Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

The Italian system seems to be set up to give the guilty lighter sentences than the innocent.

It is set up to give shorter sentence to those that go for a streamlined process, generally the guilty.

 

[AmyStrange]

Interestingly enough...

-

...the urban dictionary (known for its slang definitions) has as one of its definitions for frame the following (although the first def actually uses the term "innocent", but this def doesn't):

FROM: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Frame

"To accuse someone of something with evidence.

"Katie Winstein, 'He framed me ! I did not kill that rat ! He framed me by pointing all the evidence toward me to make it seem like I did it!'

"by Katie&Katie! August 30, 2009"

-
In the sentence example above, you really don't know whether the perp is guilty or not, they just say they're innocent, but are they really (which I believe they are), and is that enough to justify using the word according to Grinder's def?

I say it is, because it doesn't matter what the prosecution thinks in this example, only what the defendant thinks, in my opinion,

d

-

 

[carbonjam72]

It does not seem that the career of Mignini has been derailed. He received a promotion.

For some reason many here now are more into crazzzzy theories about framing and intrigues involving Rudi.

You request for sources and cites will be greeted with the same enthusiasm as finding an actual definition of the word frame.

Senior Grinder,

You already provided an actual definition of the word 'frame'. You're interpretation seems flawed to me. is flawed. We're talking about 1 sentence here. There's no need to find other citations, the one you provided is fine. It just doesn't support your interpretation. You should actually trust me on this one (Don't snicker, I know you won't).

Concerning theories of Rudy, we've discussed before. You don't accept the same pattern of fact as I, so agreement on this track is unlikely. C'est la vie.

Lord CoulsdonUK,

You have conveniently avoided the issue of Mignini having fomented a wtich hunt since 2002, that led to the international embarrassment of arresting a well respected journalist Mario Spezi in 2006, and imprisoned him as Italy's most notorious serial killer - a story Spezi had been doggedly following for 30 years.

The claim here is that Mignini, cowardly liar and scoundrel that he is, latched on to two innocent college kids, to create a sensational story around a young woman using her sexuality to fulfill Mignini's depraved imagination and create a distraction from his own legal troubles.

Specifically, he was under indictment for abuse of office in relation to his investigation of Spezi, and his similarly themed trial against Dr Calamandrei, another innocent victim of his madness which was then falling apart in Florence.

And Mignini originally claimed Meredith Kercher's murder was related to the rites of Halloween. And, Mignini met with Gabriella Carlizzi, the psychic medium who had provided the satanic sect theory upon which Mignini had launched his 'Narducci Trail' witch hunt, in all of the cases mentioned, and more. This prosecutor relies on information provided by a psychic medium. Is their some way to polish that turd?

If you want to glorify this maniac, "Dr" Mignini, you should at least proudly own his history of abuse and terror.

 

[Bill Williams]

18th February 2012, 06:13 PM #1840



(please wiggle some more)

Thanks for this.

I went well beyond what I knew in those posts.

But there's now another source saying that the "tapes" (if they are in that format) exist. Still, I'll leave it at that. I have no idea if and when they will come out.

I apologize. You put a fair bit of work in ferreting those out. I think what this teaches is to be very specific about what one knows, rather than engaging in undue, and perhaps reckless, extrapolation.

 

[Bill Williams]

Lol! Wise up sunbeam . It won't be going to the United Sections, that's why the case has been assigned to Section 5. Do you people know anything over there in the U.S. about Italian law or is it just important to keep each others spirits up, regardless of the facts? Unbelievably, and wilfully, ignorant.

#1. For someone who claims to know the facts, at least get the country of origin correct.

#2. My sources differ. Deal with it.

Are these the same sources that assured you the recording of Amanda's interrogation would be released soon (three years ago)?

Frank? KayPea?

What I object to, Grinder, are these silly fishing trips of yours.

The answer to your question is: no, they are not.

 

[acbytesla]

Find a few dictionaries that define it your way.

As a wise man said, you can find anything on the Internet except a dictionary that defines frame the way you do.

ETA - did your Google and it was 23,700 and 22,750 were linked to JREF. Okay the first part is true.

Keep in mind Grinder, that languages evolve and meanings change over time. I'm comfortable saying that you can "frame" a guilty or an innocent person As Chris mentioned before, this is "noble corruption".

You're dropping a digit... About 242,000 results

 

[Grinder]

Keep in mind Grinder, that languages evolve and meanings change over time. I'm comfortable saying that you can "frame" a guilty or an innocent person As Chris mentioned before, this is "noble corruption".

You're dropping a digit... About 242,000 results

As lonepine put it so eloquently, the language hasn't evolved while we've been arguing here.

The Google search of "frame a guilty man" returns About 27,800 results (0.57 seconds). The thing is you have to put the search in quotes otherwise it is meaningless. 27K is nothing.

