[Continuation] The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

[Numbers]

Unsurprisingly, there's zero mention of the Italian criminal justice system in that article. So, unsurprisingly, you've elected to (try to) misdirect rather than apply some intellectual honesty and back up your claim properly.

You need to supply reliable-source evidence that 530.2 in Italy maps precisely* onto the Scottish "not proven" verdict. Simple as that. Your Wikipedia article is entirely useless in the context of proving your claim.


* And you'll never find any such (reliably sourced) evidence, because 530.2 does not map precisely onto "not proven". In fact, if one were drawing a comparison with Scotland, 530.2 maps onto a) all "not proven" verdict, and b) virtually all "not guilty" verdicts. The only "not guilty verdicts to which 530.2 does not map are those where there's a directed acquittal on account of factual innocence being found (and in Italy, these are 530.1 verdicts).

LondonJohn, do you have any example of a real case in Italy where there was an acquittal under CPP Article 530 paragraph 1?

If a criminal case were prosecuted and innocence of an accused was so obvious and manifest that it constituted "factual innocence" without a need to review any evidence (I am not really sure what you mean by this - accused persons acquitted under CPP Article 530.2 are "factually innocent" if the "rubric" is "the act did not occur" or "the accused did not commit the act"), then the case should be dismissed under CPP Article 529, probably during a preliminary hearing or by the first-instance court.

IIUC, an accused might be acquitted under CPP Art. 530 para. 1 (or para. 3) even if they had committed an act of homicide, but it was justifiable as self-defense. Is such an accused "factually innocent"?

I believe that someone could be acquitted under CPP Art. 530 para. 1 only if there was no evidence presented against that person. I believe that in the post-1988 reform of the Italian CPP, CPP Art. 530 para. 1 remains merely the placeholder of the rubrics that explain the rationale for acquittals. One should also read CPP Art. 530 para. 3 to see that the "absolute" cause of one justification for acquittal is combined in the paragraph with the "BARD" or "reasonable doubt" reason for acquittal. The purpose of CPP Art. 530 para. 1 is to state in law: "il giudice pronuncia sentenza di assoluzione indicandone la causa nel dispositivo."

L'impossibilità di giungere ad un accertamento della colpevolezza conduce alla pronuncia di una formula che corrisponde ad un accertamento positivo dell'innocenza: ciò discende dall'esigenza di annunciare la causa dell'assoluzione nel dispositivo, come prevede il comma 1.

Translation (Google): The impossibility of arriving at an ascertainment of guilt leads to the pronouncement of a formula which corresponds to a positive ascertainment of innocence: this derives from the need to announce the cause of the acquittal in the operative part, as foreseen in paragraph 1.

Source: https://www.brocardi.it/codice-di-p...timo/titolo-iii/capo-ii/sezione-i/art530.html

 

[Vixen]

.... which has nothing to do with Italy. So why is it relevant to this thread?

As I said upthread, the Italian 530.2 'insufficient evidence' is equivalent to the Scottish Not Proven and the citation is Professor Anna Bull, expert in Italian political history (as you know, legislation is passed by the government).

So a direct parallel. As you saw from the wiki page and the recent legislation to abolish the Scottish Not Proven, it is frowned upon as it causes confusion, with people thinking it means 'guilty but not enough evidence to be BARD'.

 

[Vixen]

It's difficult to determine whether the pro-guilt commentators' misunderstanding of what 530.2 means (and what it does not mean) is born of sheer ignorance or a knowing attempt to deceive. I think it's probably a mixture of both.

After all, it obviously suits the pro-guilt narrative and mindset to pretend that the classification of Knox's/Sollecito's acquittals on the murder-related charges necessarily implied that they "got off by a whisker". And of course, bound up with this is the misinterpretation/misunderstanding/misdirection around the term "insufficient evidence".

As the saying goes: people are entitled to their own opinions, but people are not entitled to their own facts. In the grand scheme of things however, the ignorance and/or misdirection of a tiny group of overinvested, obsessive, vindictive individuals (on this and on many, many other matters related to the case) doesn't matter one jot. Thankfully, justice eventually prevailed wrt the Knox/Sollecito trial process, and the people who actually matter - Knox and Sollecito themselves, their legal counsel, their families and friends, and the members of the Marasca SC panel - know the facts and the truth of the situation. And in the end, that's really all that matters.

The pair did not get off 'by a whisker', the evidence was overwhelming far BARD to absolute near certainty.

 

[Stacyhs]

Oh, my. Read what Altieri said again...this time very slowly so you can comprehend what he actually said:


I'll break it down for you:

1. Altieri didn't say the police or the medic told HIM what he'd seen.
2. Altieri overheard the medic talking to the officer.

Clear now?

>Irrelevent word salad unfounded in any fact snipped<




Please refrain from twisting and misrepresenting what I say to further your own agenda. Nobody believes these twisted and false accusations of yours. Gaslight yourself all you want, but don't pull that crap on me.



Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I never denied Knox said that or something similar. THIS is what I said:

What do you not understand about 'bled out'?

What do you not understand about the word "slow" or "slowly" NOT being in what Butterworth actually said and that YOU added it?

