ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito , sexism issues

Closed Thread
Old 12th April 2017, 06:07 AM   #41
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,989
Originally Posted by Lince View Post
It is easy. There is none. And you do not have to legally prove your innocence in civilised countries. Any acquittal means that you simply retain your innocent status.

By the way, your (invented?) definition is woefully inadequate. How big this part factual element of innocence is supposed to be? One spoonful? Two? A quite substantial fact that there is no physical traces of Amanda in the room where the violent crime was committed is not big enough? I guess Amanda was just levitating or possessing the Guede's body while killing Meredith. Happens all the time.
We have been over this ad nauseum. Vixen still appears to be unable to grok that courts do not find anyone innocent.

Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
Vixen,
kemosabe does not mean what you seem to think it means. I know you are reluctant to do so but I suggest you look it up on Google.

Capiche?
And this one back in part whatever of this thread.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 06:13 AM   #42
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,604
Originally Posted by Lince View Post
It is easy. There is none. And you do not have to legally prove your innocence in civilised countries. Any acquittal means that you simply retain your innocent status.

By the way, your (invented?) definition is woefully inadequate. How big this part factual element of innocence is supposed to be? One spoonful? Two? A quite substantial fact that there is no physical traces of Amanda in the room where the violent crime was committed is not big enough? I guess Amanda was just levitating or possessing the Guede's body while killing Meredith. Happens all the time.
'Exonerated' is NOT a synonym for 'innocent'.

This is where the PIP and the Innocence Projects are going wrong.
__________________
"Let's roll!"

~ Todd Beamer
Flight 93, 9/11
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 06:23 AM   #43
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,604
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
We have been over this ad nauseum. Vixen still appears to be unable to grok that courts do not find anyone innocent.

And this one back in part whatever of this thread.
Let me patiently explain it to you. I know legal language has a lot of nuance which can can be too subtle for some to pick up.

In Italy, the vast majority of acquittals are under Art 530, para 1 : 'not guilty'.

The kids were NOT found 'not guilty' under this article.

They were acquitted under the ground of Article 530,para 2|: 'not guilty due to insufficient evidence'.

Exonerated means 'once convicted of a crime but now known to be innocent, because DNA evidence, for example, shows it was someone else committed the crime. There has to be an element of 'new evidence' proving the impossibility of the defendant having committed the crime.

Marasca makes it crystal clear the pair are not exonerated. Indeed it underlines their 'highly suspicious behaviour'. It confirms Amanda WAS at the scene of the crime, and Raff therefore almost certainly, also. She did wash off the victim's blood and she did cover up for Rudy.

It makes it clear there is a near certainty they committed the crime. However, it let them off due to 'undue pressure from the media' and 'investigative flaws' (the former is not covered by Italian statute and the latter not pleaded nor defended by anyone).

Let me know if you are still Heap Big Confused.
__________________
"Let's roll!"

~ Todd Beamer
Flight 93, 9/11
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 06:29 AM   #44
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,604
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Exactly how did Popovitch's testimony counter what Raff said?

No, Amanda said she could not verify the time they ate as she was not looking at the clock. She guessed at the time:






So, the phone call happened at 8:42 and she said she thought they ate around 9:30 or 10:00. Big deal. She wasn't paying attention to the time. Nowhere did she say it was as "23:00" as you claim.

One would think that, with all the time they had to come up with an alibi story, that they'd have made sure it was solid. I guess they are so ingenious that they can completely remove all evidence of themselves from Meredith's bedroom but they can't get a simple story straight. Riiiiiiiiight.
Yes she did, read the court documents.

Even Leopold and Loeb - super geniuses - screwed up (to use Sean Spicer's term for 'to make a mistake') - one of them left his bespoke eyeglasses near the body.

They did not remove all evidence of themselves from the murder room.
__________________
"Let's roll!"

~ Todd Beamer
Flight 93, 9/11
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 07:50 AM   #45
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,462
Originally Posted by Stacyhs
One would think that, with all the time they had to come up with an alibi story, that they'd have made sure it was solid. I guess they are so ingenious that they can completely remove all evidence of themselves from Meredith's bedroom but they can't get a simple story straight. Riiiiiiiiight.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Yes she did, read the court documents.

................

They did not remove all evidence of themselves from the murder room.
Please point to one court document which makes this claim or finds this as factual. Here's a place to start:

(All from Marasca-Bruno, the first was the summary in it of Knox's appeal.
Quote:
The hypothesis of an alleged selective cleaning of the crime scene by the
defendant was completely illogical, with it being basically impossible to remove
some genetic traces while leaving others untouched.
Then in discussing the total lack of incriminating traces of either AK or RS in the murder room, Marasca-Bruno wrote:
Quote:
To overcome the relevance of such a negative element - undeniably favourable
to the defendants - it has been claimed in vain that, after staging the break-in, the
authors of the crime performed a “selective” cleaning of the crime scene, in order to
remove only those damning traces attributable to them, while leaving behind,
instead, those attributable to others.

This hypothesis is patently illogical. To fully understand its degree of
inconsistency it is not really necessary to appoint court experts, even if this has
been requested by the defences. That such a selective cleaning, moreover capable
of escaping detection by luminol, whose use by the investigators (also to find traces
of non-haematic origin) is nowadays part of everyday knowledge, is, for sure,
impossible, according to the basic laws of ordinary experience.

After all, the assertion itself of a presumed carefulness in the cleaning is
factually proven wrong
, since in the “small bathroom” traces of blood have been
found on the mat, on the bidet, on the tap, on a Q-tips box and on the light switch.
Indeed, the condition of the bathroom when compared to the murderroom puts the factual lie to the claim. Why would they be so meticulous about the bedroom and not the bathroom?
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 12th April 2017 at 07:52 AM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 07:52 AM   #46
Lince
New Blood
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 18
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Let me patiently explain it to you. I know legal language has a lot of nuance which can can be too subtle for some to pick up.

