Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[anglolawyer]

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?

All circumstantial evidence is also direct evidence (of something) and all direct evidence is fundamentally circumstantial (true )

ETA how can I skip two pages and find you still wittering on about the meaning of framing? Go outside and wash some walls.

 

[MichaelB]

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?

That's the original. She didn't write it up till she returned to work after sleeping.

QUESTION – Refer to everything that has been reported in the record.
ANSWER – Yes, I’ve already told you, literally. The record is dated 6 November at 20.00 , I made it in the evening because then not having slept in two days, in the morning when I finished I went to bed. Morning and afternoon. The first part I have already referred to it, and it gives me an indication of these guys, not Italian, a certain PJ Peter Svizzero, who would have been several times in their home and who lived near the area of Via della Pergola 7. P atrick, the owner of the local
Le Chique where he was working. I have said it provides cell phone utilization. Then it speaks of a certain Ardak north African citizen and gives me the mobile phone utilization. A certain Juve, Algerian national, who works occasionally at the local Le Chique and who lives in the vicinity of the house of another friend of the victim, Sophie. Also this gives me the mobile phone use. Then Spiros, a boy of Greek nationality that only gives me mobile phone use. Shaky, a Moroccan citizen who works in a pizzeria frequented the pub frequented by all the girls in the group of the victim and still also a friend Sofie. And it also refers to a South African boy of color, short (?) (“basso”), who played basketball at the court in Piazza Grimana, who on one occasion visited the house of the boys who lived in the apartment below.
QUESTION – South African was that term correct?
ANSWER – No, no, in fact I wanted to clarify that regarding the particulars of this boy, she didn’t remember him, at least had not told me about him, so I told her if it came to mind about a boy who had been in the home of neighbors, students who lived there, because we had learned from those other guys who had had a meeting one evening they had a little party at home and they had, where he was also in that circumstance was also Amanda and Meredith, and there she said, “Yes, it is true , I remember this guy but I can not say either his name nor provide his phone number because I have not seen him again. I can not say anything other.” This is what I said then was…

 

[MichaelB]

The profile for 36C shouldn't be labelled 'missing' should it? The sample was discarded as worthless after failing for register for quantification.

 

[Planigale]

That's the original. She didn't write it up till she returned to work after sleeping.

So this was not a contemporaneous record. It was the recall of a person who by their own admission was sleep deprived (recognised to affect memory), written after a period of sleep, again something that affects recall.

I would have expected a smart UK barrister to immediately come back with "did you consult any record of the interview taken at that time?' Then demand access to the contemporaneous notes / recording that should have been provided to the defence. If there were none then the barrister would emphasise to the jury (and so would the judge) that this was not a proper record of an interview that should have been taken at the time but subsequent recall and subject to recall bias.

 

[Samson]

That's the original. She didn't write it up till she returned to work after sleeping.

And it also refers to a South African boy of color, short (?) (“basso”), who played basketball at the court in Piazza Grimana, who on one occasion visited the house of the boys who lived in the apartment below.
QUESTION – South African was that term correct?
ANSWER – No, no, in fact I wanted to clarify that regarding the particulars of this boy, she didn’t remember him, at least had not told me about him, so I told her if it came to mind about a boy who had been in the home of neighbors, students who lived there, because we had learned from those other guys who had had a meeting one evening they had a little party at home and they had, where he was also in that circumstance was also Amanda and Meredith, and there she said, “Yes, it is true , I remember this guy but I can not say either his name nor provide his phone number because I have not seen him again. I can not say anything other.” This is what I said then was…

Thank you MichaelB for posting this complete record that fascinates me, but not others so much.
Is this not the point where she should demonstrate some emotion? By chance they have ensnared a "guilty" Amanda though they do not know. She would even be entitled at this point to believe they probably do know if the text is analysed, yet she coolly deflects. hmm.
Later she loses control when Patrick is named. Between these times Raffaele "withdraws" her alibi.
There is something helpful to her case here, and something unbelievable about alternative theories.

ETA, are the notes verbatim from the 6th, before they know Guede was the perpetrator, but the questioning at the trial?

 

[Planigale]

The profile for 36C shouldn't be labelled 'missing' should it? The sample was discarded as worthless after failing for register for quantification.

[qimg]http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Knife_Analysis.jpg[/qimg]

Good point it was put through for STR typing so what does missing mean? Do they mean they lost the profile? Do they mean it is a profile of an unknown subject? Do they mean they got no interpretable profile, e.g. all too low or too few alleles?

The first is incompetence and weird since the profile should be in the electronic record, if they have lost that then they have serious issues. The second might be essential for the defence, it might indicate in laboratory contamination e.g. if it was the profile from someone unconnected with the crime. The third would seem to be the only acceptable outcome but why record as missing?

 

[Planigale]

Re discussions about framing. I once dated a police officer, I was told that certainly for the Met it was common practice to 'fit someone up' for a crime. (I should emphasise this was not contemporaneous but historic practice that used to happen last century, in the 70's and 80's.) Police would 'massage' the evidence to make a more convincing case. In general it was against someone who they believed was guilty, but maybe did not have sufficient evidence to make it stand up in court, or where there were irregularities in collection that needed smoothing over. The hope was they would cop a plea and the case would not be tested in court if the evidence was sufficiently good. ideally the burglar would also ask for other crimes to be taken into account whether he did them or not since this would not add to the penalty and improve clear up rates.

The problem arose when a burglar would be fitted up for e.g. a bank robbery this was 'taking liberties'. A burglar might be prepared to do a few months in a low security prison close to family but doing a long stretch in a high security prison a long way from family was not on. These were the cases that tended to go to court and have accusation of police misbehaviour made.

In general truly innocent people rarely cross the police's path in terms of mid range criminality and so were rarely 'fitted up'. Or framed as one might say. Serious crimes e.g. murder would be investigated with more thoroughness and resources in general, but as we know this is often when innocent people with no history of criminality are suspects and are wrongly convicted. Even here it seems there is a desire to improve the case whether by using expert witnesses with dubious science or over reliance on withdrawn confessions. However, I suspect that in most of these cases the police / prosecution are improving the case against someone they believe is guilty not framing someone they believe is innocent.

 

[Desert Fox]

The important thing with language is clarity. . . .If you are being clear what you mean by "frame," I don't see what the problem is. Traditionally, people thought taht framing somebody meant that they were innocent, but the world can be much more nuanced than that.

 

[lonepinealex]

It's not a matter of tradition! That is just what the word means and how people understand it. It's important in a written medium to be clear and precise. There are plenty of words that can be used to explain any of these situations, without needlessly redefining the wrong ones and confusing the conversation. At least don't entrench your position when corrected on usage, cos we'll end up with pages of pointless and boring debate.

I understood what people were saying in this thread, when they accused Mignini and the police of framing Amanda, as them knowingly charging an innocent with murder. Because that's what framing means.

 

[Desert Fox]

It's not a matter of tradition! That is just what the word means and how people understand it. It's important in a written medium to be clear and precise.

I understood what people were saying in this thread, when they accused Mignini and the police of framing Amanda, as them knowingly charging an innocent with murder. Because that's what framing means.

Language changes. . . .We may become more nuanced in our understanding of an issue.

 

[lonepinealex]

Language changes. . . .We may become more nuanced in our understanding of an issue.

It doesn't change within the lifetime of an internet thread, even this one.

 

[Desert Fox]

It doesn't change within the lifetime of an internet thread, even this one.

The term 'Framing the Guilty" has not for the first time been used in this thread.
http://www.skepticaljuror.com/2014/04/framing-guilty-framing-innocent.html

 

[Dan O.]

That's the original. She didn't write it up till she returned to work after sleeping.

She clearly wrote that version the next evening. But I still remember part of her testimony where she says she was writing contemporaneously. Still, this is all information that is missing from the official signed 1:45 statement concerning that interrogation.


We are also missing the original page torn from Amanda's notebook that is referenced.

 

[carbonjam72]

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

This seems the most correct and simply stated.

I would understand the word "frame" as being like putting a picture in a picture frame so people can see. To 'frame' an argument. To provide a context by which to understand facts, in this usage, a guilty context.

To say, 'I was framed', I think means to have had a context imposed upon the facts and evidence, to suggest guilt. I don't think actual guilt or innocence is required, as how can guilt or innocence ever be known other than by examination of the actual evidence.
-----------
I think this has been a needless tangent. All usages that people have provided seem perfectly clear and within the range of common language usage.

I think its silly to expect people to have to live under some petty linguistic tyranny, simply because someone prefers one perfectly acceptable usage over another.

If you don't understand what someone means, just ask them.

 

[lonepinealex]

The term 'Framing the Guilty" has not for the first time been used in this thread.
http://www.skepticaljuror.com/2014/04/framing-guilty-framing-innocent.html

I have literally no idea why it's so important to have two different definitions of the same word for this discussion. It's not like other words are inadequate.

"Wrongful conviction" and "planting of evidence" are perfectly sufficient to describe what may have happened, without blurring the lines between the likely scenario and the Guede-as-informant conspiracy theory, for which there is little evidence (at least that we know of).

If you were to go around saying "Amanda was framed" outside this thread, you know perfectly well that people would assume that meant the actual definition of framed, rather than the completely unnecessary redefinition of the word, which just means the same as wrongfully accused / convicted anyway.

 

[christianahannah]

She clearly wrote that version the next evening. But I still remember part of her testimony where she says she was writing contemporaneously. Still, this is all information that is missing from the official signed 1:45 statement concerning that interrogation.


We are also missing the original page torn from Amanda's notebook that is referenced.

You are right - Ficarra referenced those notes during her testimony. The "formal" documents would probably have been composed from those notes.

The documents may be "missing" for public perusal (and even then they are only missing until someone makes them public) but they are not missing from the court file.

 

[Bill Williams]

I have literally no idea why it's so important to have two different definitions of the same word for this discussion. It's not like other words are inadequate.

"Wrongful conviction" and "planting of evidence" are perfectly sufficient to describe what may have happened, without blurring the lines between the likely scenario and the Guede-as-informant conspiracy theory, for which there is little evidence (at least that we know of).

If you were to go around saying "Amanda was framed" outside this thread, you know perfectly well that people would assume that meant the actual definition of framed, rather than the completely unnecessary redefinition of the word, which just means the same as wrongfully accused / convicted anyway.

It is baffling why the distinctions being drawn are at all important. Esp. to this case.

Then again, these sorts of diversions break out when there is otherwise nothing of substance at the fore.

Perhaps it's just biding our time until Section 5 of Cassazione decides on whether or not to reference this to the United Sections.

 

[Grinder]

The important thing with language is clarity. . . .If you are being clear what you mean by "frame," I don't see what the problem is. Traditionally, people thought taht framing somebody meant that they were innocent, but the world can be much more nuanced than that.

Sure DF just write a footnote that when you say the police framed someone you are not using the dictionary definition but one you decided on your own.

Btw, framing isn't at all an exclusive of the police and in fact is often used to describe someone else either framing someone they want to get or framing someone to protect themselves.

Let's say two bookkeepers work at the same business and someone steals money from the business and it turns out 'A' framed 'B' does that mean 'A' planted evidence to cover his own theft or that he created evidence to have 'B' rightfully convicted?

Now if we use the definition of framing as it appears in every dictionary I've found, it means the former. If we use "the vote of the posters" we have no idea. English is the least precise language I speak and I don't see making it more imprecise is helpful, but that's just my opinion.

I notice those that argue for democracy do not provide cites, not withstanding Chris' "in effect" quote from one IP person.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

The intent is the same Grinder. To convict a suspect based on phony evidence. The fact that they might be guilty is incidental and you just got lucky that they were actually guilty.

Tell you what Grinder. Do a Google search on "framing a guilty man" and get back to us. You will find a quarter of a million hits.

 

[Grinder]

I have literally no idea why it's so important to have two different definitions of the same word for this discussion. It's not like other words are inadequate.

"Wrongful conviction" and "planting of evidence" are perfectly sufficient to describe what may have happened, without blurring the lines between the likely scenario and the Guede-as-informant conspiracy theory, for which there is little evidence (at least that we know of).

If you were to go around saying "Amanda was framed" outside this thread, you know perfectly well that people would assume that meant the actual definition of framed, rather than the completely unnecessary redefinition of the word, which just means the same as wrongfully accused / convicted anyway.

Thanks once again.

I'm not sure exactly how this started but IIRC it was over the use of framing describing the first week. It may have been one of us that rejected the idea that from the very beginning the police began to frame Amanda.

Now, if by that it means they thought she was guilty but they took the smallest contrasting statements or actions and attributed guilt, I could agree that they did that. If later someone planted DNA on the clasp and in the meantime the CSI cranked up the machine to get a read, I can accept that.

But I can't accept that they framed her, because that would mean they knew she was innocent and fabricated evidence - because that's what it means. If some here were to get their wish, it would just make the word have a different meaning with less precision. Then if one said the police began to frame Amanda from day one it could mean either they thought she was guilty or they new we wasn't but they wanted to frame make her look guilty.

I'm waiting for DF to produced a new dictionary definition that says framing is both as a result of DF on JREF.

I've been corrected on words here and I made the change - the one I can remember was spelling incite or insight - I didn't argue they sound the same and some day will be spelled the same.

I understand that people misused the word, it happens. When it is pointed out with cites from accepted dictionaries...