Continuation Part 21: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

Grinder (or I) may be missing something here.


And there isn't an explicit call on the 530 paragraph in the PQM.

There is discussion of the evidence and several references to "beyond a reasonable doubt" relating to the evidence within the text of the MR.

I was only responding to what Methos posted. But you don't see any difference between a one and a two anyway, right?

 

[Grinder]

Numbers the sentencing seems to be under - Visto 1' art. 530 cpp, - hopefully someone that speaks Italian (legal best) can tell us if that means para one 530.

I know you and most don't believe it makes any difference at all, but I'm still hoping for a one as even only for perception it looks better for her.

The polic charged Amanda Knox of accusing them of a crime but the court ruled she absolutely didn't or even if she there was no crime. I don't see how it could be no crime as it clearly would be unless she was telling the truth.

 

[Numbers]

I was only responding to what Methos posted. But you don't see any difference between a one and a two anyway, right?

There is no difference in legal effect or consequences.

I suspect Methos is pulling your leg. But if it pleases you to consider this calunnia against the police acquittal to be under 530.1, go ahead.

It seems to me the same kind of assumption apparently made by some of the PIP about the Hellmann court MR. Hellmann never mentioned Article 530 in the PQM. That MR used CPP Article 605, which simply gives an appeal judge the authority to confirm or amend an appealed decision. And then it applied the acquittal specification, "the accused did not commit the act (crime)".

Some assumed this was an acquittal under 530.1. They did not realize the very same specification would apply under 530.2. And in fact, grammatically, 530.2 is a continuation of 530.1, telling the judge he must acquit if the evidence of guilt is insufficient, contradictory or lacking. Article 530.1 does not instruct the judge to look at the evidence; that makes sense, because it is a vestigial relic of the 1930 CPP (fascist era).

 

[Grinder]

There is no difference in legal effect or consequences.

I suspect Methos is pulling your leg. But if it pleases you to consider this calunnia against the police acquittal to be under 530.1, go ahead.

It seems to me the same kind of assumption apparently made by some of the PIP about the Hellmann court MR. Hellmann never mentioned Article 530 in the PQM. That MR used CPP Article 605, which simply gives an appeal judge the authority to confirm or amend an appealed decision. And then it applied the acquittal specification, "the accused did not commit the act (crime)".

Some assumed this was an acquittal under 530.1. They did not realize the very same specification would apply under 530.2. And in fact, grammatically, 530.2 is a continuation of 530.1, telling the judge he must acquit if the evidence of guilt is insufficient, contradictory or lacking. Article 530.1 does not instruct the judge to look at the evidence; that makes sense, because it is a vestigial relic of the 1930 CPP (fascist era).

Really? Could you direct me to the conversation regarding Hellmann and 530. I do recall pointing out to you that Hellmann had not used 530 except referring to it in terms of the BARD standard. I could have forgotten but I don't remember a debate here about Hellmann and 530.

 

[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.

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.

I looked at that paragraph again. I made an error in my understanding of the context. The "verbales" referred to in the paragraph are not the Memoriales Amanda wrote, but the two statements from the interrogation.

Thus, the "beginning" must be either the first statement, the beginning of the interrogation, or some earlier point - perhaps when Giobbi or Mignini first decided Amanda was a suspect (even if not officially recorded).

 

[Numbers]

I looked at that paragraph again. I made an error in my understanding of the context. The "verbales" referred to in the paragraph are not the Memoriales Amanda wrote, but the two statements from the interrogation.

Thus, the "beginning" must be either the first statement, the beginning of the interrogation, or some earlier point - perhaps when Giobbi or Mignini first decided Amanda was a suspect (even if not officially recorded).

Google and I have made this rough translation:

On this point, it should be noted how the statements made in the first report, but also those of the second report of the 6/11, were deemed not usable by the Supreme Court (in its ruling to provide the defense request) for interim relief, because the girl must be treated with the guarantees reserved to suspects from the outset, as it states that this was essentially to be considered as expected investigative developments gradually matured, and not as a simple witness.

The original is:

Sul punto, va osservato come le dichiarazioni rese nel primo verbale, ma anche quelle del secondo verbale del 6/11, siano state ritenute non utilizzabili dalla Corte di Cassazione (con provvedimento acquisto agli su richiesta della difesa) in sede cautelare, perche la ragazza doveva essere sentita con le garanzie reservate agli indagati sin dall'origine, attesto che sostanzialmente tale era da ritenere, attesi gli sviluppi investigativi via via maturati, e non come semplice teste.