In Italy, the vast majority of acquittals are under Art 530, para 1 : 'not guilty'.

The kids were NOT found 'not guilty' under this article.

They were acquitted under the ground of Article 530,para 2|: 'not guilty due to insufficient evidence'.

Exonerated means 'once convicted of a crime but now known to be innocent, because DNA evidence, for example, shows it was someone else committed the crime. There has to be an element of 'new evidence' proving the impossibility of the defendant having committed the crime.

Marasca makes it crystal clear the pair are not exonerated. Indeed it underlines their 'highly suspicious behaviour'. It confirms Amanda WAS at the scene of the crime, and Raff therefore almost certainly, also. She did wash off the victim's blood and she did cover up for Rudy.

It makes it clear there is a near certainty they committed the crime. However, it let them off due to 'undue pressure from the media' and 'investigative flaws' (the former is not covered by Italian statute and the latter not pleaded nor defended by anyone).

Let me know if you are still Heap Big Confused.
In a wider sense, exonerate = absolve from blame or accusation, acquit, exculpate, so it definitely fits here. Amanda and Raffaele were proclaimed legally not guilty (= legally innocent) of the crime by the Supreme Court. Which article was used does not matter, since the legal effects are the same.

According to the definition you brought, I admit you are right and I am wrong. However, the problem is that, IMHO, this definition is not actually applicable here since the conviction was not finalised. New evidence for innocence can be needed to reopen/reconsider a completed case that went through the entire standard legal process. In this instance, SC did not reconsider the case, they admitted that there is actually no case to convict and thus acquitted the defendants. As a result, Amanda and Raffaele automatically retained their legal innocence status.

Constantly repeating the same imagined things from the Marasca verdict does not make them more convincing. A summary of judicial facts from the previous verdicts is not equivalent to the actual SC conclusions much like an overview of the related work in a scientific paper does not mean that the authors are claiming the overviewed results for themselves. Not to mention all significant "figures of speech" you dismiss such as "even if", "alleged", "hypothesized", etc.

Last edited by Lince; 12th April 2017 at 07:58 AM.
Lince is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 07:54 AM   #47
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,149
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Yes she did, read the court documents.

Even Leopold and Loeb - super geniuses - screwed up (to use Sean Spicer's term for 'to make a mistake') - one of them left his bespoke eyeglasses near the body.

They did not remove all evidence of themselves from the murder room.
Blah...blah...blah...bull...bulll...bull. so much meaningless nonsense. Persistence that only produces hot air. No one believes your posts but the very tiny number of nutters left and even they are bored.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 08:04 AM   #48
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,859
I'd love to see evidence to support this alleged "fact" that "in Italy, the vast majority of acquittals are under Art 530, para 1 : 'not guilty'" (and that therefore only a tiny minority of acquittals are under 530.2).

I very, very strongly suspect that this is what is colloquially known as an "ass-fact", and that in fact the available evidence supports exactly the opposite.

But perhaps Vixen would care to supply the evidence to support her extremely declarative assertion. How about, say, a list of all acquittals in Italy between 2000 and 2015, with the number (and percentage of total) that were under 530.1, and the number (and percentage of total) that were under 530.2? Then this issue could be settled properly. Couldn't it, Vixen.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 08:08 AM   #49
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,859
"It makes it clear there is a near certainty they committed the crime. However, it let them off due to 'undue pressure from the media' and 'investigative flaws' (the former is not covered by Italian statute and the latter not pleaded nor defended by anyone)."

What a load of nonsense. And deliberately mendacious nonsense at that. None of the above is true in any way whatsoever (other than the correctly-observed fact by the Marasca SC panel that the Mignini-led police investigation was disgracefully inept, incompetent, misdirected and riddled with malpractice).
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 08:37 AM   #50
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 679
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Let me patiently explain it to you. I know legal language has a lot of nuance which can can be too subtle for some to pick up.

In Italy, the vast majority of acquittals are under Art 530, para 1 : 'not guilty'.

The kids were NOT found 'not guilty' under this article.

They were acquitted under the ground of Article 530,para 2|: 'not guilty due to insufficient evidence'.

Exonerated means 'once convicted of a crime but now known to be innocent, because DNA evidence, for example, shows it was someone else committed the crime. There has to be an element of 'new evidence' proving the impossibility of the defendant having committed the crime.

Marasca makes it crystal clear the pair are not exonerated. Indeed it underlines their 'highly suspicious behaviour'. It confirms Amanda WAS at the scene of the crime, and Raff therefore almost certainly, also. She did wash off the victim's blood and she did cover up for Rudy.

It makes it clear there is a near certainty they committed the crime. However, it let them off due to 'undue pressure from the media' and 'investigative flaws' (the former is not covered by Italian statute and the latter not pleaded nor defended by anyone).

Let me know if you are still Heap Big Confused.
Checking some online references for the word "exonerate"

From Dictionary.com:

1. to clear, as of an accusation; free from guilt or blame; exculpate: He was exonerated from the accusation of cheating.

From Merriam Webster:

Legal Definition of exonerate
exonerated exonerating

1: to relieve especially of a charge, obligation, or hardship
2: to clear from accusation or blame — compare acquit, exculpate

From Collins:

If a court, report, or person in authority exonerates someone, they officially say or show that that person is not responsible for something wrong or unpleasant that has happened.

1. to relieve of (a duty, obligation, etc.)
2. to free from a charge or the imputation of guilt; declare or prove blameless; exculpate

At no point do any of these references suggest one must first be convicted before they can be exonerated. In fact, the example from Dictionary.com is to exonerate from an accusation. However, if we accept your interpretation of the word then I agree, they are not exonerated, but not for the reason you suggest. In Italy you are not convicted of a crime until the Supreme Court upholds the conviction. Since this never happened to Amanda and Raffaele, they were never convicted and therefore, by your definition, they can't be considered exonerated.