Bleeding out can happen slowly or quickly. Just admit it, Vixen; YOU added that word. And that is a fact you cannot deny.

Altieri did not 'overhear' anything. He made it up. The medics did not appear until many hours later and would not have conversed loudly in front of the likes of him. He lied to help out the pair.

Oh, Vixen, Vixen, Vixen.....

Chiacchiera pulled up to the house. Police cars, an ambulance, and press were already on the scene, as well as a number of civilian cars, parked on the driveway and on the street, which had already been taped off as a crime scene. People huddled in grieving, shocked groups on the gravel outside. Somewhere among them Amanda Knox and her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito....

Burleigh, Nina. The Fatal Gift of Beauty (p. 149).

Let me guess: Burleigh is lying, too?

Chiacchiera: 'Make sure no one goes anywhere near the place until I get there, including the ambulance crew.'

'It's certainly a big stone to come through the narrow gap between the shutters.' He was still miffed after hearing that the ambulance crew had possibly entered Meredith's room against his wishes.

(Darkness Descending)

My goodness. Paul Russell is lying, too!

Shortly after Napoleoni arrived at the cottage at about 1.30 p.m., her boss Marco Chiacchiera joined her

‘You go inside to see what you can find out right away,’ Chiacchiera told Napoleoni.After a doctor from the emergency services had lifted and then lowered the quilt back over the body, Napoleoni gazed slowly around Meredith’s room.

(Follain, A Death in Italy)

Oh, NO! John Follain is a liar, too!

 

[Numbers]

As I said upthread, the Italian 530.2 'insufficient evidence' is equivalent to the Scottish Not Proven and the citation is Professor Anna Bull, expert in Italian political history (as you know, legislation is passed by the government).
....
So a direct parallel. As you saw from the wiki page and the recent legislation to abolish the Scottish Not Proven, it is frowned upon as it causes confusion, with people thinking it means 'guilty but not enough evidence to be BARD'.

Vixen, please provide some cases of acquittals from Italy that were given under CPP Article 530 paragraph 1 if you are making the point that they are common while those under CPP 530 paragraph 2 are unusual or rare.

Also, please provide some evidence from reputable, responsible sources in Italy to support your apparent claim that Italians consider acquittals under CPP Article 530 paragraph 2 somehow a lesser acquittal than one under paragraph 1. Please provide any support on this claim you can find that is from an Italian legal source (lawyer, prosecutor, law professor, or judge).

Note that an expert in political history is not necessarily an expert in law. What was the year of publication of the Anna Bull source?

Thanks in advance for the information I that am confident you will provide in answer to the above questions.

 

[Bill Williams]

As I said upthread, the Italian 530.2 'insufficient evidence' is equivalent to the Scottish Not Proven and the citation is Professor Anna Bull, expert in Italian political history (as you know, legislation is passed by the government).

[qimg]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52536623304_211dbdd961_c.jpg[/qimg]

So a direct parallel.

Ah, er no. Thanks for providing a citation, though. Anna Bull is a recognized expert in Italian social sciences. One would need to provide far, far more than an image of text, outside of its larger context, from an English professor. Perhaps a cite from an Italian legal source would help.

But thanks for that cite.

 

[Stacyhs]

She was laughing and joking. Sticking her tongue out. Rudely interrupting a quiet reflective moment when one of Mez friends expressed a wish Mez had not died in pain to SWEAR and brutally state she suffered a slow painful death from a slit throat, when noone even knew the cause of death as of that stage.

Oh, my God! Knox SWORE when she expressed her anger at the brutal way Meredith had been murdered! Get out the torches and pitchforks!

Stop lying that Knox ever said Meredith's death was "slow". You know damn well she never said "slow" or "slowly" evidenced your OWN quote.

I've disproven your claim about no one knowing what the cause of death was yet...or at least knowing MK's throat was cut.

There are a hundred and one possible reasons for cause of death.

Agreed. And if they had been told she had a garrote or cord wrapped around her neck, they'd have assumed she'd been strangled. But she had her throat cut and was lying in pool of blood. What do you think they should have assumed? She'd been attacked by a pack of wild dogs?

A website states as some types of bullying behaviour:

Bullying behaviours

• negative facial or physical gestures, menacing or contemptuous looks

Did the girls ever once say that Knox made negative facial or physical gestures, menacing or contemptuous looks at them? No.

• playing nasty jokes to embarrass and humiliate

We remember Knox brags about turning over her classmate's room to frighten and distress her.

No, "WE" do not "remember" any such thing. That motive is entirely your own made up description not not based on any evidence . Logic says that, if Knox's intention had been to embarrass, humiliate, or distress her roommate, she would not have immediately apologized to her friend when she saw the prank had upset her. Despite what you, TJMK and other PGP have claimed, Knox was not 'made to apologize'. The roommate has never commented on it.

 

[Stacyhs]

You are obviously not familiar with the case.

You obviously cannot provide a citation for your claim. Therefore, I can only infer that it's not true.

 

[Stacyhs]

I don't have a citation as I am only repeating what I have heard on the grapevine.

Speaking of hearing things through the grapevine:


"People say believe half of what you see
Son, and none of what you hear"

(Marvin Gaye, I Heard it Through the Grapevine)

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Can you really not see the irony in your writing these two things, one after the other?