If you put Dr. Tesla is an idiot in Google you get About 40,800,000 results (0.74 seconds)

So I produce dictionary definitions and even an origin of the word that makes it clear that framing refers to an innocent person. Why is it important to you to not accept the definitions? How does this help your case?

It makes people look foolish to use the language changes assertion when shown they have a word wrong. There isn't one definition found that says framing is off both the innocent and the guilty. Lowering oneself to argue against a solid definition reduces credibility across the board.

Just for fun what do you think to peruse means? Over half the people get it wrong and you can check it out by doing your own focus group.

pe·ruse
pəˈro͞oz/Submit
verbformal
read (something), typically in a thorough or careful way.
"he has spent countless hours in libraries perusing art history books and catalogues"
examine carefully or at length.
"Laura perused a Caravaggio"
synonyms: read, study, scrutinize, inspect, examine, wade through, look through;

Ask some friends if Bob was framed for the murder what that means.

Noble corruption is a nice term. Saying they manufactured evidence to convict him doesn't require guilt or innocence. The police could be doing "noble corruption" by manufacturing evidence and it turns out they framed someone. Foreknowledge is not required as to innocence or guilt.

They wanted to frame him but he was guilty.

 

[Grinder]

Thanks for this.

I went well beyond what I knew in those posts.

But there's now another source saying that the "tapes" (if they are in that format) exist. Still, I'll leave it at that. I have no idea if and when they will come out.

I apologize. You put a fair bit of work in ferreting those out. I think what this teaches is to be very specific about what one knows, rather than engaging in undue, and perhaps reckless, extrapolation.

Bill - thanks for responding and yes it took a long time as I'm not as good at it as Dan O.

Perhaps I shouldn't be bothered by secret sources but I come from the era when Nixon had a secret plan to get us out of Viet Nam.

If there is a source then he should be named or not mentioned. Now do you like the unsourced references to Amanda's cocaine use and drug dealer connections? This story of the drug dealer was in an Italian paper IIRC but I don't buy it because I don't see the kind of corroboration I expect. You probably agree on that but won't agree that Nina's one off on the gold watch caper isn't validated either.

When these stories are not challenged they become memes and factoids.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill - thanks for responding and yes it took a long time as I'm not as good at it as Dan O.

Perhaps I shouldn't be bothered by secret sources but I come from the era when Nixon had a secret plan to get us out of Viet Nam.

If there is a source then he should be named or not mentioned. Now do you like the unsourced references to Amanda's cocaine use and drug dealer connections? This story of the drug dealer was in an Italian paper IIRC but I don't buy it because I don't see the kind of corroboration I expect. You probably agree on that but won't agree that Nina's one off on the gold watch caper isn't validated either.

When these stories are not challenged they become memes and factoids.

That part I do agree with. It is the value of the back and forth.

Yes, you should be bothered by secret sources. Yet, my intent was to put it out there and name it as such. It lets the reader make up their own mind as to the veracity of it.

I disagree that the source should either be named or the whole thing not mentioned. The alternative is to be clear about the nature of the sources, and let people decide for themselves. As mentioned here, the issue then becomes the reputation of the person making the claim. If you think I'm full of it, then that's the cost of doing business the way the business is done.

"Now do you like the unsourced references to Amanda's cocaine use and drug dealer connections?"

I know what you're getting at. However, it's not a matter of unnamed sources in this regard. There is actual evidence to the contrary of the claim. Once again, you do not like that source - John Follain - as you have mentioned (!!). Yet it is clear - Amanda and Raffaele had had the hair test done which supposedly picks up drug use, and this is confirmed by a source friendly to the PLE!

Does that make it necessarily true? Of course not. But it then falls back into each and every reader/lurker here being fully able to make up their own mind on the veracity of the claim, based on what they perceive to be the trustworthiness of the person making the claim and naming sources (or not).

If you'll permit, my problem was to make unwarranted extrapolations. I'm wracking my brain for why I did that back then. I'm positive I had good reason to do it - but on the basis of what you dug up I admit from what I know, and the nature of what is now three sources, it was an unwarranted extrapolation.

One of the things to consider is that just because I claim that there are three sources.... I cannot determine that these three are not all codependent on one unnamed source, if you get my meaning. I have never passed that possibility which essentially reduces three sources to one. I have the ablity to recheck what I claim are sources, but have no ability to do the further check - are they all getting their info from one source?

So, if anything is learned from this, it is that humility should guide those who essentially are way, way up in the bleachers with internet access who think they know things.

It's the value of the give and take.

I know absolutely nothing about the gold watch!

 

[Numbers]

Older dictionary is better?

