Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Numbers said:
The above extract is absolutely hilariously wrong.

Each appeal of each accused applies to the other one when there are joined cases, except for provisions that only apply to one person. In the present case, that exception would only relate to the calunnia charges against Amanda.

See CPP Article 627.5:

If any of the accused that were convicted by the annulled judgment lodges an appeal in Cassation, the annulment delivered in favour of the appellant shall also benefit the person who has not submitted the appeal in Cassation, except in the case where the reason for annulment is exclusively personal.
____
In other words, the appeal from Knox and the appeal from Sollecito were complementary, with Knox's appeal benefiting Sollecito and Sollecito's appeal benefiting Knox.

And both were acquitted as not having committed the crime of murder/rape.

ETA: And, if you believe the Marasca CSC panel motivation report was "virtually" a cut-and-paste of Bongiorno's appeal, please supply some comparison texts from each to support your claim.

Have you even read Sollecito's two appeal documents submitted to the Marasca CSC panel? They are available at:

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/motivation-reports-appeal-documents/
Click to expand...



You do recall Bongiorno calling a press conference with her boy, sartorially all in white, like Warren Beatty, ostensibly to separate Raff from Amanda, who "could not vouch for Amanda's whereabouts between 2045 and 0100, of the murder night"?

ETA I have read the 306 (?) page appeal. I thought it prolix, crackers, illogical, grasping at straws, raising legal issues that were res judicata and audacious in its attempts to seduce with Gill outwith the trial and any cross-examination.

No wonder Bruno and Marasca reads like a scrambled hire purchase agreement which they hope no-one will ever actually read. Mind-bending.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
You are being obtuse. I provided perfectly bonafide excerpts from THE TIMES in the correct context and I did say I like to read early reports - misapprehensions and all - before the scriptwriters move in. In the early days, the story was developing and changing all the time. By the time of the trial, and since, we have had a rigid "storyline" from both sides for the purpose of the trial. Your claim the Richard Owen reports were "inaccurate" is untrue, because they were accurate as of the time of writing and Owen makes clear his source is the police, so perfectly transparent reporting.

Historians and lawyers use newspaper archives all the time for research purposes. It is a respectable practice.

Bruno-Marasca directed that each party would get 20 minutes. This is factual. You were given a GUARDIAN newspaper excerpt to substantiate it, yet you still persist in making sweeping generalisations of what goes on in courts in the wider world whilst at the same time tearing strips off me for reporting an actual fact.

The judges will have read the appeals well in advance and the responses and cross-appeals.

Each party will indeed submit just prior to the hearing a skeleton argument.

When they appear they make their submission (of 20" as ordered in this case). Twenty minutes is actually quite a long time for non-stop speaking and should be perfectly adequate to get the crux of your position across.

As Numbers pointed out, the rules say they must give their verdict immediately after their deliberation, or announce a reserved judgment so they can discuss it further before deciding.

You will note that the Bruno-Marasca MR is virtually a cut and paste of Bongiorno. If I were Vedova, I would be seething, as Bongiorno having no love lost for Amanda, has got her boy off the hook almost completely, with Amanda thoroughly excoriated.

Your claim it doesn't make any difference is nonsense.

The judges have a massive workload, and frankly, they probably only read the documents once, by swift-read, and don't spend too much time deliberating either, so making an impression in your submission is crucial.
Click to expand...

Oh boy! This makes me tired.

"Your claim the Richard Owen reports were "inaccurate" is untrue, because they were accurate..." - they're not my claims. As I said.

"Historians and lawyers use newspaper archives all the time for research purposes. It is a respectable practice." - My only contention was that newspaper reports are not reliable.

"Bruno-Marasca directed that each party would get 20 minutes." - as I said. If true this must have been a guideline as proven by the "arbitrary" extension by the very Judges who "arbitrarily" imposed such restriction. Otherwise the extension could not have happened.....and it did.

"Twenty minutes is actually quite a long time for non-stop speaking and should be perfectly adequate to get the crux of your position across." - it isn't a long time and it isn't non-stop speaking. It involves Judge interaction. The Judges' interaction on its own could have exceeded 20 minutes.

"You will note that the Bruno-Marasca MR is virtually a cut and paste of Bongiorno." - which proves how sound her argument was.

"Your claim it doesn't make any difference is nonsense." - what is "it". What matters is justice. Nothing else.

"The judges have a massive workload, and frankly, they probably only read the documents once,..." - they read it enough times to understand it...no more and no less.
 
Grinder said:
It was you that tried to make a point about hearings. They are hearings at the Supreme Court level here and you were are wrong. Judges or court rules do limit times. Can times be extended? Yes they may be and obviously they did it for Bongiorno.

To review: The Supreme Court calls them hearings. They set time limits that have some flexibility depending on the judges. You have made claims about appellate hearings that were inaccurate.
Click to expand...


An appeal is a hearing but a hearing is not necessarily an appeal.

Clear?

