Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Ammonitida]

Can 530.1 acquittals be overturned by the Supreme Court?

 

[LondonJohn]

Ok, you don't know.

Yeah, if that makes you feel better..... I don't know

I would offer you a slice of the rather awesome Dresdner Stollen that I made and baked this evening, but I'm not going to do so

Perhaps I'll save some for Osterwelle though, plus anyone else who a) likes delicious German Christmas spiced breads, and b) has a logical and sceptical view of this case

 

[LondonJohn]

Can 530.1 acquittals be overturned by the Supreme Court?

Absolutely, yes. Although "quashed" is probably a better word to use than "overturned", since it would be extraordinarily unlikely (to the point of impossibility) for the Supreme Court to turn an acquittal into a conviction of its own accord. Rather, the Supreme Court would set aside an acquittal if it ruled it to be unsafe in law, and would usually then send the case back to the appeal court for a retrial. And note again that the Supreme Court does not rule on findings of fact (which are what drives a 530.1 vs 530.2 acquittal in the first place), but only on matters of law and procedure/code. Therefore the findings of fact behind the basis for acquittal are not really at issue at Supreme Court level.

My personal view, FWIW, is that in this case either prosecutors will realise there is no mileage in a Supreme Court appeal on the acquittals and therefore decline to appeal, or that they will stubbornly press forward with an appeal which will be denied (and in the process the prosecutors will be publicly castigated by the Supreme Court judges for bringing an appeal in the first place). I think the more interesting angle is whether Knox will appeal the Lumumba slander guilty verdict. On the one hand, I think she has a good chance of a successful appeal, and an acquittal in a retrial; but on the other hand, this may be a judicial process that Knox has neither the energy or inclination to embark upon. So I think it will be very interesting to see whether Knox's lawyers lodge an appeal on the Lumumba slander charges (on balance, I think they just might).

 

[Machiavelli]

Are you suggesting another conspiracy here?

Why do you say "another"?
(which was the first?)

I do not suggest. As much as I do not predict.

It is a fact that Vecchiotti is not an impartial carachter; it is demonstrated that she stated false things in her report and her main "scientifical" arguments were specious or legally unacceptable; it is a fact she has a history of "not finding" DNA and letting suspects on the run who were proven murderers. It is also a fact that she has no relevant international publications and her only presence as an author in one scientific textbook is due to the fact the textbook was directed by Tagliabracci. It is also a fact that most her co-authors in international works are the co-authors of Pascali and Tagliabracci. It is also a fact that Vecchiotti and Pascali often appear together in little scientific conferences organized in Rome by Vatican organizations. It is a fact that Stefanoni - acting in Potenza as a court-appointed expert - fiercely accused Pascali of "not finding DNA" and thus producing a report favourable to the defendant DAnilo Restivo, a serial killer. Stefanoni is actually in first place the "enemy" of Pascali; she destroyed his scientific report and cast worst possible light on his reputation. Pascali, Tagliabracci and Vecchiotti are friends.
The prosecution of Potenza, expecially the Procura Generale, who was infiltrated by masonic/mafious elements, and who appointed Pascali, did not earn the trusted of the judges of Potenza themselves (there are long stories on each of these points). Currently the prosceution of Potenza are accused of having set a large conspiracy involving secret agents against other judges and magistrates.
It is also a fact that Vecchioti, about 12 years ago was involved in another case where she was accused of being "not impartial" on the DNA identification of the (alleged) body of Andrea Ghira. She stated Andrea Ghira was dead, but it seems there are many who still doubt it. Ghira was a fascist terrorist and is the nephew of Vecchiotti's boss, the lady to whom Vecchiotti owes her place at Sapienza university, in the environment where she grew.
So I do not suggest specific things, but the word "impartial" (or "independent") and "Vecchiotti" do not fit in my mind.

 

[LondonJohn]

Why do you say "another"?
(which was the first?)

I do not suggest. As much as I do not predict.

It is a fact that Vecchiotti is not an impartial carachter; it is demonstrated that she stated false things in her report and her main "scientifical" arguments were specious or legally unacceptable; it is a fact she has a history of "not finding" DNA and letting suspects on the run who were proven murderers. It is also a fact that she has no relevant international publications and her only presence as an author in one scientific textbook is due to the fact the textbook was directed by Tagliabracci. It is also a fact that most her co-authors in international works are the co-authors of Pascali and Tagliabracci. It is also a fact that Vecchiotti and Pascali often appear together in little scientific conferences organized in Rome by Vatican organizations. It is a fact that Stefanoni - acting in Potenza as a court-appointed expert - fiercely accused Pascali of "not finding DNA" and thus producing a report favourable to the defendant DAnilo Restivo, a serial killer. Stefanoni is actually in first place the "enemy" of Pascali; she destroyed his scientific report and cast worst possible light on his reputation. Pascali, Tagliabracci and Vecchiotti are friends.
The prosecution of Potenza, expecially the Procura Generale, who was infiltrated by masonic/mafious elements, and who appointed Pascali, did not earn the trusted of the judges of Potenza themselves (there are long stories on each of these points). Currently the prosceution of Potenza are accused of having set a large conspiracy involving secret agents against other judges and magistrates.
It is also a fact that Vecchioti, about 12 years ago was involved in another case where she was accused of being "not impartial" on the DNA identification of the (alleged) body of Andrea Ghira. She stated Andrea Ghira was dead, but it seems there are many who still doubt it. Ghira was a fascist terrorist and is the nephew of Vecchiotti's boss, the lady to whom Vecchiotti owes her place at Sapienza university, in the environment where she grew.
So I do not suggest specific things, but the word "impartial" (or "independent") and "Vecchiotti" do not fit in my mind.

So....... are you suggesting that, because of all this alleged behaviour, the Conti/Vecchiotti report is neither accurate nor reliable? Is that what you're actually suggesting? Because otherwise, everything you've written here is totally irrelevant. Yet if it is what you're suggesting, then you're basically accusing Vecchiotti in particular (and Conti by association) of fundamental perversion of justice and gross malpractice. Interesting.......

Oh, and remind me once again how this juicy theory of yours dovetails in with the wider conspiracy theory you're developing regarding Hellmann and Zanetti. I can't wait to hear this one - it seems like it will give the 9/11 truthers a run for their money.....

 

[Machiavelli]

Yeah, if that makes you feel better..... I don't know

...

Oh no, it doesn't make me feel better. I would feel better if you admitted that you did not know what "per non avere commesso il fatto" means in legal terms, and that you were wrong in making your inference from it.

Now, I still don't know where you are drawing your inference from. What is the ground of your convincement, remains a mistery to me: hence, I suspect you just don't know on what basis you can bolster your conclusion, or maybe your conclusion about 530.1 may be just because you think this is the right conclusion based on your own assessment and logical elaboration of the evidence. If it is just this it would be rather disappointing intellectually. If instead you have information, could you please link the post(s) where you already explained your reasoning?

 

[Rolfe]

Perhaps I'll save some for Osterwelle though, plus anyone else who a) likes delicious German Christmas spiced breads, and b) has a logical and sceptical view of this case

Where and when?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

What will that need to be , to make it truly over? Why would that circumvent the supreme court appeal? Not being snarky, really wanting to get it straight.

I'm not saying it would circumvent the Supreme Court appeal. I'm saying that not until we know the motivation can we see whether the calunnia conviction makes a lick of sense, and whether it is likely to be overturned at appeal.

It's the next interesting stage we have to look out for. It's the next development in this case that is not over.

I think the more interesting angle is whether Knox will appeal the Lumumba slander guilty verdict. On the one hand, I think she has a good chance of a successful appeal, and an acquittal in a retrial; but on the other hand, this may be a judicial process that Knox has neither the energy or inclination to embark upon. So I think it will be very interesting to see whether Knox's lawyers lodge an appeal on the Lumumba slander charges (on balance, I think they just might).

Exactly. She may be too sick of it all to follow up on that one. On the other hand, the haters continually harp on about how that makes her a "convicted felon", and gives her a criminal record. I'm not too sure that conviction would really follow her all the way to America, but she might like to get rid of it for these reasons if it looks doable.

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh no, it doesn't make me feel better. I would feel better if you admitted that you did not know what "per non avere commesso il fatto" means in legal terms, and that you were wrong in making your inference from it.

Now, I still don't know where you are drawing your inference from. What is the ground of your convincement, remains a mistery to me: hence, I suspect you just don't know on what basis you can bolster your conclusion, or maybe your conclusion about 530.1 may be just because you think this is the right conclusion based on your own assessment and logical elaboration of the evidence. If it is just this it would be rather disappointing intellectually. If instead you have information, could you please link the post(s) where you already explained your reasoning?

I know exactly what "per non avere commesso il fatto" means in legal terms. It means a 530.1 acquittal. It is you who has convinced yourself that it doesn't have to mean 530.1. And yes, Hellmann himself has confirmed it from his own mouth. Have you not properly read that interview he gave? Here it is again, just so you realise you're wrong:

http://www3.lastampa.it/cronache/sezioni/articolo/lstp/423553/

How about a translation to English of the following quote from Hellmann:

"Nel nostro caso non abbiamo richiamato il secondo comma dell’articolo 530 del Codice (la vecchia insufficienza di prove, ndr)."

What do you think that quote tells us about the formula used for the acquittals, Machiavelli? Or are you still "sticking to your story"? Please. Move on. It's getting hugely boring and embarrassing.

 

[LondonJohn]

Where and when?

Rolfe.

Well, you qualify on both criteria, so I'll send some up to "The Athens of The North" by private plane

Unless you're down in London any time soon (fortunately Stollen gets better after a couple of weeks maturing!)...?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

scholarly record of C Vecchiotti

Machiavelli,

You wrote, "t is also a fact that she has no relevant international publications and her only presence as an author in one scientific textbook is due to the fact the textbook was directed by Tagliabracci. It is also a fact that most her co-authors in international works are the co-authors of Pascali and Tagliabracci." A quick search turned up a number of publications by Dr. Vecchiotti:

The peopling of Europe and the cautionary tale of Y chromosome lineage R-M269.
Busby GB, Brisighelli F, Sánchez-Diz P, Ramos-Luis E, Martinez-Cadenas C, Thomas MG, Bradley DG, Gusmão L, Winney B, Bodmer W, Vennemann M, Coia V, Scarnicci F, Tofanelli S, Vona G, Ploski R, Vecchiotti C, Zemunik T, Rudan I, Karachanak S, Toncheva D, Anagnostou P, Ferri G, Rapone C, Hervig T, Moen T, Wilson JF, Capelli C.
Proc Biol Sci. 2011 Aug 24. [Epub ahead of print]
PMID: 21865258 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Demonstration of a gastric bioptic specimen mix-up by laser capture microdissection (LCM) and DNA fingerprinting.
Vecchiotti C, Spaltro G, Bloise D, Brunetti E, Sciacchitano S.
Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2004 Jun;25(2):113-6.
PMID: 15166760 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

DNA identification of sperm cells collected and sorted by flow cytometry.
Di Nunno N, Melato M, Vimercati A, Di Nunno C, Costantinides F, Vecchiotti C, Frezzini C, Cina S, Vimercati F.
Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2003 Sep;24(3):254-70.
PMID: 12960662 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Distribution of D3S1358, D21S11, FGA, vWA alleles in a Central Italian population sample.
Vecchiotti C, Spaltro G, Boninfante B, Di Nunno N.
J Forensic Sci. 2003 Jul;48(4):896-7. No abstract available.
PMID: 12877317 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Distribution of D5S818, D7S820, D8S1179, D13S317, D18S51 alleles in a central Italian population sample.
Vecchiotti C, Spaltro G, Boninfante B, Di Nunno N.
J Forensic Sci. 2003 May;48(3):690-1. No abstract available.
PMID: 12762552 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Alleged sexual assault. The role of the emergency department gynecologist].
Lukic A, Sassi MT, Vecchiotti C, Vetrano G.
Minerva Ginecol. 2000 Jul-Aug;52(7-8):313-20. Italian.
PMID: 11148854 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[The role of the gynecologist in first aid in cases of sexual violence. A protocol proposal].
Lukic A, Barbarino P, Prosperi Porta R, Agostini P, Vecchiotti C, Vetrano G.
Minerva Ginecol. 1999 Nov;51(11):453-61. Italian.
PMID: 10726446 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Italian population data on the loci LDLR, GYPA, HBGG, D7S8 and GC.
Tagliabracci A, Buscemi L, Cerri N, Cucurachi N, Lombardi R, Mignola R, Neri TM, Vecchiotti C, De Ferrari F, Masotti G, Rodriguez D, Umani Ronchi G.
Int J Legal Med. 1996;109(3):161-2.
PMID: 8956995 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

[Ammonitida]

Why do you say "another"?
(which was the first?)

