Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

And who cares? Also Black's Law is a references for US Law not Italian.

The fact is Amanda and Raffaele ARE INNOCENT. They ACTUALLY had nothing to do with Meredith's murder. The evidence proved that to me a long long time ago. And if I'm not mistaken you too are convinced of their actual innocence.

So why are we beating this dead horse over and over and over?

So many dead horses are being beaten here that I'm beginning to think some members resemble the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

As long as I get to ride the pale horse.

 

[Bill Williams]

Dude you've oh never mind.

Anton is Irish - ROFLMAO

Bill you keep with your distortions of Cheli and most everything.

You go chat with Numbers.

I am!

 

[Mike1711]

Right Mike did your prof 30 years ago tell you that? You have no idea if there are differences legally. Tell me, can a person found not guilty para one be sued civilly later? I know that isn't a criminal consequence but of course I have never maintain there is a legal criminal consequence - straw man.

Time for Bill to ask his ask and answered question.

Sarcasm is certainly becoming of you Grinder.

Freedom is freedom, Grinder, and the consequence of a 1 or 2 ruling is total and absolute freedom. One does not allow for greater freedom than the other.

Criminal and civil law are different ambits of law (as you know ). 530.1 and 530.2 are ambits of a criminal code.

I assume you left out the word different. This admission settles the debate. It is after all criminal law that we're dealing with here and not civil law.
Could one be sued after an acquittal under 530.1 and 530.2? Unless you can show a law in Italy which precludes a 530.1 civil case one can. If you want to argue that a 530.1 verdict has different civil outcomes then show the civil law which states this.

There you go. Your project for the day . It's you who is trying to prove a negative so the burden of proof rests with you. I'm not about to prove Yeti doesn't exist. I may be wrong, but I am not about to try to prove I'm right. If you think the Yeti exists or a civil law exists, show us. Nattering on about it doesn't mean a thing.

 

[Mike1711]

Yes. Yes. Yes. If the PGP make up stuff that justifies PIP making up stuff.

I don't care if they want to say they were found innocent even though they weren't. But if people here claim it was a definitive verdict of innocence that's just more bs.

Why don't you find the MR from the calunnia trial?

A timeline of events is enough to prove their complete and utter innocence....unless of course we have quantum physics at play here.

Why Mignini and his monsters didn't do this or the lower Italian courts will remain the single biggest bungling of this whole mess.

 

[Bill Williams]

You don't have to be a legal expert in Italian (or any other) law to know that there is no legal difference between 530.1 and 530.2.

The criminal legal consequences are identical.

Right Mike did your prof 30 years ago tell you that? You have no idea if there are differences legally. Tell me, can a person found not guilty para one be sued civilly later? I know that isn't a criminal consequence but of course I have never maintain there is a legal criminal consequence - straw man.

Time for Bill to ask his ask and answered question.

Sarcasm is certainly becoming of you Grinder.

Freedom is freedom, Grinder, and the consequence of a 1 or 2 ruling is total and absolute freedom. One does not allow for greater freedom than the other.

Criminal and civil law are different ambits of law (as you know ). 530.1 and 530.2 are ambits of a criminal code.

I assume you left out the word different. This admission settles the debate. It is after all criminal law that we're dealing with here and not civil law.
Could one be sued after an acquittal under 530.1 and 530.2? Unless you can show a law in Italy which precludes a 530.1 civil case one can. If you want to argue that a 530.1 verdict has different civil outcomes then show the civil law which states this.

There you go. Your project for the day . It's you who is trying to prove a negative so the burden of proof rests with you. I'm not about to prove Yeti doesn't exist. I may be wrong, but I am not about to try to prove I'm right. If you think the Yeti exists or a civil law exists, show us. Nattering on about it doesn't mean a thing.

Yes, the debate is oh, so close to being settled. No one asked Grinder if he had ever said, "I have never maintain there is a legal criminal consequence" so there is no need to deny it.

All ANYONE has been ever asked - ie. those people who maintain that 530.1 is an acquittal close to declaring them innocent and a 530.2 is an acquittal which is a declaration of, "we would have found them guilty if we'd only had one more tidbit of evidence" - is this: what is the different legal consequence following a 530.1 acquittal when compared to a 530.2 acquittal?

It turns out there is none.

To give him the benedit of the doubt, Grinder is now on-side with that - it was an unintentional omission on his part, the word "different", as in, "I have never maintain(ed) there is a different legal criminal consequence."

