Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[lonepinealex]

-


-

I just don't see how you could use the word "frame" in the context that it only applies when it's done against a knowingly innocent person?

In my opinion, you can frame someone who is innocent or guilty. It doesn't matter, because if someone was knowingly innocent, where exactly did that knowledge come from?

In short, when someone (or many ones) create false evidence to help imply that someone is guilty, that's a frame-up. I don't care whether the person is guilty or innocent, in my opinion.

I'm not going to get into a semantic arguement over this, because it's ridiculous and a waste of time.

Personally, if anything suggest a frame, it's the knife, but again that's just my opinion,

d

-

I agree with your definitions. My argument is not one of semantics, but timing. I do not agree with the assertion that Amanda and Raffaele were framed from day one. I do believe that the evidence the police and Stefanoni were forced to "find" weeks later constitutes framing.

I just don't buy that anyone pinned the crime on Amanda on day one in order to protect Guede.

 

[Grinder]

-


-

Thank you Chris. I agree except I would still use the word "frame" instead of "fitting up", but that's just me.

I also agree with your arguement about "contamination", unless you could prove the contamination was deliberate and although the collection and handling of the bra-clasp, and ignoring the other individual samples found on it, suggest it might have been deliberate, there's not enough good evidence to prove it absolutely, in my opinion,

d

-

But you also think to jimmy a door means to prop it open.

I have looked and frame a person or frame up a person is associated with a false charge and innocence.

And it isn't just semantics or should I say semantics isn't a just. Words and phrases have meanings and that's how communication works.

Police certainly can produce false evidence or break laws in getting evidence but it is only a frame up if the people are not guilty. That doesn't make the act correct.

The PLE didn't frame them from day one but may well have falsified evidence later and may have become framers when it became clear they might well be innocent.

 

[Grinder]

By definition the innocent do not engage in suspicious behaviour, that is the province of the guilty. As I just pointed out, Raffaele was jailed in part for reporting a break in where nothing was stolen.

Samson - one hundred percent wrong. Innocent people do things that are suspicious.

But since you are saying this is a semantic issue (by definition) please find some backing.

causing one to have the idea or impression that something or someone is of questionable, dishonest, or dangerous character or condition.

Impression not fact. A person watching an arson fire may look suspicious even though they've done nothing.

 

[Grinder]

With regards to the hilite, for me I was just relating to what I would have done in the same situation. When I was young (30 years ago) and had just settled into my first house, I was the victim of a break-in. I called 911 when I arrived home and saw the front room of the house amiss (or a mess as it were), and said a few contradictory things that I still remember today. The dispatch agent asked if the perps were still in the house. I answered "yes, I mean they may be." In reality, I had walked in a few rooms before I got the phone and sat on the porch to call. The accurate answer should have been "I haven't seen any evidence that they are still here but I haven't searched everywhere."

So in retrospect I also answered a question inaccurately and I remember why I did it. In the instant that I replied I was thinking that if I imply the perps are still there, then I would get a faster response from the police. I regretted it a moment later and then down-played it. Nobody was attacked in my case but I still was an innocent victim who made an inaccurate comment to 911. So I can understand why it may happen to RS.

I believe I would be much different on a call like now. Hopefully we won't have to find out though.

And if the police were suspicious of you because the burglary turned out to be an inside job or something wouldn't that response have legitimately made them suspicious.

The key here is that in order to be suspicious to the cops it doesn't have to be a sign of guilt ultimately. No one is saying that it is inexpiable that he made the comment, and that's what I mean by supporters having an interest and a bias. They immediately explain the whys and wherefores implying the police should have seen that it meant nothing because ... fill in the blank.

I'm saying that in your case and in this case stupid mistakes become suspicious at times and that doesn't make the cops framers or idiots. I do think these cops were, in the end, pretty incompetent.

 

[Anode]

And if the police were suspicious of you because the burglary turned out to be an inside job or something wouldn't that response have legitimately made them suspicious.

The key here is that in order to be suspicious to the cops it doesn't have to be a sign of guilt ultimately. No one is saying that it is inexpiable that he made the comment, and that's what I mean by supporters having an interest and a bias. They immediately explain the whys and wherefores implying the police should have seen that it meant nothing because ... fill in the blank.

I'm saying that in your case and in this case stupid mistakes become suspicious at times and that doesn't make the cops framers or idiots. I do think these cops were, in the end, pretty incompetent.

It may well have made them suspicious.

 

[Grinder]

I agree with your definitions. My argument is not one of semantics, but timing. I do not agree with the assertion that Amanda and Raffaele were framed from day one. I do believe that the evidence the police and Stefanoni were forced to "find" weeks later constitutes framing.

I just don't buy that anyone pinned the crime on Amanda on day one in order to protect Guede.

