Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[kwill]

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.

To my mind, "wittering" is the most useful thing to come out of this discussion. Lovely word that I've never heard before today.

Dictionary.com has it this way:

witter: to chatter or babble pointlessly or at unnecessary length

If that doesn't describe the last few pages about the meaning of "frame" I can't imagine what would.

 

[Bill Williams]

To my mind, "wittering" is the most useful thing to come out of this discussion. Lovely word that I've never heard before today.

Dictionary.com has it this way:

witter: to chatter or babble pointlessly or at unnecessary length

If that doesn't describe the last few pages about the meaning of "frame" I can't imagine what would.

LOL! I am going to resurrect the footprint/foottrack debate!

 

[JREF2010]

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.

I am skeptical too, and being human am biased to my own beliefs.

The thought of including sources is, on the surface, great for piling up data.
But then where does this idea lead to? Sources as Candace Dempsey, Frank Sfarzo, Andrea Vogt, Barbie, Follain....etc..etc.. or even Migninni, Knox, etc..etc..

all of the names still leaves you with your confidence in who you believe in.

even President Clinton said I did not have sex with that woman! or Nixon's pile of lies, the point is Migninni lies too, so does Rudy until hes caught then he seems to cave in like he did with the bloody shoes and strong peaks of dna inside Meredith etc..

If we post sources, who would we believe?

This is where I see the case as it is now, its not about evidence anymore, theres no new findings, its all about which source do you believe, which forensic expert do you believe, which lawyer...

so it all comes down to some human making the decision, by law or political corruption, who knows?

Nencini seemed to believe they are guilty or hes corrupt/politically motivated.

enough rambling....anyway,,, sources, what does that really get anyone?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

add one to Guy Fawkes' Night

When challenged people changed the meaning of framed and said they meant that the police later changed evidence to fit the kids which at some point down the road does seem more possible.

No, this is not an entirely accurate summary. I don't recall voicing a strong opinion on when the actively unethical behavior started, but if I had to pick a date it would be 6 November.

I came to the conclusion that your use of "to frame" was too restrictive to be useful, and that is why I consulted Harper Collins and the hardcopy dictionary that I was given when I went to college (given by an older family member who had used it in college as well).

 

[Grinder]

Truly, Grinder, I am not saying this to annoy you - but this was essentially Marco Chiacchiera's position as reported by John Follain. Imagine how this would have played out if Chiacchiera (in Follain's version) had been appointed lead detective and not Napoleoni?

There would have been no Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito thread on JREF.

Bill the timing is different. Chia(pet)cchiera was saying this according to Follain's unfootnoted book at the time of the interrogation on Nov. 5th IIRC from what you reported. I was talking about later on when Rudi was identified.

 

[Grinder]

To my mind, "wittering" is the most useful thing to come out of this discussion. Lovely word that I've never heard before today.

Dictionary.com has it this way:

witter: to chatter or babble pointlessly or at unnecessary length

If that doesn't describe the last few pages about the meaning of "frame" I can't imagine what would.

Stop your wittering and accept the definition of framing as in dictionaries.

Why would you believe the definition of wittering? Maybe it's meaning has changed in the last two days.

 

[Grinder]

No, this is not an entirely accurate summary. I don't recall voicing a strong opinion on when the actively unethical behavior started, but if I had to pick a date it would be 6 November.

I came to the conclusion that your use of "to frame" was too restrictive to be useful, and that is why I consulted Harper Collins and the hardcopy dictionary that I was given when I went to college (given by an older family member who had used it in college as well).

You see words are important and saying it's just semantics is a cop-out. I believe that unethical behavior started before the fifth. I think she should have been informed no later than before the interrogation on the 5th that she was a suspect. I think that should have happened on the 4th latest. I think it was unethical not to provide a lawyer. I think it was unethical to use twelve detectives in a tag team format. I could go on. But that has nothing to do with framing her unless you wish to again attempt to change the definition.

If you wish to consider the changing definitions as at all viable then a 1955 dictionary isn't worth much.

Btw, using the term "they used unethically acquired evidence" seems a good descriptive term for either guilty or innocent suspects. "Framing the guilty" is a way to make people pay extra attention since the vast majority of English speaking educated people know it is an oxymoron.

 

[Numbers]

I am skeptical too, and being human am biased to my own beliefs.