From: Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (C) 1980

frame 1a. Plan, contrive <framed a new method of achieving their purpose>
6a. to devise falsely (as a criminal charge)
6b. to contrive the evidence against (an innocent man) so that a verdict of guilty is assured. {emphasis added}

Now the literalist or prescriptionist (such as, perhaps, Grinder) will read definition 6b and conclude that only males can be framed.

Those of us who are more figurative or followers of the descriptivist school may see the definition words in parentheses as clarification by example, not by limitation or specification.

More generally, the informal word "frame", familiar to us from detective novels, stories, and TV, may not be that useful in real criminal cases.

The National Registry of Exonerations - a joint project of University of Michigan Law and Northwestern University Law - does not categorize using the word frame. Rather, it classifies wrongful convictions by terms including, but not limited to: False Confession, False or Misleading Forensic Evidence, Perjury or False Accusation, and Official Misconduct. The National Registry does statistical analyses of the exonerations - and thus the wrongful convictions - on the basis of the classification terms (causes).

There are 1432 known exonerations - wrongful convictions - recorded in the Registry for the US for the period 1989 through September 20, 2014.

 

[Numbers]

Some Numbers for Exonerations/Wrongful Convictions v. Causes

From the National Registry of Exonerations
A Joint Project of U Michigan Law and Northwestern U Law

EXONERATIONS IN 2013 {A Report}
The National Registry of Exonerations
February 4, 2014
Table 6: Exonerations by Crime and Contributing Factors
(N=1,281)


Mistaken Witness Identification (Col. 1)
Perjury or False Accusation (Col. 2)
False Confession (Col. 3)
False or Misleading Forensic Evidence (Col. 4)
Official Misconduct (Col. 5)

More than one factor or cause may contribute in any one case.

Note the high rates of Perjury/False Accusation and Official Misconduct in Homicide wrongful conviction cases. Also, the rate for false confession is higher for Homicide than for any of the other crime categories tabulated.

Homicide (N=597)
26% 65% 20% 23% 58%

Sexual Assault (N=244)
75% 32% 7% 34% 19%

Child Sex Abuse (N=154)
18% 81% 7% 24% 47%

Robbery (N=77)
82% 21% 1% 5% 27%

Other Violent Crimes (N=92)
47% 48% 8% 13% 43%

Non-Violent Crimes (N=117)
9% 54% 2% 6% 56%

ALL CASES (N=1,281)
38% 56% 12% 22% 46%

 

[lonepinealex]

I've come round to this JREF dictionary idea actually. It's very efficient. What the English language needs is fewer words.

Please could I request that everyone is careful to thoroughly footnote their posts though, making it clear which definition of which word they're using. I should hate to waste my time arguing with someone who really agrees with me.

Well done chaps, this is a brilliant new way forward.

 

[anglolawyer]

I've come round to this JREF dictionary idea actually. It's very efficient. What the English language needs is fewer words.

Please could I request that everyone is careful to thoroughly footnote their posts though, making it clear which definition of which word they're using. I should hate to waste my time arguing with someone who really agrees with me.

Well done chaps, this is a brilliant new way forward.

Good suggestion. I shall be using the word 'frame' to mean:

place (a picture or photograph) in a frame

 

[carbonjam72]

From: Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (C) 1980

frame 1a. Plan, contrive <framed a new method of achieving their purpose>
6a. to devise falsely (as a criminal charge) 6b. to contrive the evidence against (an innocent man) so that a verdict of guilty is assured. {emphasis added}

Now the literalist or prescriptionist (such as, perhaps, Grinder) will read definition 6b and conclude that only males can be framed.

Those of us who are more figurative or followers of the descriptivist school may see the definition words in parentheses as clarification by example, not by limitation or specification.

More generally, the informal word "frame", familiar to us from detective novels, stories, and TV, may not be that useful in real criminal cases.

The National Registry of Exonerations - a joint project of University of Michigan Law and Northwestern University Law - does not categorize using the word frame. Rather, it classifies wrongful convictions by terms including, but not limited to: False Confession, False or Misleading Forensic Evidence, Perjury or False Accusation, and Official Misconduct. The National Registry does statistical analyses of the exonerations - and thus the wrongful convictions - on the basis of the classification terms (causes).

There are 1432 known exonerations - wrongful convictions - recorded in the Registry for the US for the period 1989 through September 20, 2014.

I'm sorry, but Grinder has simply misinterpreted the plain meaning of the phrase; "to devise falsely".

The added requirement of 'innocence in the defendant' is Grinder's personal contribution, and a wholly unworkable construct. How exactly can one know whether a defendant is innocent?

It's a slang word to begin with, but no one here to my knowledge has misused it, nor defined it in a way not consistent with definition 6a above. All of these usages posters have asserted here on these boards are perfectly fine and consistent with the dictionary definition Grinder and others have fished out.

There is no real dispute here, just an unwillingness to let go of a misunderstanding. The error in interpretation is plain to see.