However, your interpretation of being exonerated is obviously flawed. You claim;

"There has to be an element of 'new evidence' proving the impossibility of the defendant having committed the crime."

How then do you explain the very lengthy list of people who have been exonerated, not because they suddenly came up with evidence that proves they didn't commit the crime, but because new evidence proves someone else did?

As for your continued claims of being there, washing blood, covering for Guede... please stop. We've been over it a thousand times. You and a couple of other remaining PGP think there's something to it. The rest of us know otherwise. If you think any of these claims have any validity to them then it should be easy for you to cite evidence to support it. You don't because you can't because none exists. You know that, we know that... so why continue with such foolish claims?

What the Marasca report makes perfectly clear is that there isn't a shred of evidence of either Amanda or Raffaele being involved in the crime, ergo they are innocent. Exonerated in my book but if it makes you feel better to think otherwise then by all means, indulge yourself.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 08:41 AM   #51
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 14,149
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
I'd love to see evidence to support this alleged "fact" that "in Italy, the vast majority of acquittals are under Art 530, para 1 : 'not guilty'" (and that therefore only a tiny minority of acquittals are under 530.2).

I very, very strongly suspect that this is what is colloquially known as an "ass-fact", and that in fact the available evidence supports exactly the opposite.

But perhaps Vixen would care to supply the evidence to support her extremely declarative assertion. How about, say, a list of all acquittals in Italy between 2000 and 2015, with the number (and percentage of total) that were under 530.1, and the number (and percentage of total) that were under 530.2? Then this issue could be settled properly. Couldn't it, Vixen.
Yes I'm sure you're right.
Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 9.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Last edited by zooterkin; 13th April 2017 at 02:21 AM.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 08:54 AM   #52
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,989
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Let me patiently explain it to you. I know legal language has a lot of nuance which can can be too subtle for some to pick up.
Unnecessary. Been in court, sworn my oaths to a non-existent god, old hat.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
In Italy, the vast majority of acquittals are under Art 530, para 1 : 'not guilty'.
So not innocent.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The kids were NOT found 'not guilty' under this article.
So not innocent again.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
They were acquitted under the ground of Article 530,para 2|: 'not guilty due to insufficient evidence'.
So not innocent yet again.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Exonerated means 'once convicted of a crime but now known to be innocent, because DNA evidence, for example, shows it was someone else committed the crime. There has to be an element of 'new evidence' proving the impossibility of the defendant having committed the crime.
You claimed that new evidence was inadmissable on any appeal. Oops.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Marasca makes it crystal clear the pair are not exonerated. Indeed it underlines their 'highly suspicious behaviour'. It confirms Amanda WAS at the scene of the crime, and Raff therefore almost certainly, also. She did wash off the victim's blood and she did cover up for Rudy.
Obviated by the actual evidence and also by your own claims.
Remember the 30 second claim?

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It makes it clear there is a near certainty they committed the crime. However, it let them off due to 'undue pressure from the media' and 'investigative flaws' (the former is not covered by Italian statute and the latter not pleaded nor defended by anyone).
"Let them off" ???

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Let me know if you are still Heap Big Confused.
Let me know when you find a cell phone mast acting like a swivel eyed loon.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 09:16 AM   #53
Mr Fied
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 312
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Let me patiently explain it to you. I know legal language has a lot of nuance which can can be too subtle for some to pick up.

In Italy, the vast majority of acquittals are under Art 530, para 1 : 'not guilty'.

The kids were NOT found 'not guilty' under this article.

They were acquitted under the ground of Article 530,para 2|: 'not guilty due to insufficient evidence'.

Exonerated means 'once convicted of a crime but now known to be innocent, because DNA evidence, for example, shows it was someone else committed the crime. There has to be an element of 'new evidence' proving the impossibility of the defendant having committed the crime.

Marasca makes it crystal clear the pair are not exonerated. Indeed it underlines their 'highly suspicious behaviour'. It confirms Amanda WAS at the scene of the crime, and Raff therefore almost certainly, also. She did wash off the victim's blood and she did cover up for Rudy.

It makes it clear there is a near certainty they committed the crime. However, it let them off due to 'undue pressure from the media' and 'investigative flaws' (the former is not covered by Italian statute and the latter not pleaded nor defended by anyone).

Let me know if you are still Heap Big Confused.

visti gli artt. 620 lett. I) e 530, comma 2 cod. proc. pen.; esclusa l'aggravante di
cui all'art. 61 n, 2 cod. pen., in relazione al delitto di calunnia, annulla senza rinvio la sentenza impugnata in ordine ai reati di cui ai capi a), d) ed e) della rubrica per non avere i ricorrenti commesso il fatto.

pursuant to Articles 620 letter L) and 530, section 2 Italian Code of Criminal
Procedure; excluding the aggravating circumstance under Italian under Article 61 n.
2 Penal Code, in relation to the crime of calumny, annuls the ruling under appeal
without referral with respect to the crimes under charges A), D) and E) of the rubric because the appellants did not commit the act.
Mr Fied is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 09:37 AM   #54
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 679
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
"It makes it clear there is a near certainty they committed the crime. However, it let them off due to 'undue pressure from the media' and 'investigative flaws' (the former is not covered by Italian statute and the latter not pleaded nor defended by anyone)."

What a load of nonsense. And deliberately mendacious nonsense at that. None of the above is true in any way whatsoever (other than the correctly-observed fact by the Marasca SC panel that the Mignini-led police investigation was disgracefully inept, incompetent, misdirected and riddled with malpractice).
Deliberately mendacious... I think that sums up this quote quite nicely. One has to wonder if Vixen thinks everyone is an idiot that can't read for themselves.