"It doesn't matter what the final court outcome was, I hold to the objective truth."

"Oh, no, wait: It doesn't matter what the objective truth was, I hold to the court findings."

Pick a lane, as someone once said.

Please take the time to find out the difference between a court verdict and a court finding, instead of heckling from the back of the hall for the fun of it.

Well, there's your answer, Jack by the hedge: no, she can't.

 

[Vixen]

Oh, my God! Knox SWORE when she expressed her anger at the brutal way Meredith had been murdered! Get out the torches and pitchforks!

Stop lying that Knox ever said Meredith's death was "slow". You know damn well she never said "slow" or "slowly" evidenced your OWN quote.

I've disproven your claim about no one knowing what the cause of death was yet...or at least knowing MK's throat was cut.




Agreed. And if they had been told she had a garrote or cord wrapped around her neck, they'd have assumed she'd been strangled. But she had her throat cut and was lying in pool of blood. What do you think they should have assumed? She'd been attacked by a pack of wild dogs?

A website states as some types of bullying behaviour:



Did the girls ever once say that Knox made negative facial or physical gestures, menacing or contemptuous looks at them? No.



No, "WE" do not "remember" any such thing. That motive is entirely your own made up description not not based on any evidence . Logic says that, if Knox's intention had been to embarrass, humiliate, or distress her roommate, she would not have immediately apologized to her friend when she saw the prank had upset her. Despite what you, TJMK and other PGP have claimed, Knox was not 'made to apologize'. The roommate has never commented on it.

Wrong. The roommate contacted Perugia Police to report it. During the Nencini Appeal, Knox gave an interview bragging about her 'prank'.

 

[Vixen]

You obviously cannot provide a citation for your claim. Therefore, I can only infer that it's not true.

You are not interested in the truth.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, please provide some cases of acquittals from Italy that were given under CPP Article 530 paragraph 1 if you are making the point that they are common while those under CPP 530 paragraph 2 are unusual or rare.

Also, please provide some evidence from reputable, responsible sources in Italy to support your apparent claim that Italians consider acquittals under CPP Article 530 paragraph 2 somehow a lesser acquittal than one under paragraph 1. Please provide any support on this claim you can find that is from an Italian legal source (lawyer, prosecutor, law professor, or judge).

Note that an expert in political history is not necessarily an expert in law. What was the year of publication of the Anna Bull source?

Thanks in advance for the information I that am confident you will provide in answer to the above questions.

It's 2011. Italian Neofascism: The Strategy of Tension and the Politics of Nonreconciliation

Making use of the literature on national reconciliation and narrative psychology theory, this book examines the fight over the 'judicial' and the 'historical' truth in Italy today, through a contrasting analysis of judicial findings and the 'narratives of victimhood' prevalent among representatives of both the post- and the neo-fascist right.

I think it goes without saying that at the Supreme Court stage, 'insufficient evidence' is rare. This would normally be 529 IIRC.

 

[Vixen]

It's also a well-known phenomenon, if Person A knows (or is even just acquainted with) Person B, that if B is accused by the authorities of a serious crime, A's impression of B will often (very often) change - sometimes dramatically - for the worse. In this particular case, it's possible that the change was also adversely affected by the fact that the victim was a friend of A.

In my case, I took the trouble to study the court case and the evidence, including the judges' reasoning, unlike the Fox News soundbites fed to a largely unwitting US audience (having said that many in the USA who are not Knox advocates).

 

[Vixen]

What do you not understand about the word "slow" or "slowly" NOT being in what Butterworth actually said and that YOU added it?

Bleeding out can happen slowly or quickly. Just admit it, Vixen; YOU added that word. And that is a fact you cannot deny.



Oh, Vixen, Vixen, Vixen.....


Burleigh, Nina. The Fatal Gift of Beauty (p. 149).

Let me guess: Burleigh is lying, too?



(Darkness Descending)

My goodness. Paul Russell is lying, too!



(Follain, A Death in Italy)

Oh, NO! John Follain is a liar, too!

If you believe Luca Altieri overheard a medic telling a police officer the cause of death and the length of time it took to die, and he was the person who then told Knox and that is how she knew, then you are even more gullible than I thought.

Altieri is an unreliable witness as per his testimony re the mobile phones. I am sure he thought he was being awfully helpful but sometimes it is best to stick to what you know.

 

[Stacyhs]

Please just read Robyn Butterworth's testimony or any of the chapters fromt he various books in the matter.




So here we have this one person at the questura amongst the following:



On an adrenaline high bragging she knew the cause of death, laughing, giggling, using obscenities to state the victim had her throat slit and 'bled out' (for those with limited knowledge, this means slowly). I would say that is bullying behaviour in the form of jeering and mocking other's misfortune and death of their dear friend aged 21 with her whole life ahead of her. That is sickening behaviour. Even if Knox is unaffected by the death there is no need for the appalling lack of manners and decorum at such a solemn and sad moment.

People have been told off for failing to observe the minutes silence for the war dead. It is brash hooliganism to ignore it and over-ride it.

