Continuation Part 20: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

This was Katy_did's response to LJ

What they would normally say is "acquittal for not having committed the offence, with reference to para 2, Article whatever it is" (only with the number, obviously). If there's no reference to paragraph 2, then it's usually a paragraph 1 acquittal. The media seem to be saying specifically that the judge made reference to paragraph 2, not just that it was an acquittal for insufficient evidence (which is what Maresca said), so I'm not sure they're simply twisting his words. But we'll know for definite when the dispositivo emerges.

I was discussing this with Luca (Cheli) yesterday, and he said that insufficient evidence carries a wide range of meanings, from almost enough to convict to hardly any evidence at all, so we'll have to wait till the ruling comes out to know exactly what kind of acquittal it is.

The words of the short verdict are that the accused are acquitted because "they did not commit the crime". The words are not they are acquitted because "maybe they did not commit the crime".

Only if the evidence satisfies proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt can the judge deliver a verdict of conviction, CPP Article 533. There is no verdict of "maybe they did not commit the crime." There is no legal difference in the consequences of being acquitted under CPP Article 530.2 compared to 530.1, when the short verdict is "they did not commit the crime." The short verdict is shown in the "For these reasons" section at the end of the motivation report, before the signatures of the president (Marasca) and reporting judge (Bruno).

You may hold your opinion on this topic as you wish, but it does not change the fact that there is no legal difference in the consequences of an acquittal under 530.2 compared to 530.1 when the accused are acquitted because "they did not commit the crime (literal translation: the act)."

And the acquittal was in an annulment without referral. The CSC exercises this under action under CPP Article 630, specifically, section letter (L). The verdict of a 530.2 does not require remand, as explained or implied in the CSC motivation report, because there is no credible evidence of guilt to be examined.

 

[acbytesla]

And if the room were 150 sq ft or 2000 sq ft there would be just as much likelihood of evidence maybe more because there would have been so much more to clean

The scenario is what reeks not the size of the room.

And 90% of Seattle thinks that Bertha was a complete mistake so you must agree.

I'm not sure Grinder, but I don't think so. On all of it.
Open space allows maneuverability and less to disturb.

As for Bertha, there hasn't been a poll so we know where that percentage came from. But hey, I'd agree with them If we could go back 6 years ago and make another choice knowing where we're at today.

But since when can we do that? My argument on that issue has always been given the knowledge we had at the time, it was not a bad decision.

 

[Grinder]

You may hold your opinion on this topic as you wish, but it does not change the fact that there is no legal difference in the consequences of an acquittal under 530.2 compared to 530.1 when the accused are acquitted because "they did not commit the crime (literal translation: the act)."

And the acquittal was in an annulment without referral. The CSC exercises this under action under CPP Article 630, specifically, section letter (L). The verdict of a 530.2 does not require remand, as explained or implied in the CSC motivation report, because there is no credible evidence of guilt to be examined.

In both paras the defendants are not convicted. this is clearly true. While it may make no legal difference at the ISC level, it does make a difference in public perception. As LJ so eloquently stated, it had to be a para 1 or they would have sent it down again.

You may quote from your book all you want and make technical arguments not to the point but it remains a fact that para 1 exists and PIPs were adamant it would be a para 1 after the verdict. There is a clear difference between the verdicts or there wouldn't be a 1 and a 2.

We may see if the para 2 will impact any future legal action that para 1 may have avoided.

 

[Grinder]

I'm not sure Grinder, but I don't think so. On all of it.
Open space allows maneuverability and less to disturb.

As for Bertha, there hasn't been a poll so we know where that percentage came from. But hey, I'd agree with them If we could go back 6 years ago and make another choice knowing where we're at today.

But since when can we do that? My argument on that issue has always been given the knowledge we had at the time, it was not a bad decision.

The fact they didn't slam into the desk proves nothing.

I was a leader of sorts in the "No Tunnel" save the viaduct movement. Plenty of people with analytical skills could see the folly. After they started pumping slurry the three columns stopped sinking. 25% of the viaduct's life has come after the earthquake. Elementary Watson.

 

[acbytesla]

The fact they didn't slam into the desk proves nothing.

I was a leader of sorts in the "No Tunnel" save the viaduct movement. Plenty of people with analytical skills could see the folly. After they started pumping slurry the three columns stopped sinking. 25% of the viaduct's life has come after the earthquake. Elementary Watson.

Nothing proves nothing.

 

[Grinder]

Can anyone refute this:

There is nothing of that kind in the procedure code. Art. 620 is about the power to "annul" a decision.
But to "annul" is not to "acquit". They are two very different things. Annul is a decision about a trial/proceedings, while acquit is a decision about a person, and it's a conclusion in the merits of a crime.

Simply, there has never been another SC ruling where the chamber says "assolvere" (acquit). There is no precedent.

 

[Bill Williams]

Happy to walk you through this. Back in March of 2015 LJ proclaimed that the verdict MUST be a paragraph 1 or else it would have been sent down. That clearly demonstrates he understood the difference between 1 and 2 and felt there was significance in the difference. You have used him as backing for your position that 1 doesn't really exist and that a 2 is just as good as a 1. But back in the day before the 2 came out, he fully accepted the difference without reference to reform oversights or other less than flattering remarks about my understandings.

Not only the quote he provided but katy_did's (which he didn't argue with) show clearly that she too agreed and most likely still does as well as Luca (whom she called) clearly show you are incorrect and his current position is also incorrect.

As I have been saying PIPs were sure it was a one and that the media (LJ blamed Maresca) had it wrong because they didn't understand the difference between the paras. The media and Maresca had it right.

Simply restating your view, but wrapping it up as a teaching moment for an inferior is....... interesting.

 

[acbytesla]

Can anyone refute this:

There is nothing of that kind in the procedure code. Art. 620 is about the power to "annul" a decision.
But to "annul" is not to "acquit". They are two very different things. Annul is a decision about a trial/proceedings, while acquit is a decision about a person, and it's a conclusion in the merits of a crime.

Simply, there has never been another SC ruling where the chamber says "assolvere" (acquit). There is no precedent.

Do you know the highlighted part to be true? I don't think it is. I was always under the impression that the SC could do what it did.

 

[Grinder]

Do you know the highlighted part to be true? I don't think it is. I was always under the impression that the SC could do what it did.

Nope, that's why I asked if anyone could refute it. By that I don't mean Bill agreeing with you and LJ agreeing with Bill and Numbers quoting ECHR rules.

From Numbers legal book or someone else here that claims vast knowledge of the Italian legal system it should be easy to get a partial list of similar acquittals.

Paragraph two of course that don't get sent back down.

 

[Grinder]

Simply restating your view, but wrapping it up as a teaching moment for an inferior is....... interesting.

I'm not simply restating my view. If any restating is going on it's LJ view pre motivation report.

I could go back and find several times recently when you have referred to LJ as backing your position on 530 as if that somehow strengthens your position, but... it doesn't.

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm not simply restating my view. If any restating is going on it's LJ view pre motivation report.

I could go back and find several times recently when you have referred to LJ as backing your position on 530 as if that somehow strengthens your position, but... it doesn't.

More like the other way around, but then again......

 

[Grinder]

More like the other way around, but then again......

Where's Numbers when you need him? Or LondonJohn? One of those gentlefolk claim that in essence there is no difference between paragraph 1 and paragraph 2.

Perhaps you can explain what the other way around means.

 

[acbytesla]

Perhaps you can explain what the other way around means.

This cracks me up They were acquitted for not committing the crime.

FYI: I sent you a PM.

 

[LondonJohn]

Happy to walk you through this. Back in March of 2015 LJ proclaimed that the verdict MUST be a paragraph 1 or else it would have been sent down.

Did I? I don't remember saying that and I cannot find it in a search. Could you direct me to the post(s) where I wrote that? Thanks.

That clearly demonstrates he understood the difference between 1 and 2 and felt there was significance in the difference. You have used him as backing for your position that 1 doesn't really exist and that a 2 is just as good as a 1.

Is anyone claiming "1 doesn't really exist"? I know I'm not saying that. I'm saying - and have consistently said - three things: 1) all of 530 is now in fact moot in Italian law, since there's only one form of acquittal; 2) Nonetheless, the code still bafflingly and clumsily requires convicting judges to cite which para of 530 they have used; 3) they appear to have adopted a practice of using para 1 where either a) they ruled that no crime ever even took place, or b) they can be satisfied that the defendant was factually innocent; and using para 2 for every other acquittal (from zero evidence of guilt to evidence just falling short of BARD).

But back in the day before the 2 came out, he fully accepted the difference without reference to reform oversights or other less than flattering remarks about my understandings.

Huh?

Not only the quote he provided but katy_did's (which he didn't argue with) show clearly that she too agreed and most likely still does as well as Luca (whom she called) clearly show you are incorrect and his current position is also incorrect.

