Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

From Wikipedia:



{Emphasis added.}

So would you rather say "noble cause corruption" rather than "framed"?

IMO, you are simply playing with words and definitions.

There was police misconduct attempting to attribute guilt to Knox and Sollecito. The interrogation of Nov. 5 was a first(?) example of such misconduct in the case.

Whether or not someone is guilty, any misconduct against them by police is illegal; the consequences of such illegality may be simply to disallow certain evidence. But the misconduct is unfair and a corruption of the judicial process.

Words and definitions matter. I think that this was definitely a case of noble corruption. That exculpatory evidence was DELIBERATELY hidden. That testimonies were slanted.

 

[Grinder]

With all due respect Grinder, it is framing if they produce false evidence regardless if they know if the suspect to be guilty or innocent. I also think it is framing when the use witness testimony like Rinaldi. My question is it framing if they hide potentially exculpatory evidence? IE: The negative TMB results,

Nope. Framing by definition involves an known innocent person. If a person is guilty they can't be framed. They can be victims of police misconduct.

Holding back evidence that shows innocence would be framing. They would know the person was innocent. Holding back evidence that would help a person's case but the person is guilty is not framing.

"conspire to incriminate (someone) on a false charge"

"I was framed" doesn't mean I was guilty but they cheated on the evidence.

 

[Grinder]

Words and definitions matter. I think that this was definitely a case of noble corruption. That exculpatory evidence was DELIBERATELY hidden. That testimonies were slanted.

Yup they weren't framed.

 

[Grinder]

"Framing" cannot be said to be limited to the police knowing them to be innocent. Framing comes from assembling evidence against people and not stopping even when that evidence tends to exonerate, or doesn't nearly meet standards of proof.

Yes because that's what it means. It is the case that "when that evidence... exonerates" and they keep going that is certainly a framing at that point.

Frameups are often used as a fictional device. An innocent party trying to prove that they have been framed for a crime is a popular theme in literature, film, and television. An example of such a storyline is the TV series, The Fugitive, later remade into a 1993 film starring Harrison Ford as the doctor trying to prove that it was not he who killed his wife, but rather a one-armed man who set him up.[5][6]
Another TV show that used the theme was The Dukes of Hazzard, in which the protagonists (Bo and Luke Duke) were constantly being set up by the County Commissioner (Boss Hogg) and Sheriff (Rosco P. Coltrane). The "Duke boys" were always thwarting Boss and Rosco's schemes, and Boss was always concocting methods of getting the Dukes out of his hair and into prison, only to have the Dukes win out in the end every time.[7]​

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes because that's what it means. It is the case that "when that evidence... exonerates" and they keep going that is certainly a framing at that point.

Frameups are often used as a fictional device. An innocent party trying to prove that they have been framed for a crime is a popular theme in literature, film, and television. An example of such a storyline is the TV series, The Fugitive, later remade into a 1993 film starring Harrison Ford as the doctor trying to prove that it was not he who killed his wife, but rather a one-armed man who set him up.[5][6]
Another TV show that used the theme was The Dukes of Hazzard, in which the protagonists (Bo and Luke Duke) were constantly being set up by the County Commissioner (Boss Hogg) and Sheriff (Rosco P. Coltrane). The "Duke boys" were always thwarting Boss and Rosco's schemes, and Boss was always concocting methods of getting the Dukes out of his hair and into prison, only to have the Dukes win out in the end every time.[7]​

Great minds think alike. I, too, was looking at Wikipedia.

This is the working definition that Wikipedia uses:

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.​

This definition does not rely on the "framer" actually being aware of the "framee's" innocence.

 

[RoseMontague]

Citation, please, the pair were drug tested immediately after the murder, or please provide earliest date this was done.

Raf by his own account was "an extensive drug user", who had dabbled in hash, cocaine and acid, and had grappled with mental illness (depression).

Where is that quote coming from?

 

[Vixen]

Cite from the evidence! What on earth is your problem? You have access to the phone records! Make a case if there's one to make. Just stop making vacuous evidence less assertions and admit your error when you are shown to be wrong.