I refer you, dear readers, back to this post by Vixen:

'Humiliated? That is a term much used by the DAILY EXPRESS. You'll be talking about 'fury' next.

using obscenities to state the victim had her throat slit

If ever there is a time to use obscenities, it's when something obscene has happened...as in your friend having her throat cut, sexually assaulted and murdered. The offense seems to be entirely restricted to you as none of the Brit girls mentioned being offended by her use of profanity. And since facts matter (at least to some of us), it was ONE obscenity, not plural.

and 'bled out' (for those with limited knowledge, this means slowly).

For those who cannot admit that they added the word "slowly" to what someone said in order to imply previous knowledge:

RB's entire statement:

"And then Amanda said: "what the **** do you think? She bled out."

For those with limited knowledge, bleeding out can happen in as little as 2-3 minutes:

“Someone with a severe arterial wound could bleed out in three minutes.”

According to the STOP THE BLEED campaign, the average bleed out time is 2-5 minutes.

 

[Vixen]

I refer you, dear readers, back to this post by Vixen:

'Humiliated? That is a term much used by the DAILY EXPRESS. You'll be talking about 'fury' next.




If ever there is a time to use obscenities, it's when something obscene has happened...as in your friend having her throat cut, sexually assaulted and murdered. The offense seems to be entirely restricted to you as none of the Brit girls mentioned being offended by her use of profanity. And since facts matter (at least to some of us), it was ONE obscenity, not plural.



For those who cannot admit that they added the word "slowly" to what someone said in order to imply previous knowledge:

RB's entire statement:


For those with limited knowledge, bleeding out can happen in as little as 2-3 minutes:

An ordinary stab wound can take a long time. Some years ago, there was a murder of a teenager Ben Kinsella, who was kicked and punched to the ground, receiving 11 stab wounds to the chest and back in a period witnesses testified to be only a 5-second duration.

Ben managed to run 150 yards before falling and dying. This is common. People who are stabbed often do manage to crawl or walk a certain distance before succumbing to their injury.

How would Knox know the victim 'bled out'.

No I don't believe Altieri overheard it for a minute. Neither he nor Battistelli would have been aware. The body was not moved for about 12 hours so don't make out that one of the medics made an announcement to anybody let alone a police officer.

 

[Numbers]

It's 2011. Italian Neofascism: The Strategy of Tension and the Politics of Nonreconciliation



I think it goes without saying that at the Supreme Court stage, 'insufficient evidence' is rare. This would normally be 529 IIRC.

Vixen, Thanks for the source title.

I looked up the title and found on Amazon: Italian Neofascism: The Strategy of Tension and the Politics of Nonreconciliation, by Anna Cento Bull. The publication date given: 1 January 2008. Author information states: Anna Cento Bull is Professor of Italian History and Politics at the University of Bath.

However, this is not a book about Italian law, and Bull is not an expert in Italian law, but rather history and politics. One should be cautious in considering her statements about Italian law in the book, because they may be historically valid - she is writing about a period including the years 1969 - 1980 - but not relevant following the major legal reforms of 1988 - 2006.

While under its former, pre-1988 Code of Criminal Procedure, Italy had an acquittal for insufficient evidence, "which was inherited from the inquisitorial system based on the presumption of guilt", this was eliminated by the 1988 reforms. If the evidence of guilt is missing (in whole or part), insufficient, or contradictory, then the accused is given a full acquittal, the same as an acquittal in which there was no evidence of guilt presented by the prosecutor. In 2002, the Joint Chambers (aka United Sections) of the CSC declared the standard of proof for conviction was proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This BARD standard was adopted as law by the Italian Parliament in 2006, and is presented as CPP Article 533, paragraph 1.*

* Source for this information:

The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation; ed. M. Gialuz, L. Luparia, F. Scarpa; Wolters Kluwer Italia (C) 2014
Essay: The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: A reading guide, by M. Gialuz, section 3.1, The introduction of the standard of "Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt", p. 37 - 39

Mitja Gialuz is Professor of Criminal Procedure at the University of Trieste.
Lupa Luparia is Professor of Criminal Procedure at the University of Milan.
Federica Scarpa is Professor of English Translation in the Dept. of Legal, Language, Interpreting, and Translation Studies at the University of Trieste

 

[Agatha]

Argue about the case, not about each other, please.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, Thanks for the source title.

I looked up the title and found on Amazon: Italian Neofascism: The Strategy of Tension and the Politics of Nonreconciliation, by Anna Cento Bull. The publication date given: 1 January 2008. Author information states: Anna Cento Bull is Professor of Italian History and Politics at the University of Bath.

However, this is not a book about Italian law, and Bull is not an expert in Italian law, but rather history and politics. One should be cautious in considering her statements about Italian law in the book, because they may be historically valid - she is writing about a period including the years 1969 - 1980 - but not relevant following the major legal reforms of 1988 - 2006.

While under its former, pre-1988 Code of Criminal Procedure, Italy had an acquittal for insufficient evidence, "which was inherited from the inquisitorial system based on the presumption of guilt", this was eliminated by the 1988 reforms. If the evidence of guilt is missing (in whole or part), insufficient, or contradictory, then the accused is given a full acquittal, the same as an acquittal in which there was no evidence of guilt presented by the prosecutor. In 2002, the Joint Chambers (aka United Sections) of the CSC declared the standard of proof for conviction was proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This BARD standard was adopted as law by the Italian Parliament in 2006, and is presented as CPP Article 533, paragraph 1.*

* Source for this information:

The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation; ed. M. Gialuz, L. Luparia, F. Scarpa; Wolters Kluwer Italia (C) 2014
Essay: The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: A reading guide, by M. Gialuz, section 3.1, The introduction of the standard of "Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt", p. 37 - 39

Mitja Gialuz is Professor of Criminal Procedure at the University of Trieste.
Lupa Luparia is Professor of Criminal Procedure at the University of Milan.
Federica Scarpa is Professor of English Translation in the Dept. of Legal, Language, Interpreting, and Translation Studies at the University of Trieste

So curiouser and curiouser, then, that this very clause of 'insufficient evidence' was used for Andreotti in the 90's and Berlusconi in more recent years, and now Knox and Sollecito, if it was supposed to have been scrapped.

Whilst there is no mechanism within the penal code to overturn a Supreme Court hearing verdict, there is a mechanism to do such a thing via an Act of Parliament (or Italy's democratic equivalent). For example, Gordon Brown then Prime Minister brought in a Act that would enable judges to give heinous murderers 'life tariffs' up to 'whole life', because before then it was statutory for lifers to be able to apply for parole after eight years, with twelve years being the general life sentence term. Likewise, whilst the judiciary had no power to offer a pardon, an Act of government can do so, and has done.

I understand that some Itlaian politicians are preparing an Act that will enable the Hellmann and the Fifth Chamber Marasca-Bruno shenaningans to be overturned, having made a mockery of justice and Italy a laughing stock.

So let's see.

 

[LondonJohn]

I understand that some Itlaian politicians are preparing an Act that will enable the Hellmann and the Fifth Chamber Marasca-Bruno shenaningans to be overturned, having made a mockery of justice and Italy a laughing stock.

So let's see.

From where/whom?

 

[LondonJohn]

(And by the way, Hellmann has already been overturned, by Chieffi. So I immediately doubt your knowledge and/or your source of information.)

 

[Stacyhs]

Wrong. The roommate contacted Perugia Police to report it.

Wrong. The roommate did not contact the Perugia Police. If she had, there would be a report on it, which there isn't. Or would you like to quote and cite it for us? LOL!

The prank was discussed in depth [URL="http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9765600#post9765600"]in Cont. #7, and the source was some guy named "Joh" who said he heard it from a roommate. [/URL]

During the Nencini Appeal, Knox gave an interview bragging about her 'prank'.

Then please produce it because I can find no evidence of it. What Amanda did do was mention it in her own blog "I played part in a April’s Fools prank that involved making a mess – moving and hiding stuff in the house I shared with friends – to make it seem like we had been robbed when we weren’t there."


This is not the first time you've made this same false claim about Knox 'bragging'. This seems to be a favorite word of yours to use.

April, 2015

Ah, but Amanda had staged a burglary in the past which she brags of in her blog. It's not rocket science.

That kind of prank is quite common, as this friend of yours experienced. But my goodness, retaliating by trashing the prankster's room? I hope your friend learned to control his violent impulses.

The fact the subject of Amanda's very hilarious prank was apologised to, indicates the type of trauma he or she must have felt. ]A friend of mine had his room at Surrey Uni turned over and he freaked out. It turned out to be a prank, but it wasn't the slightest bit amusing to him. His impulse was to immediately trash the room of the prankster.

 

[Stacyhs]

Next time you see a victim of a road accident, try going up to the relative of the deceased and yelling in their face, 'Of course they are ******* dead, they had their chest crushed and their face smashed in and what is more they ******* bled to death in great agony' <fx giggle laugh with your lady friend>

Next time, try not to add your own words to what somebody said in order to imply previous knowledge.

 

[Guss]

Next time you see a victim of a road accident, try going up to the relative of the deceased and yelling in their face, 'Of course they are ******* dead, they had their chest crushed and their face smashed in and what is more they ******* bled to death in great agony' <fx giggle laugh with your lady friend>

So Knox was screaming in people's faces eh?
Your evidence is just smears and lies, why not be neutral and weigh what's there instead of he said she said and immature fibs, you can't see reality if you're biased.
Your imagination is not evidence, try thinking about MK's jacket and use your imagination how it came to be, it's a clue.

 

[Numbers]

So curiouser and curiouser, then, that this very clause of 'insufficient evidence' was used for Andreotti in the 90's and Berlusconi in more recent years, and now Knox and Sollecito, if it was supposed to have been scrapped.

Whilst there is no mechanism within the penal code to overturn a Supreme Court hearing verdict, there is a mechanism to do such a thing via an Act of Parliament (or Italy's democratic equivalent). For example, Gordon Brown then Prime Minister brought in a Act that would enable judges to give heinous murderers 'life tariffs' up to 'whole life', because before then it was statutory for lifers to be able to apply for parole after eight years, with twelve years being the general life sentence term. Likewise, whilst the judiciary had no power to offer a pardon, an Act of government can do so, and has done.

I understand that some Itlaian politicians are preparing an Act that will enable the Hellmann and the Fifth Chamber Marasca-Bruno shenaningans to be overturned, having made a mockery of justice and Italy a laughing stock.

So let's see.

Vixen, you and other guilters are the only ones who are saying that the final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito was for "insufficient evidence". The official rubric in the Marasca CSC panel motivation report is that the acquittal is because the accused did not commit the act. The motivation report conclusively shows that there was no credible evidence that Knox and/or Sollecito were guilty of the murder/rape of Kercher. That CSC judgment was published 7 years ago. You and a very few others appear to be so biased that you refuse to accept the truth and wallow in lies and deceptions.

Vixen, what's the source of this? Was it a communication from the grapevine? Was it in a reputable, responsible media or government report?

If (hypothetically) the Italian Parliament passed a law that overturned an existing judicial decision in a way detrimental to the human rights of an individual (or company or organization) who had benefited from that decision, that would be a violation of Convention Article 6. That is because tribunals (courts) are, according to the words of the Convention, to be independent. The law cannot be used to change a previous court decision to an accused person's detriment, but could be changed only to alter future decisions in cases not yet before the courts.

Italy has already lost a group of cases before the ECHR on that kind of issue, except it was not a criminal matter, but one involving salaries and pensions. The matter is now before the Committee of Ministers.

See:

https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-28264

 

[whoanellie]

So curiouser and curiouser, then, that this very clause of 'insufficient evidence' was used for Andreotti in the 90's and Berlusconi in more recent years, and now Knox and Sollecito, if it was supposed to have been scrapped.

Whilst there is no mechanism within the penal code to overturn a Supreme Court hearing verdict, there is a mechanism to do such a thing via an Act of Parliament (or Italy's democratic equivalent). For example, Gordon Brown then Prime Minister brought in a Act that would enable judges to give heinous murderers 'life tariffs' up to 'whole life', because before then it was statutory for lifers to be able to apply for parole after eight years, with twelve years being the general life sentence term. Likewise, whilst the judiciary had no power to offer a pardon, an Act of government can do so, and has done.

I understand that some Itlaian politicians are preparing an Act that will enable the Hellmann and the Fifth Chamber Marasca-Bruno shenaningans to be overturned, having made a mockery of justice and Italy a laughing stock.
So let's see.

Gordon Brown was prime minister of Italy?
Do you wanna place a bet on the latter?

 

[Stacyhs]

If you believe Luca Altieri overheard a medic telling a police officer the cause of death and the length of time it took to die, and he was the person who then told Knox and that is how she knew, then you are even more gullible than I thought.

Oh, dear...once again twisting what was said.

Quote:
Altieri: Yes, yes, yes, after a while, you know, after the Red Cross car arrived, the Scientific Police and the Carabinieri arrived, all of them, after a while one of the two medics, I believe, the driver of the Red Cross, it wasn’t an ambulance, he came out of the crime scene, let’s say, from inside the house, speaking to one of the Carabinieri that was there outside and he described a bit about what had happened, saying… referring to the both the fact the her throat had been cut and that she had also fought back, let’s say, and from this I understood this thing.

Quote:
Mignini: OK, do you remember if Sollecito spoke to you in the Police Station, did he speak of this fact? What did he say to you?

Altieri: Look, the only exchange of words was while we were going to the Police station in the car, let’s say, where he asked me if she was dead. I was a bit shocked at the question, I responded “yes”. And then after he asked me, if I remember correctly, how she died, something of this sort, and so I explained to him this thing that I’d heard outside.

Would you like to point out where Altieri claimed he knew the cause of death or mentioned the length of time it took to die? He told Raffaele that he'd heard her throat had been cut and surmised, like anyone with more than two working brain cells, that's how she must have died.

For the life of me, I cannot understand your refusal to accept this*. Do you think the police standing outside weren't curious about what the medic had seen and wouldn't ask him? Sheesh.

*Well, actually I can.

Altieri is an unreliable witness as per his testimony re the mobile phones. I am sure he thought he was being awfully helpful but sometimes it is best to stick to what you know.

Altieri had zero motive to perjure himself and lie about this. He did not know Raffaele nor did he know Amanda. You know this but still make up a ludicrous motive rather than admit you were wrong: he was just doing another guy a 'favor'. LOL!

 

[Bill Williams]

I understand that some Itlaian politicians are preparing an Act that will enable the Hellmann and the Fifth Chamber Marasca-Bruno shenaningans to be overturned, having made a mockery of justice and Italy a laughing stock.

Vixen, what's the source of this? Was it a communication from the grapevine? Was it in a reputable, responsible media or government report?

You beat me to it. Rats!

Maybe there'll be a citation from a country other than Italy, like citing Anna Bull about 'Not proven' in Italy, when there is not Italian citation.

 

[Stacyhs]

An ordinary stab wound can take a long time. Some years ago, there was a murder of a teenager Ben Kinsella, who was kicked and punched to the ground, receiving 11 stab wounds to the chest and back in a period witnesses testified to be only a 5-second duration.

