Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[acbytesla]

That is completely wrong, which is why I objected to "rogue juror" Bellerina babblings.

We have a problem in England & Wales as juries tend to feel so sorry for the guy in the dock, they only convict in one-third of cases.
Commit rape, and you have an excellent chance of walking free.

Noone considers the victim.

This certainly helps me understand your perspective. It seems as if you reverse the burden of proof. That it is up to the suspect to prove their innocence as opposed to the State proving their guilt. Unlike civil trials that need only a preponderance of the evidence for a decision, criminal trials require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Probably many a suspect who seems to be guilty are and should be acquitted.Most people in the Western world believe that it is better to acquit a guilty defendant than to convict an innocent one.

What about you?

 

[davefoc]

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

One problem with this definition is that it becomes necessary to ascertain the guilt or innocence of somebody before it can be determined if he is being framed or not. So an action that looks like framing and is called framing may not actually be framing if the person turns out to be guilty. This leads to judgment issues about the usage of the word. How convincing does the evidence of innocence need to be before it is appropriate to claim that the individual was framed? And then there is the issue of intent. If the people creating or misrepresenting evidence to obtain a guilty verdict believed the individual was guilty were they actually framing the individual if the individual was in fact innocent?

My view here in all of this is that regardless of dictionary definitions, legal definitions, and common usage definitions the use of the word, frame, should be restricted to applications where the ambiguity of its meaning isn't a problem if one wants to know that what they write will be interpreted to mean what they intend.

 

[Vixen]

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.

Not at all. You have to look at the gestält, the thing as a whole.

What a person says or doesn't say, does or does not, has to be meaningul within the context of a crime.

Police and investigators have to build up an idea of how the crime happened.

Sure, if you happen to have been seen running away from the scene and then telling a whole bunch of lies, that of itself means Jack **** It's the whole scenario BARD.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove breach of rule 10. Do not attempt to bypass the autocensor by replacing characters in swear words; if you must swear in your posts then type the word out in full and allow the autocensor to take care of it.

 

[acbytesla]

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'm sorry Grinder. But you are very wrong about this. This is a colloquialism. It's definition obviously is not as specific as you make it out to be. I see it as the use of false evidence used to make a suspect appear guilty. If a cop for example believes that suspect is guilty as hell, but is concerned that the case is not strong and presents a false impression to a jury either in the addition or omission of details is "framing" the suspect.

He is "framing" or constructing a case based on a falsehood. He is creating a picture for a jury that is false. Whether or not the suspect is actually innocent or guilty is irrelevant as it applies to his actions.

 

[Bill Williams]

Not at all. You have to look at the gestält, the thing as a whole.

What a person says or doesn't say, does or does not, has to be meaningul within the context of a crime.

Police and investigators have to build up an idea of how the crime happened.

Sure, if you happen to have been seen running away from the scene and then telling a whole bunch of lies, that of itself means Jack ****. It's the whole scenario BARD.

It is relief seeing you post this. Then you obviously agree with the March 27, 2015, Italian Supreme Court.

There is nothing about the scenario, when taken as a whole, which points to their involvement......

..... unless, as davefoc said, you take EVERYTHING arbitrarily to contribute to the whole of a predetermined guilt. Or as Grinder has observed, three compatibilities equals a judicial truth.

I'm relieved you have seen through all that and admit they are innocent.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited for rule 10 breach in quoted post

 

[Bill Williams]

My view here in all of this is that regardless of dictionary definitions, legal definitions, and common usage definitions the use of the word, frame, should be restricted to applications where the ambiguity of its meaning isn't a problem if one wants to know that what they write will be interpreted to mean what they intend.

This.

 

[Numbers]

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

Here you are committing word and definition abuse.

There is only a subtle difference between "framing" and "noble corruption".
The term "noble corruption", according to Wikipedia, is a term shortened from "noble cause corruption" and was coined relatively recently - in 1989:

In 1989, however, the term of "noble cause corruption" was first coined by Edwin Delattre. Delattre was troubled that police officiers might conceive of a goal or outcome that justified the use of questionable means, in particular, the use of force to obtain confessions. He argued that "some ways of acting were unacceptable no matter how noble the end." From Delattre's work, the noble cause has emerged as a problemitization for the utilitarian commitment to outcomes, for it permits a society to be protected through aggressive and illegal policing tactics.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_cause_corruption

Traditional corruption is defined as the use of one’s official position for personal gain. The personal gain can be economic or otherwise, such as sexual favors. As a profession, we have long understood this type of abuse of power and, when discovered and investigated, those involved are arrested.

