Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[anglolawyer]

It makes a huge difference when discussing framing etc. which I thought we were.

Please don't use IMO as it offends Anglo.

I think IMO is OK, actually, so long as not used at the start of every sentence.

You and Numbers have yet to agree on a definition of framing

 

[Grinder]

The key thing that Battistelli was necessarily missing with his alleged quip, "This is no burglary," is that at that time, in real time, he had no reason to suspect that what he was seeing was an interrupted burglary.

But, in fact, the point made that he suspected a staged burglary from the very first, was true.

 

[Kauffer]

She claims to have got up 10:00 ish, went to the cottage, had shower, hairwash, hairdry, put on "new clothes", claimed to be going to Gubbio, strolled back, told Raf after breakfast her "concerns". Rang Mez. Rang Filomena, circa 12:07, claimed to be at cottage, but actually phone records showed she was at Raf's. Filomena urged Amanda to ring Mez. Amanda omitted to inform Filomena she already had. Rang Filomena again 12:34- ish. Filomena urged her to call the police. Postal police turned up they say 12:35, but let's give slack, and say 12:45. Raf calls his sister circa 12:47. She says, call the police. Amanda rings Mum, Edda, 12:57. Raf rings police at last between 12:47- 12:58. Door kicked down by Filomena's sister's boyfriend, Luca as soon as they arrive, 13:05. Carabinieri turn up circa 13:26, "within half an hour", as promised. Postal police report washing machine just finishing cycle and the pair had a mop, on their arrival.

NB: this is from memory, so do check times for yourself.

What rubbish is this? You check! You post about evidence you don't know. You should self correct. Look at the sources. The timeline is wrong.

In particular, what will it take to divest you of the notion that the washing machine was finishing it's cycle and that Amanda was caught with a mop? Produce the actual evidence for this.

 

[Vixen]

Oh MY GOD
This proves the American Witch is guilty of Everything!!!!
The Witch kidnapped the Lindberg Baby, liqudated Jimmy Hoffa, wasted Tupac and Biggie, stabbed Azaria Chamberlain, conspired with the Boston marathon bombers, and jinxed Migninis mother into bearing the psychotic ranting maniac who was tranformed by the devine spirit into Micheal the ArchAngel so he could rise up with his host of thugs and do honorable holy battle with the Cartwheeling Nerdy Assassin from the Deans List of the University of Washington.
I think that Vixen is finally taking us somewhere.

This is very silly. You are trying to obsure the contradiction of Amanda being so "concerned" by the faeces in the toilet, which is why she left it unflushed and the next, it isn't until almost THREE HOURS later the police arrive.

Amanda did not ring the police at all, at any time, zilch, nada, diddly.

As for Lindy Chamberlain, as that seems to be a favourite analogy. Given Chamberlain, an extreme 7th Day Adventist (cf the guy leading the Waco cult, David Somebody) gave her daughter the biblical name of a character to be slaughtered in sacrifice to God*, and she claimed her daughter was carried off by a dingo, the police were right to be suspicious IMV.

*Sacrifice was a very ancient Hebrew custom. Some claim early Hebrew manuscripts (in the then language of Aramaic) revealed Abraham actually did slaughter Isaac. After which, God was happy with a ram instead.

 

[acbytesla]

Tesla are you saying there wasn't enough for them to suspects in the conventional use of the word or not enough to convict them.

I'm saying, that I understand the police considering them suspects at the start. But, there is very little reason for them to continue that belief and no legitimate reason to believe that the case proves their involvement beyond a reasonable doubt.

]
While true, if the knife had blood on it and the footprints matched the kids, I think you've said you'd convict.

If there is overwhelming evidence, then of course you convict. But when the evidence is marginal at best, there is little reason to feel the need to explain it through a lens of guilt.

My point is there is really no logic for a conspiracy of total strangers. There isn't even the text that would make the police believe that they got together that night.
Let's say that the DNA results are legitimate. That Raffaele's DNA was actually on that bra clasp. That on appearance would seem to be fairly incriminating evidence.

I for one am usually skeptical of the ubiquitous contamination claim made by virtually every Defense attorney. But, this crime is not logical, which makes it a lot easier to consider that there is something wrong with the DNA testing.

 

[Grinder]

I think IMO is OK, actually, so long as not used at the start of every sentence.

You and Numbers have yet to agree on a definition of framing

Here's mine - To make a person appear as the perpetrator of a crime that he/she did not commit.

 

[LondonJohn]

The bank statements show her funds were running low and she was withdrawing large sums, giving rise to speculation of a drugs problem. Police confirmed she rang her dealer before and after the murder.

And those two words, right there - show a worrying tendency to intellectual dishonesty.

At the basest level, there's a difference between a) phoning a person who also turns out to have been dealing drugs, and b) phoning that person in order to facilitate the purchase of drugs.

Vixen: do you think that everyone who phoned (say) Rolf Harris' mobile phone in the years before his arrest was a predatory paedophile by association......?

 

[LondonJohn]

Let's all try to get by without these, shall we? Who else's thoughts are you conveying? Its not only you. Thanks in advance.