Huh?

As I have been saying PIPs were sure it was a one and that the media (LJ blamed Maresca) had it wrong because they didn't understand the difference between the paras. The media and Maresca had it right.

I "blamed Maresca"? I was "sure it was a 1"?

 

[Bill Williams]

Perhaps you can explain what the other way around means.

Huh!? What we have here is a failure of communication......

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm not simply restating my view. If any restating is going on it's LJ view pre motivation report.

I could go back and find several times recently when you have referred to LJ as backing your position on 530 as if that somehow strengthens your position, but... it doesn't.

Wow.

 

[Grinder]

LJ - Here's the link to your post from March 30

 

[Bill Williams]

Is anyone claiming "1 doesn't really exist"? I know I'm not saying that. I'm saying - and have consistently said - three things: 1) all of 530 is now in fact moot in Italian law, since there's only one form of acquittal; 2) Nonetheless, the code still bafflingly and clumsily requires convicting judges to cite which para of 530 they have used; 3) they appear to have adopted a practice of using para 1 where either a) they ruled that no crime ever even took place, or b) they can be satisfied that the defendant was factually innocent; and using para 2 for every other acquittal (from zero evidence of guilt to evidence just falling short of BARD).

This seems a straight forward explication of a rather thin distinction between #1 and #2..... the thinness of which seems to be escaping Grinder.

For some reason Grinder (who is not a guilter by any means, but who is echoing a guilter-meme) believes that #2 is somewhat less of an acquittal than #1. From this seat, LJ, you have made yourself clear and I am baffled that anyone would try to argue against it.

I "blamed Maresca"? I was "sure it was a 1"?

All I can do is second your "Huh!?" It seems someone near and dear to this thread is arguing some sort of distinction that depends on you having had said those things...... yet:

Huh!?

 

[Bill Williams]

LJ - Here's the link to your post from March 30

Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Shame on me for taking the bait. LJ is arguing what a para 1 acquittal might look like, but says nothing about #2. If anything his Mar 30 reflection is fully consistent with trying to come to grips with what the ISC meant by a straight acquittal, with no remand. Yikes. Is this Grinder's case?

At some point it's an indictment of me that I even participate.....

 

[Grinder]

Did I? I don't remember saying that and I cannot find it in a search. Could you direct me to the post(s) where I wrote that? Thanks.

March 30 - But at the same time, the overwhelmingly prevailing opinion was that if this was a "reasonable doubt" case in the eyes of the SC, then the case would without doubt have been sent back down to the appeal court level for (yet) another trial. The fact that this didn't happen, and that the SC totally acquitted, would seem to strongly support a belief that the SC ruled that there was entirely no case to answer. In other words, a "Paragraph 1" acquittal. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the media were reporting Maresca's "creative" interpretation of the ruling, rather than anything explicitly issued by the SC itself.

Is anyone claiming "1 doesn't really exist"? I know I'm not saying that. I'm saying - and have consistently said - three things: 1) all of 530 is now in fact moot in Italian law, since there's only one form of acquittal; 2) Nonetheless, the code still bafflingly and clumsily requires convicting judges to cite which para of 530 they have used; 3) they appear to have adopted a practice of using para 1 where either a) they ruled that no crime ever even took place, or b) they can be satisfied that the defendant was factually innocent; and using para 2 for every other acquittal (from zero evidence of guilt to evidence just falling short of BARD).

Funny you now say it is moot but just 11 months ago you were sure it was a paragraph 1 ruling.

I "blamed Maresca"? I was "sure it was a 1"?

Yup. You were educating one and all that it was a paragraph 1 acquittal or they would have sent it down.

Again your post from March 2015 - But at the same time, the overwhelmingly prevailing opinion was that if this was a "reasonable doubt" case in the eyes of the SC, then the case would without doubt have been sent back down to the appeal court level for (yet) another trial. The fact that this didn't happen, and that the SC totally acquitted, would seem to strongly support a belief that the SC ruled that there was entirely no case to answer. In other words, a "Paragraph 1" acquittal. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the media were reporting Maresca's "creative" interpretation of the ruling, rather than anything explicitly issued by the SC itself.

Maresca was correct. "Overwhelming prevailing opinion" would indicate the people having it knew the accepted the distinction between 1 and 2.

One of the Huhs was that katy_did's post followed your validating the 1 and 2 existence in the minds of Italians.