Ben managed to run 150 yards before falling and dying. This is common. People who are stabbed often do manage to crawl or walk a certain distance before succumbing to their injury.

that have zero to do with the topic.

You added the word "slow" or "slowly" to RB's statement implying Knox had pre-existing knowledge of how slowly she died. You then said that "...and 'bled out' (for those with limited knowledge, this means slowly)," which it does not and quoted and cited evidence for. Your above is just that.

How would Knox know the victim 'bled out'.

From having her damn throat cut! What anyone would infer who wasn't blind by their own confirmation bias.

No I don't believe Altieri overheard it for a minute.

Of course you don't. It doesn't confirm your bias.

Neither he nor Battistelli would have been aware. The body was not moved for about 12 hours so don't make out that one of the medics made an announcement to anybody let alone a police officer.

What does Battistelli have to do with this? Are you seriously trying to claim that anyone who saw that room BEFORE the body was moved couldn't see all the blood around her and in that room? REALLY????

You can keep repeating your falsehoods but it does not change the fact that you are W R O N G.

 

[Stacyhs]

I understand that some Itlaian politicians are preparing an Act that will enable the Hellmann and the Fifth Chamber Marasca-Bruno shenaningans to be overturned, having made a mockery of justice and Italy a laughing stock.

So let's see.

Right. And you also understand that Sollecito and Gumbel settled out of court with Mignini and that their public admission of lying and an apology will be coming out aaaaaaaaaaaaaany day now.

 

[Stacyhs]

I think it goes without saying that at the Supreme Court stage, 'insufficient evidence' is rare. This would normally be 529 IIRC.

No, it doesn't. Which is why you have continually failed to provide a shred of evidence for this false claim. Why is that?

 

[Stacyhs]

So Knox was screaming in people's faces eh?
Your evidence is just smears and lies, why not be neutral and weigh what's there instead of he said she said and immature fibs, you can't see reality if you're biased.
Your imagination is not evidence, try thinking about MK's jacket and use your imagination how it came to be, it's a clue.

Well, Gus, everyone who goes home to a supposedly empty house at 9:00 on a cold November night to study for a test, is still fully dressed with her jacket on at 11:00! I guess Guede was just helping her out of that jacket with the turned inside out sleeve when he arrived at about 8:30 per his statements to the German police.

 

[Bill Williams]

British friends acc. to Follain

John Follain was the prosecution-friendly author of 2011's 'A Death in Italy'. Starting on page 274, this is what he says about Sophie, Amy, and Robin's testimony during the first trial, Feb 13, 2009.

- the three thought that the Perugian police had 'paraded them' in front of photographers, even preventing their parents from being seen with them

- Robyn testified, criticizing Amanda's 'exuberant character', her bathroom cleanliness, and acting coldly after the murder.

- She testified about the condoms and toy-vibrator left in the 'beauty case' in the bathroom that the victim and Amanda had shared. It was strange, acc. to Robyn, and she reported it had left M. uncomfortable.

- while they were waiting to testify, a Perugian policeman chatted with them outside the courtroom about the case. He boasted about bugging a prison conversation between Amanda and her mother. - Sophie reported that Amanda was 'pretty open' about her sex life, and confirmed the contents of the beauty case.

- Sophie report feeling a coldness from Amanda at the police station.

- Mignini showed Sophie a picture of the victim's bloody sweatshirt, without preparing her first.
- "Everyone was crying except for Amanda," then Follain wrote, '(but) it wasn't the kind of thing Sophie had meant to say, because she hadn't wanted to sound as if she was accusing Amanda.'

- 'For Sophie, owning a vibrator didn't mean that Amanda had killed Meredith, but showing it off (in the bathroom) had struck Meredith as weird.'

- He did not recount Amy's testimony.

- Back in England, Sophie reflected on the Feb 14 'All You Need Is Love' T-shirt Knox wore to court. Follain, accessing her very thoughts, wrote in Sophie's voice, 'It's ridiculous, Amanda is crazy.'​

That is the sum total of what Follain reports as the English friends' views of Knox, nowhere near the harsh slander that Vixen posted above, claiming to simply be citing the English friends. This is from the most prosecution-friendly author there was.

 

[Stacyhs]

John Follain was the prosecution-friendly author of 2011's 'A Death in Italy'. Starting on page 274, this is what he says about Sophie, Amy, and Robin's testimony during the first trial, Feb 13, 2009.

- the three thought that the Perugian police had 'paraded them' in front of photographers, even preventing their parents from being seen with them

- Robyn testified, criticizing Amanda's 'exuberant character', her bathroom cleanliness, and acting coldly after the murder.

- She testified about the condoms and toy-vibrator left in the 'beauty case' in the bathroom that the victim and Amanda had shared. It was strange, acc. to Robyn, and she reported it had left M. uncomfortable.

- while they were waiting to testify, a Perugian policeman chatted with them outside the courtroom about the case. He boasted about bugging a prison conversation between Amanda and her mother. - Sophie reported that Amanda was 'pretty open' about her sex life, and confirmed the contents of the beauty case.

- Sophie report feeling a coldness from Amanda at the police station.