The thought of including sources is, on the surface, great for piling up data.
But then where does this idea lead to? Sources as Candace Dempsey, Frank Sfarzo, Andrea Vogt, Barbie, Follain....etc..etc.. or even Migninni, Knox, etc..etc..

all of the names still leaves you with your confidence in who you believe in.

even President Clinton said I did not have sex with that woman! or Nixon's pile of lies, the point is Migninni lies too, so does Rudy until hes caught then he seems to cave in like he did with the bloody shoes and strong peaks of dna inside Meredith etc..

If we post sources, who would we believe?

This is where I see the case as it is now, its not about evidence anymore, theres no new findings, its all about which source do you believe, which forensic expert do you believe, which lawyer...

so it all comes down to some human making the decision, by law or political corruption, who knows?

Nencini seemed to believe they are guilty or hes corrupt/politically motivated.

enough rambling....anyway,,, sources, what does that really get anyone?

But if we look for concrete, observable, measurable evidence...what do we find? For scientific credibility, one would want to repeat tests or at least to examine original data. However, for the bra clasp, any DNA on it has been degraded by the storage method chosen by the forensic police. For the blade of the kitchen knife, there is no apparent biological material to test - and really no credible evidence there ever was any. And the DNA EDF have not been made available by the police/prosecution. So we witter (or twitter?) on.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Anglo hello!

The issue came up IIRC over people saying the PLE were framing the kids (some early time). As I knew the widely held definition meant that they needed to innocent. I didn't and don't believe the crazy theory (sorry DF) that the police recognized Rudi's MO as their informant and picked the nearest person (or an American beauty they wanted to photograph naked) and therefore picked Amanda.

When challenged people changed the meaning of framed and said they meant that the police later changed evidence to fit the kids which at some point down the road does seem more possible.

Anyway if the evidence was fabricated I doubt it was done to convict innocent people but rather guilty people to make sure of conviction.

I now subscribe to Lonepine's idea and by fabricated I mean legitimately found evidence.

fab·ri·cate verb \ˈfa-bri-ˌkāt\
: to make or build (something)

so you see the perps made the web of deceit that the police uncovered so it was legitimate fabricated evidence!

-

I don't think that they NEED to be innocent so much as the police (or whomever is doing the framing) NEED TO THINK they are innocent, because otherwise only those who know absolutely (100%) for sure someone is innocent can frame someone.

I still think my def is the best, which you can read in my sig,

d

-

 

[AmyStrange]

-

No, this is not an entirely accurate summary. I don't recall voicing a strong opinion on when the actively unethical behavior started, but if I had to pick a date it would be 6 November.

I came to the conclusion that your use of "to frame" was too restrictive to be useful, and that is why I consulted Harper Collins and the hardcopy dictionary that I was given when I went to college (given by an older family member who had used it in college as well).

-

I agree that it is way too restrictive. The only people who can use it technically are those people who know absolutely (100%) for sure someone is innocent.

Someone could say they were innocent and framed, but how would we know for sure they really were innocent? Hell, no one here or anywhere knows whether Raffaele and Amanda are absolutely (100%) innocent (or guilty), only Meredith, Rudy, Raffaele and Amanda know that for sure.

In short, just because someone doesn't think someone is innocent, doesn't mean they can't use a frame-like act to get them convicted, and that is where my definition of frame (see my sig) comes in handy. It's the act that's important, and not whether someone thinks someone is guilty or not.

Having to know absolutely whether someone is innocent first before you can frame them is an almost impossible standard to meet realistically, in my opinion,

d

-

 

[Bill Williams]

I am skeptical too, and being human am biased to my own beliefs.

The thought of including sources is, on the surface, great for piling up data.
But then where does this idea lead to? Sources as Candace Dempsey, Frank Sfarzo, Andrea Vogt, Barbie, Follain....etc..etc.. or even Migninni, Knox, etc..etc..

all of the names still leaves you with your confidence in who you believe in.

even President Clinton said I did not have sex with that woman! or Nixon's pile of lies, the point is Migninni lies too, so does Rudy until hes caught then he seems to cave in like he did with the bloody shoes and strong peaks of dna inside Meredith etc..

If we post sources, who would we believe?

This is where I see the case as it is now, its not about evidence anymore, theres no new findings, its all about which source do you believe, which forensic expert do you believe, which lawyer...

so it all comes down to some human making the decision, by law or political corruption, who knows?

Nencini seemed to believe they are guilty or hes corrupt/politically motivated.

enough rambling....anyway,,, sources, what does that really get anyone?

This brings us full circle. When Candace Dempsey was casting around for how to tell her story, she was counseled to choose the format she did for the sake of a free flowing and readily understandable narrative.

It raises the obvious question as to her sources. At least three posters to JREF have said they've contacted Dempsey about sources and have all come away satisfied.

My own experience was that I actually understood the underlying story better.

In the face of this one poster to JREF who has the potential for this kind of access chooses not to, for an unknown reason. But still wishes to diss Dempsey.

Sources are sources are sources. Ultimately it's why there are trials. Even conflicting claims of various sources are laid end to end and a jury is asked, who do you believe?

 

[Desert Fox]

All we know points to them being incompetent. If they were framing the kids at any point, they did a really lousy job of it. Look at how they handled Nappy's divorce case.

Why cannot you both be guilty of falsifying evidence and being incompetent.

Actually though I can think of a case of an attempt to frame the guilty. Most people believe that o.J. Simpson did murder Nicole. Still, it looks like some of the evidence attempted to be used against him was staged. This also can be used as a ces of both falsifying evidence and being incompetent.

 

[Grinder]

This brings us full circle. When Candace Dempsey was casting around for how to tell her story, she was counseled to choose the format she did for the sake of a free flowing and readily understandable narrative.

It raises the obvious question as to her sources. At least three posters to JREF have said they've contacted Dempsey about sources and have all come away satisfied.

My own experience was that I actually understood the underlying story better.

In the face of this one poster to JREF who has the potential for this kind of access chooses not to, for an unknown reason. But still wishes to diss Dempsey.

Sources are sources are sources. Ultimately it's why there are trials. Even conflicting claims of various sources are laid end to end and a jury is asked, who do you believe?

Bill all three if you mean Anglo, Chris and yourself have made their identities know through purpose or mistake. All three to one level or another are supporters and you know what that means.

Anglo said Candace told everything came from court records (or something very much like that) but she herself said things came from other places.

I'm not aware what you and Chris checked on. Why don't you give us your example just for fun?

Tesla checked with Nina and got nothing but assurances and potshots at the PGP she thought was daring to question.

You don't know why the writer that written these types of books told her to do it this way but it is clear that it isn't sourced. She does remind us that she went to Perugia at great personal expense for whatever reason.

The problem with one off sourcing is that it can't be vetted by the general public or other writers. Your assuring us means nothing without the specifics.

Perhaps all the sourcing done by people here can be published and JREF readers can judge.

 

[Grinder]

Why cannot you both be guilty of falsifying evidence and being incompetent.

Actually though I can think of a case of an attempt to frame the guilty. Most people believe that o.J. Simpson did murder Nicole. Still, it looks like some of the evidence attempted to be used against him was staged. This also can be used as a ces of both falsifying evidence and being incompetent.

DF that certainly is possible but the ease with which it could have been falsified raises the question why wasn't it. If they wanted to frame the kids or fabricate evidence against them why didn't they just put a trace of Meredith's blood near the handle of a knife that came close to the bloody outline?

I don't think they fabricated any evidence against OJ.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill all three if you mean Anglo, Chris and yourself have made their identities know through purpose or mistake. All three to one level or another are supporters and you know what that means.

Anglo said Candace told everything came from court records (or something very much like that) but she herself said things came from other places.

I'm not aware what you and Chris checked on. Why don't you give us your example just for fun?

Tesla checked with Nina and got nothing but assurances and potshots at the PGP she thought was daring to question.

You don't know why the writer that written these types of books told her to do it this way but it is clear that it isn't sourced. She does remind us that she went to Perugia at great personal expense for whatever reason.

The problem with one off sourcing is that it can't be vetted by the general public or other writers. Your assuring us means nothing without the specifics.

Perhaps all the sourcing done by people here can be published and JREF readers can judge.

This is a tiresome conversation.

It is not true that it is unsourced. What is true is that the sourcing is not in the text, or via footnotes. The sourcing resides with the author.

Does that mean that the sourcing is good sourcing? No. It means that for those interested in something more than a flowing narrative must..... contact the author.

..... I've said it before, and as you report above various people have had various experiences with their contacts. At one time true crime narratives were called, "making stuff up." That could be true, and it might not be true. However making the statement that they "just make things up," is itself, just making something up.

I have found in making contact, as have the others, answers. Your mileage varies. You've made your point. Maybe I should start repeating about Nencini thinking women have Y-genetic-material, too!

"All three to one level or another are supporters and you know what that means." I feel another "invested" meme coming on.