The Marasca report makes it very clear there isn't a shred of evidence to indicate their involvement in the crime, so the complete opposite of what Vixen claims. The only reference to the media in the report was in exploring reasons why the investigation was so flawed; that pressure from the media caused the investigators to rush their investigation. As for investigative flaws, what the court said was that without such an incompetent investigation there would be more certainty as to guilt or innocence. Vixen prefers to assume they were let off due to the investigative flaws but the flip side to that argument is - and this is my belief - a competent investigation would have clearly shown they were not involved and no charges would have ever been filed.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 09:45 AM   #55
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,462
Originally Posted by Mr Fied View Post
visti gli artt. 620 lett. I) e 530, comma 2 cod. proc. pen.; esclusa l'aggravante di
cui all'art. 61 n, 2 cod. pen., in relazione al delitto di calunnia, annulla senza rinvio la sentenza impugnata in ordine ai reati di cui ai capi a), d) ed e) della rubrica per non avere i ricorrenti commesso il fatto.

pursuant to Articles 620 letter L) and 530, section 2 Italian Code of Criminal
Procedure; excluding the aggravating circumstance under Italian under Article 61 n.
2 Penal Code, in relation to the crime of calumny, annuls the ruling under appeal
without referral with respect to the crimes under charges A), D) and E) of the rubric because the appellants did not commit the act.
I guess having an Italian court say you "didn't commit the act" is not good enough for some. Some interpret "did not commit the act" is a euphemism for, "they were proven to have done it, but a foreign government and powerful media interests intervened."

It's all so confusing.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 10:26 AM   #56
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,462
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Deliberately mendacious... I think that sums up this quote quite nicely. One has to wonder if Vixen thinks everyone is an idiot that can't read for themselves.

The Marasca report makes it very clear there isn't a shred of evidence to indicate their involvement in the crime, so the complete opposite of what Vixen claims. The only reference to the media in the report was in exploring reasons why the investigation was so flawed; that pressure from the media caused the investigators to rush their investigation. As for investigative flaws, what the court said was that without such an incompetent investigation there would be more certainty as to guilt or innocence. Vixen prefers to assume they were let off due to the investigative flaws but the flip side to that argument is - and this is my belief - a competent investigation would have clearly shown they were not involved and no charges would have ever been filed.
I truly miss Grinder.

Up until now i'd not know the definition of "mendacious". If Grinder had been here, I'd have had an education long ago. (He once corrected me for misspelling "et al.", pointing out with no small barb that "et" does not have a period after it, since it is a Latin word all by its onsey.)

It often hurt - sometimes it hurt badly! - but I do miss the guy.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 10:53 AM   #57
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,462
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
What the Marasca report makes perfectly clear is that there isn't a shred of evidence of either Amanda or Raffaele being involved in the crime, ergo they are innocent. Exonerated in my book but if it makes you feel better to think otherwise then by all means, indulge yourself.
I do not believe that this is entirely true. One of the side-effects of staying on top of Vixen's claims of what M/B's report says and doesn't say is that one tends to read the thing multiple times!

It's a bit more than simply not "being involved in the crime". M/B take issue with the way the Nencini court assembled its evidence. I hope I am not simply drawing distinctions where there aren't any, but the M/B report.....

.... says that the evidence presented at/by the lower court at best puts Knox/Sollecito at the crimescene after the crime was committed and not once in the murderroom itself.

At best. Even if the hypothesis that Nencini assembled out of facts he'd considered "factual" is true, it still did not create judicial guilt.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 11:36 AM   #58
TruthCalls
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 679
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I do not believe that this is entirely true. One of the side-effects of staying on top of Vixen's claims of what M/B's report says and doesn't say is that one tends to read the thing multiple times!

It's a bit more than simply not "being involved in the crime". M/B take issue with the way the Nencini court assembled its evidence. I hope I am not simply drawing distinctions where there aren't any, but the M/B report.....

.... says that the evidence presented at/by the lower court at best puts Knox/Sollecito at the crimescene after the crime was committed and not once in the murderroom itself.

At best. Even if the hypothesis that Nencini assembled out of facts he'd considered "factual" is true, it still did not create judicial guilt.
Actually, as a 'conclusion' to the report, and in summary, I think it's safe to say the report concludes there isn't a shred of evidence of their involvement. How they actually reach that conclusion is spread throughout the report but it doesn't waiver. The report carefully addresses each and every illogical conclusion of the Nencini court and dismantles the arguments. In the end the report concludes that even if some of the claims were true, there is no indication they were ever in Meredith's bedroom where the murder took place. Certainly, even if viewed through guilt colored glasses, to make the claim "It makes it clear there is a near certainty they committed the crime" is being deliberately mendacious.

But I agree, lately I've had both Massei and Marasca reports open almost by default so I can go back and see if maybe that most recent, outrageous claim by Vixen was true, and in the process I've managed to read various sections multiple times.

Oh, and I also agree.. I miss Grinder.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 11:45 AM   #59
Mr Fied
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 312
Originally Posted by Mr Fied View Post
visti gli artt. 620 lett. I) e 530, comma 2 cod. proc. pen.; esclusa l'aggravante di
cui all'art. 61 n, 2 cod. pen., in relazione al delitto di calunnia, annulla senza rinvio la sentenza impugnata in ordine ai reati di cui ai capi a), d) ed e) della rubrica per non avere i ricorrenti commesso il fatto.

pursuant to Articles 620 letter L) and 530, section 2 Italian Code of Criminal
Procedure; excluding the aggravating circumstance under Italian under Article 61 n.
2 Penal Code, in relation to the crime of calumny, annuls the ruling under appeal
without referral with respect to the crimes under charges A), D) and E) of the rubric because the appellants did not commit the act.
Is this what they call a judicial fact?
Mr Fied is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 11:46 AM   #60
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,100
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I said 14 February 2017

Quote:
She's lodged an appeal, but his complaint against twelve judges in Genoa is with alleged ex-mafia gangster Brizolli (_sp?) is the latest rumour.