- Mignini showed Sophie a picture of the victim's bloody sweatshirt, without preparing her first.
- "Everyone was crying except for Amanda," then Follain wrote, '(but) it wasn't the kind of thing Sophie had meant to say, because she hadn't wanted to sound as if she was accusing Amanda.'

- 'For Sophie, owning a vibrator didn't mean that Amanda had killed Meredith, but showing it off (in the bathroom) had struck Meredith as weird.'

- He did not recount Amy's testimony.

- Back in England, Sophie reflected on the Feb 14 'All You Need Is Love' T-shirt Knox wore to court. Follain, accessing her very thoughts, wrote in Sophie's voice, 'It's ridiculous, Amanda is crazy.'​

That is the sum total of what Follain reports as the English friends' views of Knox, nowhere near the harsh slander that Vixen posted above, claiming to simply be citing the English friends. This is from the most prosecution-friendly author there was.

- while they were waiting to testify, a Perugian policeman chatted with them outside the courtroom about the case. He boasted about bugging a prison conversation between Amanda and her mother.

But, but, but...a police officer would NEVER talk to anyone about the case!

 

[TruthCalls]

Quick question out of left field... Guede originally claimed the cuts on his hand were from defending himself from the Italian guy who attacked Meredith. But did he ever offer up a different explanation for the cuts after he changed his story and involved Amanda and Raffaele?

 

[Stacyhs]

Quick question out of left field... Guede originally claimed the cuts on his hand were from defending himself from the Italian guy who attacked Meredith. But did he ever offer up a different explanation for the cuts after he changed his story and involved Amanda and Raffaele?

Not that I'm aware of.

 

[Guss]

Well, Gus, everyone who goes home to a supposedly empty house at 9:00 on a cold November night to study for a test, is still fully dressed with her jacket on at 11:00! I guess Guede was just helping her out of that jacket with the turned inside out sleeve when he arrived at about 8:30 per his statements to the German police.

I know too funny, I can see her claiming RS was about to plant it near Rudy's but forgot because of a drug induced haze or something.

 

[jimbob]

. Vixen and Stacyhs

Several mods have removed several bunches of off topic bickering - remember Rule 12

The topic is not the other posters regardless of the moral and intellectual deficiencies that you consider that they possess

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jimbob

 

[Numbers]

So curiouser and curiouser, then, that this very clause of 'insufficient evidence' was used for Andreotti in the 90's and Berlusconi in more recent years, and now Knox and Sollecito, if it was supposed to have been scrapped.

Whilst there is no mechanism within the penal code to overturn a Supreme Court hearing verdict, there is a mechanism to do such a thing via an Act of Parliament (or Italy's democratic equivalent). For example, Gordon Brown then Prime Minister brought in a Act that would enable judges to give heinous murderers 'life tariffs' up to 'whole life', because before then it was statutory for lifers to be able to apply for parole after eight years, with twelve years being the general life sentence term. Likewise, whilst the judiciary had no power to offer a pardon, an Act of government can do so, and has done.

I understand that some Itlaian politicians are preparing an Act that will enable the Hellmann and the Fifth Chamber Marasca-Bruno shenaningans to be overturned, having made a mockery of justice and Italy a laughing stock.

So let's see.

(And by the way, Hellmann has already been overturned, by Chieffi. So I immediately doubt your knowledge and/or your source of information.)

Vixen, you and other guilters are the only ones who are saying that the final acquittal of Knox and Sollecito was for "insufficient evidence". The official rubric in the Marasca CSC panel motivation report is that the acquittal is because the accused did not commit the act. The motivation report conclusively shows that there was no credible evidence that Knox and/or Sollecito were guilty of the murder/rape of Kercher. That CSC judgment was published 7 years ago. You and a very few others appear to be so biased that you refuse to accept the truth and wallow in lies and deceptions.

Vixen, what's the source of this? Was it a communication from the grapevine? Was it in a reputable, responsible media or government report?

If (hypothetically) the Italian Parliament passed a law that overturned an existing judicial decision in a way detrimental to the human rights of an individual (or company or organization) who had benefited from that decision, that would be a violation of Convention Article 6. That is because tribunals (courts) are, according to the words of the Convention, to be independent. The law cannot be used to change a previous court decision to an accused person's detriment, but could be changed only to alter future decisions in cases not yet before the courts.

Italy has already lost a group of cases before the ECHR on that kind of issue, except it was not a criminal matter, but one involving salaries and pensions. The matter is now before the Committee of Ministers.

See:

https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-28264

LondonJohn, thanks for reminding us that the Chieffi CSC panel had already annulled the acquittal of the murder/rape charges part of the Hellmann appeal court verdict. So Vixen's comment is perhaps ambiguous or uninformed. Since Vixen apparently fabricated the apparently false information in the post quickly, the error is understandable.

In response to the ECHR final judgment Knox v. Italy, the Italian authorities will be overturning Knox's wrongful conviction for calunnia against Lumumba. However, contrary to Vixen's post, it will not be done by a law passed by the Italian Parliament, but rather by the revision hearing process already established under Italian law (CPP Articles 629 -647 and Italian Constitutional Court judgment #113 of 2011).

There may indeed be parliamentary action to bring forth new laws about interpretation and questioning of persons by the police and prosecutor.