation" and prosecution. End of story (pending Knox sorting out the unlawful criminal slander "conviction".)

I was just wondering what was so funny about the word "prosecco" (although it seems there has been some confusion about it previously).

 

[Numbers]

No, the verdict was the 'prosecco' one (proscoglio_? sp]. Case dismissed due to insufficient evidence Art 539 clause 2.

Simply false.

 

[Numbers]

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.

Sorry about my error, which was a kind of mental misfiring as I was attempting to multitask.

The wording of that clause in my post # 6741 should be:

Knox has been finally convicted - twice - on the charge of calunnia harming Lumumba.

 

[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".

I think one needs to consider at what stage a verdict of the "crime did not occur" verdict is given, as well as what one means by "exoneration". If by definition an "exoneration" can only occur as a result of a trial after a finding of guilt by a court, then no accused acquitted for any reason at a first instance trial, and not retried, has been "exonerated" for those charges specified in the trial. If the definition of "exonerated" one uses is that it is synonymous with acquittal, then the first instance final acquittal is an exoneration on the specific charges no matter what the reason for the acquittal.

I believe that in the Italian judicial system, one could indeed be found provisionally or even finally guilty at a first instance trial (or later) for a crime that has not occurred. If after such a provisional or even final conviction for the non-existent crime, the accused had been acquitted of the crime on the specification that the crime had not occurred, that would qualify as an "exoneration" under either definition.

Consider the final acquittal of Knox at the first instance Boningsegna court trial for calunnia harming the police and Mignini. (The verdict of acquittal became final when the prosecution did not appeal the acquittal within the lawful time limit.) The verdict was an acquittal under CPP Article 530 paragraph 2, and the specification for the acquittal on the charge of calunnia harming the police amd Mignini was that the "crime had not occurred"; IIUC, the reasoning the MR gave for no calunnia against the police was that the circumstances of the interrogation were such that Knox reasonably believed her account of mistreatment by the police was true. On the other hand, the reasoning the MR gave (or implied) for no calunnia against Mignini was that Knox reasonably believed that Mignini had directed the police in their interrogation because that was his lawful duty, even if it was not certain that he had ordered their specific conduct. There was no crime of calunnia, although Knox's court testimony and trial appeals had made implicit accusations of crimes committed by the police and Mignini, there was no proof that her statements were false or that she knew her statements to be false.

In more general terms, there is sometimes an ambiguity whether a crime has been committed, and if so, what the actual crime might be. A recent example from the US is the federal case against Sean Combs, who was indicted on a number of charges, including transporting for purposes of prostitution, racketeering conspiracy, and sex trafficking. He was only convicted of the transporting charge. The jury did not convict on some of the charges, such as sex trafficking, likely because of ambiguities in whether or not those crimes occurred (US juries are not allowed to provide their reasoning).*

* Sources:

Sean Combs - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sean 'Diddy' Combs to remain in custody while he awaits his sentencing

Sean “Diddy” Combs avoided jail for life after he was acquitted of sex trafficking and racketeering charges but convicted of prostitution-related offenses.

apnews.com

 

[Numbers]

I was just wondering what was so funny about the word "prosecco" (although it seems there has been some confusion about it previously).

"Prosecco" according to Reverso Context, is an Italian word translating to "sparkling wine". It seems Vixen is playing a prank (making a joke, punning) based on another Italian word, "proscioglimento" that, according to Reverso context, translates to: "acquittal, exoneration, dismissal, release".

Of particular interest, in Italian legal terminology, "proscioglimento" is used as the title of a section, Section 1 (Sezione 1) within Part Two (PARTE SECONDA) of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (Codice di Procedura Penale), more specifically of Book 7 Judgment (Libro VII: Giudizio), Title 3 Verdict (TITOLO III Sentenza), Chapter 2 Decision (Capo II Decisione).

Four articles of the CPP are listed under the above-referenced Section 1, Verdicts of Dismissal (Sezione I Sentenza di proscioglimento):

Art. 529. Sentenza di non doversi procedere. (Article 529. Verdict Not to Proceed.)

Art. 530. Sentenza di assoluzione. (Article 530. Verdict of Acquittal.)

Art. 531. Dichiarazione di estinzione del reato. (Article 531. Declaration of the Extinction of the Crime.)

Art. 532. Provvedimenti sulle misure cautelari personali. (Article 532. Provisions on Personal Precautionary Measures.)

Part of the guilter agenda, which Vixen seems to be pursuing, is to confuse readers about what the Italian court decisions were, by exploiting confusions of language and legal terminology. Thus, Vixen claims that the acquittal of Knox and Sollecito by the Marasca CSC panel that was in fact an acquittal under CPP Article 530, paragraph 2, was "really" a dismissal under CPP Article 529, or that it was "really" an acquittal under "insufficient evidence", a provision of Italian law abolished by the legal reforms of 1988-1989 and thus not applicable to the Hellmann Court provisional acquittal in 2011 (quashed by the Chieffi CSC panel) or to the Marasca CSC panel final acquittal in 2015.

Sources:

https://context.reverso.net/translation/italian-english/prosecco

https://context.reverso.net/translation/italian-english/proscioglimento

https://www.altalex.com/documents/news/2014/09/03/giudizio-sentenza

 

[Mojo]

"Prosecco" according to Reverso Context, is an Italian word translating to "sparkling wine". It seems Vixen is playing a prank (making a joke, punning) based on another Italian word, "proscioglimento" that, according to Reverso context, translates to: "acquittal, exoneration, dismissal, release".

Of particular interest, in Italian legal terminology, "proscioglimento" is used as the title of a section, Section 1 (Sezione 1) within Part Two (PARTE SECONDA) of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (Codice di Procedura Penale), more specifically of Book 7 Judgment (Libro VII: Giudizio), Title 3 Verdict (TITOLO III Sentenza), Chapter 2 Decision (Capo II Decisione).

Four articles of the CPP are listed under the above-referenced Section 1, Verdicts of Dismissal (Sezione I Sentenza di proscioglimento):

Art. 529. Sentenza di non doversi procedere. (Article 529. Verdict Not to Proceed.)

Art. 530. Sentenza di assoluzione. (Article 530. Verdict of Acquittal.)

Art. 531. Dichiarazione di estinzione del reato. (Article 531. Declaration of the Extinction of the Crime.)

Art. 532. Provvedimenti sulle misure cautelari personali. (Article 532. Provisions on Personal Precautionary Measures.)

Part of the guilter agenda, which Vixen seems to be pursuing, is to confuse readers about what the Italian court decisions were, by exploiting confusions of language and legal terminology. Thus, Vixen claims that the acquittal of Knox and Sollecito by the Marasca CSC panel that was in fact an acquittal under CPP Article 530, paragraph 2, was "really" a dismissal under CPP Article 529, or that it was "really" an acquittal under "insufficient evidence", a provision of Italian law abolished by the legal reforms of 1988-1989 and thus not applicable to the Hellmann Court provisional acquittal in 2011 (quashed by the Chieffi CSC panel) or to the Marasca CSC panel final acquittal in 2015.

Sources:

https://context.reverso.net/translation/italian-english/prosecco

https://context.reverso.net/translation/italian-english/proscioglimento

https://www.altalex.com/documents/news/2014/09/03/giudizio-sentenza

Yeah, but why is it that funny? Vixen gave it a "ROTFLMAO" gif. Is it just Vixen laughing at her own joke?

 

[Welshman]

"Prosecco" according to Reverso Context, is an Italian word translating to "sparkling wine". It seems Vixen is playing a prank (making a joke, punning) based on another Italian word, "proscioglimento" that, according to Reverso context, translates to: "acquittal, exoneration, dismissal, release".

Of particular interest, in Italian legal terminology, "proscioglimento" is used as the title of a section, Section 1 (Sezione 1) within Part Two (PARTE SECONDA) of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (Codice di Procedura Penale), more specifically of Book 7 Judgment (Libro VII: Giudizio), Title 3 Verdict (TITOLO III Sentenza), Chapter 2 Decision (Capo II Decisione).

Four articles of the CPP are listed under the above-referenced Section 1, Verdicts of Dismissal (Sezione I Sentenza di proscioglimento):

Art. 529. Sentenza di non doversi procedere. (Article 529. Verdict Not to Proceed.)

Art. 530. Sentenza di assoluzione. (Article 530. Verdict of Acquittal.)

Art. 531. Dichiarazione di estinzione del reato. (Article 531. Declaration of the Extinction of the Crime.)

Art. 532. Provvedimenti sulle misure cautelari personali. (Article 532. Provisions on Personal Precautionary Measures.)

Part of the guilter agenda, which Vixen seems to be pursuing, is to confuse readers about what the Italian court decisions were, by exploiting confusions of language and legal terminology. Thus, Vixen claims that the acquittal of Knox and Sollecito by the Marasca CSC panel that was in fact an acquittal under CPP Article 530, paragraph 2, was "really" a dismissal under CPP Article 529, or that it was "really" an acquittal under "insufficient evidence", a provision of Italian law abolished by the legal reforms of 1988-1989 and thus not applicable to the Hellmann Court provisional acquittal in 2011 (quashed by the Chieffi CSC panel) or to the Marasca CSC panel final acquittal in 2015.

Sources:

https://context.reverso.net/translation/italian-english/prosecco

https://context.reverso.net/translation/italian-english/proscioglimento

https://www.altalex.com/documents/news/2014/09/03/giudizio-sentenza

A tactic Vixen has constantly used since joining the forum is to downplay the acquittal eg claiming it was illegal, it was not a full acquittal, the acquittal was unusual.

 

[AmyStrange]

A tactic Vixen has constantly used since joining the forum is to downplay the acquittal eg claiming it was illegal, it was not a full acquittal, the acquittal was unusual.

Don't forget the ever popular, the mafia made them a deal they couldn't refuse.

 

[Stacyhs]

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.

Oh, good lord.

 

[Numbers]

Yeah, but why is it that funny? Vixen gave it a "ROTFLMAO" gif. Is it just Vixen laughing at her own joke?

Possibly, by inserting the gif, Vixen is telling us that she is making a joke and that it is very funny.

 

[Stacyhs]

Given Filomena's urgent message, he might have proceeded with greater speed than normal.

Hmmm... I do believe you claimed earlier to "abhor what-if, would could and should nonsense".


12:45:55: call from Luca to Marco ends.
12:51:40: call from Raffaele to 112 begins
That leaves about 5 1/2 min. for Marco to drive to Luca's, pick him up, and drive to the cottage in order for him to be there when Raffaele makes the first 112 call.

In any case, google maps usually provides alternate routes to the one you selected, whilst the first route selected is usually based on the most major motorway rather than on back street short cuts.

No, the route selected was the "fastest" which I clearly stated in my post. Now, if you'd like to present a faster route, that can get the boys there faster than 5 1/2 min., please do so. Otherwise, you're just trying to find an excuse not to deal with the fact that there is no way Luca and Marco arrived at the cottage before Raffaele made the 112 calls.