There is no doubt that if they were "finding" evidence to convict a later date that it would be framing if they thought they were innocent or even if they weren't sure they were guilty.

May Follain has some insight as to how these conversations went. Part of the framing definitions is a conspiracy to convict an innocent, which I'm not sure existed. It is very possible for me that independent LE helped the case along but very likely because they still believed in guilt

 

[carbonjam72]

Obviously I appreciate this. I also think many of the "facts" may well be true facts.

Rudy has not been shown to be a burglar. - He may well have been a burglar
-Rudy did not steal a gold watch and burn down his neighbor's apartment. - There really is so little to base this on it can't be considered without some more information and the house wasn't burned down. A cat died. No one has even produced a newspaper story.
-Christian T did not catch Rudy in his apartment, nor did Rudy pull a knife on CT. - Someone broke into his place. He never stated he was sure it was Rudi and only fingered Rudi at all after his picture was in the paper.
-And CT did not try to report the crime to Napoleoni, nor have a bouncer toss Rudy when he saw him later at a bar. - There is nothing that would indicate he would be talking to a top cop at 6 in the morning or anytime. Where does this even come from?
-Rudy did not break into the lawyers offices using the same MO as at the cottage; rock through the window with a second story climb-up. - Maybe he did, a weekend office burglary with a balcony is quite different. His going there makes it seem maybe he just fenced the stuff
-Perugian authorities did not call Milan police to have Rudy released and sent back on the next train to Perugia, 5 days befoe Meredith was killed. -Is there anything to support that the Perugians called Milan? How did they know the Milanese had him? Why is the 5 days significant? -Rudy did not have scars from knife fights. - No one provided proof of this and it doesn't fit anything else about him - he was not described as violent by anyone
-The Perugian police did not recognize Rudy's MO at the Kercher cottage. - This is total fantasy
-Rudy was not working a confidential informant for the Perugian police. - Total fantasy
-Rudy was not given a license to commit burglaries in Perugia by virtue of his association with the police in Perugia. - total fantasy
-Rudy was not a known harasser of women who stole purses when he got drunk at clubs. - One friend of Rudi's said he when drunk or high would bother women and steal FROM their purses - not backed by others
-Rudy did not work alone as a burglar - How would that be known since he was never caught doing a burglary - the nursery wasn't a burglary IMO.


Steve Moore did not have extensive experience as a crime scene evaluator. He spent most of his time in the FBI as a pilot, sniper and anti-terrorist work according to his web site. He may have connections with LE in Italy but it isn't clear.

I totally agree with Lonepine that he should be more transparent and give a lot more about Rudi being an informant.

I wondered about Rudi's connections with PLE but nothing has come out. It is still a possibility but even if he was it would be hard to believe the PLE would frame an American girl to protect their man.

The police officer from Milan that got the call is quoted on having received it saying something like, "these things happen from time to time". Don't have the cite off hand, someone else may. But its likely from a journalist/(or whatever you call them), and therefore not within your ken.

But it is the actual words of an actual person, not unnamed sources, so I would think that's worth something, even for you.

Your suggestion that Moore's experience is not sufficient to qualify as a subject matter expert in crime scene analysis, well, it only needs to be said out loud, to be refuted.

I don't have the energy to address the other issues, nor would you accept the sources, so why bother.

 

[Desert Fox]

I agree with your definitions. My argument is not one of semantics, but timing. I do not agree with the assertion that Amanda and Raffaele were framed from day one. I do believe that the evidence the police and Stefanoni were forced to "find" weeks later constitutes framing.
I just don't buy that anyone pinned the crime on Amanda on day one in order to protect Guede.

My question if your opinion if they thought they were framing guilty or innocent suspects?

 

[Samson]

There is no doubt that if they were "finding" evidence to convict a later date that it would be framing if they thought they were innocent or even if they weren't sure they were guilty.

May Follain has some insight as to how these conversations went. Part of the framing definitions is a conspiracy to convict an innocent, which I'm not sure existed. It is very possible for me that independent LE helped the case along but very likely because they still believed in guilt

I think that there is just one puzzling physical aspect to the case, the bra clasp.
1. Raffaele's dna is on it without doubt.
2. It is near impossible that he touched it.

Yet the police both needed and expected to find his dna on it on a particular date. They knew the bra clasp was there, and had sexual implications to support the provisional charges.

Sherlock Holmes would declare it tampered with because no other explanation works. For example accidental contamination could not possibly be expected, yet Mignini's whole career was in jeopardy.

I am personally close to being satisfied he either ordered the contamination to one trusted person, or one person performed it as a personal favour.

The fact that it remains the vital piece of evidence for conviction supports the idea it was used to frame.

 

[carbonjam72]

I think that there is just one puzzling physical aspect to the case, the bra clasp.
1. Raffaele's dna is on it without doubt.
2. It is near impossible that he touched it.

Yet the police both needed and expected to find his dna on it on a particular date. They knew the bra clasp was there, and had sexual implications to support the provisional charges.

Sherlock Holmes would declare it tampered with because no other explanation works. For example accidental contamination could not possibly be expected, yet Mignini's whole career was in jeopardy.
I am personally close to being satisfied he either ordered the contamination to one trusted person, or one person performed it as a personal favour.

The fact that it remains the vital piece of evidence for conviction supports the idea it was used to frame.

Same goes for the knife. And the fact that Stef is still hiding the data in all fairness should negate the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Samson]

Same goes for the knife. And the fact that Stef is still hiding the data in all fairness should negate the benefit of the doubt.

The difference with the knife is that it is not definitive enough for tampering, it is fuzzy evidence with slight lab contamination being plausible, but tampering certainly can't be ruled out.
My point on the bra hook is that there is no other explanation that quite covers the bases. The door handle secondary contact is better explained by others, but it does not solve the necessity dilemma. It was necessary to find the dna on the hook or they had to release him IMO. Thus accidental contamination is neither likely, nor to have be expected.

 

[carbonjam72]

The difference with the knife is that it is not definitive enough for tampering, it is fuzzy evidence with slight lab contamination being plausible, but tampering certainly can't be ruled out.
My point on the bra hook is that there is no other explanation that quite covers the bases. The door handle secondary contact is better explained by others, but it does not solve the necessity dilemma. It was necessary to find the dna on the hook or they had to release him IMO. Thus accidental contamination is neither likely, nor to have be expected.

I agree with you on the bra clasp, which is why I don't believe it was contamination from the door handle, even though Dr Peter Gill and others have said that is a plausible explanation, i.e. reasonable doubt.

In addition the context of the finding of Raf's DNA is that it is a trace sample ( a few skin cells), and the presence of 2 to 4 other males on it. But more importantly, no other cooperating physical evidence, such as the fact that there are only footsteps made in blood by one person, definitively established to be Rudy Guede. So, no other perps were in the room while Meredith's blood was wet.

But the knife is every bit as doubtful. They needed to find that too, and they did. The lab work was just as shoddy, just as concealed, just as unreliable, and just as corrupted. I don't believe these are honest mistakes. Neither do I believe these are intentional plants. Rather, I believe these are 'intentional contaminations' by Steph in the lab.

Every element of the case, is an amateur magic show show; from evidence, to witnesses, to allegations and conjectures, to the judges' opinions. Not one part of these convictions isn't phony.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I agree with your definitions. My argument is not one of semantics, but timing. I do not agree with the assertion that Amanda and Raffaele were framed from day one. I do believe that the evidence the police and Stefanoni were forced to "find" weeks later constitutes framing.

I just don't buy that anyone pinned the crime on Amanda on day one in order to protect Guede.

-

I agree. Naturally the police will be suspicious of everybody in the beginning, but when they kept interviewing them night after night, I'd say after the second interview, you could argue that she was a suspect by then,

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

Wrong person g

-

But you also think to jimmy a door means to prop it open. I have looked and frame a person or frame up a person is associated with a false charge and innocence.

And it isn't just semantics or should I say semantics isn't a just. Words and phrases have meanings and that's how communication works.

Police certainly can produce false evidence or break laws in getting evidence but it is only a frame up if the people are not guilty. That doesn't make the act correct.

The PLE didn't frame them from day one but may well have falsified evidence later and may have become framers when it became clear they might well be innocent.

-

I don't remember saying jimmy was to "prop something open", I believe I argued that it meant "to jimmy a window or door," or "force a window or door open with a crowbar or something similar".

As far as "framing" is concerned, whatever you think it is, is fine with me.

I still stand by my statement. It was after all an opinion, not a fact,

d

-

 

[Samson]

-


-

I don't remember saying jimmy was to "prop something open", I believe I argued that it meant "to jimmy a window or door," or force a window or door open with a crowbar or something similar.

As far as "framing" is concerned, whatever you think it is, is fine with me.

I still stand by my statement. It was after all an opinion, not a fact,

d

-

The problem is the inadequacy of the word.
I believe the thread has isolated three ideas.
1.Framing.
2.Noble cause corruption
3. Evidence tampering.

3 is needed for 1 and 2,
2 can exist with a guilty or innocent party, but the intention differs from 1, which seems best reserved for the known innocent.

On reflection, the Italians involved in this case are so stupid it probably was 2 except for Mignini, who must have known Raffaele was innocent when his footprints were discarded, because continued belief in guilt would sit unhappily alongside the IQ required to pass law exams and become a prosecutor.

If there is a hell I hope he is preparing for admission.