 

[Mike1711]

You sir are lacking in the ability to critically think.

lack·ing
ˈlakiNG/
adjective
not available or in short supply.
"adequate resources and funds are both sadly lacking at present"
(of a quality) missing or absent.
"there was something lacking in our marriage"
synonyms: absent, missing, nonexistent, unavailable"proof was lacking"
deficient or inadequate.
"the students are not lacking in intellectual ability"
synonyms: deficient, defective, inadequate, wanting, flawed, faulty, insufficient,unacceptable, impaired, imperfect, inferior More

Of course we are working with a translation but if it is in fact lacking that doesn't mean zero. It could mean zero but then it would be a para one verdict.​

...and you, Sir, know nothing about grammar and punctuation.

Of course lacking can mean deficient, but deficient doesn't always mean lacking. In other words, Sir, the two are not interchangeable in all circumstances.

...but then, you knew this already.

With what part of this are you struggling? The evidence is absent, missing, non-existent, unavailable.​

 

[Grinder]

...and you, Sir, know nothing about grammar and punctuation.

Of course lacking can mean deficient, but deficient doesn't always mean lacking. In other words, Sir, the two are not interchangeable in all circumstances.

...but then, you knew this already.

With what part of this are you struggling? The evidence is absent, missing, non-existent, unavailable.

The clause allows for insufficient, lacking or contradictory. You think you know what a translated law's grammar means. You know nothing.

Lacking does not only mean not existing north of the equator. A para 2 does not mean no evidence and the MR makes that clear.

ETA - lack·ing
ˈlakiNG/
adjective
not available or in short supply.
"adequate resources and funds are both sadly lacking at present"
(of a quality) missing or absent.
"there was something lacking in our marriage"
synonyms: absent, missing, nonexistent, unavailable

"proof was lacking" deficient or inadequate.
"the students are not lacking in intellectual ability"
synonyms: deficient, defective, inadequate, wanting, flawed, faulty, insufficient,unacceptable, impaired, imperfect, inferior More

 

[Mike1711]

The clause allows for insufficient, lacking or contradictory. You think you know what a translated law's grammar means. You know nothing.

Lacking does not only mean not existing north of the equator. A para 2 does not mean no evidence and the MR makes that clear.

ETA - lack·ing
ˈlakiNG/
adjective
not available or in short supply.
"adequate resources and funds are both sadly lacking at present"
(of a quality) missing or absent.
"there was something lacking in our marriage"
synonyms: absent, missing, nonexistent, unavailable

"proof was lacking" deficient or inadequate.
"the students are not lacking in intellectual ability"
synonyms: deficient, defective, inadequate, wanting, flawed, faulty, insufficient,unacceptable, impaired, imperfect, inferior More

Carry on. One day you may even convince yourself that you're correct. You aren't.

Rocks lack intelligence. They don't have insufficient intelligence. Get the difference now?

One can but hope.

 

[Grinder]

Carry on. One day you may even convince yourself that you're correct. You aren't.

Rocks lack intelligence. They don't have insufficient intelligence. Get the difference now?

One can but hope.

Got it. You are a rock. Bye-bye.

 

[Mike1711]

Got it. You are a rock. Bye-bye.

Grinder picks up his ball and heads home.

 

[Grinder]

There is no difference in the legal outcome of a para one or a para two while the media perception of a difference remains. From an Italian lawyer.

 

[Methos]

Wow Thanks. So it isn't just insufficient, lacking or contradictory evidence. That's fabulous news for those us that believe there is a difference. It wasn't just that the PLE et al. couldn't prove it BARD it was that the crime never occurred. This should allow the maximum flexibility for legal action against the PLE as they accused her falsely of a crime. If it was para two, the case could be defended by saying we just couldn't prove it.

Grinder (or I) may be missing something here.

Methos wrote:



And there isn't an explicit call on the 530 paragraph in the PQM.

There is discussion of the evidence and several references to "beyond a reasonable doubt" relating to the evidence within the text of the MR.

The wording is:

PQM
Visto l'art. 530 cpp,
assolve Knox Amanda Marie dal reato attribuitole al capo
a), perché i fatti non sussistono, e dal reato attribuitole al capo b), perché i fatti non sussistono e perché il fatto non costituisce reato, quanto alle accuse rivolte al dr. Giuliano Mignini.

i.e. the crime does not exist, which is covered in Art. 530.1 c.p.p. It really is that easy this time.

Btw. these were the charges (I've been wondering about what she actually was was charged with for a long time):

"KNOX AMANDA MARIE nata a Seattle (Washington) il 9.7.1987
Assente rappresentata dai diffensori avv.ti Luciano Ghirga del foro di Perugia e Carlo della Vedova del foro di Roma

IMPUTATO

del reato di cui agli artt. 81 primo comma, 368 e 61 nn. 2) e 10) c.p., perché, con le dichiarazioni rese in data 13.03.2009 dinanzi alla Corte d'Assise di Perugia, presieduta dal dr. Giancarlo Massei e ai P.M. dr. Giuliano Mignini e dr.ssa. Manuela Comodi sostituti, nel processo n. 08/08 RG., per l'omicidio in danno della cittadina del Regno Unito di Gran Bretagna e Irlanda del Nord Kercher Meredith, nel quale la Knox era imputata unitamente a Sollecito Raffaele, sapendola innocente, incolpava l'interprete di lingua inglese della Questura di Perugia Donnino Anna (che aveva svolto le sue funzioni in occasione dell'assunzione a sommarie informazioni della stessa Knox data 6.11.2007, h. 01,45 e 05,45 e che aveva deposto come teste nella stessa udienza), dei delitti di cui agli artt. 372 c.p., 115 e 368 C.P. in danno di Diya Lumumba detto "Patrick" (in origine coindagato nello stesso procedimento per omicidio della Kercher n. 9066/07/21), accusandola falsamente di avere taciuto, in sede di deposizione testimoniale, il fatto che la stessa Knox avesse confermato la versione dei fatti fornita in precedenza e di averle suggerito di ricordare di essere stata con il predetto "Patrick" nella casa di via della Pergola e di avere comunque assistito ad un rapporto sessuale dello stesso Diya con Meredith Kercher e all'uccisione di quest'ultima da parte del primo.
Sempre nella stessa occasione, incolpava inoltre, sapendoli innocenti, I'lsp. Capo Ficarra Rita e gli Assistenti Zugarini Lorenza e Raffo Ivano, la prima e la seconda in servizio presso la Squadra Mobile di Perugia e il terzo presso lo SCO di Roma e la stessa Donnino Anna, del reato di cui agli artt. 110, 479 e 61 n.9) C.P., in relazione allo stesso verbale di sommarie informazioni del 6.1 L2007 h. 01,45, per non essere state riportate fedelmente le sue dichiarazioni, nonché i primi tre dei reato di cui agli artt. 110, 611 - 368 e 61 n. 9) c.p., avendoli falsamente accusati di averla percossa alla testa per indurla a commettere il delitto di calunnia in danno dello stesso Diya Lumumba detto "Patrick", e inoltre il dr. Giuliano Mignini, degli stessi reati, quale suggeritore delle loro condotte;