This refers to Bongiorno not being a part of this, and Raff's new 'attorney' is Brizolli (_sp?).

It is now in the TIMES and the Italian papers. What is it you are not understanding, when I informed you 'It is old news'?

Kimo sabi?
I misunderstood what you wrote due to the way you phrased it.

Quote:
his complaint against twelve judges in Genoa
I read this as him suing 12 Genoese judges. A more clear way to have written it would have been "his lawsuit against 12 judges will be heard in Genoa."

Why at you putting "attorney" in quotes?

And I see you've already been informed (again) that you are using "kemosabe" incorrectly.

By the way, his attorney is Alfredo Brizioli.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 11:49 AM   #61
Numbers
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,908
"Amanda Knox's ex-boyfriend suing judges and jury for wrongful conviction"

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04...onviction.html

"Amanda Knox’s boyfriend sues judges and jury

Raffaele Sollecito is seeking €3 million (£2.5 million) in a lawsuit against prosecutors and jurors for his wrongful conviction for the 2007 murder of the British exchange student Meredith Kercher."

Source: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a...tion-n95pn9nl5

As usual, the media - including the Italian medial - are getting the story somewhat wrong.

Italian law, as reported in a reliable source - the Library of Congress of the US - is as follows:

"Italy: Civil Liability of Judges

(Apr. 9, 2015) Italy has approved new legislation on the civil liability of judges. (Law No. 18 of February 27, 2015, on Civil Liability of Magistrates, GAZETTA UFFICIALE (G. U.) No. 52, NORMATTIVA, amending Law No. 117 of April 13, 1988, Indemnification of Damages Caused in the Exercise of Judicial Functions and Civil Liability of Judges, G. U. No. 88, NORMATTIVA (both in Italian).) Law No. 18 aims to enforce the provisions governing the civil liability of the state and of magistrates, particularly in view of Italy’s status as a Member State of the European Union. (Law No. 18, art. 1(1).)

The law specifies that the regular exercise of judicial functions by a judge, including the interpretation of legal norms and valuation of facts and evidence, may not trigger the judge’s civil liability. (Id. art. 2(b).)

It provides, however, that a judge can commit gross negligence giving rise to civil liability when there is a manifest violation or Italian law or EU law in the form of misrepresentation of fact or evidence, when it is established that a fact was misrepresented, or when a preliminary injunction in persona or in rem is issued beyond the scope of cases permitted by law or without legal grounds. (Id. art. 2(c).)

The determination of cases in which there is a manifest violation of EU law depends on several factors:

the degree of clarity and precision of the violated provisions;
the gravity of the violation;
a failure to comply with the obligation of preliminary renvoi (the obligation of a court to submit certain matters to the EU Court of Justice); and
the existence of a contradiction of the act or the measure with an express interpretation of EU law given by the Court of Justice of the European Union. (Law No. 18, art. 2(c).)

When a determination has been made that a judge has committed an act of denial of justice or has fraudulently or with inexcusable negligence committed a manifest violation of EU law or a misrepresentation of fact or evidence, compensation will be granted to the victim. Within two years of the compensation being granted, the President of the Council of Ministers must take indemnity action against the judge. (Id. art. 4(1).)

Except in cases of fraud, the new legislation limits the amount of the indemnity to be recovered from judges to half of their annual salary at the time of the indemnity action, even when the actions for damage have been exercised by two or more persons. (Id. art. 5(1).) In any case, the amount of the indemnity may not be higher than one-third of a judge’s annual net salary. (Id.)

Before January 31 of each year, the Court of Accounts will request information from the President of the Council of Ministers and the Minister of Justice concerning convictions for indemnity actions, issued within the preceding year, that result from crimes committed by judges in the exercise of their functions. (Id. art. 7(1).)"

Source: http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/...ity-of-judges/

So what is happening is that Raffaele is suing the Italian Republic (the State) and naming the judges and prosecutors whose actions or inactions he alleges were in violation of Italian or EU (read: European Convention of Human Rights) law or were grossly or inexcusably negligent and/or were misrepresentations of the facts and evidence.

The Italian Republic, within 2 years after a judgment finding liability on the part of the State on account of the actions of the named officials (judges and/or prosecutors) may recover funds from those individuals not exceeding one-third of their annual salary.

Last edited by Numbers; 12th April 2017 at 11:53 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 12:46 PM   #62
Stacyhs
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,100
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Exactly how did Popovitch's testimony counter what Raff said?

No, Amanda said she could not verify the time they ate as she was not looking at the clock. She guessed at the time:

Quote:
AK:Um, around, um, we ate around 9:30 or 10, and then after we had eaten and he was washing the dishes, well, as I said, I don't look at the clock much, but it was around 10. And...he...umm...well, he was washing the dishes and, umm, the water was coming out and he was very "bummed" [English], displeased, he told me he had just had that thing repaired. He was annoyed that it had broken again. So, umm...
So, the phone call happened at 8:42 and she said she thought they ate around 9:30 or 10:00. Big deal. She wasn't paying attention to the time. Nowhere did she say it was as "23:00" as you claim.

One would think that, with all the time they had to come up with an alibi story, that they'd have made sure it was solid. I guess they are so ingenious that they can completely remove all evidence of themselves from Meredith's bedroom but they can't get a simple story straight. Riiiiiiiiight.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Yes she did, read the court documents.

Even Leopold and Loeb - super geniuses - screwed up (to use Sean Spicer's term for 'to make a mistake') - one of them left his bespoke eyeglasses near the body.

They did not remove all evidence of themselves from the murder room.
I read her court testimony (see above). Nowhere in her court testimony on June 12, 2009 does she say they ate at 23:00/11:00. I see several references, including in Massei's MR, that say she said 11:00 but I can't find the source of this. Pretty please can you direct me to the source?