A less obvious but perhaps even more threatening type of misconduct in law enforcement is Noble Cause Corruption. This type of misconduct involves not necessarily the rotten apples in the agency but sometimes involves the best officers in the agency, or the golden apples. Noble Cause Corruption is a mindset or sub-culture which fosters a belief that the ends justify the means. In other words, law enforcement is engaged in a mission to make our streets and communities safe, and if that requires suspending the constitution or violating laws ourselves in order to accomplish our mission, then for the greater good of society, so be it.

Source: http://www.patc.com/weeklyarticles/noble-cause-corruption.shtml

{Emphasis added.}

If one accepts that a "suspect" (a person suspected of committing a crime by the police) has rights, and this right includes "the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty by a court of law", then the difference between "framing" (fabricating or misrepresenting evidence to make an innocent appear guilty) and "noble cause corruption" (fabricating or misrepresenting evidence to make a person legally presumed to be innocent but suspected by police) is indeed thin. I would suggest, for practical legal purposes, non-existent.

Legally, if the fabricating or misrepresenting of evidence - which may be done in a number of ways, and must be viewed inclusively; examples would include but are not limited to: soliciting false testimony, misrepresenting forensic results, making false or misleading statements, or planting false evidence - would not differ if committed against those "suspected" and those "not suspected". In fact, if committed by the police, generally this crime (one type of official misconduct) is directed against someone who is a suspect, whether or not actually guilty.

I believe some on this forum are "staging" an argument over trivial and in fact illogical differences in words and definitions.

I would suggest that those who have identified "framing" by the police in this case in the period Nov. 2 to Nov. 5 prior to the interrogation have actually identified the preparation or signs of intent to frame. There may be ambiguity in these signs of intent.

Whether or not police believed Amanda, Raffaele, and Patrick to be guilty or not, whether they were actually guilty or not - and it turns out they are all indeed actually innocent of the murder and rape of Meredith - they were legally entitled to be presumed innocent according to the Italian Constitution and the Convention as interpreted in ECHR case-law. Therefore, any fabrication or misrepresentation of evidence against them by the police would meet a definition of "framing" as directed against the innocent.

If anyone has a problem understanding the concept in the paragraph above, perhaps their issue is not accepting that "suspects" are "legally entitled to be presumed innocent". This issue may be itself a precursor to "noble cause corruption".

So if Grinder or others believe in defending the arbitrary meanings of certain words according to their own views, so be it, but I will point out that if one accepts that a "suspect" or even a "defendant" (or, in Italy, an "accused" not finally sentenced) is "presumed innocent" then to fabricate or misrepresent evidence against that person is to frame that person.

 

[Vixen]

This certainly helps me understand your perspective. It seems as if you reverse the burden of proof. That it is up to the suspect to prove their innocence as opposed to the State proving their guilt. Unlike civil trials that need only a preponderance of the evidence for a decision, criminal trials require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Probably many a suspect who seems to be guilty are and should be acquitted.Most people in the Western world believe that it is better to acquit a guilty defendant than to convict an innocent one.

What about you?

I admit I uphold law and order. The guilty should be found guilty, and the innocent, not guilty (the only two categories of verdict we have in England & Wales).

We have to ensure due legal process can make a safe finding. It will never be perfect, due to human error.

I do not believe in the death penalty, except perhaps for certain categories, and I do agree with rehabilitation and parole.

When you look at the ignominy of some truly appalling crimes, then perhaps our medieval ancestors got it right by hanging, drawing and quartering, together with disembowelment.

 

[LondonJohn]

Not at all. You have to look at the gestält, the thing as a whole.

What a person says or doesn't say, does or does not, has to be meaningul within the context of a crime.

Police and investigators have to build up an idea of how the crime happened.

Sure, if you happen to have been seen running away from the scene and then telling a whole bunch of lies, that of itself means Jack ****. It's the whole scenario BARD.

What on earth are you on about now?

All the things you mention here can - and should - be of value in directing investigators, and some (e.g. being caught in a meaningful lie from which a guilty inference may reasonably be drawn) can serve as evidence in themselves. But in order to prove guilt, courts require actual evidence of guilt - whether a few very strong pieces of evidence, or a large number of smaller, weaker pieces. As someone said earlier, you also seem to have an incredibly poor grasp of the concept of the burden of proof.


Oh, BTW, I'm very highly amused that you've gone to the trouble of putting an umlaut on "gestalt" - presumably in order to exhibit your erudition and learning. Problem is, there's no umlaut on "gestalt". It's the German word for "form" or "shape" and it's spelled without any accents (and pronounced as such: geh-SCHTALT (with the "a" pronounced as in "cat")).