You alleged a "real conspiracy" (your own words) involving the Sollecito family in which you claimed that they tried to overthrow certain police officials. You also suggested that Hellman's verdict might have been influenced by the freemasons or money.

It is a fact that Vecchiotti is not an impartial carachter; it is demonstrated that she stated false things in her report and her main "scientifical" arguments were specious or legally unacceptable; .

Please elaborate on this point.

For me, the most significant scientific argument in that report is the one relating to the bra clasp. Multiple unattributed alleles that were originally disregarded by Stefonini as "stutters" were determined to be genuine. That these were identified as genuine alleles by C&V was important in providing an alternate explanation for the DNA -- that being contamination. Since I considered that to be the only strong piece of forensic evidence the prosecution had, its undermining I find very significant.

As for the rest of your claims, I don't know if they're true or not, but Vecchioti did that review with another expert, Conti. How does he figure in this conspiracy of yours?

 

[Machiavelli]

So....... are you suggesting that, because of all this alleged behaviour, the Conti/Vecchiotti report is neither accurate nor reliable?

No. The Conti/Vecchiotti report is not accurate nor reliable itself, for intrinsic reasons. The report has several major flaws which appear even before having Vecchiotti and Conti as witnesses; the report contains reasonings on main points that are based on false data/assumptions, reasonings based on unacceptable logical/legal premises, huge logical holes, unsupported logical reasonings/conclusions, unacceptable arguments, and it also states findings that are contradictory with its further arguments and conclusions.

Is that what you're actually suggesting? Because otherwise, everything you've written here is totally irrelevant. Yet if it is what you're suggesting, then you're basically accusing Vecchiotti in particular (and Conti by association) of fundamental perversion of justice and gross malpractice. Interesting.......

No, I am not accusing. I am just distrusting. Exactly what other people seem to do here with Anna Donnino's testimony, albeit they do thatwhile not supported by any logical reason.
There is a point related to burden of proof and impartiaity. A judge or an expert/witness view should appear impartial, unbiased, in order to be believed. You decide to believe a fundamental perversion of justice malpractice and a criminal conduct was don by the police and by Anna Donnino, I believe something of that kind was done by Vecchiotti.
I don't know if her appointing by Hellmann is an unfortunate casual event. I don't know means I have no proof of faul play by Hellmann (by now).
But I see no reason to consider Vecchiotti "impartial".

Oh, and remind me once again how this juicy theory of yours dovetails in with the wider conspiracy theory you're developing regarding Hellmann and Zanetti. I can't wait to hear this one - it seems like it will give the 9/11 truthers a run for their money.....

No I have no 9/11-like conspiracy to sell.
But there is plenty of true conspiracies in Italy involving the judiciary from which you can take example. About Hellmann, I don't know the guy except for his civil verdict about the Banca di Roma, by which he overturned a previous verdict and he made bank win over people who lost all their money by entrusting it to the bank; in that verdict Hellmann wrote he "didn't examine the reasons brought by the parties" because he decided based on the first reason brought by the bank. What stroke me about Claudio Pratillo-Hellmann was only the name, because he is from Padova and the Ranier-Hellmann is one of the most ancient families of masonry in the Veneto (maybe the founders), since the begining of the 19th century, far before the existence of Italy.

 

[LondonJohn]

PS (My bolding):

Art. 530.
Sentenza di assoluzione.

1. Se il fatto non sussiste, se l'imputato non lo ha commesso, se il fatto non costituisce reato o non è previsto dalla legge come reato ovvero se il reato è stato commesso da persona non imputabile o non punibile per un'altra ragione, il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione indicandone la causa nel dispositivo.

2. Il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione anche quando manca, è insufficiente o è contraddittoria la prova che il fatto sussiste, che l'imputato lo ha commesso, che il fatto costituisce reato o che il reato è stato commesso da persona imputabile.

3. Se vi è la prova che il fatto è stato commesso in presenza di una causa di giustificazione o di una causa personale di non punibilità ovvero vi è dubbio sull'esistenza delle stesse, il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione a norma del comma 1.

4. Con la sentenza di assoluzione il giudice applica, nei casi previsti dalla legge, le misure di sicurezza.

 

[Diocletus]

Why do you say "another"?
(which was the first?)

I do not suggest. As much as I do not predict.

It is a fact that Vecchiotti is not an impartial carachter; it is demonstrated that she stated false things in her report and her main "scientifical" arguments were specious or legally unacceptable; it is a fact she has a history of "not finding" DNA and letting suspects on the run who were proven murderers. It is also a fact that she has no relevant international publications and her only presence as an author in one scientific textbook is due to the fact the textbook was directed by Tagliabracci. It is also a fact that most her co-authors in international works are the co-authors of Pascali and Tagliabracci. It is also a fact that Vecchiotti and Pascali often appear together in little scientific conferences organized in Rome by Vatican organizations. It is a fact that Stefanoni - acting in Potenza as a court-appointed expert - fiercely accused Pascali of "not finding DNA" and thus producing a report favourable to the defendant DAnilo Restivo, a serial killer. Stefanoni is actually in first place the "enemy" of Pascali; she destroyed his scientific report and cast worst possible light on his reputation. Pascali, Tagliabracci and Vecchiotti are friends.
The prosecution of Potenza, expecially the Procura Generale, who was infiltrated by masonic/mafious elements, and who appointed Pascali, did not earn the trusted of the judges of Potenza themselves (there are long stories on each of these points). Currently the prosceution of Potenza are accused of having set a large conspiracy involving secret agents against other judges and magistrates.
It is also a fact that Vecchioti, about 12 years ago was involved in another case where she was accused of being "not impartial" on the DNA identification of the (alleged) body of Andrea Ghira. She stated Andrea Ghira was dead, but it seems there are many who still doubt it. Ghira was a fascist terrorist and is the nephew of Vecchiotti's boss, the lady to whom Vecchiotti owes her place at Sapienza university, in the environment where she grew.
So I do not suggest specific things, but the word "impartial" (or "independent") and "Vecchiotti" do not fit in my mind.

Well, what goes around comes around.

This never would have happened if Stefanoni had just gotten her PhD. Or maybe even just a master's degree.

BTW. Why is Stefanoni always finding DNA in places where the PhDs say it doesn't exist???

 

[Diocletus]

Why do you say "another"?
(which was the first?)

I do not suggest. As much as I do not predict.

It is a fact that Vecchiotti is not an impartial carachter; it is demonstrated that she stated false things in her report and her main "scientifical" arguments were specious or legally unacceptable; it is a fact she has a history of "not finding" DNA and letting suspects on the run who were proven murderers. It is also a fact that she has no relevant international publications and her only presence as an author in one scientific textbook is due to the fact the textbook was directed by Tagliabracci. It is also a fact that most her co-authors in international works are the co-authors of Pascali and Tagliabracci. It is also a fact that Vecchiotti and Pascali often appear together in little scientific conferences organized in Rome by Vatican organizations. It is a fact that Stefanoni - acting in Potenza as a court-appointed expert - fiercely accused Pascali of "not finding DNA" and thus producing a report favourable to the defendant DAnilo Restivo, a serial killer. Stefanoni is actually in first place the "enemy" of Pascali; she destroyed his scientific report and cast worst possible light on his reputation. Pascali, Tagliabracci and Vecchiotti are friends.
The prosecution of Potenza, expecially the Procura Generale, who was infiltrated by masonic/mafious elements, and who appointed Pascali, did not earn the trusted of the judges of Potenza themselves (there are long stories on each of these points). Currently the prosceution of Potenza are accused of having set a large conspiracy involving secret agents against other judges and magistrates.
It is also a fact that Vecchioti, about 12 years ago was involved in another case where she was accused of being "not impartial" on the DNA identification of the (alleged) body of Andrea Ghira. She stated Andrea Ghira was dead, but it seems there are many who still doubt it. Ghira was a fascist terrorist and is the nephew of Vecchiotti's boss, the lady to whom Vecchiotti owes her place at Sapienza university, in the environment where she grew.
So I do not suggest specific things, but the word "impartial" (or "independent") and "Vecchiotti" do not fit in my mind.

"Vatican" . . . "masonic/mafious" . . . "secret agents" . . . "fascist terrorist"?

LOL.

 

[Machiavelli]

I know exactly what "per non avere commesso il fatto" means in legal terms. It means a 530.1 acquittal. It is you who has convinced yourself that it doesn't have to mean 530.1

.

Ok. This is false.
This can be demonstrated. Ask an Italian lawyer.

"per non avere commesso il fatto" does not mean 530.1, because the same formula is shared with 530.2 acquittals; there is no 530.2 acquittal that does not have also one of the two formulas "per non avere commesso il fatto" or "perchè il fatto non sussiste".

And yes, Hellmann himself has confirmed it from his own mouth. Have you not properly read that interview he gave? Here it is again, just so you realise you're wrong:

I have properly read. In fact he gave more than ne interview. Moreover, also the other judges of the court ave interviews.

http://www3.lastampa.it/cronache/sezioni/articolo/lstp/423553/

How do you see a newspaper title like this:

"Rudy sa chi ha ucciso e forse lo sanno anche i due ragazzi"

"I dubbi del presidente della Corte: «Prove contraddittorie.
Mi spiace, credo che l’omicidio Meredith resterà irrisolto».

How about a translation to English of the following quote from Hellmann:

How would you translate the word "dubbio" and the sentence "sorry, I think the murder will remain unsolved".
"unsolved" with 530.1?
And how do you put together "prove contraddittorie" (conflicting evidence) with "no evidence"? (conflicting evidence = 530.2)
And how do you see "the truth can be different", and "maybe they know what happened?"

And how do you translate the sentence:
"Se fossi stato il pm avrei agito come hanno agito i pm del processo. Nessun errore da parte loro. Solo che abbiamo valutato diversamente le prove. Il codice stabilisce che basta un piccolo dubbio, purché ragionevole, per assolvere".

"If I were the public minister I would have acted just like the public ministers acted in the trial. There was no mistake by them. It's just that we assessed the evidence in a different way. The code establishes that a small doubt, albeit reasonable, shall be enough to acquit".

How do you see the mentioning of a "small doubt" if it's a 530.1 acquittal?

Maybe it is a 530.1 acquittal (or maybe on some of the charges, or maybe on only one of the defendants and 530.2 on the other, obviously possible). But I don't know. And you can't know.
However I don't see an evidence that it is a 530.1 based on the above interview which is describing something quite opposite.

What do you think that quote tells us about the formula used for the acquittals, Machiavelli? Or are you still "sticking to your story"?

I don't have any story to stick to.
You just don't know tha law, and I do.

Please. Move on. It's getting hugely boring and embarrassing.

It's you who are embarassing yourself with your ignorance and your boasting of a knowledge you don't have.

 

[Machiavelli]

Well, what goes around comes around.

This never would have happened if Stefanoni had just gotten her PhD. Or maybe even just a master's degree.

BTW. Why is Stefanoni always finding DNA in places where the PhDs say it doesn't exist???

That argument is quite pathetic and damages the appearence of your intellectual honesty. You are saying Stefanoni should not have spoken badly about Pascali because you think she has less academic titles?
I think Giuseppe Novelli and Luciano Garofano have a PhD, and they did find DNA too saying Stafanoni's findings were correct. I recall Novelli - who has credentials by which Vecchiotti is insignificant - saying he wished he could have in his laboratory the same working quality they had in Stefanoni's HQ.

 

[RWVBWL]

.
<snip>
I don't have any story to stick to.
You just don't know tha law, and I do.

It's you who are embarassing yourself with your ignorance and your boasting of a knowledge you don't have.

Hey Machiavelli,
Thanks for giving the other point of view.
You write a lot about this case, have strong opinions, and always seem up for debate.

Why don't you start a blog as Mr. Sfarzo did and become a public figure promoting the pro-guilt side? I'd enjoy reading it, and I'm sure others would too...
L8, RW

 

[Machiavelli]

PS (My bolding):

Do you realize or not that you are not even able to read the 530 cpp article?

You don't even know the jurisprudence related to it and what the "formula" is and what "pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione" means.

The formulas mentioned in the first comma are always valid for the whole 530 article. They must be always mentioned. The 530.2 paragraph depends entirely from the word "anche": it is a condition, saying that the same formulas, the same sentenza di assoluzione, must be pronounced also when there is doubt or contradictory evidence that the fact was committed, ot that the fact took place.
The 530.2 specifies that the formulas of 530 are valid also under the conditions of 530.2, as long as these conditions are specified and motivated. They are extended to 530.2.
Thus there cannot be a 530.2 acquittal without a formula mentioned in the 530.1 like "per non avere commesso il fatto" or "perché il fatto non sussiste".