Marasca disagrees with you regarding evidence of them in the murder room. Exactly what evidence of either of Knox or Sollecito was in the room that Marasca missed? The "female" shoe print that doesn't exist or Raff's DNA on that tiny hook that Marasca deemed police photos to have "clearly demonstrated possible contamination in the way the clasp was treated"?

Please answer this questions:

1)Exactly how did Knox and Sollecito remove all traces of their DNA, fingerprints, and their bloody shoe/foot prints from Kercher's bedroom leaving only those of Guede?

2) Why would they leave the bath mat with its bloody footprint if it were Sollecito's?

3) Exactly how did Popovitch's testimony counter what Raff said?
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 01:59 PM   #63
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,604
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Unnecessary. Been in court, sworn my oaths to a non-existent god, old hat.

So not innocent.

So not innocent again.

So not innocent yet again.

You claimed that new evidence was inadmissable on any appeal. Oops.

Obviated by the actual evidence and also by your own claims.
Remember the 30 second claim?

"Let them off" ???

Let me know when you find a cell phone mast acting like a swivel eyed loon.

Three whopping lies. Shocking!!!
__________________
"Let's roll!"

~ Todd Beamer
Flight 93, 9/11
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 02:19 PM   #64
Diocletus
Illuminator
 
Diocletus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 3,964
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
"Amanda Knox's ex-boyfriend suing judges and jury for wrongful conviction"

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04...onviction.html

"Amanda Knox’s boyfriend sues judges and jury

Raffaele Sollecito is seeking €3 million (£2.5 million) in a lawsuit against prosecutors and jurors for his wrongful conviction for the 2007 murder of the British exchange student Meredith Kercher."

Source: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a...tion-n95pn9nl5

As usual, the media - including the Italian medial - are getting the story somewhat wrong.

Italian law, as reported in a reliable source - the Library of Congress of the US - is as follows:

"Italy: Civil Liability of Judges

(Apr. 9, 2015) Italy has approved new legislation on the civil liability of judges. (Law No. 18 of February 27, 2015, on Civil Liability of Magistrates, GAZETTA UFFICIALE (G. U.) No. 52, NORMATTIVA, amending Law No. 117 of April 13, 1988, Indemnification of Damages Caused in the Exercise of Judicial Functions and Civil Liability of Judges, G. U. No. 88, NORMATTIVA (both in Italian).) Law No. 18 aims to enforce the provisions governing the civil liability of the state and of magistrates, particularly in view of Italy’s status as a Member State of the European Union. (Law No. 18, art. 1(1).)

The law specifies that the regular exercise of judicial functions by a judge, including the interpretation of legal norms and valuation of facts and evidence, may not trigger the judge’s civil liability. (Id. art. 2(b).)

It provides, however, that a judge can commit gross negligence giving rise to civil liability when there is a manifest violation or Italian law or EU law in the form of misrepresentation of fact or evidence, when it is established that a fact was misrepresented, or when a preliminary injunction in persona or in rem is issued beyond the scope of cases permitted by law or without legal grounds. (Id. art. 2(c).)

The determination of cases in which there is a manifest violation of EU law depends on several factors:

the degree of clarity and precision of the violated provisions;
the gravity of the violation;
a failure to comply with the obligation of preliminary renvoi (the obligation of a court to submit certain matters to the EU Court of Justice); and
the existence of a contradiction of the act or the measure with an express interpretation of EU law given by the Court of Justice of the European Union. (Law No. 18, art. 2(c).)

When a determination has been made that a judge has committed an act of denial of justice or has fraudulently or with inexcusable negligence committed a manifest violation of EU law or a misrepresentation of fact or evidence, compensation will be granted to the victim. Within two years of the compensation being granted, the President of the Council of Ministers must take indemnity action against the judge. (Id. art. 4(1).)

Except in cases of fraud, the new legislation limits the amount of the indemnity to be recovered from judges to half of their annual salary at the time of the indemnity action, even when the actions for damage have been exercised by two or more persons. (Id. art. 5(1).) In any case, the amount of the indemnity may not be higher than one-third of a judge’s annual net salary. (Id.)

Before January 31 of each year, the Court of Accounts will request information from the President of the Council of Ministers and the Minister of Justice concerning convictions for indemnity actions, issued within the preceding year, that result from crimes committed by judges in the exercise of their functions. (Id. art. 7(1).)"

Source: http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/...ity-of-judges/

So what is happening is that Raffaele is suing the Italian Republic (the State) and naming the judges and prosecutors whose actions or inactions he alleges were in violation of Italian or EU (read: European Convention of Human Rights) law or were grossly or inexcusably negligent and/or were misrepresentations of the facts and evidence.

The Italian Republic, within 2 years after a judgment finding liability on the part of the State on account of the actions of the named officials (judges and/or prosecutors) may recover funds from those individuals not exceeding one-third of their annual salary.
Did he sue those profile-hiding shysters, Stefanoni and Comodi?
__________________
Forza Italia
Diocletus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 02:28 PM   #65
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,989
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Three whopping lies. Shocking!!!
Yup. You told those three whopping lies. Want to take them one by one?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 02:33 PM   #66
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,604
Originally Posted by Mr Fied View Post
visti gli artt. 620 lett. I) e 530, comma 2 cod. proc. pen.; esclusa l'aggravante di
cui all'art. 61 n, 2 cod. pen., in relazione al delitto di calunnia, annulla senza rinvio la sentenza impugnata in ordine ai reati di cui ai capi a), d) ed e) della rubrica per non avere i ricorrenti commesso il fatto.

pursuant to Articles 620 letter L) and 530, section 2 Italian Code of Criminal
Procedure; excluding the aggravating circumstance under Italian under Article 61 n.
2 Penal Code, in relation to the crime of calumny, annuls the ruling under appeal
without referral with respect to the crimes under charges A), D) and E) of the rubric because the appellants did not commit the act.