As da kidz say: epic fail

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited for rule 10 breach in quoted post

 

[Grinder]

One problem with this definition is that it becomes necessary to ascertain the guilt or innocence of somebody before it can be determined if he is being framed or not. So an action that looks like framing and is called framing may not actually be framing if the person turns out to be guilty. This leads to judgment issues about the usage of the word. How convincing does the evidence of innocence need to be before it is appropriate to claim that the individual was framed? And then there is the issue of intent. If the people creating or misrepresenting evidence to obtain a guilty verdict believed the individual was guilty were they actually framing the individual if the individual was in fact innocent?

The word has a definition. Most people here believe that at some time long ago the police should have realized they were innocent. In some cases the police could actually know who did it and frame someone else.

I would say that many if not most cases of framing are not done by the police but by people that actually did the crime. One of the reasons I've disagreed with people saying that the PLE framed Amanda from day one or two or three is precisely because I didn't believe they thought she was innocent. Did they use techniques from the interrogation to magical DNA work that could be police misconduct? Absolutely.

Could a case of police misconduct result in an innocent person being convicted? Yes, but the polices weren't framing them.

Police rarely frame but often use techniques to get their man that are untoward (maybe we can debate the def.) and may result in an innocent person being convicted.

There is a stark difference. So when people here misuse the word framing to describe misconduct it skews the discussion.

My view here in all of this is that regardless of dictionary definitions, legal definitions, and common usage definitions the use of the word, frame, should be restricted to applications where the ambiguity of its meaning isn't a problem if one wants to know that what they write will be interpreted to mean what they intend.

Yes let's just through words because some people misuse them.

We had a go round on the word jimmy as a poster said the door was jimmied meaning propped open. When I said that isn't what jimmied meant and proved it much the same happened with a obscure definition brought in.

Now what do you think it means?

verb (used with object), jimmied, jimmying.
3.
to force open (a door, window, etc.) with a jimmy:
The burglar got in by jimmying the back door.

Think propping should qualify? Well people made similar arguments as you making now about use of jimmied.

If you don't like the real definition of frame framing framed then don't use the word. I have no problem using it correctly. Or jimmied.

 

[Vixen]

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.

No, because Amanda's email home contradicts her actual behaviour in front of witnesses.

 

[Grinder]

I'm sorry Grinder. But you are very wrong about this. This is a colloquialism. It's definition obviously is not as specific as you make it out to be. I see it as the use of false evidence used to make a suspect appear guilty. If a cop for example believes that suspect is guilty as hell, but is concerned that the case is not strong and presents a false impression to a jury either in the addition or omission of details is "framing" the suspect.

He is "framing" or constructing a case based on a falsehood. He is creating a picture for a jury that is false. Whether or not the suspect is actually innocent or guilty is irrelevant as it applies to his actions.

You also think the tunnel project restarted over a year ago.

It is as specific as the definition from mainline dictionaries shows.

Yes he is creating a false case but didn't frame the guy because....he is guilty. The cop shouldn't do it but it wasn't framing.

You actually think that a cop that frames someone is just as bad as a cop that fudges some evidence for a guilty case. I gave an example of evidence excluded because of a technicality that absolutely proves guilt (bloody fingerprint on the murder weapon excluded for search warrant deficiency).

Framing is mostly done by the culprits IMO.

 

[Vixen]

CJ72's Simplified Scorecard on "Framing":

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

2. From Raf's Book - Raf warned by Policewoman outside Questura to call a lawyer on Nov 4(?) - Framing, Yes or 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?

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

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?

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

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?

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?

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'.

Then you would have to presuppose EVERYBODY from the rookie copper to the judges are going to play along with the frame up. Too big a leap.

 

[Grinder]

So if Grinder or others believe in defending the arbitrary meanings of certain words according to their own views, so be it, but I will point out that if one accepts that a "suspect" or even a "defendant" (or, in Italy, an "accused" not finally sentenced) is "presumed innocent" then to fabricate or misrepresent evidence against that person is to frame that person.

Sorry but I can't read all ur posts completely

I have provided numerous mainline definitions (not Wiki) that show the definition. It is not my arbitrary meaning based on my views other than my view is that definitions are the meaning of words.

It is idiotic to claim any evidence fabricated against a person is framing because they are presumed innocent until convicted. The guilty are "presumed innocent" by law but they aren't.

Framing has a very clear meaning to the outside world. Most framing is done by non-police who know who did it. IMO.

If people think the police were fabricating evidence against the kids at any point, fine. If people think the police thought they were innocent then they were framing them. If they thought they were guilty it was noble corruption.

 

[Vixen]

Right, that would explain it …

What was the charge? Possession of offensive weapon, assault, GBH, loitering with intent, bowling a hoop or beating carpets on a Sunday … ?

Possession of an offensive weapon x 2, assault, ABH.

 

[js202]

Fruit of a poisonous tree

No, because Amanda's email home contradicts her actual behaviour in front of witnesses.

