Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

Unethical activity can be using physical force to get a confession and finding evidence without a proper search warrant. It is an extremely wide net as far as the description.

 

[Grinder]

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.

Now I plan to use theory to mean whatever I want and change it at will

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution"
synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition; More
a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
"a theory of education"
an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
"my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"
​

Now show me a definition of framing that specifically says when the police fudge evidence on a guilty person.

Get something a little better than a quote the says "in effect" the same as...

Make it from a dictionary or a source normal people would use.

 

[Grinder]

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.

So by the 18th of December he knew Raf was innocent is what you're saying.

Many here are too into the monster of Florence. Why wouldn't Mignini be satisfied with Rudi?

I believe that Mignini and many of these people still believe the kids were part of the murder.

 

[AmyStrange]

Good luck with that...

-

Now I plan to use theory to mean whatever I want and change it at will

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution"
synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition; More
a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
"a theory of education"
an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
"my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"
​

Now show me a definition of framing that specifically says when the police fudge evidence on a guilty person.

Get something a little better than a quote the says "in effect" the same as...

Make it from a dictionary or a source normal people would use.

-

As long as everyone here understands what is meant by the word "frame", and from now on when I use the word frame I will add (in parenthesis), "framed like they were innocent" to clarify my use of the word "frame"; I don't understand the problem.

After all, you're the only one here, it seems, that wants us to be absolutely (100%) sure someone is innocent before we can use the word "frame". Before you try and correct us about our use of the word "frame", maybe you should have to first prove the person wasn't innocent before we have to stop using the word.

You are the only one here, it seems, who wants someone to be proven innocent before the word is used. I don't see why we can't use the word until you bring back this proof that the person isn't innocent, and then we can argue evidence instead of the correct usage of a word. What do you think g?

Like you said, "If you just wrote he was framed, the vast majority of people would think the perp innocent... "

d

-

 

[Desert Fox]

As long as everyone here understands what is meant by the word "frame", and from now on when I use the word frame I will add (in parenthesis), "framed like they were innocent" to clarify my use of the word "frame"; I don't understand the problem.

After all, you're the only one here, it seems, that wants us to be absolutely (100%) sure someone is innocent before we can use the word "frame". Before you try and correct us about our use of the word "frame", maybe you should have to first prove the person wasn't innocent before we have to stop using the word.

You are the only one here, it seems, who wants someone to be proven innocent before the word is used. I don't see why we can't use the word until you bring back this proof that the person isn't innocent, and then we can argue evidence instead of the correct usage of a word. What do you think g?

Like you said (paraphrasing), a majority of the people think someone is innocent when the word is used anyway.

While I would be willing to stake anything on Amanda and Raffaele being innocent of murder, I am not 100%. I am not 100% sure of virtually anything. therefore, Grinder has made the term "frame" an almost unusable term.

 

[Samson]

So by the 18th of December he knew Raf was innocent is what you're saying.

Many here are too into the monster of Florence. Why wouldn't Mignini be satisfied with Rudi?

I believe that Mignini and many of these people still believe the kids were part of the murder.

I admit I am testing theories rather than offering strong evidence, but for the truth to become widely understood, there should be a cogent narrative, paticularly targeting those smoke and fire afficionados who can not comprehend the case being so flawed after so much time. I am continually handicapped by my belief/knowledge that their innocence is obvious, or more particularly, they could not for scientific reasons be involved. Only Mignini had something to gain by their continued incarceration, his credibilty as a prosecutor. Since he was the authority figure, the underlings could all say they were acting to instructions in continuing the case, and indeed not fuss over the detail, but Mignini was the captain.
I will turn it around, do you think it is possible, probable, or certain he regards them as guilty? I certainly don't know the answer.

 

[Grinder]

While I would be willing to stake anything on Amanda and Raffaele being innocent of murder, I am not 100%. I am not 100% sure of virtually anything. therefore, Grinder has made the term "frame" an almost unusable term.

dear me, it is not I that defines the word. It has a definition and it is falsely convicting someone that is innocent.

The word isn't just for this case, so the fact that you are not sure they are innocent isn't enough to undo the meaning.

