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

Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with you there. I don't see it either.

The rest of it is just you being stubborn. I can be stubborn too, and even though you can only see the "technically correct" side, I can understand totally where you are coming from, but I still stand by my opinion.

We'll just have to agree to disagree here,

Not sure what your opinion is but I don't see why adhering to the definition of a word is either "technically correct" in some pejorative way or me being stubborn.

If people assign definitions to words at will, language loses it's meanings.

At least find a definition of frame that fits your opinion. While your at it explain why using framing someone for both guilty and innocent people is helpful.
 
The Austin-Chronicle's Jordan Smith wrote, "If Houston police did indeed corrupt the process, it may be quite difficult to determine whether Hughes is guilty or innocent. According to the New York-based Innocence Project, government misconduct is a leading cause of wrongful convictions. Equally problematic is when otherwise well-meaning police attempt, in effect, to "frame the guilty" – or those they believe to be guilty – thereby tainting legitimate evidence of guilt. In those circumstances, how can the system determine who should be punished – or in capital cases, deserve to die?"

Thanks for proving my point. The quotations and the term in effect make it clear that framing is not for the guilty. They also add the term or "those they think are guilty", which is what the IP care about.

Is that what you found with a google of "frame the guilty" :p
 
Once more the Tjmk posters are offering valuable material. This fleshes out the list that Amanda prepared before Raffaele "withdrew" her alibi.

Annotation By Rita Ficarra

On 6 November 2007, at 20.00, in the offices of the Flying Squad of the Questura of Perugia. The undersigned Officer of P.G. [Attorney General], Chief Inspector of the State Police FICARRA Rita, notes that, as part of the investigation of the murder of British citizen Meredith KERCHER,

On the night of November 5th c.a. [current year], at approximately 23.00, while in the Offices of the Questura of Perugia, along with Amanda KNOX, waiting for the same to be heard in regard to the fact for which we are proceeding,

Learned, informally. news related to some male subjects who certainly knew MEREDITH and of whom Amanda gave indications on their respective residences—drawing roads and landmarks in her notebook – as well as their mobile phone numbers.

The same [Amanda] extracted these phone numbers from her mobile phone contacts and copied them on a piece of paper torn from her notebook and handed it to the undersigned.

The subjects indicated by Amanda were described as being:

PJ – Peter, a Swiss young man of Swiss nationality who certainly frequented Meredith and who would have surely been several times to their home; this young man dwelled in Via della Pergola, precisely in front of the “Contrappunto” club and close to the stairs and parking lot; mobile phone: 338719523;

Patrik, owner of the pub “Le chic” where [the same] Amanda works. He too certainly knew Meredith. She was not able to provide an address but indicated that she had often seen him near the “rotonda [roundabout] of Porta Pesa, next to the Laundromat. Mobile phone number: 3387972380

Ardak, North African citizen of whom she gave no other indications other than his mobile phone: 3387972380;

Yuve, Algerian citizen who occasionally worked at “Le Chic” and would have dwelled in Via del Roscetto (near the residence of Sophie) phone; 3203758112

Spyros, young man of Greek nationality of whom Amanda does not give any indications other than the mobile phone: 3293473230

Shaky, Moroccan citizen who would have been working in a “pizzeria” and who frequented the pubs and discotheques frequented by Meredith’s group of friends with whom they met at the pub or discotheque, friend of Sophie;

Lastly she informed of another South African young man, black, short, who plays basketball in the Piazza Grimana court, who would have, in one occasion, frequented the house.

This is the most puzzling aspect of these people. Clearly an innocent Amanda will furnish all information to help the police solve the crime.

I can see no plausible explanation why a guilty Amanda will uniquely identify the witness to her crime in such a brazen fashion and the several times they have posted this, with increasing detail, they do not address this anomaly. I am totally perplexed. Maybe Grinder can suggest how a guilty Amanda could see it as strategically useful to point to Guede. This is a genuine not facetious query I make.
Broadly, I think this document proves Amanda's innocence.
Am I wrong?
 
Whatever g

-

Not sure what your opinion is but I don't see why adhering to the definition of a word is either "technically correct" in some pejorative way or me being stubborn.

If people assign definitions to words at will, language loses it's meanings.
At least find a definition of frame that fits your opinion. While your at it explain why using framing someone for both guilty and innocent people is helpful.
-

I understand your "lost meaning" arguement. It's a valid one. My opinion is that you can "frame" (my definition: to frame, v, to do what you would do to an innocent person, i.e. falsify evidence) an innocent person or a guilty person, because then you are just "framing" him according to my definition. To frame someone like you would an innocent person.

Stupid arguement I know, but I can't explain it to you correctly, because you have your "technically correct" eyeglasses on, and I don't know how to reach across that ditch you've built up around yourself.

God knows what's in that ditch.

But hey, I still love you g, and that means you're still ok in my book. Just loosen up every once in a while, will ya? I've read your stuff when you're like loose and you're much better at getting your point across then most of the other times, but that's just my opinion,

d

ETA: hopefully I didn't offend you, that was not my intent buddy
-
 
I can see no plausible explanation why a guilty Amanda will uniquely identify the witness to her crime in such a brazen fashion and the several times they have posted this, with increasing detail, they do not address this anomaly. I am totally perplexed. Maybe Grinder can suggest how a guilty Amanda could see it as strategically useful to point to Guede. This is a genuine not facetious query I make.
Broadly, I think this document proves Amanda's innocence.
Am I wrong?

Actually it has always been my opinion that she would have named Rudi if they had left his evidence in order to frame him. (Just kidding can't frame a guilty person :p).

I don't particularly like this drill but if she were guilty and had left Rudi's evidence why wouldn't she point the cops in the right direction? Then when he was caught and fingered her and Raf she would say that she named him and ask why she would have done that?

The big question for the PGP is why she would imagine Patrick if she knew it was Rudi and his evidence would surely be found. Obviously the cops wanted Patrick and that's where that came from.

I don't see why the document would prove her innocence.
 
Amy - I've decided that eye-witness testimony should be circumstantial instead of direct evidence. The reason is that much eye-witness testimony is erroneous therefore I'll be calling it circumstantial and much circumstantial evidence is very precise and therefore I'll call it direct evidence.

See the problem?
 
the why vs. the act itself

-

Amy - I've decided that eye-witness testimony should be circumstantial instead of direct evidence. The reason is that much eye-witness testimony is erroneous therefore I'll be calling it circumstantial and much circumstantial evidence is very precise and therefore I'll call it direct evidence.

See the problem?
-

I think the problem is that you look at the why of it and I just look at the act itself. The act of the frame. If you use false DNA evidence to frame someone who is innocent, and then use the same technique to get a guilty person, you say it is no longer a frame because of the why of it.

I see an act similar to what you would do in either case. The "act of the frame".

If nothing else, the act is "frame like", or as I like to say, "to frame like you would an innocent person."

But as always, that's just my opinion,

d

-
 
Originally Posted by Grinder
Not sure what your opinion is but I don't see why adhering to the definition of a word is either "technically correct" in some pejorative way or me being stubborn.

If people assign definitions to words at will, language loses it's meanings.
At least find a definition of frame that fits your opinion. While your at it explain why using framing someone for both guilty and innocent people is helpful.

Followed closely by...

Amy - I've decided that eye-witness testimony should be circumstantial instead of direct evidence. The reason is that much eye-witness testimony is erroneous therefore I'll be calling it circumstantial and much circumstantial evidence is very precise and therefore I'll call it direct evidence.

See the problem?

Oh, I do see it now. :boggled:
 
If I write "I think the suspect is guilty but I think the police framed him/her," what I wrote is perfectly clear. If the language I use has clarity, I do not see what the real issue is.

The reason why I do not like the term theory is because it lacks clarity. Theory in layman's terms means an educated guess. The term theory in scientific circles means something backs up by a large body of scientific evidence.
 
Hopefully...

-

Amy - I've decided that eye-witness testimony should be circumstantial instead of direct evidence. The reason is that much eye-witness testimony is erroneous therefore I'll be calling it circumstantial and much circumstantial evidence is very precise and therefore I'll call it direct evidence.

See the problem?
-

I understand your eye-witness testimony arguement, and I tend to believe it should only be the witnessing of the act that should be direct, but I do agree that the actual identifying evidence of a suspect should be circumstantial, unless the witness knows the suspect very well, and that she wasn't blind at the time of the witnessing. Just my opinion here, and hopefully we're not going to argue about that...

Hopefully,

d

-
 
Actually it has always been my opinion that she would have named Rudi if they had left his evidence in order to frame him. (Just kidding can't frame a guilty person :p).

I don't particularly like this drill but if she were guilty and had left Rudi's evidence why wouldn't she point the cops in the right direction? Then when he was caught and fingered her and Raf she would say that she named him and ask why she would have done that?

The big question for the PGP is why she would imagine Patrick if she knew it was Rudi and his evidence would surely be found. Obviously the cops wanted Patrick and that's where that came from.

I don't see why the document would prove her innocence.
Who says a guilty Amanda assumes he is going to be caught? By identifying him she makes this extremely likely, and she is done like a dinner. By withholding the information she is progressing her perfect crime.
As a juror I would find her not guilty because no guilty party will volunteer the identity of the key witness.
I regard this drill as a pivotal component in taking to the masses a proof of innocence.
 
The "act of the frame"...

-

If I write "I think the suspect is guilty but I think the police framed him/her," what I wrote is perfectly clear. If the language I use has clarity, I do not see what the real issue is.

The reason why I do not like the term theory is because it lacks clarity. Theory in layman's terms means an educated guess. The term theory in scientific circles means something backs up by a large body of scientific evidence.
-

Sorry DF, I might have overused the "theory" word a little much, but the "theory" word has more kick than "hypothesis" which is probably the technically correct term. I'll try to do better, but don't expect miracles here. Please.

As far as your first sentence, I understood exactly what you meant. You're looking at the act itself instead of the why behind it.

The "act of the frame" is what we're referring to and not whether the suspect is innocent or not.

Correct me if I'm wrong DF,

d

-
 
I think the problem is that you look at the why of it and I just look at the act itself. The act of the frame. If you use false DNA evidence to frame someone who is innocent, and then use the same technique to get a guilty person, you say it is no longer a frame because of the why of it.

The definition of frame is falsely convict an innocent person. The act of falsifying evidence might be the exactly same with a guilty person but it is not framing because in order to frame by definition the person must be guilty.

If the police were trying to frame someone but it turned out they really were guilty then it would no longer be a frame.

As I tried to point out if you use frame as any cooked evidence against someone guilty or innocent you have changed the meaning. If I were to refer to circumstantial evidence as direct evidence then it loses its meaning unless I tell you what I mean every time.

If now you write "the cops framed this guy in my hometown" I would have no idea if he was guilty or innocent. If you read a story about a case and in it it is said "the police framed him", what would that mean to you?

If you would accept the technical definition, you would know that he was innocent.
 
carbonjam72 said:
Originally Posted by Grinder
Not sure what your opinion is but I don't see why adhering to the definition of a word is either "technically correct" in some pejorative way or me being stubborn.

If people assign definitions to words at will, language loses it's meanings.
At least find a definition of frame that fits your opinion. While your at it explain why using framing someone for both guilty and innocent people is helpful.

Followed closely by...

Amy - I've decided that eye-witness testimony should be circumstantial instead of direct evidence. The reason is that much eye-witness testimony is erroneous therefore I'll be calling it circumstantial and much circumstantial evidence is very precise and therefore I'll call it direct evidence.

See the problem?

Oh, I do see it now. :boggled:

Sorry that wasn't clear to you. The point is that changing definitions makes communication very difficult. I made a case for why circumstantial should be direct in order to follow the pattern of those here that wish to change the def. of framing.

To be clear, I'm not changing how I use the terms even though circumstantial evidence is often the best. The terms are defined and should be used as defined. I have suggested adding hard and soft to circumstantial to separate fingerprints from pizza eating or thong shopping.
 
Once more the Tjmk posters are offering valuable material. This fleshes out the list that Amanda prepared before Raffaele "withdrew" her alibi.

Annotation By Rita Ficarra

On 6 November 2007, at 20.00, in the offices of the Flying Squad of the Questura of Perugia. The undersigned Officer of P.G. [Attorney General], Chief Inspector of the State Police FICARRA Rita, notes that, as part of the investigation of the murder of British citizen Meredith KERCHER,

On the night of November 5th c.a. [current year], at approximately 23.00, while in the Offices of the Questura of Perugia, along with Amanda KNOX, waiting for the same to be heard in regard to the fact for which we are proceeding,

...



This document is dated November 6. So, what happened to the original document, the one Rita testified that she was writing after moving Amanda into the interrogation room?
 
The definition of frame is falsely convict an innocent person. The act of falsifying evidence might be the exactly same with a guilty person but it is not framing because in order to frame by definition the person must be guilty.

If the police were trying to frame someone but it turned out they really were guilty then it would no longer be a frame.

As I tried to point out if you use frame as any cooked evidence against someone guilty or innocent you have changed the meaning. If I were to refer to circumstantial evidence as direct evidence then it loses its meaning unless I tell you what I mean every time.

If now you write "the cops framed this guy in my hometown" I would have no idea if he was guilty or innocent. If you read a story about a case and in it it is said "the police framed him", what would that mean to you? If you would accept the technical definition, you would know that he was innocent.
-

To me it would mean they did an act (falsify evidence etc.) that was "frame like", besides I would automatically think the person was innocent anyway, so in that, you do make sense.

And by the way, I never argued you didn't make sense, it's just that my perception of it is different than yours is all,

d

-
 
Sorry DF, I might have overused the "theory" word a little much, but the "theory" word has more kick than "hypothesis" which is probably the technically correct term. I'll try to do better, but don't expect miracles here. Please.

As far as your first sentence, I understood exactly what you meant. You're looking at the act itself instead of the why behind it.

The "act of the frame" is what we're referring to and not whether the suspect is innocent or not.

Correct me if I'm wrong DF,

I catch myself using the word theory and try to use a different word unless I am specifically referring to a scientific theory.

Otherwise, I think we are in agreement. For example, I think Dr. Crippen may have murdered his wife but I think the evidence against him was a frame up.
 
Who says a guilty Amanda assumes he is going to be caught? By identifying him she makes this extremely likely, and she is done like a dinner. By withholding the information she is progressing her perfect crime.
As a juror I would find her not guilty because no guilty party will volunteer the identity of the key witness.
I regard this drill as a pivotal component in taking to the masses a proof of innocence.

Why did they leave his evidence behind if they didn't want him caught?

Remember the poo? You think the bloody print on the mat is Rudi's, right?

She named them all but Rudi and the prosecution would point that out.

As a juror I couldn't draw any conclusions from her interview with Ficarro.
 
If I write "I think the suspect is guilty but I think the police framed him/her," what I wrote is perfectly clear. If the language I use has clarity, I do not see what the real issue is.

The reason why I do not like the term theory is because it lacks clarity. Theory in layman's terms means an educated guess. The term theory in scientific circles means something backs up by a large body of scientific evidence.

I would think you were uneducated and misused the word frame. I would suggest you rephrase the sentence to read that while guilty the police used unethical means to convict.

Of course you had to say he was guilty even to make it work in the example.

If you just wrote he was framed, the vast majority of people would think the perp innocent.
 
I catch myself using the word theory and try to use a different word unless I am specifically referring to a scientific theory.

Otherwise, I think we are in agreement. For example, I think Dr. Crippen may have murdered his wife but I think the evidence against him was a frame up.
The difference between want and need.
Normally police want further evidence to bolster their case, but their careers are independent of this want.

Mignini more than wanted something like the bra clasp evidence, he needed it to keep his career viable. Given the astronomical odds against this, and as the Machine likes to point out

Professor Novelli pointed out that there’s more likelihood of meteorite striking the courtroom in Perguia than there is of the bra clasp being contaminated by dust.

This makes me believe Mignini framed Raffaele. I doubt he believed his crime theory as soon as the footprints were lost, but went into survival mode.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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