As Grinder pointed out, that is just a court template sentence, probably left in by accident as Art 530, 2 does not say that.
__________________
"Let's roll!"

~ Todd Beamer
Flight 93, 9/11
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 02:37 PM   #67
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,604
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Yup. You told those three whopping lies. Want to take them one by one?
New evidence is grounds for appeal so it shows ignorance on your part to claim it is not. Nor would I ever say anything so stupid. Citation, please, and we'll see which of us is telling the truth.

I inserted a link explaining blood dries as quickly as thirty minutes.

I talked of antennae swivelling, so you mischievously made up your jibe about 'phone mast'.
__________________
"Let's roll!"

~ Todd Beamer
Flight 93, 9/11

Last edited by Vixen; 12th April 2017 at 03:29 PM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 02:37 PM   #68
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,462
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
As Grinder pointed out, that is just a court template sentence, probably left in by accident as Art 530, 2 does not say that.
I believe you are correct, Grinder did make that claim. However he eventually conceded there is no subsequent difference in law as to the way each is seen; there is no difference in subsequent consequence.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 02:48 PM   #69
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,989
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
New evidence is grounds for appeal so it shows ignorance on your part to claim it is not. Nor would I ever say anything so stupid. Citation, please, and we'll see which of us is telling the truth.
Nope. If you took time to read, you would realise otherwise.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I inserted a link explaining blood dries as quickly as thirty minutes.
From when? If you cannot answer that, then you 30 minute is moot and you have already stated that you cannot.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I talked of antennae swivelling, so you mischievously made up your jibe about 'phone mast'.
Nope. You claimed that cell phone masts swivel. They don't. In support, you posted a pic of a directional HF antenna. Clearly you have no clue about transmission of anything. Nobody made you post such an image, you did it without prompting from anyone all of your lonesome.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 03:31 PM   #70
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,604
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Nope. If you took time to read, you would realise otherwise.

From when? If you cannot answer that, then you 30 minute is moot and you have already stated that you cannot.

Nope. You claimed that cell phone masts swivel. They don't. In support, you posted a pic of a directional HF antenna. Clearly you have no clue about transmission of anything. Nobody made you post such an image, you did it without prompting from anyone all of your lonesome.
No, I did not. Master of misstatement, just to get a rise. I did not post any picture of any antenna.

Your claim 'swivelling antennae' do not exist and it is ridiculous to suggest they do is clearly your misstatement. See here.
__________________
"Let's roll!"

~ Todd Beamer
Flight 93, 9/11
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 03:48 PM   #71
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,604
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
I believe you are correct, Grinder did make that claim. However he eventually conceded there is no subsequent difference in law as to the way each is seen; there is no difference in subsequent consequence.

This not correct. See attached of what he did say.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg grinder on 530,2.jpg (86.5 KB, 7 views)
__________________
"Let's roll!"

~ Todd Beamer
Flight 93, 9/11
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 04:01 PM   #72
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,462
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
This not correct. See attached of what he did say.
Huh!? Yes, I am aware that Grinder had said that.

What your repost doesn't address, is what he'd eventually conceded - that as far as what happens next, there is no difference.

He also changed his position after consulting a lawyer familiar with Italian legislation.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 12th April 2017 at 04:03 PM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 04:11 PM   #73
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,604
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Actually, as a 'conclusion' to the report, and in summary, I think it's safe to say the report concludes there isn't a shred of evidence of their involvement. How they actually reach that conclusion is spread throughout the report but it doesn't waiver. The report carefully addresses each and every illogical conclusion of the Nencini court and dismantles the arguments. In the end the report concludes that even if some of the claims were true, there is no indication they were ever in Meredith's bedroom where the murder took place. Certainly, even if viewed through guilt colored glasses, to make the claim "It makes it clear there is a near certainty they committed the crime" is being deliberately mendacious.

But I agree, lately I've had both Massei and Marasca reports open almost by default so I can go back and see if maybe that most recent, outrageous claim by Vixen was true, and in the process I've managed to read various sections multiple times.

Oh, and I also agree.. I miss Grinder.
The courts do not agree with you. Marasca is quoted here:

Quote:
Marasca in an interview with Corriere Della Serra on March 30, 2015 says "the evidence was insufficient".

Whom should we believe, you or Marasca, the presiding judge at the Supreme Court hearing?
__________________
"Let's roll!"

~ Todd Beamer
Flight 93, 9/11

Last edited by Vixen; 12th April 2017 at 04:12 PM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 04:17 PM   #74
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,604
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Huh!? Yes, I am aware that Grinder had said that.

What your repost doesn't address, is what he'd eventually conceded - that as far as what happens next, there is no difference.

He also changed his position after consulting a lawyer familiar with Italian legislation.
Er, if you read his comment carefully, he refers to this lawyer's opinion in his post and reiterates, Article 530 paragraph 2 of the Italian Penal Code does not contain the words 'did not commit the act'.

It is clearly a pro-forma tack-on.
__________________
"Let's roll!"

~ Todd Beamer
Flight 93, 9/11

Last edited by Vixen; 12th April 2017 at 04:19 PM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 04:22 PM   #75
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,462
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Er, if you read his comment carefully, he refers to this lawyer's opinion in his post and reiterates, Article 530 paragraph 2 of the Italian Penal Code does not contain the words 'did not commit the act'. (Art 530 para 1 does.)

It is clearly a pro-forma error.
Well, as much as I appreciate Grinder's contribution here - and felt the sting of his sharp analysis and wit!! - I'm not going to chase down what he may have said.

When he consulted with a real lawyer conversant in these issues he did not make the same distinctions.

You can extend this if you so choose.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 04:27 PM   #76
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,859
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Huh!? Yes, I am aware that Grinder had said that.

What your repost doesn't address, is what he'd eventually conceded - that as far as what happens next, there is no difference.

He also changed his position after consulting a lawyer familiar with Italian legislation.

Exactly. Current Italian law says - in line with Council of Europe guidelines on how criminal justice systems should work among its members if they want to claim to be modern liberalised democracies - that there are only two possible outcomes to a criminal trial process: either 1) the courts deem that there is sufficient evidence to prove guilt on the charge BARD, in which case the person must be convicted; or 2) if the condition met in (1) is not met, the person must be acquitted (and the presumption of innocence must be preserved).

There are no "classes of acquittal" in Italian law. The employment of the various paragraphs of Section 530 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by acquitting courts is nothing more than a clumsy reactionary gesture to try to preserve some form of continuity of what they were all used to doing. And Section 530 itself is also clearly an anachronistic mishmash: what clearly happened was that the "old" 530 (from the times before long-overdue reform was more-or-less forced upon Italy from above, to introduce an adversarial system, the concept of "innocent until/unless proven guilty BARD", and the concept of the courts solely trying the charges rather than trying to determine "the truth" underpinning the entire crime) was clumsily and ineptly altered to try to make it into some sort of "new 530" which was compatible with the sweeping reforms.

What should have happened, of course, was that the old wording of 530 should have been erased in its entirety, and replaced with something like: "If the court does not determine that there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the guilt of the defendant in respect of the criminal charge, then the court shall pronounce acquittal of the defendant in respect of that criminal charge."


Nevertheless, I'm still very much looking forward to Vixen producing proper, appropriate evidence to support her contention that "in Italy, the vast majority of acquittals are under Art 530, para 1 : 'not guilty'" (and that therefore only a relatively tiny minority of acquittals are under 530.2). How's the production of that evidence coming along, Vixen.......?
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 04:30 PM   #77
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,604
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
Well, as much as I appreciate Grinder's contribution here - and felt the sting of his sharp analysis and wit!! - I'm not going to chase down what he may have said.

When he consulted with a real lawyer conversant in these issues he did not make the same distinctions.

You can extend this if you so choose.
Grinder stuck to his guns there was a difference, conceding even if this was just a public perception, as claimed by the lawyer.

Point is, 'did not commit the act' is not in the wording.
__________________
"Let's roll!"

~ Todd Beamer
Flight 93, 9/11
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 04:32 PM   #78
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 12,462
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Grinder stuck to his guns there was a difference, conceding even if this was just a public perception, as claimed by the lawyer.

Point is, 'did not commit the act' is not in the wording.
"Even if" is just a figure of speech. A typo.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 04:44 PM   #79
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,604
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Exactly. Current Italian law says - in line with Council of Europe guidelines on how criminal justice systems should work among its members if they want to claim to be modern liberalised democracies - that there are only two possible outcomes to a criminal trial process: either 1) the courts deem that there is sufficient evidence to prove guilt on the charge BARD, in which case the person must be convicted; or 2) if the condition met in (1) is not met, the person must be acquitted (and the presumption of innocence must be preserved).

There are no "classes of acquittal" in Italian law. The employment of the various paragraphs of Section 530 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by acquitting courts is nothing more than a clumsy reactionary gesture to try to preserve some form of continuity of what they were all used to doing. And Section 530 itself is also clearly an anachronistic mishmash: what clearly happened was that the "old" 530 (from the times before long-overdue reform was more-or-less forced upon Italy from above, to introduce an adversarial system, the concept of "innocent until/unless proven guilty BARD", and the concept of the courts solely trying the charges rather than trying to determine "the truth" underpinning the entire crime) was clumsily and ineptly altered to try to make it into some sort of "new 530" which was compatible with the sweeping reforms.

What should have happened, of course, was that the old wording of 530 should have been erased in its entirety, and replaced with something like: "If the court does not determine that there is sufficient evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the guilt of the defendant in respect of the criminal charge, then the court shall pronounce acquittal of the defendant in respect of that criminal charge."


Nevertheless, I'm still very much looking forward to Vixen producing proper, appropriate evidence to support her contention that "in Italy, the vast majority of acquittals are under Art 530, para 1 : 'not guilty'" (and that therefore only a relatively tiny minority of acquittals are under 530.2). How's the production of that evidence coming along, Vixen.......?

I can only point you to what my own research found - albeit limited.

The only Art 530, 2 acquittals I could discover were all political ones, namely Berlusconi, Andreotti and semi-civil war terrorists (Italian) who faced charges similar in nature to the UK's /IRA Guildford Four, or the Birmingham Six. Although they were proven members of a radical/revolutionary/far right group, it was not possible to prove they were the specific individual who planted the bomb/committed the terrorist act. Rather than acquit with a clean sheet, 'not guilty' 530,1, the courts qualified their acquittal by quoting Article 530,2 instead - 'insufficient evidence'.

The conclusion has to be the 'anachronistic' 530,2 is used as a get-out clause for those high up in government (favour for friends) or where the defendant/s is/are anti-establishment political agitators and the courts are reluctant to provide an unequivocal, 'not guilty'.

Bongiorno was in Berlusconi's cabinet and represented Andreotti at his trial, getting him off on Art 530 para 2, so I dare say she suggested this to Marasca during her in camera appeal over two and a half days.

In effect, she begged it to use the archaic get out of jail card used by smarmy politicians to evade justice and apply it to the kids, even though the merits courts and second instance court upheld the conviction for aggravated murder. (cf Andreotti who at least had been found 'not guilty' at the first instnace court.)


We know the acquittal was most irregular as it took everybody by surprise.
__________________
"Let's roll!"

~ Todd Beamer
Flight 93, 9/11
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th April 2017, 04:45 PM   #80
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Old Blighty
Posts: 10,604
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
"Even if" is just a figure of speech. A typo.
You got it! <sfx "chicken in a backpack" scouse accent warm up> your learning, you're learning.
__________________
"Let's roll!"

~ Todd Beamer
Flight 93, 9/11
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:13 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.