• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Diocletus said:
Oh, I see. You re-tweeted a tweet. That changes everything.

Anyway, we're more interested in the Maresca smack down. What did Maresca say when the judge told him to file a complaint or shut his pie hole?
Click to expand...

I don't know since I wasn't there. But I know that the first of the two options will be pursued.
 
Kauffer said:
On the contrary - here is their priority policy:

http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Priority_policy_ENG.pdf
Click to expand...

please excuse me. I am sure that they have policies for acting expeditiously, just that in practice that they don't. That they have a large backlog of cases and given that no one's life is in danger, they are unlikely to step in. But if there is history proving my belief wrong, I am certainly open to admitting my nistake.
 
Numbers said:
But the priority might not be higher than III. And unless it's "urgent" (which I'm not sure even a wrongful conviction would be to ECHR) it could take an unpleasantly long time for someone in prison.
Click to expand...

I was responding to the the claim that there was little evidence the ECHR acts in an "expedited fashion". It plainly does.

Whilst I agree with you that Mr Sollecito's case is not, on the face of it, an easy fit into the most urgent categories, I would point out that the court does not exist in a vacuum and maintains awareness of matters of public concern.

Also, as per the guidance, "it remains open to a Chamber or its President to decide that an individual case should be treated differently." So, there is discretion available.
 
Last edited:
I am curious Mach. Would you say that this length of time for ISC deliberations is typical? Do court deliberations sometimes take days or even weeks?
 
Diocletus said:
I hope the Kerchers file a complaint against C&V, that would be awesome.
Click to expand...

I think Machiavelli is full of it in saying that Maresca is going to file a case against CV. It has been 3 years since they submitted their report and Maresca simply doesn't have the expertise to refute a damn thing. He just was running his mouth.
 
Let's see.

Last time:

Prosecution appealed to ISC
ISC took a long time
Prosecution won

This time:

Defense appealed to ISC
ISC took a long time
___________ won
 
Diocletus said:
Let's see.

Last time:

Prosecution appealed to ISC
ISC took a long time
Prosecution won

This time:

Defense appealed to ISC
ISC took a long time
___________ won
Click to expand...


All that tells us is the ISC has been consistent for this case. How long do they take with other cases?
 
This was one of Kristeva's tweets this morning.

Spoke to Maresca to thank him and in return he thanked our volunteer work for themurderofmeredithkercher.com #AmandaKnox
10:04am - 27 Mar 15

Ghastly little man!
 
JREF2010 said:
How does the ISC vote? Unanimous required or is it majority?
Click to expand...

Very curious on the deliberation process. I'm probably not totally right, but it seems in the previous trials there were two judges, and some lay judges. (with the latter judges probably having lower standing) . Thus deliberation was probably just the judge making the decision, and then convincing the lay judges to follow along. Thus it would be unlikely that the lay judges' opinion could outweigh the judge. Is there such a thing as a mis-trial in Italian courts, where juries cannot obtain a unanimous verdict?

In the supreme court, I can imagine there may be more of a deliberative process by members with equal standing. Thus "hold outs" in the supreme court hold more weight.

So I really wonder how the court makes it's final decision (simple majority or must it be unanimous). My little bit of web searching was unable to answer this.

=sd=
 
Last edited:
souldonut said:
Very curious on the deliberation process. I'm probably not totally right, but it seems in the previous trials there was a judge, and some lay jurors. (Thus several people on unequal standing). Thus deliberation was probably just the judge making the decision, and then convincing the lay jurors to follow along. Thus it would be unlikely that the lay jurors' opinion could outweigh the judge. Is there such a thing as a mis-trial in Italian courts, where juries cannot obtain a unanimous verdict?

In the supreme court, I can imagine there may be more of a deliberative process by members with equal standing. Thus "hold outs" in the supreme court hold more weight.

So I really wonder how the court makes it's final decision (simple majority or must it be unanimous). My little bit of web searching was unable to answer this.

=sd=
Click to expand...

I could very well be wrong, but I thought italian juries don't have to be unanimous.
 
Vogt sez:

Andrea Vogt @andreavogt · 18h 18 hours ago
In #amandaknox trial of first instance in Perugia judges deliberated from 10 a.m. to midnight. Many speculating about judicial rift.
Click to expand...
 
katy_did said:
Vogt sez:
Click to expand...

That's a dumb comparison by Vogt, though, because the first instance court was a trial court that heard lots of evidence, had jurors, etc.

We're talking about an appellate court now.

Vogt never fails to be inept.
 
Diocletus said:
That's a dumb comparison by Vogt, though, because the first instance court was a trial court that heard lots of evidence, had jurors, etc.

We're talking about an appellate court now.

Vogt never fails to be inept.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's a pretty irrelevant comparison. Speculation about a "judicial rift" is interesting, though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom