Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[anglolawyer]

CJ72's Simplified Scorecard on "Framing":

1. Getting Amanda to reach for knife on Nov 4, 2007 = Framing, Yes or No?

No, but decidedly odd.

2. From Raf's Book - Raf warned by Policewoman outside Questura to call a lawyer on Nov 4(?) - Framing, Yes or No?

No

3. Knife seized from Raf's kitchen at random on Nov 6th - Police knew stef could manufacture a match no matter what knife chosen? Police knew knife had nothing to do with murder, but could make use of it anyway? - Framing, Yes or No?

Yes, if Raffaele is to be believed.

4. Mignini, Zugarini and/or Napoleone recognized Rudy Guede's style of breaking and entry: Framing, Yes or No?

No. Insufficient pattern of riot second storey entry. Probably not unique to Guede either.

5. Stefan Bonassi's statement to police on Nov 3/4 of non flushing visitor to cottage, sets police off to ID Rudy Guede (while thy were tapping Patrick's phones) Framing Yes or No?

Getting there but we lack (and never will get) a detailed timeline of the enquiry at a sufficiently granular level.

6. Blood and hair on Filomena's window - positive for blood, delayed testing, suppressed profiles & data? Framing, Yes or No?

If the facts are as you suggest, then an explanation is required.

7. Mignini shaping Kercher murder into mirror of his previous claims in Narducci trail, excesses for which he had just then been indicted - Framing, Yes or No?

What are the similarities, aside from a weird theory in each case?

8. States of mind, differs in Mignini from normal people (is he a high functioning psychotic)? Differs in police (are they hopelessly endemically corrupt)? Are "what did he" or "they Know" not a straightforward question, without answering whether they are 1 Sane or 2 corrupt. Framing Yes or No?

Ask a psychoanalyst.

9. Carbo-conclusions: Yes there was framing. At first to sort out who would be framed, which took from Nov 2 and 3 at the latest. They had Bonassi's ID of Guede leaving a turd ion the toilet on Nov 3, they must have noticed the similarity of the unflushed turd at that point. The only explanation is Mignini wanted Amanda, and he wanted her because he needed a girl for his orgy fantasy, to save his career. He knew this on day one. And he also knew on Day one that no matter what, it couldn't be 'poor Rudy'.

IMO, I think I am of the view that no hard and fast conclusion can be drawn. What we have is a prima facie case warranting investigation. Things that appear wonky may have a simple and reasonable explanation. Or not.

 

[anglolawyer]

What page no. is that, please?

67 of 457 in the Kindle edition

 

[Grinder]

A small comment on this framed thing: Attempting to force precision on the meaning of words that doesn't exist in common usage leads to needless semantic quarreling. Is a marmot a squirrel? The meaning of the common word, squirrel, is not constrained sufficiently to allow a categorical answer to that question.

Outside a few on this board framing has a very specific definition and is widely used. There's even a movie titled "The Frame Up" about a journalist that was framed.

It's meaning is very useful in describing many cases of injustice,

 

[Vixen]

We do? Why then did Amanda phone Filomena, her mother and Raffaele phoned his sister? Why did RS and AK invite the postals inside to inspect the condition of the cottage?

To preclude suspicion.

Say a guy murders his wife. He might still ring her afterwards, to preclude the question, "You didn't ring after she died, so you knew she was dead?"

In this case, having created a carefully staged scene of burglary and rape, you are going to be wanting your audience - the police, the first witnesses - to see it "first".

Predatory murderers are calculating.

 

[Vixen]

67 of 457 in the Kindle edition

Soz, I cannot find the book. Are you able to copy and paste, please?

 

[davefoc]

To preclude suspicion.

Say a guy murders his wife. He might still ring her afterwards, to preclude the question, "You didn't ring after she died, so you knew she was dead?"

In this case, having created a carefully staged scene of burglary and rape, you are going to be wanting your audience - the police, the first witnesses - to see it "first".

Predatory murderers are calculating.

Reasonable enough, so if Knox hadn't cooperated with the police that would have been because she was guilty and she was trying to avoid incriminating herself, if Knox had left Italy that would have been because she was guilty and she was fleeing from the scene of the crime and when she does stick around and cooperates with the police that's because she's guilty and is attempting to hide the fact.

It's almost like in your mind every action that Knox took or could have taken around the time of the crime could be construed as evidence of guilt.

 

[Kauffer]

We know Amanda was not alarmed, as any normal person would be. We only have her word the door was even open. Having told Filomena she had had a shower and now was worried, she had to think of a way to get Filomena concerned. You note, she didn't tell Filomena at any time her room had been ransacked or burgled.
So, on the one hand, she tells police she noticed all sorts of "strange" things including a long smear of blood on the bathroom floor, blood on the tap, blood on the mat, faeces in the toilet, but then, to explain why they were not reported, we have a wholly contradictory story of not being too concerned as "I thought maybe someone was emptying the trash", or, "I thought it must be from my earrings", when any fule kno ear lobe blood doesn't drip as there are no major arteries there.

We have a partial retraction from you now. Good. Where's the rest of it? But, I see we also have further falsehoods from you too.

Once again, here is the question you asked me based on two false premises, one of which it seems, you no longer believe.

"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?"

Will you now please categorically admit that your previous understanding of Amanda's email was wrong with regard to the alleged events highlighted in bold, which Amanda did not describe, contrary to your explicit assertions.

Try to learn the timeline. You further state: "You note, she didn't tell Filomena at any time her room had been ransacked or burgled." This is also entirely untrue. Firstly, Amanda did not know there had been a break in during her first visit and therefore was not in a position to tell Romanelli about it. Shortly after the break in was discovered on the SECOND visit, Romanelli phoned Amanda and the matter was reported to her. The police were also called.

You seem to be under the impression that there were matters of such clear cut suspicion of criminal activity found by Amanda on her FIRST visit to the cottage, that her conduct immediately after is questionable. Yet this is not the case. What she discovered was reasonably interpretable by innocent explanation. What "long smear of blood" are you referring too?

As we have seen, in order to question the appropriateness of Amanda's actions it is entirely necessary for you to make up facts which do not exist and to distort the timeline.

Please, finally, will you correct your errors with regard to Amanda stating she was alarmed by the open door and that this led her frantically to bang on Kercher's.

 

[Bill Williams]

We do? Why then did Amanda phone Filomena, her mother and Raffaele phoned his sister? Why did RS and AK invite the postals inside to inspect the condition of the cottage?

To preclude suspicion.
Say a guy murders his wife. He might still ring her afterwards, to preclude the question, "You didn't ring after she died, so you knew she was dead?"

In this case, having created a carefully staged scene of burglary and rape, you are going to be wanting your audience - the police, the first witnesses - to see it "first".

Predatory murderers are calculating.

The best way to preclude suspicion would be to head to their weekend vacation not not be found at the cottage.

Vixen: your comments are the epitome of a suspect-centric observation. You start with AK and RS being guilty, try to fit everything into that guilt, even if it is a neutral or exonerating piece of evidence.

 

[Grinder]

But what do you mean by "framed"? Is there police misconduct at this point? Giobbi's testimony is my guide. He saw behavior he interpreted as suggesting guilt, he was aware that Amanda's alibi was weak (only Raffaele backing it), and that she had a key to the flat. He believed, he testified, that the break-in was staged, in part because a true burglar would break in through the balcony.

Framing as the definitions provided a fraudulent incrimination of an innocent person.

Why it so hard for you to see that the police can do misconduct against an innocent or guilty person but can only frame an innocent person by definition is boggling.

If Amanda was guilty there still would have been misconduct.

What started this round of framing was when did framing begin? If framing can mean any misconduct it changes the time. If framing can include incompetence, it changes it even more.

The act of not taking the temp may have been incompetence but certainly wasn't the first act of framing. Some here have claimed it was but without using the mainline definition what does it mean? If it was done to intentionally leave a wider TOD to make any conviction easier that would be misconduct IMO.

You have provided definitions of misconduct which are accepted because they are definitions. If I said police talking on cell phone while driving or picking their noses you would say that doesn't fit the definition and you would be right.

 

[anglolawyer]

Soz, I cannot find the book. Are you able to copy and paste, please?

No, but I can screen shot:

 

[Grinder]

Post Script to my longish essay on the frame-up: If anyone wishes to call the process I have described (in too many words) a "frame-up", "noble corruption" or even simply "official misconduct" I will not be concerned.

I would be concerned if you call it, for example, "legitimate police techniques of interrogation".

So you don't mind having it meaningless? Noble corruption an d framing are not the same thing - while both are police misconduct.

 

[Grinder]

I don't understand how you could interpret my confused and excessively long essay, which cribbed extensively from Amanda's memoir, as not being exact.

If "framed-up" means the police believed that Amanda was not guilty* and that they committed misconduct to show her as guilty, this only occurred starting on Nov. 5 at the interrogation.

So you believe they knew she was innocent or thought she was but decided to frame her for the murder that night.

I doubt that totally. At that point they thought she was involved but not necessarily the prime perp but rather that she had facilitated Patrick's crime. That's why she named him. Do you know what the police chief said the next day?

IIUC, Grinder believes that the police sincerely but wrongly believed that Amanda was guilty. I do not have evidence to disprove that, and I do not believe that Grinder has evidence to prove it.

Read the chief's statement the next day.

And again, this is an argument truly about nothing but words and definitions. And things we can't be sure about due to a lack of reliable information.

It have proof of misconduct the first hour. A picture of a cop picking his nose which I consider misconduct - I mean I can define how I want right.

Couldn't read anymore of ur post

 

[davefoc]

Outside a few on this board framing has a very specific definition and is widely used. There's even a movie titled "The Frame Up" about a journalist that was framed.

It's meaning is very useful in describing many cases of injustice,

I tend to agree with you about the common meaning of the word. The problem is that your rightness is not categorical and around the boundaries or the use of the word there is room for reasonable discussion about when it applies and when it doesn't. Hence my suggestion to use more precise language when discussing police and prosecution actions to misrepresent evidence in order to obtain a conviction.

I notice that my suggestion to refrain from pedantic quarreling over the word framing was completely rejected because it turns out that people enjoy pedantic quarreling over semantic issues. When I was just reading through the pedantic quarreling over a semantic issue I didn't enjoy it that much, but now that I'm participating in the pedantic quarreling over a semantic issue I kind of enjoy it.

So let's go. Are marmots squirrels? I say no. Scientists shouldn't get to push their taxonomic ideas on the common language. Just because marmots are more closely related to ground squirrels than ground squirrels are to tree squirrels isn't relevant. Marmots are too big to be squirrels. On the other hand some people say that ground squirrels aren't really squirrels because the only true squirrels are tree squirrels. This is clearly stupid because I know what a squirrel is and ground squirrels are clearly squirrels. And then there are some people, mostly from the midwest it seems, that call gophers, ground squirrels. This is also clearly stupid because I know what a squirrel is and it clearly is not a gopher. And then there is the issue of whether a chipmunk is a squirrel. This issue is a little troubling for me and I could go either way on it, but I think they're probably just small squirrels.

 

[Grinder]

frame 7. [Slang], to falsify evidence, testimony, etc. beforehand in order to make (a person) appear guilty. Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language (1953)

IMO you can frame people you believe to be guilty or who in fact are guilty.

Chris I gave about 5 main line definitions and your one old dusty book doesn't trump them.

From the web - ... Informal to falsify evidence, testimony, etc. beforehand in order to make (an innocent person) appear guilty;

http://www.yourdictionary.com/frame

I would say you were trying to frame me - did you forget to put in the parenthetical material?

Webster's New World College Dictionary Copyright © 2010

 

[Bill Williams]

Chris I gave about 5 main line definitions and your one old dusty book doesn't trump them.

From the web - ... Informal to falsify evidence, testimony, etc. beforehand in order to make (an innocent person) appear guilty;

http://www.yourdictionary.com/frame

I would say you were trying to frame me - did you forget to put in the parenthetical material?

Webster's New World College Dictionary Copyright © 2010

Ack! Not only is Grinder amending Wikipedia to conform with his opinion, but he's also amending Websters.

Can the full version of the OED be far behind?

 

[Bill Williams]

I tend to agree with you about the common meaning of the word. The problem is that your rightness is not categorical and around the boundaries or the use of the word there is room for reasonable discussion about when it applies and when it doesn't. Hence my suggestion to use more precise language when discussing police and prosecution actions to misrepresent evidence in order to obtain a conviction.

I notice that my suggestion to refrain from pedantic quarreling over the word framing was completely rejected because it turns out that people enjoy pedantic quarreling over semantic issues. When I was just reading through the pedantic quarreling over a semantic issue I didn't enjoy it that much, but now that I'm participating in the pedantic quarreling over a semantic issue I kind of enjoy it.
So let's go. Are marmots squirrels? I say no. Scientists shouldn't get to push their taxonomic ideas on the common language. Just because marmots are more closely related to ground squirrels than ground squirrels are to tree squirrels isn't relevant. Marmots are too big to be squirrels. On the other hand some people say that ground squirrels aren't really squirrels because the only true squirrels are tree squirrels. This is clearly stupid because I know what a squirrel is and ground squirrels are clearly squirrels. And then there are some people, mostly from the midwest it seems, that call gophers, ground squirrels. This is also clearly stupid because I know what a squirrel is and it clearly is not a gopher. And then there is the issue of whether a chipmunk is a squirrel. This issue is a little troubling for me and I could go either way on it, but I think they're probably just small squirrels.

It's a hobby!

But hey, DaveFoc, I gave you a positive review in one of my pedantic tomes.

 

[Grinder]

I tend to agree with you about the common meaning of the word. The problem is that your rightness is not categorical and around the boundaries or the use of the word there is room for reasonable discussion about when it applies and when it doesn't. Hence my suggestion to use more precise language when discussing police and prosecution actions to misrepresent evidence in order to obtain a conviction.

With due respect and I mean it, the word has a very specific meaning znd has been around as long as I can remember. Just before this post I produced a cite to prove the Websters Chris produced has been perfected to include innocent or Chris didn't include the parenthetical.

I notice that my suggestion to refrain from pedantic quarreling over the word framing was completely rejected because it turns out that people enjoy pedantic quarreling over semantic issues. When I was just reading through the pedantic quarreling over a semantic issue I didn't enjoy it that much, but now that I'm participating in the pedantic quarreling over a semantic issue I can see the attraction.

 

[Bill Williams]

To preclude suspicion.

Say a guy murders his wife. He might still ring her afterwards, to preclude the question, "You didn't ring after she died, so you knew she was dead?"

In this case, having created a carefully staged scene of burglary and rape, you are going to be wanting your audience - the police, the first witnesses - to see it "first".

Predatory murderers are calculating.

The trouble with your arguments here, and your suspicions about Knox, is not just that they are confirmation-biased and suspect-centric.....

It's that they are so arbitrary. You can take any factoid, including its opposite, and make them both seem suspicious. You can take a factoid, and it's opposite, and not see in either obvious exoneration.

So Amanda started to raise the alarm as to what she'd seen at the cottage. So far she's just like everyone else, she looks at the scene, including the scene in Filomena's room, and is confused. She's just like Battistelli, whose "this is no burglary," could also mean, "this is probably an interrupted burglary," rather than the simulated burglary interpretation foisted on to that simple observation by Mignini.

It seems to escape you, Vixen, that you cannot just take a factoid and use it (as well as its opposite) to scream guilt.

Knox raises the alarm as to what she saw at the cottage. Therefore she's guilty.

And further, hypothetically, Knox and Sollecito go for their already planned romantic weekend to get as far away from the scene of the crime as possible. Therefore she's guilty.

Rudy tells friends that Knox had nothing to do with this. Well, he would say that wouldn't he - she's guilty.

Rudy says that Amanda and Meredith were fighting over rent money. Aha, I knew it, she's guilty!

Your suspicions are so arbitrary, Vixen.

 

[Grinder]

Ack! Not only is Grinder amending Wikipedia to conform with his opinion, but he's also amending Websters.

Can the full version of the OED be far behind?

Bill this is close to defamation

Actually I Googled Chris' definition and the second hit after his post here was what I posted from the source I linked. I think a perfect match would have come up higher on the list but not sure.

Anyway from 2010 or earlier the definition includes the innocent person in Webster.

 

[Bill Williams]

Bill this is close to defamation

Actually I Googled Chris' definition and the second hit after his post here was what I posted from the source I linked. I think a perfect match would have come up higher on the list but not sure.

Anyway from 2010 or earlier the definition includes the innocent person in Webster.

I'm obviously stuck in the past. One could then make the argument that since most of the (loosely defined) framing in this case took place pre-2010.....

You get my drift.