Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

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.

I always want to laugh at those that are so convinced that the police do not engage in "framing" suspects. While it might not be common place, there is no doubt that it happens. I don't know for sure if the DNA in this case is the result of corruption, I'm convinced that the omission of the negative TMB tests, the attempt of trying to present the false documents for the controls and Rinaldi's testimony is misconduct. I'm not convinced about the computer drives although that seems suspicious as well.

 

[RoseMontague]

I always want to laugh at those that are so convinced that the police do not engage in "framing" suspects. While it might not be common place, there is no doubt that it happens. I don't know for sure if the DNA in this case is the result of corruption, I'm convinced that the omission of the negative TMB tests, the attempt of trying to present the false documents for the controls and Rinaldi's testimony is misconduct. I'm not convinced about the computer drives although that seems suspicious as well.

I don't see how anybody can watch that bra clasp discovery video and not think there is some funny business going on. Anyway, I responded to Grinder's framing question and was ignored. Go figure.

 

[Numbers]

Words & definitions: National Registry of Exonerations

Words and definitions matter. ....

From the glossary of the National Registry of Exonerations
http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/glossary.aspx:


Official Misconduct (OM)—Police, prosecutors, or other government officials significantly abused their authority or the judicial process in a manner that contributed to the exoneree's conviction.

False Confession (FC)—The exoneree falsely confessed if (1) he or she made a false statement to authorities which was treated as a confession, (2) the authorities claimed that the exoneree made such a statement but the exoneree denied it, or (3) the exoneree made a statement that was not an admission of guilt, but was misinterpreted as such by the authorities.

False or Misleading Forensic Evidence (F/MFE)—Exoneree's conviction was based at least in part on forensic information that was (1) caused by errors in forensic testing, (2) based on unreliable or unproven methods, (3) expressed with exaggerated and misleading confidence, or (4) fraudulent.

Perjury or False Accusation (P/FA)—A person other than the exoneree falsely accused the exoneree of committing the crime for which the exoneree was later exonerated, either in sworn testimony or otherwise.

Mistaken Witness Identification (MWID)—At least one witness mistakenly identified the exoneree as a person the witness saw commit the crime.

No Crime (NC)—The exoneree was convicted of a crime that did not occur, either because an accident or a suicide was mistaken for a crime, or because the exoneree was accused of a fabricated crime that never happened.

All of the above played some role in the Amanda Knox-Raffaele Sollecito case. For example, No Crime:

1. Amanda was accused of carrying a knife in her purse to commit the murder, but she never carried a knife in her purse (there was no evidence of this alleged activity). The CSC final judgment stated that this charge is now out of time.

2. Amanda was convicted of calunnia against Patrick Lumumba, but as she has claimed, she was reacting to the suggestion and coercion of the police interrogators. She had not voluntarily approached the police to accuse Lumumba or anyone else of a crime. Amanda has lodged a claim against Italy for this conviction as a violation of her Convention rights with the ECHR.

ETA: No "framing" or "noble corruption" in the glossary of the National Registry, sorry folks. But I'm sure the law professors at U Michigan would like to hear our thoughts on these additional causes of wrongful convictions. (Feeble attempt at sarcasm.)

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

If Vixen started withdrawing unsubstantiated allegations, she'd have to withdraw nearly all of her almost 600 posts. 600 in 19 days. With only the occasional newspaper citation - when court records exist.

Vixen does not withdraw allegations. Her agenda is to be a random factoid generator.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't see how anybody can watch that bra clasp discovery video and not think there is some funny business going on. Anyway, I responded to Grinder's framing question and was ignored. Go figure.

It was a farce. My only reason for not believing that was corruption is backwards reasoning. Who in their right mind would make it the show that they put on? Also, why is the bra clasp evidence so marginal?

 

[Grinder]

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".

Little problem with your wording. They didn't engage in improper conduct to make it appear they were guilty. They did the interrogation top get to the truth. I don't need a long or short lecture on the Reed technique. Even if they did created evidence I believe they did it because they needed it to convict the guilty kids.

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

In brit speak that's what it was.

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.

Well what's the difference between framing and noble corruption? As I sourced the examples of framing have innocent victims.

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".

How noble. But the question was did the police start framing them on day one or two. Do you believe there was misconduct on day one or two. We aren't talking about innocent until proven guilty BARD we are talking about people being innocent, really innocent. Of being a suspect doesn't make one guilty.


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.[/QUOTE]

It isn't what the police claim it's the facts or the truth. If Mignini delayed the temperature taking to give himself a bigger time frame to convict the kids knowing they were innocent that would be framing.

Police misconduct can happen with a totally guilty person but that person wasn't framed for the crime. I DON"T CARE ABOUT PEOPLE BEING INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IN TERMS OF FRAMING. A guilty person can't be framed by the majority of definitions for framing I've found and the meaning people used it as when they say Mignini was framing them from the beginning.

So if you want to make up a new definition for framing what does it mean that they were being framed on the 2nd or 3rd or 4th or 5th or 6th?

 

[Samson]

It was a farce. My only reason for not believing that was corruption is backwards reasoning. Who in their right mind would make it the show that they put on? Also, why is the bra clasp evidence so marginal?

Accidental contamination is hard to explain with strong Meredith profile, moderate Raffaele profile, and weak two or more other males. If we agree Raffaele never touched it, I think the dna from the jail cell theory of Dan O's is the most elegant. Remember for Mignini this was noble cause corruption, so fully justifiable.
My movie script will use this method.

 

[Grinder]

It's just business as usual. The cops solve cases by getting people to confess or accuse others. The prosecutors win cases by gaming the system, getting buddy buddy with the judges, tapping everybody's phones, threatening journalists and experts that don't agree with the case with charges, & both control the flow of information to the public, making them look good and the accused look bad. The scientific police, people like Steffi know their job is to find evidence of guilt and suppress evidence of innocence.

That's the system, and overcoming it is a battle.

Rose is this the framing response? I looked but didn't find anything else. My apologies.

 

[Grinder]

ETA: No "framing" or "noble corruption" in the glossary of the National Registry, sorry folks. But I'm sure the law professors at U Michigan would like to hear our thoughts on these additional causes of wrongful convictions. (Feeble attempt at sarcasm.)

Well then obviously the police never frame someone. Your link didn't work for me.

 

[Vixen]

The final nail in this coffin is that Judge Massei, one of the convicting judges, says that the postals arrived "just before 1 pm." The issue of in which order did Raffaele's calls/Postals arrival is settled - except for the small pro-guilt-lobby which is left following AK and RS's exonerations.

IOW when they had already arrived.

For record, I am not a lobby. Truth is all I am interested in.

 

[Vixen]

Where is that quote coming from?

Amanda's own words to the police.

 

[Samson]

IOW when they had already arrived.

For record, I am not a lobby. Truth is all I am interested in.

Try moving your ladder to another wall.

 

[Numbers]

Little problem with your wording. They didn't engage in improper conduct to make it appear they were guilty. They did the interrogation top get to the truth. I don't need a long or short lecture on the Reed technique. Even if they did created evidence I believe they did it because they needed it to convict the guilty kids.



In brit speak that's what it was.



Well what's the difference between framing and noble corruption? As I sourced the examples of framing have innocent victims.



How noble. But the question was did the police start framing them on day one or two. Do you believe there was misconduct on day one or two. We aren't talking about innocent until proven guilty BARD we are talking about people being innocent, really innocent. Of being a suspect doesn't make one guilty.


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.

It isn't what the police claim it's the facts or the truth. If Mignini delayed the temperature taking to give himself a bigger time frame to convict the kids knowing they were innocent that would be framing.

Police misconduct can happen with a totally guilty person but that person wasn't framed for the crime. I DON"T CARE ABOUT PEOPLE BEING INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IN TERMS OF FRAMING. A guilty person can't be framed by the majority of definitions for framing I've found and the meaning people used it as when they say Mignini was framing them from the beginning.

So if you want to make up a new definition for framing what does it mean that they were being framed on the 2nd or 3rd or 4th or 5th or 6th?

Please see my earlier posts. Start with #1543, with words and definitions from the National Registry of Exonerations.

You may define the framing and the day it started or didn't start as you wish.

I have explained about the police misconduct and when it appears to have been first detectable (Nov.5, 2007). Giobbi's perceptions of suspecthood appear to date from Nov. 3, 2007, IIRC, the day that Amanda was given a tour of the downstairs apartment.

Do you have any cites where the Italian police document how they are not framing, but merely committing noble corruption for the benefit of society? Or when they did decide to start framing rather than nobly corrupting? And where did the police document what they consider to be "truth"?

 

[Vixen]

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?

I was under the impression the finger marks inside the wardrobe were Meredith's, in an attempt to pull herself up.

 

[acbytesla]

IOW when they had already arrived.

For record, I am not a lobby. Truth is all I am interested in.

It certainly doesn't look that way. Time and time sgain, your posts are total nonsense. Your use of citations seem to be limited to press articles even though there is a mountain of court papers available. You have been making all kinds of assertions that are nothing but wild innuendo.

 

[Grinder]

Please see my earlier posts. Start with #1543, with words and definitions from the National Registry of Exonerations.

You may define the framing and the day it started or didn't start as you wish.

I have explained about the police misconduct and when it appears to have been first detectable (Nov.5, 2007). Giobbi's perceptions of suspecthood appear to date from Nov. 3, 2007, IIRC, the day that Amanda was given a tour of the downstairs apartment.

Do you have any cites where the Italian police document how they are not framing, but merely committing noble corruption for the benefit of society? Or when they did decide to start framing rather than nobly corrupting? And where did the police document what they consider to be "truth"?

You seem to confuse this conversation with a courtroom. People here for years have discussed whether or not they framed the kids and when it started. I don't give a hoot what the U of Michigan terms are what CPP article 679 says.

Your contributions don't clarify anything on this as police misconduct doesn't equal framing. Framing is clearly misconduct but misconduct isn't necessarily framing.

Why don't you find a cite that says the Italians were committing police misconduct. Ridiculous.

If you think the first misconduct was the 5th so be it but the question is was Giobbi framing them in the classic sense of creating evidence to convict an innocent person? Some here feel classic framing started on day one, delayed body temp etc. I don't.

My belief is that for the most part the ILE believed in the kids guilt and still do.

I do not believe that the ILE thought they were innocent but didn't care they just wanted to convict the kids.

 

[acbytesla]

Amanda's own words to the police.

You need to be more specific. What is your source?

 

[Bill Williams]

IOW when they had already arrived.

For record, I am not a lobby. Truth is all I am interested in.

It certainly doesn't look that way. Time and time sgain, your posts are total nonsense. Your use of citations seem to be limited to press articles even though there is a mountain of court papers available. You have been making all kinds of assertions that are nothing but wild innuendo.

If you were not a lobby, you would not flood this thread with factoids, while almost never providing cites, and when you provide a cite, it is, "well, it was mentioned in a newspaper once."

 

[acbytesla]

You seem to confuse this conversation with a courtroom. People here for years have discussed whether or not they framed the kids and when it started. I don't give a hoot what the U of Michigan terms are what CPP article 679 says.

Your contributions don't clarify anything on this as police misconduct doesn't equal framing. Framing is clearly misconduct but misconduct isn't necessarily framing.

Why don't you find a cite that says the Italians were committing police misconduct. Ridiculous.

If you think the first misconduct was the 5th so be it but the question is was Giobbi framing them in the classic sense of creating evidence to convict an innocent person? Some here feel classic framing started on day one, delayed body temp etc. I don't.

My belief is that for the most part the ILE believed in the kids guilt and still do.

I do not believe that the ILE thought they were innocent but didn't care they just wanted to convict the kids.

Again Grinder, this comes down to definitions. Your definition seems much more limited than Numbers and mIne. I think the police can and do often frame guilty suspects or at least suspects they believe to be guilty. Actual planting of evidence probably goes beyond the activities that most would employ. This case clearly includes suborning false testimonies like Curatolo, Quintavlle and Rinaldi. It includes the omission of exculpatory evidence such as the negative TMB test results and the controls of the DNA tests and probably much more.

 

[Kauffer]

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?

IOW when they had already arrived.

For record, I am not a lobby. Truth is all I am interested in.

In the spirit of your interest in the truth, perhaps you will start by acknowledging your egregious errors made plain in my post, reproduced at the top of this one.