Which you have "corroborated" by way of biased and inaccurate tabloid-style news pieces. Follian-style reporting about the opinions of the English girls, etc. As so many have pointed out to you here, your MO is to begin with Knox's guilt and keenly seek out whatever resource - no matter how paltry - that would appear to buttress your case.

I'll ask again: What happened to your initial avowal here that you were an agnostic skeptic who saw merits to both sides of the argument in this case? Was that simply a preamble of nonsense to the flood of posting that followed? What was your motivation to lie about your predisposition? And given that you were so obviously lying, what if anything can one trust about the way you have represented yourself?

 

[Vixen]

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.

Btw Kauffer, if you would care to reproduce Amanda's explanation re Filomena, I might be able to respond. You said Amanda told Filomena by phone her room had been ransacked/burgled.

 

[acbytesla]

I admit I uphold law and order. The guilty should be found guilty, and the innocent, not guilty (the only two categories of verdict we have in England & Wales).

We have to ensure due legal process can make a safe finding. It will never be perfect, due to human error.

I do not believe in the death penalty, except perhaps for certain categories, and I do agree with rehabilitation and parole.

When you look at the ignominy of some truly appalling crimes, then perhaps our medieval ancestors got it right by hanging, drawing and quartering, together with disembowelment.

While I agree that the guilty should be convicted, it is not that simple and never will be. And I agree that there will always be errors. The real question is it more important that we convict someone who maybe guilty? Or is it more important that we acquit someone who may be innocent?

If you believe the latter, you must accept that many of the guilty are found not guilty to ensure that we are not locking up the innocent.

 

[anglolawyer]

Possession of an offensive weapon x 2, assault, ABH.

I see. The weight you are putting on your anecdotal experience as a juror is more than it will bear.

 

[Numbers]

Missing the presumption of innocence

The word has a definition. Most people here believe that at some time long ago the police should have realized they were innocent. In some cases the police could actually know who did it and frame someone else.

I would say that many if not most cases of framing are not done by the police but by people that actually did the crime. One of the reasons I've disagreed with people saying that the PLE framed Amanda from day one or two or three is precisely because I didn't believe they thought she was innocent. Did they use techniques from the interrogation to magical DNA work that could be police misconduct? Absolutely.

Could a case of police misconduct result in an innocent person being convicted? Yes, but the polices weren't framing them.

Police rarely frame but often use techniques to get their man that are untoward (maybe we can debate the def.) and may result in an innocent person being convicted.

There is a stark difference. So when people here misuse the word framing to describe misconduct it skews the discussion.




Yes let's just through words because some people misuse them.

We had a go round on the word jimmy as a poster said the door was jimmied meaning propped open. When I said that isn't what jimmied meant and proved it much the same happened with a obscure definition brought in.

Now what do you think it means?

verb (used with object), jimmied, jimmying.
3.
to force open (a door, window, etc.) with a jimmy:
The burglar got in by jimmying the back door.

Think propping should qualify? Well people made similar arguments as you making now about use of jimmied.

If you don't like the real definition of frame framing framed then don't use the word. I have no problem using it correctly. Or jimmied.

What you are missing is the presumption of innocence.
Legally, "suspects", "accused", and even "defendants" are presumed innocent in, for example, Italy.
So if the police fabricate or misrepresent evidence against some the police believe may be guilty - a "suspect" or "accused" or "defendant" - but who is legally innocent, because that person has not been finally sentenced, is that, by your definition, not framing?
Is that because, basically, you do not agree with the concept of presumption of innocence?
That is what I perceive in you attempts at "precise" definition.

The word "frame-up" or "frame" has been in use since 1889 (according to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/frame-up), to mean:

: a plan to make an innocent person appear to be guilty of a crime

1: an act or series of actions in which someone is framed

2: an action that is framed
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/frame-up

By your definition, if the police believe someone is guilty, then any misconduct against that person is not a frame-up. However, this non-use begs the question of whether the police belief implies the person is actually guilty. By the legal principle of presumption of innocence, the person the police believe to be guilty is presumed innocent. In fact, many persons believed to be guilty by police are indeed actually innocent. In either case (actual innocence or presumed innocence), misconduct against the person to make that person seem guilty is actually a "frame-up" or "framing".

Note that in the definition, the plan to commit misconduct is also included. Thus, people referring to the intent to commit misconduct or signs of such intent or conspiracy to commit misconduct should not be considered "wrong" to refer to such planning as "framing".

Respectfully, I would hope you look carefully at your interpretation of "framing" or "frame-up" to resolve the apparent contradiction in it, in the sense that your interpretation apparently ignores the presumption of innocence. Your interpretation implicitly declares that police "suspects" or those police believe to be guilty are not "innocent" but indeed they are, by the presumption of innocence. (This "presumption of innocence" may be what Dirty Harry didn't agree with.)