 

[Desert Fox]

The problem is the inadequacy of the word.
I believe the thread has isolated three ideas.
1.Framing.
2.Noble cause corruption
3. Evidence tampering.

3 is needed for 1 and 2,
2 can exist with a guilty or innocent party, but the intention differs from 1, which seems best reserved for the known innocent. On reflection, the Italians involved in this case are so stupid it probably was 2 except for Mignini, who must have known Raffaele was innocent when his footprints were discarded, because continued belief in guilt would sit unhappily alongside the IQ required to pass law exams and become a prosecutor.

If there is a hell I hope he is preparing for admission.

We do not absolutely know that Amanda and Raff are innocent. We can argue it is incredibly unlikely but we will never know for sure.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

The problem is the inadequacy of the word.
I believe the thread has isolated three ideas.
1.Framing.
2.Noble cause corruption
3. Evidence tampering.

3 is needed for 1 and 2,
2 can exist with a guilty or innocent party, but the intention differs from 1, which seems best reserved for the known innocent.

On reflection, the Italians involved in this case are so stupid it probably was 2 except for Mignini, who must have known Raffaele was innocent when his footprints were discarded, because continued belief in guilt would sit unhappily alongside the IQ required to pass law exams and become a prosecutor.

If there is a hell I hope he is preparing for admission.

-

Number 3 is the one I first think of when I hear the word frame or framing. An interesting aside with number three is that it also includes direct evidence such as Rudy's eyewitness (letter) testimony. He would know better than anyone whether he was really framing Raffaele and Amanda or not.

I believe he is,

d

-

 

[carbonjam72]

We do not absolutely know that Amanda and Raff are innocent. We can argue it is incredibly unlikely but we will never know for sure.

There is no evidence of anyone but Rudy Guede in the room where Meredith was killed, while her blood was wet. Meredith's blood is the equivalent of a photographic medium in capturing the physical presence of anyone present who came into contact with it, or interfered with its trajectory in leaving her body. The presence of one person, and one person only, is documented in that medium.

Yes, we do know that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, as is everyone else in the world But Rudy Guede. It's disproven to suggest any other possibility. There is no reason to point a finger at Amanda and Raf, anymore than anyone else in the vicinity. It is a lie, and its long past time to stop suggesting it may be otherwise.

 

[RWVBWL]

7-11?

They knew each other. Besides his party night with the cottage gang he stopped by Le Chic a couple of times to say hello. Have you been introduced to your 7-11 clerk and then gone to a party in small, small living room? Has the 7-11 clerk stopped by your work place a couple of times to say hello?

Now this is just too funny!
maybe because I worked as a 7-11 clerk before,
waaay back in the '80's, savin' enough so I could spend the winter surfin' on the North Shore of Oahu in Hawaii.

Heck that 7-11,
it's still there on Lincoln+Palms in Venice, Calif.,
I drove by it about 1/2 an hour ago.

After reading The Grinder's quote,
I recall that time of my life as 1 of being a young good lookin' dude who also blazed lotsa fatty's back then, yet I find it odd that I never had anyone offer to bring me back to their pad to smoke out. I never stopped by their houses either.

Maybe because pot was illegal then,
you hadta be careful, no need to talk about illegal drug use with strangers
who were just shopping for necessities at their local convenience store.

Weird though,
I would always smoke out,
all the time, with like minded people like me, surfers.

Ain't pot ilegal in Italy?
I seem to recall Amanda's landlord+housemate Filomena
state in court that she sinned,
once...


Let's look at Rudy.
No job, few friends,
hangin' out with foreigners on Halloween.
Smokin' out with dudes he was playin' hoops with,
dudes he knew he could trust to blaze spliffs with,
dudes who liked runnin' + dunkin'.
Not some 7-11 clerk.

Rudy didn't even smoke out with the clerks
who sold the chonies at Bubbles.
Nor that ****** at the kabob joint that made him a meal that gave him the *****.
Hahaha...


Rudy apparently only stopped by Le Chic
a few times and when he saw no chicks, probably bailed the scene.
I seem to recall readin, maybe it was in Amanda's book "Waiting To Be Heard",
that it was usually just Lumumba's friends hangin' around. No chicks, outta there...

Weird how Rudy never invited Amanda out when he did see her there a coupla times at Le Chic though, nor even asked for her phone #, like he did with the Spanish Erasmus Students so he could hang out with them on Halloween. Must notta liked her too much. I wonder if he even knew that Amanda had a new dude, a Harry Potter look-alike boyfriend. Probably not...

Why didn't Rudy,
a local, hang out with his bro's on Halloween?
I always do, even when headin' out, all dressed in costume, to party.

Were all Rudy's friends outta town as it was an Italian Holiday starting?
Just wonderin'...
L8, RW

 

[anglolawyer]

You have 7-11 clerks? Do they do your filing?