That settles it. We're all now on board. We can move on. With no different legal consequence, it turns out that the first two 530 acquittals are identical, legally speaking. They simply apply to differing circumstances.... for instance, in this case the crime obviously did exist so 530.1 was not available to be used.

I'm practically ready now to engage Grinder in the other issue he's been trying for 10 pages of threads to mix in here..... perception.

Hey Grinder - you go first!

 

[Mike1711]

Since the acquittal is based on paragraph 2 of article 530....“...when evidence is lacking, insufficient or contradictory...”.

The elephant in the room. To argue that in this context that lacking and insufficient are the same is a subjective argument for repetition. Why would the Italian's repeat themselves? The logical answer is to take on board the definition of "lacking" in its absolute. There is none.

In the AK/RS the evidence is lacking....there is none.

 

[Numbers]

Here is an excerpt from a summary of the Italian trial process from an Italian law firm.

Note the first highlighted statement below. There were some posters here who claimed the Court of Cassation (CSC) did not have the authority to annul a case without referral back to a lower court. Of course, CPP Article 620 provides for such an annulment. And these lawyers are well aware of that.

Also note that once the CSC issues its ruling on a case, there is no further action allowed (except for a revision trial after a conviction, which is only allowed under certain circumstances, such as new exculpatory evidence or a judgment from the ECHR). This is established by CPP Articles 648, 649, 652, 654, and, for revision, 629 and 630 (and subsequent articles with details of the revision process). The second highlighted statement below points out that the final judgment in the Italian system is indeed final. A case ending in a final acquittal may not be retried.

And CPP Article 654 states that a final criminal conviction or acquittal delivered after a trial shall have binding effect in the civil trial on the accused person, the civil party and the person with civil liability who has appeared or intervened in the criminal proceedings.

Source of the excerpt: http://www.canestrinilex.com/resources/trial/

A criminal proceeding usually takes place in three stages: the first instance (Court of “Assise”, Collegiate Court, Single Judge Court, and Justice of the Peace), Appeal, and Court of Cassation [Highest Court].

At first instance all evidence - witnesses and documents - is obtained, and it ends with either conviction or acquittal.

The defendant can appeal against the first instance sentence.

The Court of Appeals takes its decision by either confirming the first instance sentence, or by reversing it partially or totally, or it may quash it by sending it back to the first judge.

You challenge the decision of the Court of Appeals by petitioning the Court of Cassation [the Highest Court].

The Court of Cassation pronounces the judgment by which it states that either the petition is not admissible or rejects it, or even quashes the sentence without sending it back, or finally, it may quash the sentence and send it to the trial judge.

Once all the stages of judgment are over, the sentence is final. If there is a conviction with a sentence, the sentence becomes enforceable at this point.

Read more: http://www.canestrinilex.com/resources/trial/#ixzz45sMPc0gp

From the same source, here is a very brief history of Italian criminal law:

The Italian legal system is that of a civil law State, governed by codified law. The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure contains the rules governing criminal procedure in every court in Italy.

The first and initial code in the Italian Republic was established by the Fascist Government in 1930 and was kept until 1988. This code adopted an inquisitorial system. In 1988, a new code was enacted. This chose to abandon the inquisitorial system, but did not go so far as to represent a complete transition to an adversarial one. The resulting system could be considered to be somewhere in between the two (although it is closer to being an adversarial system; please read more about the "Frustrated Turn to Adversarial Procedure in Italy").

Read more: http://www.canestrinilex.com/resources/trial/#ixzz45sQfIiHD

It may be of interest that the legal literature article these Italian lawyers recommend to understand the complicated history of the Italian system is by Professor Illuminati, whose article I have briefly discussed in several posts here. He states in his article that under the inquisitorial system, the trial was often merely an endorsement or reading of the investigating judge's* results. Traces of that approach are detectable in the Knox - Sollecito case in some of the trials.

*The investigating judge was the official who gathered information to present in a case file to the prosecutor and the judge.

ETA: More history from the lawyers:

In the first years after the code’s adoption, it became clear that the newly introduced system had not been completely accepted by the main criminal justice actors, especially the judiciary. This hostility to the 1988 reforms generated two divergent strands of law. Many of the new provisions were nullified by Italy’s Constitutional Court—thereby restoring the old system and frustrating the code’s strict separation between investigation and trial—and other provisions were interpreted and applied by the judiciary in a way more consistent with the previous inquisitorial model.10 In 1999, however, Parliament amended the Constitution and largely reinstated the accusatorial model. With limited exceptions, all evidence in criminal cases now must be presented at trial, in front of the parties and an impartial judge. Investigative records and police testimony relating to statements collected during the investigation may only be introduced at trial to impeach a witness’s testimony. Moreover, a defendant cannot be found guilty based on evidence from a witness who has refused to be scrutinized by the court process.

Read more: http://www.canestrinilex.com/resources/nuova-registrazione-blog-2/#ixzz45sWmHKng

ETA2: The last bit, about the witness who has refused to be cross-examined, applies to the Knox - Sollecito case. The corrupt Italian prosecutors and (some) courts (including the Chieffi CSC panel in its MR) tried to introduce Guede's statements which had not been examined. This was called out as unconstitutional by the Marasca CSC panel in their MR.

 

[Numbers]

I've been looking at the Italian text of Amanda's acquittal MR for the calunnia against the police charge in an attempt to get some sense of what it means. Here is one bit of the text which I thought was interesting, but the translation in progress should provide the full context (from my post on IIP Forum):

"perche la ragazza doveva essere sentita con la garanzie riservate agli indagati sin dall'origne"

Google translated with some assistance:

"because the girl had to be treated with the guarantees reserved for suspects since the beginning"

The quote is from the last paragraph on page 13, and seems to be discussing a decision of the CSC and the Memoriales Amanda wrote November 6/7, after the interrogation.

 

[Bill Williams]

I've been looking at the Italian text of Amanda's acquittal MR for the calunnia against the police charge in an attempt to get some sense of what it means. Here is one bit of the text which I thought was interesting, but the translation in progress should provide the full context (from my post on IIP Forum):

"perche la ragazza doveva essere sentita con la garanzie riservate agli indagati sin dall'origne"

Google translated with some assistance:

"because the girl had to be treated with the guarantees reserved for suspects since the beginning"

The quote is from the last paragraph on page 13, and seems to be discussing a decision of the CSC and the Memoriales Amanda wrote November 6/7, after the interrogation.

Is there any statement in there which defines on the timeline where "the beginning" commences?

 

[Bill Williams]

Since the acquittal is based on paragraph 2 of article 530....“...when evidence is lacking, insufficient or contradictory...”.

The elephant in the room. To argue that in this context that lacking and insufficient are the same is a subjective argument for repetition. Why would the Italian's repeat themselves? The logical answer is to take on board the definition of "lacking" in its absolute. There is none.

In the AK/RS the evidence is lacking....there is none.

But you have to agree with Grinder and the guilters that "lacking" means that they were almost, but not quite guilty.....

 

[Numbers]

Is there any statement in there which defines on the timeline where "the beginning" commences?

You may be able to read Italian as well as I can.

I think it applies to the interrogation as a whole, but it would take my friend Google translate and me some time to be sure.

ETA: I looked over page 13 again very quickly, and I don't see that the calunnia against the police MR defines when the beginning is on that page. Perhaps the beginning is defined in the referenced CSC decision.

So I can't say whether it is the "beginning" of the interrogation or the first time Amanda utters Lumumba's name in relation to the murder/rape or some other point. But I think the Memoriales are definitely after the beginning, as I attempt to follow the text.

 

[Mike1711]

But you have to agree with Grinder and the guilters that "lacking" means that they were almost, but not quite guilty.....

Of course I agree with Grinder. Why wouldn't I?

The problem is...hypothetically speaking...if you put something that lacks weight (or more correctly mass) onto a scale and measure it, it will register zero. If you add more of this something it will still register zero.

That's the case against AK and RS. Even an infinite amount of zero evidence will still be zero.

Now consider that some of the "evidence" is contradictory. This would be a negative mass. The outcome improves from zero evidence to a negative amount of evidence.

...but otherwise, yes, Grinder is correct. He always is.

 

[Grinder]

Sarcasm is certainly becoming of you Grinder.

Freedom is freedom, Grinder, and the consequence of a 1 or 2 ruling is total and absolute freedom. One does not allow for greater freedom than the other.

Criminal and civil law are different ambits of law (as you know ). 530.1 and 530.2 are ambits of a criminal code.

I assume you left out the word different. This admission settles the debate. It is after all criminal law that we're dealing with here and not civil law.
Could one be sued after an acquittal under 530.1 and 530.2? Unless you can show a law in Italy which precludes a 530.1 civil case one can. If you want to argue that a 530.1 verdict has different civil outcomes then show the civil law which states this.

There you go. Your project for the day . It's you who is trying to prove a negative so the burden of proof rests with you. I'm not about to prove Yeti doesn't exist. I may be wrong, but I am not about to try to prove I'm right. If you think the Yeti exists or a civil law exists, show us. Nattering on about it doesn't mean a thing.

The two are different as has been definitively shown. Why LJ says it can't be a para 1 because one can't prove innocence while Numbers says a para one isn't innocence, though it clearly is. Amanda specifically asked her lawyer if she was found innocent or not guilty for lack of evidence. Seems she cared or a minimum was aware of it.

Mach posted part of ISC ruling that stated a one provided protections that two doesn't from civil. No one has countered that.

Since I never claimed the two have different impacts in criminal law, you are just have another dead straw man walking.

 

[Grinder]

A timeline of events is enough to prove their complete and utter innocence....unless of course we have quantum physics at play here.

Why Mignini and his monsters didn't do this or the lower Italian courts will remain the single biggest bungling of this whole mess.

Don't think you've followed the case closely.

 

[acbytesla]

The two are different as has been definitively shown. Why LJ says it can't be a para 1 because one can't prove innocence while Numbers says a para one isn't innocence, though it clearly is. Amanda specifically asked her lawyer if she was found innocent or not guilty for lack of evidence. Seems she cared or a minimum was aware of it.

Mach posted part of ISC ruling that stated a one provided protections that two doesn't from civil. No one has countered that.

Since I never claimed the two have different impacts in criminal law, you are just have another dead straw man walking.

You do know that this horse is so dead it's now dog food right?

 

[Grinder]

Yes, the debate is oh, so close to being settled. No one asked Grinder if he had ever said, "I have never maintain there is a legal criminal consequence" so there is no need to deny it.

All ANYONE has been ever asked - ie. those people who maintain that 530.1 is an acquittal close to declaring them innocent and a 530.2 is an acquittal which is a declaration of, "we would have found them guilty if we'd only had one more tidbit of evidence" - is this: what is the different legal consequence following a 530.1 acquittal when compared to a 530.2 acquittal?

Bill you make **** op all the time. Please show where I ever said anything resembling the "one more tidbit of evidence"

I'm sure you'll address that after admitting you thought Anton was Italian

I have never said there is a legal criminal difference. I have said there is a clear difference in perception Cheli and Prof. Anna Bull) and there may be a difference in civil action. I have further stated that unfortunately no poster here knows Italian law well enough to be sure what consequences legal might result from a two.

You all counter with a talk show host from Ireland LMAOROTF

I've said I didn't know if there is a different consequence for ever. You need to review. I even said that I doubted the two would open the doors for more civil though that would seem more possible.

 

[Grinder]

Since the acquittal is based on paragraph 2 of article 530....“...when evidence is lacking, insufficient or contradictory...”.

The elephant in the room. To argue that in this context that lacking and insufficient are the same is a subjective argument for repetition. Why would the Italian's repeat themselves? The logical answer is to take on board the definition of "lacking" in its absolute. There is none.

In the AK/RS the evidence is lacking....there is none.

Rubbish

 

[Mike1711]

Don't think you've followed the case closely.

You are entitled to be wrong.

The time of death as established by the autopsy trumps all else. Factor that in you're going nowhere with the case.

 

[Grinder]

I've been looking at the Italian text of Amanda's acquittal MR for the calunnia against the police charge in an attempt to get some sense of what it means. Here is one bit of the text which I thought was interesting, but the translation in progress should provide the full context (from my post on IIP Forum):

"perche la ragazza doveva essere sentita con la garanzie riservate agli indagati sin dall'origne"

Google translated with some assistance:

"because the girl had to be treated with the guarantees reserved for suspects since the beginning"

The quote is from the last paragraph on page 13, and seems to be discussing a decision of the CSC and the Memoriales Amanda wrote November 6/7, after the interrogation.

Is the verdict/MR available? I'm very curious as to whether it is a one or two or some other code.

 

[Mike1711]

Rubbish

Great response. I will see your rubbish and raise you a poppycock.

Let's see how this debate unfolds. My guess is that it lacks logic. ...and by this I mean there is none. Zero. Nil. Nada.