 

[Bill Williams]

I've found an English language discussion of the role of a Section of Cassazione, in relation to Article 618, where the Section must decide if the case in question goes to a United Sections.... “the issue of law subjected to its examination
has given rise to, or may give rise to, a case law conflict”.

http://www.uv.es/coloquio/coloquio/ponencias/c3chia2.pdf

It looks like Article 618 describes the mandate of a Section, when what is before it is some sort of conflict "in law" that needs to be decided by the United Sections. The paper is a discussion in general of how Cassazione can hear so many cases, and yet avoid conflicting decisions.

 

[Grinder]

This is a tiresome conversation.

It is not true that it is unsourced. What is true is that the sourcing is not in the text, or via footnotes. The sourcing resides with the author.

And that's what I clearly meant - not sourced in the book as in footnotes or otherwise noted - I'm reading a great book about an American in Berlin during the run up to WWII in which he makes a point of stating anything in quotes comes from letters, transcripts etc. AND it has footnotes. Why you have a hard time under the genre is baffling. They are based on a crime but allow for literary license to make them more interesting and fill in the blanks.

Does that mean that the sourcing is good sourcing? No. It means that for those interested in something more than a flowing narrative must..... contact the author.

I'm sorry but that's not what should be required to have sources. Why don't you make public your back and forth with CD?

..... I've said it before, and as you report above various people have had various experiences with their contacts. At one time true crime narratives were called, "making stuff up." That could be true, and it might not be true. However making the statement that they "just make things up," is itself, just making something up.

If they call their book a TCN they have categorized it was part fiction.

I have found in making contact, as have the others, answers. Your mileage varies. You've made your point. Maybe I should start repeating about Nencini thinking women have Y-genetic-material, too!

"All three to one level or another are supporters and you know what that means." I feel another "invested" meme coming on.

Bill you are an active supporter in contact with other supporters. It was LJ that coined the interest point and he is of course correct. You've met Amanda and family. You have a different level of interest than those of us that haven't joined the support groups.

Why won't you share the important sourcing information you have received? Really why not? Should only those that make personal inquiries be aware of these important things?

Btw, the only two things I can think of that raise my interest are the gold watch which Tesla asked about and got nada and the Follain inner police station convos.

When I've pointed mistakes from CD it was hand waved away because they appeared in her blog.

 

[Desert Fox]

DF that certainly is possible but the ease with which it could have been falsified raises the question why wasn't it. If they wanted to frame the kids or fabricate evidence against them why didn't they just put a trace of Meredith's blood near the handle of a knife that came close to the bloody outline?

I don't think they fabricated any evidence against OJ.

I am neutral towards the idea that the evidence against Amanda and Raff has been actively falsified. It is probably more likely that exonerating evidence or evidence against the police has "disappeared." Some things seem really convenient in that respect such as the destruction of the bra clasp. I also tend to believe that Amanda was actively struck by the police and they had a recording of that which just happened to disappear.

 

[Grinder]

I am neutral towards the idea that the evidence against Amanda and Raff has been actively falsified. It is probably more likely that exonerating evidence or evidence against the police has "disappeared." Some things seem really convenient in that respect such as the destruction of the bra clasp. I also tend to believe that Amanda was actively struck by the police and they had a recording of that which just happened to disappear.

I too believe she was slapped and intimidated until she buckled and told them what they wanted to hear.

I doubt a recording was made, though possible, because someone in the know would have sold this story by now. If someone had a video recording it would be worth a lot of money. I mean a lot. Not just for media but also the kids for lawsuit money. What would they win from Italy and reduced penalties they are now obligated to pay.

I think the bra clasp is incompetence.

 

[Bill Williams]

And that's what I clearly meant - not sourced in the book as in footnotes or otherwise noted - I'm reading a great book about an American in Berlin during the run up to WWII in which he makes a point of stating anything in quotes comes from letters, transcripts etc. AND it has footnotes. Why you have a hard time under the genre is baffling. They are based on a crime but allow for literary license to make them more interesting and fill in the blanks.



I'm sorry but that's not what should be required to have sources. Why don't you make public your back and forth with CD?



If they call their book a TCN they have categorized it was part fiction.



Bill you are an active supporter in contact with other supporters. It was LJ that coined the interest point and he is of course correct. You've met Amanda and family. You have a different level of interest than those of us that haven't joined the support groups.

Why won't you share the important sourcing information you have received? Really why not? Should only those that make personal inquiries be aware of these important things?

Btw, the only two things I can think of that raise my interest are the gold watch which Tesla asked about and got nada and the Follain inner police station convos.

When I've pointed mistakes from CD it was hand waved away because they appeared in her blog.

I apologize Grinder. I find this completely tiresome. You have made all these points many times, and you have made statements disguised as questions many times.

This is just tiresome. Please put me on your ignore list.