Here again - we now have you saying that she has a thousand dollars a month to spend on herself; previously you stated that she was low on funds.

Disingenuous posting.

But actually, I'm in on the Owen report about the drug dealer on this occasion, because it might shed some light on the source of these allegations - let's see it, please.

Police said phone records showed that Mr Guede and Ms Knox had talked on their mobile phones “several times” both before and after Ms Kercher’s death.

TIMES Richard Owen 23.11.2007



Giuliano Mignini, the prosecutor, has argued that blood on a tap in the bathroom was Knox's and proved she was there on the night of the murder. Detectives believe Knox accused Lumumba to cover up for Guede, whose bloody fingerprints were on Kercher's pillow. DNA samples on her body show he had sex with her. He has admitted to being in the cottage at the time she died, while denying he is guilty of her murder.

Perplexingly, according to a police source, Knox never spoke of Guede at all, "as if he didn't exist", yet they called each other on their mobile phones both before and after the murder.

Precisely who among the four suspects originated, perpetrated or participated in the murder of Kercher remains unclear. Police believe a confession will finally crack the conflicting denials. In the meantime, Amanda Knox appears to have reverted to wholesome, confused all-American girl.

SUNDAY TIMES John Follain 13.1.2008

There is a report that refers to Amanda's "drug dealer". Above, it is clear they mistook him for Rudy.

 

[RoseMontague]

I can quote you a newspaper article as far back as 2007/2008 re the drugdealer phone calls. However, posters here claim the TIMES (Richard Owen) is not an acceptable source.

It's interesting, the same story popped up again last year, naming the drugdealer as Federico Martini (Mattini?), a very nasty character indeed.

The €4K was supposed to last four months or more.

I don't care about newspaper articles. They are full of crap when it comes to this case. Richard Owen did a great job feeding the police propaganda to the public. What does the evidence say? Maybe you should take a look.

 

[RoseMontague]

Police said phone records showed that Mr Guede and Ms Knox had talked on their mobile phones “several times” both before and after Ms Kercher’s death.

TIMES Richard Owen 23.11.2007



Giuliano Mignini, the prosecutor, has argued that blood on a tap in the bathroom was Knox's and proved she was there on the night of the murder. Detectives believe Knox accused Lumumba to cover up for Guede, whose bloody fingerprints were on Kercher's pillow. DNA samples on her body show he had sex with her. He has admitted to being in the cottage at the time she died, while denying he is guilty of her murder.

Perplexingly, according to a police source, Knox never spoke of Guede at all, "as if he didn't exist", yet they called each other on their mobile phones both before and after the murder.

Precisely who among the four suspects originated, perpetrated or participated in the murder of Kercher remains unclear. Police believe a confession will finally crack the conflicting denials. In the meantime, Amanda Knox appears to have reverted to wholesome, confused all-American girl.

SUNDAY TIMES John Follain 13.1.2008

There is a report that refers to Amanda's "drug dealer". Above, it is clear they mistook him for Rudy.

This is an idiotic argument. We have the phone records. It didn't happen. You are intentionally spreading this crap around.

 

[Grinder]

This is an idiotic argument. We have the phone records. It didn't happen. You are intentionally spreading this crap around.

Hey don't frame her. She is about to produce the number Rudi was using and court documents detailing the times and length of the calls.


Or not.

 

[anglolawyer]

Hey don't frame her. She is about to produce the number Rudi was using and court documents detailing the times and length of the calls.


Or not.

Vixen has not yet grasped the fact that the evidential standards here are higher than in Massei's court. I'm serious. Richard Owen himself is doubtless a perfectly reputable and reliable journalist. The cops feeding him stories, however, were liars.

 

[Grinder]

Great minds think alike. I, too, was looking at Wikipedia.

This is the working definition that Wikipedia uses:

​

This definition does not rely on the "framer" actually being aware of the "framee's" innocence.

Yeah I don't like the wording I'll be changing it shortly

"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."

The last person to change it did a poor job but the examples are spot on to the real definition.

 

[Dougm]

She had 4000 dollars or more. She was withdrawing 250 Euro and once 500.

Please provide the proof on the calls both that they were made and that he was her drug dealer.

I thought she was buying from Rudi according to your theory.

What drugs was she buying and did she test positive?

Anyone feel free as the V won't answer in an acceptable fashion.

All I can say is to challenge the PGP to find one single witness, either in Seattle or Perugia, who ever testified, in court, or otherwise, that they say Amanda take cocaine, or any drug other than pot/hash. I've never seen one, and I am sure that person would have been quoted in the newspapers and also used in court, if they existed.

The truth is, as drug use goes, Amanda was a lightweight. Speculation to the contrary is not evidence based.

 

[Numbers]

Well did Hellmann accuse the PLE of misconduct? Clearly in Italy being suspected is not being an official suspect.

Perhaps you are being sarcastic or satirical here and I simply am not sharp enough to detect it.

Hellmann did not explicitly state that the police committed misconduct.

However, by saying that Amanda should have had a lawyer, he was implying that the Italian CPP - either Article 63 or Article 64 - had been violated. And furthermore, the CSC had ruled, in a complex fashion, that Amanda's interrogation statements could either not be used against her or against anyone else in the criminal case (first statement) or against anyone else (second statement), except for the calunnia charges, based on the second (spontaneous) statement, which were instituted against her sometime after Patrick Lumumba was released. The CSC ruling was on the basis of her rights having been violated by police and prosecutorial misconduct - either Article 63 or 64 (I am unsure which). The prosecution and courts found justification in an earlier CSC ruling to continue the prosecution for calunnia based on her alleged "spontaneous statement" to Mignini, IIUC.

What Hellmann did not pursue was to launch a criminal investigation of the police for the violation of CP Article 377-bis, which makes it a crime punishable by imprisonment to induce someone, by threat and/or violence, to make a false statement to a judicial authority (such authority includes police and prosecutor in Italy). Instead, the Hellmann court convicted Amanda of "simple" calunnia (where "simple" means, for example, not done to cover-up another crime).

I have no idea what you mean legally by being "suspected" v. being an "official suspect". These terms are not defined in the CPP as far as I have been able to determine.

The police were obligated, under CPP Article 63, to stop the questioning and get Amanda a lawyer as soon as she uttered an incriminating statement.

Under CPP Article 64, she should have been told before questioning began of her right to remain silent and her responsibility as a potential witness, she should not have been subjected to any treatment that would alter her ability to recall or evaluate facts, and she should have been provided with a lawyer. These were all the obligation of the police in conducting the questioning.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yeah I don't like the wording I'll be changing it shortly

"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."

The last person to change it did a poor job but the examples are spot on to the real definition.

Let me know so that I can change it back!

 

[carbonjam72]

Calling all jesus's

David Koresh's Waco cult was a breakaway division of the 7th Day Adventists. Branch Davidians.

David Koresh claimed to be jesus. Ironically, so does a well known guilter who has now directed his holy attention to tormenting the McCanns.

Great minds think alike, one supposes.

How was this relevant to the Kercher case again? Did I miss something?

 

[carbonjam72]

They are pretty good at finding lost dogs. Evidence, not so much.

There's a picture of Rudy's finger painting in blood on the inside of the wardrobe, which does look like an AF repeatedly, but more as a result of just dragging his fingers in a pattern then a deliberate lettering scheme.

Anyway, that picture is hard to miss. I wonder if Rudy added this element to his story before or after he saw those pictures, if he did see them?

What evidence do you have that the Perugia police have any prowess at catching dogs? Cites please?

 

[Numbers]

Words and definitions matter. I think that this was definitely a case of noble corruption. That exculpatory evidence was DELIBERATELY hidden. That testimonies were slanted.

Exactly what I maintain. Here, we are using words and definitions differently to sustain arguments that are superficial and/or not able to be resolved with the available information.

IIUC, Grinder believes that the police believed Amanda and Raffaele were guilty. Therefore, the police misconduct that they engaged in to make it appear that Amanda and Raffaele were guilty is not "framing".

Others believe that the police misconduct should be called "noble corruption" because the police believed AK and RS were guilty.

Others believe that the definition of "framing" includes police misconduct directed against actually innocent persons whether or not the police believe them to be guilty, and thus this is a case of framing.

I believe I don't really know what the police believed, but I see police misconduct. And police misconduct is defined in law, rather than perhaps only on TV shows or other entertainments or in philosophical discussions. So I prefer not to use the terms "framing" or "noble corruption" and stick to "police misconduct", which can be inflicted on the innocent or the guilty. Also, everyone is "innocent until proven guilty" by a court of law. A person is not guilty because the police believe that person is guilty or consider him/her a "suspect" or an "official suspect".

ETA: There was also judicial misconduct in this case, in that judges made manifestly (=very obviously) arbitrary (or biased) decisions in evaluating requests for disclosure of evidence and in the evaluation of the evidence. Nencini even invented, in his motivation report, his own evidence not presented in court. Provisions of Italian laws and Constitution were ignored, as was the Convention and ECHR case-law.

ETA2: If only persons the police believe to be guilty were those which could be "framed", no one would be "framed", because the police would simply claim that they believed the person guilty. Part of the problem here is that "frame" is not an "official" legal term, and that ACCUSED PERSONS ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY BY A COURT OF LAW. Police beliefs do not make a person guilty. "Official misconduct" is the better term.

 

[carbonjam72]

Was the Spezi arrest a significant part of the trial? It was about Mignini tapping other ILE people and journalists.

Spezi's arrest, AFAIK, was not an element of the Mignini/Giuttari trial for abuse office. Although the prosecutor did refer to Mignini in regard to these excesses he committed in connection with his Narducci trail investigations, as "having fallen prey to a kind of delirium".

The investigation into Mignini and Giuttari was initiated almost immediately after Spezi's release from prison in late April of 2006. This connection is so plainly apparent I can't tell if you're being serious.

My info is based on a careful reading on the Monster of Florence (Preston/Spezi), and also some general research on the web. It's a long and convoluted case. If you haven't read MOF, its probably not possible to discuss this issue.

If you don't think Mignini's mad effort to insinuate himself in the MOF killings with his Narducci trail investigations, is unrelated to the Kercher case and the very similar allegations Mignini made almost immediately, then you differ in opinion with both myself, and Raf - who said he was very much aware that what happened to him and Amanda was related to the MOF.

 

[Kauffer]

Police said phone records showed that Mr Guede and Ms Knox had talked on their mobile phones “several times” both before and after Ms Kercher’s death.

TIMES Richard Owen 23.11.2007



Giuliano Mignini, the prosecutor, has argued that blood on a tap in the bathroom was Knox's and proved she was there on the night of the murder. Detectives believe Knox accused Lumumba to cover up for Guede, whose bloody fingerprints were on Kercher's pillow. DNA samples on her body show he had sex with her. He has admitted to being in the cottage at the time she died, while denying he is guilty of her murder.

Perplexingly, according to a police source, Knox never spoke of Guede at all, "as if he didn't exist", yet they called each other on their mobile phones both before and after the murder.

Precisely who among the four suspects originated, perpetrated or participated in the murder of Kercher remains unclear. Police believe a confession will finally crack the conflicting denials. In the meantime, Amanda Knox appears to have reverted to wholesome, confused all-American girl.

SUNDAY TIMES John Follain 13.1.2008

There is a report that refers to Amanda's "drug dealer". Above, it is clear they mistook him for Rudy.

So, what you are saying is that you have no evidence to produce of Amanda calling a drug dealer or that this alleged drug dealer supplied her with drugs? Is that it?

Notwithstanding your last sentence, this press report quotes a police source stating that Guede and Amanda were in phone contact before and after the murder. It is wrong, of course. But, in any case, there is no mention of drugs.

So, either produce some evidence of an early report about drugs and dealers in relation to Amanda, cite calls from her phone records, or else withdraw your allegations.