b) del reato di cui agli arti. 81 primo comma, 368 e 61 nn. 2) e 10) c.p., perché, con le dichiarazioni rese in data 12 e 13 giugno 2009, dinanzi alla Corte di Assise di Perugia, in sede di esame svolto dal difensore di parte civile avv. Carlo Pacchi e del controesame svolto dai P.M. Mignini e Comodi all'udienza dibattimentale nello stesso processo n. 08/08 R.G. e 9066/07/21 Procura di Perugia, per l'omicidio in danno della cittadina del Regno Unito di il Gran Bretagna e Irlanda del Nord Kercher Meredith, nel quale la Knox era imputata unitamente a Sollecito Raffaele, sapendoli innocenti, incolpava:
-gli Ispettori Capo Scatigno Luca e Rita Ficarra e l’Ass. D'Astolto Fabio, tutti della Squadra Mobile di Perugia, con il D'Astolto con funzioni di interprete, per il verbale di sommarie informazioni del 2.11.2007, h. 15,30;
- gli Ispettori Facchini Antonio e Ficarra Rita, nonché l'Interprete Marco Bellanca, per il verbale di sommarie informazioni dei 3.11.2007, h 14,45;
- il Vice Questore Aggiunto dr. Edgardo Giobbi (S.C.O. Polizia di Stato - Roma, il Vice Questore Aggiunto dr. Marco Chiacchiera, della Squadra Mobile di Perugia, il Sost. Commissario Monica Napoleoni della Squadra Mobile di Perugia e l'interprete Aida Colantone, in servizio presso la Questura di Perugia, per il verbale di sommarie informazioni del 4.11.2007, h. 14,45;
- I'lsp. Capo Ficarra Rita, gli Ass.ti capo Zugarini Lorena, della Squadra Mobile di Perugia e Raffo Ivano, in servizio presso lo SCO di Roma e I'interprete Donnino Anna, in servizio presso la Questura di Perugia, per il verbale di sommarie informazioni del 6.1 1.2007, h. 01,45, e I'isp. Capo Ficarra Rita e Donnino Anna per il verbale di spontanee dichiarazioni del 6.11.07 ore 05,45;
dei reati di cui agli artt. 110, 81 cpv, 611, 61 n. 9) c.p., 378 e 368 c.p., poiché gli stessi, secondo quanto riferito dalla stessa Knox, I'avrebbero costretta con violenza ad affermare che Meredith era stata violentata nel verbale del 6.11.2007, h. 01,45 e I'avrebbero costretta ad accusare Patrick Diya Lumumba della violenza sessuale stessa e dell'omicidio (vds. p. 45 del verbale di udienza del 12.06.09 e 30 del 13.06.09), nonché il dr. Giuliano
Mignini, quale suggeritore delle loro condotte, presente alla redazione del verbale di spontanee dichiarazioni della Knox Amanda il 6.11.2007 h. 05,45.
Con le aggravanti di avere comesso il reato contro pubblici ufficiali a causa dell'adempimento delle loro funzioni e al fine di conseguire l'impunità del delitto di omicidio in danno di Meredith Kercher. In Perugia il 13.03.2009, il 12 e 13.06.09."

Identificate le persone offese in:
Donnino Anna (Questura Perugia); Ficarra Rita (Squadra Mobile Questura Perugia); Zugarini Lorena (Squadra Mobile Questura Perugia); Raffo Ivano (SCO Roma); Scatigno Luca (Squadra Mobile Questura Perugia); D'Astolto Fabio (Questura Perugia)"

As I understand it Amanda Knox is charged with continued (Art.81 c.p.) Calunnia (Art. 368 c.p.) aggravated because the offense was commited to conceal another crime (i.e. the murder of Meredith Kercher) (Art. 61 paragraph 2 c.p.) against a public official (Art. 61 paragraph 10 c.p.) because in her statments made on March 13, 2009 she allegedly accused Interpreter Donnino of the crimes of false testimony (Art. 372 c.p., Agreement to commit a crime (Art. 115 c.p.) and Calunnia (Art. 368 c.p.) and named Ficarra, Zugarini and Raffo as accomplices (Art. 110 C.P) to Donnino for Ideological fraud committed by public officials in public acts (Art. 479 c.p.) aggravated by abuse of authority (Art. 61 paragraph 9 c.p.) and the latter three of using violence or threats to force s.o. to commit a crime (Art. 611 c.p.) and naming Mignini as the instigator.
As I understand it the above is "Charge A".
Charge B as I understand it, is:
repeating the above mentioned "accusations" while testifying on June 12, 13, 2009 against Scatigno, Ficarra, D'Astolto, Facchini, Bellanca, Giobbi, Chiacchiera, Napoleoni Colantone, Raffo and Donnino...

 

[Grinder]

The wording is:

i.e. the crime does not exist, which is covered in Art. 530.1 c.p.p. It really is that easy this time.

Btw. these were the charges (I've been wondering about what she actually was was charged with for a long time):


As I understand it Amanda Knox is charged with continued (Art.81 c.p.) Calunnia (Art. 368 c.p.) aggravated because the offense was commited to conceal another crime (i.e. the murder of Meredith Kercher) (Art. 61 paragraph 2 c.p.) against a public official (Art. 61 paragraph 10 c.p.) because in her statments made on March 13, 2009 she allegedly accused Interpreter Donnino of the crimes of false testimony (Art. 372 c.p., Agreement to commit a crime (Art. 115 c.p.) and Calunnia (Art. 368 c.p.) and named Ficarra, Zugarini and Raffo as accomplices (Art. 110 C.P) to Donnino for Ideological fraud committed by public officials in public acts (Art. 479 c.p.) aggravated by abuse of authority (Art. 61 paragraph 9 c.p.) and the latter three of using violence or threats to force s.o. to commit a crime (Art. 611 c.p.) and naming Mignini as the instigator.
As I understand it the above is "Charge A".
Charge B as I understand it, is:
repeating the above mentioned "accusations" while testifying on June 12, 13, 2009 against Scatigno, Ficarra, D'Astolto, Facchini, Bellanca, Giobbi, Chiacchiera, Napoleoni Colantone, Raffo and Donnino...

Thanks so much. The Italian lawyer indicates that there is no difference in the paragraphs so for now I'll go with that unless we hear something. The odd thing is that Maresca made the para 2 comment and I read it in many reports.

Not withstanding the paragraphs what you have provided seems to be a full unequivocal acquittal. I continue to wonder if she will have a cause of action or better yet the state. They falsely charged her. That should be a crime. Goose/gander.

 

[Grinder]

As I understand it Amanda Knox is charged with continued (Art.81 c.p.) Calunnia (Art. 368 c.p.) aggravated because the offense was commited to conceal another crime (i.e. the murder of Meredith Kercher) (Art. 61 paragraph 2 c.p.) against a public official (Art. 61 paragraph 10 c.p.) because in her statments made on March 13, 2009 she allegedly accused Interpreter Donnino of the crimes of false testimony (Art. 372 c.p., Agreement to commit a crime (Art. 115 c.p.) and Calunnia (Art. 368 c.p.) and named Ficarra, Zugarini and Raffo as accomplices (Art. 110 C.P) to Donnino for Ideological fraud committed by public officials in public acts (Art. 479 c.p.) aggravated by abuse of authority (Art. 61 paragraph 9 c.p.) and the latter three of using violence or threats to force s.o. to commit a crime (Art. 611 c.p.) and naming Mignini as the instigator.
As I understand it the above is "Charge A".
Charge B as I understand it, is:
repeating the above mentioned "accusations" while testifying on June 12, 13, 2009 against Scatigno, Ficarra, D'Astolto, Facchini, Bellanca, Giobbi, Chiacchiera, Napoleoni Colantone, Raffo and Donnino...

Wow. I hope we get a clear translation soon. She accused them of using violence or threats of violence to force her to commit the calunnia against Patrick at the behest of Mignini.
Verdict not guilty because the crime didn't exist so they made a false charge. Wow.

 

[Bill Williams]

There is no difference in the legal outcome of a para one or a para two while the media perception of a difference remains. From an Italian lawyer.

Thanks for this.

Was the lawyer Maresca?

 

[Grinder]

Thanks for this.

Was the lawyer Maresca?

No. Some guy that wrote The Prince.

 

[Bill Williams]

Wow Bill you really don't understand this stuff at all. LJ while arguing with me has come to the conclusion that a para one couldn't be given in this case because they didn't prove their innocence not because the crime existed.

Do you read to end of sentences? You have continued to misrepresent my position over and over. Now I see that you just don't understand.

The issue isn't whether M&B should have given a one, except for PIP like Tesla that keep saying "but she's innocent, I know it" but rather if there is a difference. Which any clear thinking person can see, there is.

We can accuse each other until the cows come home. Apparently you don't read to the end of sentences either.

Suffice it to say that the post you made from your lawyer friend summarizing the legal difference in consequence ends the matter for me. Everything else is perception - particularly in the media, and the differences with/ arguments about perception has always been what has been wrong in the history of this case.

 

[acbytesla]

No. Some guy that wrote The Prince.

You're quoting Machiavelli again? You do know that the original Machiavelli was an ends justifies the means type of guy and would have no problem lying if it advanced his agenda?

 

[Grinder]

We can accuse each other until the cows come home. Apparently you don't read to the end of sentences either.

Suffice it to say that the post you made from your lawyer friend summarizing the legal difference in consequence ends the matter for me. Everything else is perception - particularly in the media, and the differences with/ arguments about perception has always been what has been wrong in the history of this case.

Well see you later.