All that swim in the sea are not fish, but all fish swim in the sea.

Clear?
 
Vixen said:
This is a more sophisticated form of logical fallacy, the use of piecemeal. Well done, you are becoming advanced!

The issue of length of time for submission is just one of many improper acts complained of by PM Mignini.
Click to expand...

Do you even know what a fallacy is? By your claim you do not.
Fallacy noun a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.

The fallacy is yours when you suggest that there was something improper in the amount that of time alloted to the Defense lawyers.
 
Vixen said:
You do recall Bongiorno calling a press conference with her boy, sartorially all in white, like Warren Beatty, ostensibly to separate Raff from Amanda, who "could not vouch for Amanda's whereabouts between 2045 and 0100, of the murder night"?

ETA I have read the 306 (?) page appeal. I thought it prolix, crackers, illogical, grasping at straws, raising legal issues that were res judicata and audacious in its attempts to seduce with Gill outwith the trial and any cross-examination.

No wonder Bruno and Marasca reads like a scrambled hire purchase agreement which they hope no-one will ever actually read. Mind-bending.
Click to expand...

Well, as you know, there were two Sollecito appeal documents.

The first one is 342 pages in Italian, the second one (the supplementary appeal) is 306 pages in Italian. And you are claiming that the Marasca CSC panel motivation report - which is 52 pages in Italian - is a cut-and-paste from Sollecito's appeals.

My request was for you to support your contention by identifying where the Marasca CSC document was identical to any parts of Sollecito's documents.

For some reason you have not done so. I assume from your failure to support your claim that it was a false claim.
 
I think that you are right, AC-by-Tesla, Vixen does not know what a Logical Fallacy is.

Since the Ancient Greeks 'til now, there are only about, what? ... ~130 or so? Each one with it's own Latin Name.

Vixen, next time you claim a logical fallacy ... PLEASE TELL US WHICH ONE.
 
Zephyrgeist said:
I think that you are right, AC-by-Tesla, Vixen does not know what a Logical Fallacy is.

Since the Ancient Greeks 'til now, there are only about, what? ... ~130 or so? Each one with it's own Latin Name.

Vixen, next time you claim a logical fallacy ... PLEASE TELL US WHICH ONE.
Click to expand...

The coin of the realm in guilterland has always been the same, from Mignini onward.

An assertion is enough. It doesn't matter that whatever it was was not a logical fallacy - it is if you can assert such!

It's the glue which holds together a prosecution case which is judicially generated.
 
acbytesla said:
Funny, I know. Under her byline for this article it says "Crime Examiner"
Click to expand...


This woman is not fit to file toilet paper, let alone news copy of any sort. She's a charlatan and a rank amateur, and - what's more - she's hopelessly and fatally compromised. Oh, and she's pig ignorant.

As just one sole example of many of her above "attributes", witness this except from her "report":

"Rudy Guede alone has been serving time in prison. He received a sentence of sixteen years, not for murder but for being an accomplice...."

I'm sure that Guede himself (and his lawyers) would be more than a little surprised to learn that Guede's conviction and sentence was "not for murder" :D. You're a joker and a fraud, Houle. Good job you write for an audience of approximately 27 people. I'm suspecting it's not a well-paid gig...........
 
Mike1711 said:
An appeal is a hearing but a hearing is not necessarily an appeal.

Clear?
Click to expand...

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 -
Mike1711 said:
There is no way that in a case involving people's lives that any sane court would not allow the defence to complete arguments. If they did this would be a basic Italian Constitutional Law contravention.
Click to expand...

Mike1711 said:
Grinder your example referred to a hearing. This is completely different. (A red hearing :-)).

In law, a hearing is a proceeding before a court or other decision-making body or officer. A hearing is generally distinguished from a trial in that it is usually shorter and often less formal.
Click to expand...

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? :rolleyes:
 
Numbers said:
Well, as you know, there were two Sollecito appeal documents.

The first one is 342 pages in Italian, the second one (the supplementary appeal) is 306 pages in Italian. And you are claiming that the Marasca CSC panel motivation report - which is 52 pages in Italian - is a cut-and-paste from Sollecito's appeals.

My request was for you to support your contention by identifying where the Marasca CSC document was identical to any parts of Sollecito's documents.

For some reason you have not done so. I assume from your failure to support your claim that it was a false claim.
Click to expand...

Numbers, I have better things to do on a Sunday than wade through pages of turgid waffle. It is the common consensus Bruno-Marasca copied and pasted Bongiorno. May as well call the judgment Bongiorno (Recorder).
 
Grinder said:
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? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Thanks for the info, Grinder.
 
Here we go again.

Police investigating mysterious death of an American woman in Italy

The case is being handled by Giacinto Profazio — the same detective who initially ran the investigation into the killing of British student Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Italy,
 
Here we go again.

Police investigating mysterious death of an American woman in Italy

The case is being handled by Giacinto Profazio — the same detective who initially ran the investigation into the killing of British student Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Italy,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom