Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

It is perfectly within your rights to have an opinion and express it.

What is objectionable among skeptics is to present statements as factual when they are merely opinion and without any foundation in fact. That is, they are false claims without any factual support.

Let's get this in perspective. You demanded to know why I hadn't done it yet and I responded I had other things to do today.

I do not think your demand i trawl through a 306 page and 254 (?) page document "Now!" is a reasonable one.

 

[Numbers]

Let's get this in perspective. You demanded to know why I hadn't done it yet and I responded I had other things to do today.

I do not think your demand i trawl through a 306 page and 254 (?) page document "Now!" is a reasonable one.

But from your statement, you had already claimed to know that the Marasca CSC panel motivation report (52 pages) had been cut-and-pasted from the Bongiorno - Sollecito appeal documents (342 pages, submitted 2014; 306 pages, supplement, submitted 2015).

Apparently you have not made a comparison of the texts in order to state this "cut-and-paste" as a fact. And if you are offering it as an opinion, you are apparently doing so based on....well, based on no facts, merely your opinion or bias. This statement, then, is merely an example of prejudice. Well, you are entitled to your prejudices.

But certainly you should take your time and find some evidence to support your claim if you wish to obtain some credibility for your statement.

 

[Grinder]

But from your statement, you had already claimed to know that the Marasca CSC panel motivation report (52 pages) had been cut-and-pasted from the Bongiorno - Sollecito appeal documents (342 pages, submitted 2014; 306 pages, supplement, submitted 2015).

Apparently you have not made a comparison of the texts in order to state this "cut-and-paste" as a fact. And if you are offering it as an opinion, you are apparently doing so based on....well, based on no facts, merely your opinion or bias. This statement, then, is merely an example of prejudice. Well, you are entitled to your prejudices.

But certainly you should take your time and find some evidence to support your claim if you wish to obtain some credibility for your statement.

What you write is true but it is also true of people you do not challenge. Vixen is doing what many here do which is to bring PG or mostly PI POV over here, but they really don't have the facts. They are just repeating talking points.

By and large I have little faith in anything Vixen says. But others just make stuff up or repeat memes from their side and I think you and others should be more even in criticizing.

 

[Strozzi]

Profazio, great! By tomorrow he will be hawking photographs he took at the crime scene to the British tabloids.

The Telegraph article says police led by Profazio are looking at the murdered American's computer and also at videos taken in the neighborhood around the time of the murder.

Here are some words of advice for Profazio: Don't let your techs fry the victim's computer or her Italian boyfriend's computer. Also, remember the lesson you flunked last time. Collect and save all the videos from the neighborhood as they show who passed by and also who did NOT pass by. (Remember - you can sell some of the videos to the British tabloids and augment your income that way.)

 

[Numbers]

What you write is true but it is also true of people you do not challenge. Vixen is doing what many here do which is to bring PG or mostly PI POV over here, but they really don't have the facts. They are just repeating talking points.

By and large I have little faith in anything Vixen says. But others just make stuff up or repeat memes from their side and I think you and others should be more even in criticizing.

You may be better at identifying any non-factual posts than I can be, because you have been following this case much longer than I have been.

I have only become knowledgeable about some of the details of the case, for example some aspects of Italian procedural law and ECHR case-law, and some elements of the forensics, so I may may not always recognize statements as opinions rather than facts. You are, I believe, better prepared to question on many details.

I was aware of the great length of Sollecito's appeals to CSC compared to the relatively short length of the Marasca CSC panel MR so I was curious about the alleged cut-and-paste aspects. Also, I have read the second (supplement) appeal in its idiomatic English translation (it's on amandaknoxcase.com), and some rather small parts of the first in Google translation, so I can say my opinion is that there is considerable difference between the way the appeals lay out issues, and the much wider extent of issues covered, compared to the Marasca CSC panel MR. So I hoped to find out more about the alleged cut-and-paste.

 

[Mike1711]

You really have no clue. We were discussing appeals including the supreme court and you made some claim about hearings being different.

But you also made some remark about no sane system would have time limits and if there are time limits it is a sign of authoritarian rule or dictatorship. Maybe I'll go back and put together your screed on this.

Oh here's a couple -




Do you understand the hearings being discussed are part of an appeal trial and that it was you that brought in semantics?

For now I'll paste in rules from your chief legal area of knowledge from what you have written here.

RULES REGULATING THE CONDUCT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

[*]Oral argument
[*]14.
[*][Time limits]
[*](1) If a matter has been set down for one day, subject to the presiding judge's directions, the time for argument shall not exceed -
[*](a) two hours for the applicant or appellant's main argument;
[*](b) two hours for the argument in answer; and
[*](c) a quarter of an hour for the argument in reply.
[*][Language]
[*](2) If a party intends to argue a matter in an official language which differs from that in which the heads of argument are drawn, the party shall inform the registrar accordingly in writing at least three weeks before the hearing of the matter.
​

Do I understand correctly this describes an appeal to the SA Supreme Court of Appeal and there are time limits at the hearing which is part of the trial?

These are not cast in stone. Watch the Oscar case if you want proof (counsel for defense argued for about 80% of the time). There is no time kept (stop watch) and lawyers try to stay within times because appeals are generally set down for one day. If the case is complex questioning by Judges alone can move the case to adjournment.

However the argument has strayed.

The argument is this.

Vixen contended that the B/M were in trouble for allowing the defence "excessive" time. They are not and its up to the court to allow whoever they want to argue for as much time as they see fit. If this were not the case how can justice be served? ......and if I'm wrong why are adjournments often necessary. Each case is its own entity and is treated as such by Judges.

....oh!

....you forgot to post this part of the rules....

Powers of the President or the Court
11.
[Powers]
(1) The President or the Court may -
(a) mero motu * or on application, extend or reduce any time period prescribed in these rules and may condone non-compliance with these rules;

* mero motu - of his own accord , without request or prompting.

Clear? Can we now leave this aside.

The B/M court were entitled to allow extended times at their discretion.

 

[Bill Williams]

These are not cast in stone. Watch the Oscar case if you want proof (counsel for defense argued for about 80% of the time). There is no time kept (stop watch) and lawyers try to stay within times because appeals are generally set down for one day. If the case is complex questioning by Judges alone can move the case to adjournment.

However the argument has strayed. The argument is this. Vixen contended that the B/M were in trouble for allowing the defence "excessive" time. They are not and its up to the court to allow whoever they want to argue for as much time as they see fit. If this were not the case how can justice be served? ......and if I'm wrong why are adjournments often necessary. Each case is its own entity and is treated as such by Judges.

....oh!

....you forgot to post this part of the rules....

Powers of the President or the Court
11.
[Powers]
(1) The President or the Court may -
(a) mero motu * or on application, extend or reduce any time period prescribed in these rules and may condone non-compliance with these rules;

* mero motu - of his own accord , without request or prompting.

Clear? Can we now leave this aside.

The B/M court were entitled to allow extended times at their discretion.

This whole thing has been topic drift - it has allowed Vixen off the hook for making a ridiculous claim. Vixen called the amont of time Avv. Bongiorno had as, "monstrous".

 

[Mike1711]

This whole thing has been topic drift - it has allowed Vixen off the hook for making a ridiculous claim. Vixen called the amont of time Avv. Bongiorno had as, "monstrous".

Exactly, the argument has strayed to a sideshow of ego.

Incidentally the power bestowed upon the President is also more recently bestowed upon the court.

 

[LondonJohn]

Exactly, the argument has strayed to a sideshow of ego.

Incidentally the power bestowed upon the President is also more recently bestowed upon the court.

True.

And I'd reinforce the point that the court must have the powers to set (and curtail) oral argument times, since otherwise there would be a very real chance of filibustering, proselytising, or sheer interminability. And that could have a very real impact upon court schedules, and thus upon the efficiency and fairness of the delivery of justice itself.

In the case of the appeal before Marasca's panel, it's blatantly clear that the parties with the biggest stake in the appeal were Knox and Sollecito. What's more, clearly an appeal court must be particularly careful about considering defendants' appeals against findings of guilt, since the ramifications for the defendants are potentially so high. So it ought to come as no surprise whatsoever (let alone phony accusations of bias) that lawyers for the defendants were given significantly more time than lawyers for the state.

And lastly, as others have also pointed out, to make any sort of causal comparison between "time allowed for oral argument before the court" and "probability of making the court favourable to your position" is of course hopelessly simplistic and wrong. In this instance, it's perfectly reasonable to suppose that Marasca's panel - having read all the case files, court papers, previous motivational reports and written appeal submissions - felt they needed and wanted to hear a lot more about the defence's position. To suggest that this is somehow necessarily unjust (or even corrupt!) is ridiculous.

 

[Grinder]

These are not cast in stone. Watch the Oscar case if you want proof (counsel for defense argued for about 80% of the time). There is no time kept (stop watch) and lawyers try to stay within times because appeals are generally set down for one day. If the case is complex questioning by Judges alone can move the case to adjournment.

I don't believe anyone said they were cast in stone or iron or even aluminum. I have given sources for time limits at both the US SC and SA SC.

Vixen contended that the B/M were in trouble for allowing the defence "excessive" time. They are not and its up to the court to allow whoever they want to argue for as much time as they see fit. If this were not the case how can justice be served? ......and if I'm wrong why are adjournments often necessary. Each case is its own entity and is treated as such by Judges.

I'm not really interested in what Vixen said exactly. She seemed to say M&B were wrong to give Bongornio extra time. She was also implying it was part of the fix. I don't think B making more Roger Rabbit analogies or whatever she chose for the SC made one iota of difference.

It is common to set time limits, in fact time limits are standard rules of most if not all courts' of appeal. I'm sure they are kept to the second but they are kept and some judges more strict than others.

Powers of the President or the Court
11.
[Powers]
(1) The President or the Court may -
(a) mero motu * or on application, extend or reduce any time period prescribed in these rules and may condone non-compliance with these rules;

* mero motu - of his own accord , without request or prompting.

There are time limits which you stated no sane court would have. Is that clear? You tried to say hearings didn't count but that's what they have at appeals cases. An appeal trial is made up of written statements and then oral hearings. Is that clear?

Please find a statement by me or even Vixen stating judges may not change time limits and oral presentations are not called hearings.

 

[Grinder]

This whole thing has been topic drift - it has allowed Vixen off the hook for making a ridiculous claim. Vixen called the amont of time Avv. Bongiorno had as, "monstrous".

Let Vixen off the hook? I can see PG thinking allowing her the extra time as monstrous. I asked before if the prosecution had been allowed a second day and more time than the defense and a guilty verdict had come out: What would the PIP be saying. I have no doubt PIP would be squealing.

 

[Grinder]

True.

And I'd reinforce the point that the court must have the powers to set (and curtail) oral argument times, since otherwise there would be a very real chance of filibustering, proselytising, or sheer interminability. And that could have a very real impact upon court schedules, and thus upon the efficiency and fairness of the delivery of justice itself.

In the case of the appeal before Marasca's panel, it's blatantly clear that the parties with the biggest stake in the appeal were Knox and Sollecito. What's more, clearly an appeal court must be particularly careful about considering defendants' appeals against findings of guilt, since the ramifications for the defendants are potentially so high. So it ought to come as no surprise whatsoever (let alone phony accusations of bias) that lawyers for the defendants were given significantly more time than lawyers for the state.

And lastly, as others have also pointed out, to make any sort of causal comparison between "time allowed for oral argument before the court" and "probability of making the court favourable to your position" is of course hopelessly simplistic and wrong. In this instance, it's perfectly reasonable to suppose that Marasca's panel - having read all the case files, court papers, previous motivational reports and written appeal submissions - felt they needed and wanted to hear a lot more about the defence's position. To suggest that this is somehow necessarily unjust (or even corrupt!) is ridiculous.

Generally oral arguments are for show not for dough (golf metaphor). Most every decision could be and is made from the written material alone. The SA court doesn't always have oral hearings at all. I'm not sure about the US or Italian SCs.

It is the case that in every appeal of a murder case or in fact most every criminal case the defendant has the most to lose at the point of the appeal. Unless it is viewed that the high standards prosecutors must achieve and maintain to bring justice for victims and society deserve more time to make their cases.

I personally don't believe Bongiorno's extra time helped the SC understand anything. I think they took extra time just like the ad featuring the refs discussing a call they missed; they were just making it look like it was a tough decision.

If someone has an example of a great oral argument at the SC which changed the minds of the court, please provide. I'm not saying it has never happened but I'd sure like to read the transcript. Can't be too long as they have time limits

 

[Mike1711]

Generally oral arguments are for show not for dough (golf metaphor). Most every decision could be and is made from the written material alone. The SA court doesn't always have oral hearings at all. I'm not sure about the US or Italian SCs.

It is the case that in every appeal of a murder case or in fact most every criminal case the defendant has the most to lose at the point of the appeal. Unless it is viewed that the high standards prosecutors must achieve and maintain to bring justice for victims and society deserve more time to make their cases.

I personally don't believe Bongiorno's extra time helped the SC understand anything. I think they took extra time just like the ad featuring the refs discussing a call they missed; they were just making it look like it was a tough decision.

If someone has an example of a great oral argument at the SC which changed the minds of the court, please provide. I'm not saying it has never happened but I'd sure like to read the transcript. Can't be too long as they have time limits

The highlighted part is untrue.

....also appeals in SA are always written with an oral hearing.

..."...changed the minds of the court...". Come now. The court comes from a neutral standpoint. Changing what when the only thing that exists in the courts mind is nothing? It's a blank canvas.

 

[zooterkin]

Thread is slow to load; closing and continuing in part 20.

Posted By: zooterkin