I don't believe they were framed anyway. I think the PLE thought and still think they were and are guilty. If Steffy wanted to frame them she could have put a little drop of Meredith's blood on the knife and it would have tested positive for blood and no too low readings would have resulted.

The bra clasp might have been tampered with but I don't think it was a conspiracy of if one a tight group.

What a totally lousy job of framing or creating evidence to get them.

Even the case they have if all the evidence was credible would still leave most here including me doubtful. The police didn't find Curatolo, Nara or Quintavalle. If anybody framed the kids, it was that cub reporter.

 

[Desert Fox]

From a discussion on the Injustice Everywhere Forum, I think I have a working argument. A suspect is always presumed innocent until convicted. If the police (or anybody else) produces false evidence, they are framing a presumed innocent person. Does that help?

 

[AmyStrange]

-

While I would be willing to stake anything on Amanda and Raffaele being innocent of murder, I am not 100%. I am not 100% sure of virtually anything. therefore, Grinder has made the term "frame" an almost unusable term.

-

I've even included my definition of the word "frame" in my sig so it's clear what I mean. You decide whether the person is innocent or not.

Just ask and I'll tell you what I think. Mostly what I think about is probabilities and that's what I think about this case. The probabilities (in my opinion) are really high that Raffaele and Amanda are innocent, but that's only my opinion.

If someone can change the probabilities for me, I'll change my opinion, until then, they're innocent in my eyes,

d

-

 

[Desert Fox]

I've even included my definition of the word "frame" in my sig so it's clear what I mean. You decide whether the person is innocent or not.

Just ask and I'll tell you what I think. Mostly what I think about is probabilities and that's what I think about this case. The probabilities (in my opinion) are really high that Raffaele and Amanda are innocent, but that's only my opinion.

If someone can change the probabilities for me, I'll change my opinion, until then, they're innocent in my eyes,
-

I agree that the probabilities are extremely high but the probability is not 100%.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

From a discussion on the Injustice Everywhere Forum, I think I have a working argument. A suspect is always presumed innocent until convicted. If the police (or anybody else) produces false evidence, they are framing a presumed innocent person. Does that help?

-

I like it.

But after the person is found guilty is it then not a frame, even if the frame is what caused being found guilty? Do we start locking up people who continue to say it's a frame if the frame is what caused the guilty verdict?

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I agree that the probabilities are extremely high but the probability is not 100%.

-

Correct. It isn't 100%, but it's a lot closer to 100% then 50%, in my opinion,

d

-

 

[Grinder]

From a discussion on the Injustice Everywhere Forum, I think I have a working argument. A suspect is always presumed innocent until convicted. If the police (or anybody else) produces false evidence, they are framing a presumed innocent person. Does that help?

Find a credible source for a definition that fits your idea.

This is it. A presumption of innocence doesn't mean they are innocent. If the police or anyone frames someone the commonly held definition (the only one) is that the victim of the framing is innocent. The attempt Chris made had a quote from an IP person saying when the police concoct evidence it "in effect" (like) framing someone and when they do it to get a guilty person they may inadvertently be framing someone.

In our case it makes a lot of difference if one says the PLE framed and mean that they were producing evidence to get a guilty pair or that they framed the kids knowing they were innocent.

 

[AmyStrange]

In my opinion...

-

Find a credible source for a definition that fits your idea.

This is it. A presumption of innocence doesn't mean they are innocent. If the police or anyone frames someone the commonly held definition (the only one) is that the victim of the framing is innocent. The attempt Chris made had a quote from an IP person saying when the police concoct evidence it "in effect" (like) framing someone and when they do it to get a guilty person they may inadvertently be framing someone.

In our case it makes a lot of difference if one says the PLE framed and mean that they were producing evidence to get a guilty pair or that they framed the kids knowing they were innocent.

-

Personally, I think that in effect what you are trying to do is set yourself up as the one and only decider if someone is innocent or not before the word can be used.

I still like my definition (below in my sig),

d

-

 

[Desert Fox]

Find a credible source for a definition that fits your idea.

This is it. A presumption of innocence doesn't mean they are innocent. If the police or anyone frames someone the commonly held definition (the only one) is that the victim of the framing is innocent. The attempt Chris made had a quote from an IP person saying when the police concoct evidence it "in effect" (like) framing someone and when they do it to get a guilty person they may inadvertently be framing someone.

In our case it makes a lot of difference if one says the PLE framed and mean that they were producing evidence to get a guilty pair or that they framed the kids knowing they were innocent.

I cannot read somebody's mind to know if they think the suspect is guilty of innocent. Maybe the prosecution with AK/RS still think they are guilty. I don't know.

My definition of framing, which people seem to be pretty accepting of, is that those using the evidence have to know it is false. For example, somebody who uses bite mark evidence, if they believe it to be legitimate evidence even if garbage, it is not framing a suspect.

I am curious, have you ever looked up the term atheist in the dictionary?
Most give it as somebody who asserts that there is no deity. Most atheists will state that is not correct however and that they define it as somebody who lacks a belief in a god. It is an important difference.

 

[acbytesla]

Find a credible source for a definition that fits your idea.

This is it. A presumption of innocence doesn't mean they are innocent. If the police or anyone frames someone the commonly held definition (the only one) is that the victim of the framing is innocent. The attempt Chris made had a quote from an IP person saying when the police concoct evidence it "in effect" (like) framing someone and when they do it to get a guilty person they may inadvertently be framing someone.

In our case it makes a lot of difference if one says the PLE framed and mean that they were producing evidence to get a guilty pair or that they framed the kids knowing they were innocent.

When you manufacture or plant evidence (regardless if the suspect is innocent or guilty) you are framing them.

 

[Grinder]

I cannot read somebody's mind to know if they think the suspect is guilty of innocent. Maybe the prosecution with AK/RS still think they are guilty. I don't know.

My definition of framing, which people seem to be pretty accepting of, is that those using the evidence have to know it is false. For example, somebody who uses bite mark evidence, if they believe it to be legitimate evidence even if garbage, it is not framing a suspect.

I am curious, have you ever looked up the term atheist in the dictionary?
Most give it as somebody who asserts that there is no deity. Most atheists will state that is not correct however and that they define it as somebody who lacks a belief in a god. It is an important difference.

I changed from atheist to agnostic precisely because I don't believe anyone can be sure there is or isn't a god.

a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.​

Perhaps the alleged atheists should be informed they are actually agnostics.

If people wish to argue that it isn't always known if the person was innocent or not that's fair but only an innocent person can be framed by definition. And not mine but THE definition.

 

[Grinder]

When you manufacture or plant evidence (regardless if the suspect is innocent or guilty) you are framing them.

So good the good doctor has weighed in. Just as good as an Italian doctor.

Please provide a source other than your own opinion.

If you manufacture evidence it can be framing but it also can be just manufacturing evidence. It all depends on guilt or innocence.

 

[Grinder]

Wiki - In the USA, a frame-up (frameup) or setup is the act of framing someone, that is, providing false evidence or false testimony in order to falsely prove someone guilty of a crime.[1]

INFORMAL to make someone seem guilty of a crime when they are not, for example by lying to the police or by producing false evidence
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/frame_19#frame_25

Informal. to incriminate (an innocent person) through the use of false evidence, information, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/frame

How to get someone (innocent) jailed

Posted by Graeme in Politics,Software at 3:55 pm on Monday, 13 September 2010
The fact that people can be convicted using evidence that only exists in electronic form makes it stunningly easy to frame someone, if you can get brief physical access to their computer, or you can fool them into inserting a malicious CD or USB drive into their computer. Here are some methods of doing it.

 

[Desert Fox]

I changed from atheist to agnostic precisely because I don't believe anyone can be sure there is or isn't a god.

a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.​

Perhaps the alleged atheists should be informed they are actually agnostics.

If people wish to argue that it isn't always known if the person was innocent or not that's fair but only an innocent person can be framed by definition. And not mine but THE definition.

Perhaps you can inform the American Atheists that. . . .
http://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism

Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."

Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.​