I wholly disagree. There is a very important difference between writing a statement of fact and a statement of opinion, and it's very important to differentiate clearly between the two.

Example 1: "Kercher was stabbed in the neck". Obviously I don't have to say "I believe Kercher was stabbed in the neck" - this is an agreed fact.

Example 2: "I believe Guede stabbed Kercher while reaching his hand round from a position behind her". I cannot say simply "Guede stabbed Kercher while.....", since this is an inference or opinion of mine, and it's important that I frame it as such.

 

[anglolawyer]

Here's mine - To make a person appear as the perpetrator of a crime that he/she did not commit.

Inadequate. You need to insert a 'wilfully' in there somewhere since otherwise it may be done unwittingly.

 

[anglolawyer]

I wholly disagree. There is a very important difference between writing a statement of fact and a statement of opinion, and it's very important to differentiate clearly between the two.

Example 1: "Kercher was stabbed in the neck". Obviously I don't have to say "I believe Kercher was stabbed in the neck" - this is an agreed fact.

Example 2: "I believe Guede stabbed Kercher while reaching his hand round from a position behind her". I cannot say simply "Guede stabbed Kercher while.....", since this is an inference or opinion of mine, and it's important that I frame it as such.

You can do so without saying 'I think' at the start of every sentence, though, can't you? Gets on my tits. Everybody stop it

 

[Numbers]

I think IMO is OK, actually, so long as not used at the start of every sentence.

You and Numbers have yet to agree on a definition of framing

IMO, I know what the definition of "framing" is, and I know what the definition of "official misconduct" is. IMO, I may even know what the definition of "noble corruption" (British usage?) is.

"Official misconduct" can be objectively demonstrated. "Framing" ("framing-up") by definition involves possibly subjective issues, including not only actual innocence of the "framee", but perhaps whether the "framer" believed the "framee" innocent. Thus, "framing" may be difficult or impossible to objectively demonstrate. Reiterating, "framing" is a more informal or colloquial concept than "official misconduct", which latter concept can be defined in terms of behaviors. IMO.

 

[js202]

As for Lindy Chamberlain, as that seems to be a favourite analogy. Given Chamberlain, an extreme 7th Day Adventist (cf the guy leading the Waco cult, David Somebody) gave her daughter the biblical name of a character to be slaughtered in sacrifice to God*, and she claimed her daughter was carried off by a dingo, the police were right to be suspicious IMV.

*Sacrifice was a very ancient Hebrew custom. Some claim early Hebrew manuscripts (in the then language of Aramaic) revealed Abraham actually did slaughter Isaac. After which, God was happy with a ram instead.

You do seem to be absolutely at ease with constructing hypotheticals from a standpoint of apparent abject ignorance. Coming from a self-proclaimed MENSA member, this is concerning.

David Koresh promoted principals and behaviors having nothing to do with the tenets of 7th Day Adventists. The preposterous connection you make between Koresh in Texas and the circumstances of Lindy Chamberlain - which transpired more than a decade earlier - in Australia indicates a highly imprecise and problematic mode of reasoning and connection-making.

Consider putting down your rhetorical shotgun and pause for a moment to meditate on the virtues of marksmanship.

 

[Kauffer]

As you no doubt are aware there are two police squads in Italy, postal police and the carabinieri, a quasi-military style Flying Squad.

Do you have an explanation for Amanda's claim in her email home she was so alarmed on coming home circa 10:30 to find the door swinging open, etc, that she was frantically banging on Mez' door, but later, she assured the postal police it was quite normal for Mez' door to be closed?

I feel deja vu coming on, don't tell me, the police misunderstood her Italian.

From the email, you say it shows:

"She was so alarmed on coming home circa 10:30 to find the door swinging open, etc, that she was frantically banging on Mez' door..."

But Amanda in her email doesn't say this. She says:

"so i arrived home and the first abnormal thing i noticed was the door
was wide open. here's the thingabout the door to our house: its
broken, in such a way that you have to use the keys to keep it closed.
if we dont have the door locked, it is really easy for the wond to
blow the door open, and so, my roommates and i always have the door
locked unless we are running really quickley to bring the garbage out
or to get something from the neighbors who live below us. (another
important piece of imformation: for those who dont know, i inhabit a
house of two stories, of which my three roommates and i share the
second story appartment. there are four italian guys of our age
between 22 and 26 who live below us. we are all wuite good friends and
we talk often. giacomo is especially welcome because he plays guitar
with me and laura, one of my roommates, and is, or was dating
meredith. the other three are marco, stefano, and ricardo.) anyway, so the door was wide open. strange, yes, but not so strange that i really thought anything about it. i assumed someone in the house was doing
exactly what i just said, taking out the trash or talking really
uickley to the neighbors downstairs. so i closed the door behind me
but i didnt lock it, assuming that the person who left the door open
would like to come back in. when i entered i called out if anyone was
there, but no one responded and i assumed that if anyone was there,
they were still asleep."

So, as you can now see, both your claims are untrue. Amanda is not alarmed by the door being open, because there is an obvious unsuspicious interpretation of the fact, nor is she driven to bang frantically on Kercher's door.

Got it?

 

[Bill Williams]

But, in fact, the point made that he suspected a staged burglary from the very first, was true.

That's probably true, but not necessarily true. The real point is that Battistelli's "real" first impression is hopelessly lost because of the larger subsequent events and everything we've said on this thread about the way memory works.

 

[Grinder]

Here's mine - To make a person appear as the perpetrator of a crime that he/she did not commit.

Inadequate. You need to insert a 'wilfully' in there somewhere since otherwise it may be done unwittingly.

The "to make" indicates willful. But if you think an addition is necessary

To purposely make a person appear as the perpetrator of a crime that he/she did not commit.

 

[Grinder]

IMO, I know what the definition of "framing" is, and I know what the definition of "official misconduct" is. IMO, I may even know what the definition of "noble corruption" (British usage?) is.

"Official misconduct" can be objectively demonstrated. "Framing" ("framing-up") by definition involves possibly subjective issues, including not only actual innocence of the "framee", but perhaps whether the "framer" believed the "framee" innocent. Thus, "framing" may be difficult or impossible to objectively demonstrate. Reiterating, "framing" is a more informal or colloquial concept than "official misconduct", which latter concept can be defined in terms of behaviors. IMO.

Anglo is just angling because this was a debate years ago. A guilty person can't be framed but the police can fabricate evidence for the conviction. Soon we will see a link to some article or book about framing guilty people. This undermines the specific definition of framing that has existed through the years.

If the police fudge or create evidence to convict the guilty they have not framed them. For example if evidence found is not allowed because of a legal technically but if it were guilt is clear and the police "get" some other piece that isn't legitimate they haven't framed. They broken the law and we have "official misconduct".

 

[Numbers]

I think IMO is OK, actually, so long as not used at the start of every sentence.

You and Numbers have yet to agree on a definition of framing

Here's mine - To make a person appear as the perpetrator of a crime that he/she did not commit.

Inadequate. You need to insert a 'wilfully' in there somewhere since otherwise it may be done unwittingly.

....
"Official misconduct" can be objectively demonstrated. "Framing" ("framing-up") by definition involves possibly subjective issues, including not only actual innocence of the "framee", but perhaps whether the "framer" believed the "framee" innocent. Thus, "framing" may be difficult or impossible to objectively demonstrate. Reiterating, "framing" is a more informal or colloquial concept than "official misconduct", which latter concept can be defined in terms of behaviors....

The point I wish to assert is that "official misconduct" is a more useful and objective legally relevant concept than "framing" or "noble corruption".

In Italy, one can detect official misconduct in the deviation of police, prosecutor, or judicial conduct from that prescribed or authorized in the CPP, or by police, prosecutor, or judicial conduct that is forbidden (unlawful) in the CPP or in violation of the Convention and ECHR case-law.

Because CPP Articles 63 and 64 were violated in the interrogation of Nov. 5, official misconduct began at least as early as the beginning of the interrogation. Did the police and prosecutor, in planning the interrogation, intend to violate those articles? They certainly did not take the step of arranging to have a lawyer present for either suspect at the beginning of the interrogation, which began long after usual office hours ended. And many police were present as indicated by, for example, the calunnia charge and civil action by 12 (IIRC) police against Knox for claiming that the police had abused her. The presence of so many police during the night would need to be planned.

 

[Grinder]

That's probably true, but not necessarily true. The real point is that Battistelli's "real" first impression is hopelessly lost because of the larger subsequent events and everything we've said on this thread about the way memory works.

Bill, we were discussing when they first thought it was staged. It has been shown incontrovertibly that it was from the very beginning.

Now, if you wish to agree and start a new debate about how they should have dropped it, fine.

 

[RoseMontague]

The bank statements show her funds were running low and she was withdrawing large sums, giving rise to speculation of a drugs problem. Police confirmed she rang her dealer before and after the murder.

Nope. They don't show that.

Drug test negative for everything but pot.

 

[Grinder]

The point I wish to assert is that "official misconduct" is a more useful and objective legally relevant concept than "framing" or "noble corruption".

In Italy, one can detect official misconduct in the deviation of police, prosecutor, or judicial conduct from that prescribed or authorized in the CPP, or by police, prosecutor, or judicial conduct that is forbidden (unlawful) in the CPP or in violation of the Convention and ECHR case-law.

Because CPP Articles 63 and 64 were violated in the interrogation of Nov. 5, official misconduct began at least as early as the beginning of the interrogation. Did the police and prosecutor, in planning the interrogation, intend to violate those articles? They certainly did not take the step of arranging to have a lawyer present for either suspect at the beginning of the interrogation, which began long after usual office hours ended. And many police were present as indicated by, for example, the calunnia charge and civil action by 12 (IIRC) police against Knox for claiming that the police had abused her. The presence of so many police during the night would need to be planned.

But when did framing begin if at all. No one here believes the interrogation was properly done and moist everyone thinks she should have been afforded an attorney well before she made her statement.

Did they frame? If yes, when did it start?