 

[anglolawyer]

Isn't the real question not what the word means but whether (at any given moment) the cops were fabricating evidence at all and, if so, whether they were doing so

(i) knowing A & R to be innocent, or
(ii) believing them to be guilty?

IMO they have probably been in category (ii) throughout. What with confirmation bias, the repugnance of the very idea of being wrong and given the absence of any clearly exculpatory evidence that cannot be reconciled with some fanciful reconstruction of events, however improbable, I am less inclined to believe (i) (but I'm open to argument).

 

[Samson]

I'm sorry, but Grinder has simply misinterpreted the plain meaning of the phrase; "to devise falsely".

The added requirement of 'innocence in the defendant' is Grinder's personal contribution, and a wholly unworkable construct. How exactly can one know whether a defendant is innocent?

It's a slang word to begin with, but no one here to my knowledge has misused it, nor defined it in a way not consistent with definition 6a above. All of these usages posters have asserted here on these boards are perfectly fine and consistent with the dictionary definition Grinder and others have fished out.

There is no real dispute here, just an unwillingness to let go of a misunderstanding. The error in interpretation is plain to see.

There must be some middle ground.
I believe he is uninvolved in this crime, but know damn well he was involved in these other crimes we could not prosecute for various reasons, so I tamper with the evidence and gain a conviction.

Framing or Noble cause corruption?
Or both.

 

[Numbers]

I'm sorry, but Grinder has simply misinterpreted the plain meaning of the phrase; "to devise falsely".

The added requirement of 'innocence in the defendant' is Grinder's personal contribution, and a wholly unworkable construct. How exactly can one know whether a defendant is innocent?

It's a slang word to begin with, but no one here to my knowledge has misused it, nor defined it in a way not consistent with definition 6a above. All of these usages posters have asserted here on these boards are perfectly fine and consistent with the dictionary definition Grinder and others have fished out.

There is no real dispute here, just an unwillingness to let go of a misunderstanding. The error in interpretation is plain to see.

The difference in large part is in how one interprets the very concept of "definition".

There is a prescriptionist school that considers definitions given by a source such as a dictionary as equivalent to a legal, constitutional, or even sacred commandment.

There is a descriptionist school that considers definitions to be merely attempts by informed observers - "language scientists", if you will - to record how people currently and in the past have used words. The Descriptionist school acknowledges that new words (neologisms) are created by individuals, while earlier words and meanings may become obsolete (unused or rare).

It is routine in scientific papers to define words that are used uniquely or are neologisms; sometimes new concepts require new words.

Also, it's well known that regional variations in vocabulary and grammar occur in any natural language. For example, we're all familiar with "trucks" becoming "lorries" when said vehicles are transported from the US to the UK. Sadly, my 1980 dictionary does not have a listing for "wittering" - apparently a wonderful word used in the UK but highly uncommon in the US.

 

[lonepinealex]

Isn't the real question not what the word means but whether (at any given moment) the cops were fabricating evidence at all and, if so, whether they were doing so

(i) knowing A & R to be innocent, or
(ii) believing them to be guilty?

IMO they have probably been in category (ii) throughout. What with confirmation bias, the repugnance of the very idea of being wrong and given the absence of any clearly exculpatory evidence that cannot be reconciled with some fanciful reconstruction of events, however improbable, I am less inclined to believe (i) (but I'm open to argument).

This sums up my position too.

 

[Numbers]

Isn't the real question not what the word means but whether (at any given moment) the cops were fabricating evidence at all and, if so, whether they were doing so

(i) knowing A & R to be innocent, or
(ii) believing them to be guilty?

IMO they have probably been in category (ii) throughout. What with confirmation bias, the repugnance of the very idea of being wrong and given the absence of any clearly exculpatory evidence that cannot be reconciled with some fanciful reconstruction of events, however improbable, I am less inclined to believe (i) (but I'm open to argument).

Why does either alternative matter? If the police/prosecutor violated the rights of the suspects - the eventual defendants - under Italian law or ECHR case law. doesn't that official misconduct constitute a violation that must be accounted for - by, for example, disallowing the false evidence such as false, coerced statements from all trials, criminal or civil?

Part of the question being posed is: When was the official misconduct planned? (That is, when did the framing begin?) And perhaps there is no single answer to that, since one cannot see inside the mind of Mignini. But on the first day the body was discovered, there were intentional failures by the police to measure/record the victim's body temperature and to effectively document the broken window and scattered glass for forensic analysis. These failures both establish intent to commit official misconduct and constitute official misconduct, IMO. Failure to follow recognized police or forensic protocol is generally a sign of misconduct, IMO.

 

[lonepinealex]

Sadly, my 1980 dictionary does not have a listing for "wittering" - apparently a wonderful word used in the UK but highly uncommon in the US.

It's fairly onomatopoeic.