Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Numbers]

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.

And how do you, or anyone else, know they are guilty? This is the whole problem with your interpretation of the definition and it is, frankly, a case of circular reasoning in your argument.

 

[Kauffer]

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

And there we have it. You try to pass off fiction as fact, make claims which are contradicted by reference to and citation of the evidence and you still maintain your version of events is true. Yet you have the evidence in front of you which proves you are wrong.

What are people here supposed to do with your particular brand of guilt obsessed idiocy, which maintains a lie even when confronted with truth?

There were no witnesses to Amanda's first visit to the cottage. But this is a different point. You made claims about the contents of Amanda's email, which are false.

You are a liar.

 

[acbytesla]

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

lmao.... Just because I'm wrong occasionally doesn't I am always wrong. Hey, I lose about 10 percent of my chess games too.

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

Even the dictionary definitions are NOT that specific. For example, Websters confirms both your perspective and mine. So why do you insist that you must be right?

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

I disagree. It isn't up to the cop to determine guilt or innocence. That is someone else's job. And since the defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty under the law, he is in fact using a fiction to make an innocent person appear guilty.

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)

Yes I do. A police officer must be above reproach. He needs to be the model of integrity so the system appears to be fair and to prevent overzealous actions by others.

 

[Bill Williams]

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

And there we have it. You try to pass off fiction as fact, make claims which are contradicted by reference to and citation of the evidence and you still maintain your version of events is true. Yet you have the evidence in front of you which proves you are wrong.

What are people here supposed to do with your particular brand of guilt obsessed idiocy, which maintains a lie even when confronted with truth?

There were no witnesses to Amanda's first visit to the cottage. But this is a different point. You made claims about the contents of Amanda's email, which are false.

You are a liar.

It's worse than this. Vixen accused other posters of being unaware of the facts of the case, then unintentionally conflated the "facts" of Knox's second visit to the cottage on Nov 2, with her solo, unwitnessed first visit for the shower.

Vixen has made no mention that she conflated her facts, and has not withdrawn her accusation that it is others who don't know the facts of the case.

Still, I believe it is premature to label this poster "a liar". However, she is confirmation biased with a healthy dose of suspect-centric interest in this case. It would do Vixen well to read the Massei motivations report from 2010 - because in even provisionally convicting AK and RS back then, Massei has a farily decent description in there as to why suspect-centric investigations are filled with hazards and should be avoided.

Massei's mistake was then turning around and claiming that Patrizia Stefanoni's DNA work was NOT suspect-centric, when it so obviously was.

However, if Vixen wishes to learn from mistakes, rather than simply repeat them, she could start with Massei's motivations report.

 

[Kaosium]

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

No it doesn't.

 

[Numbers]

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.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

In either case, the legal charge against the police would be "official misconduct" or similar wording (e.g., abuse of authority). Their is no practical legal difference. The term "noble cause corruption" apparently was coined relatively recently (1989, IIRC) to clarify issues of police framing of suspects. The term "framing" was apparently first used earlier (1889, IIRC). In either case, if the police or prosecutor does it, it is official misconduct.

If a civilian (not an official) fabricates or misrepresents evidence, for example, by committing perjury or planting false evidence, it is indeed "framing" but it is not "official misconduct". It may be described as "obstruction of justice" or "perjury" or other term legally. I doubt that it would be termed "framing" or "frame-up" except informally (but this could be checked in, for example, US legal codes).

 

[anglolawyer]

The MA obliges us to focus on the arguments of posters with whom we disagree, rather than the posters themselves. Vixen's 'argument', which I guess must be taken to be encapsulated in her extraordinary theory of the crime, rests on a seemingly endless series of falsehoods which she blithely trots out, one after the other, from which no amount of correction can detach her. She may as well be speaking to us from a fantasy world. Perhaps she is.

I ask, what is the point?

 

[JREF2010]

noble corruption.

Never heard that term before, it fits this case possibly...without the standard definition of "noble". Actually, noble and corruption contradict , right?
Maybe noble as in gas molecule, as possibly inactive.

Isnt that like saying "he was an innocent liar", or better, the Perugia Polizia were noble and corrupt? Can you be both?

Anyway....I liked the slang, "noble corruption", catchy.

lol like the "Computer Experts" that fried all those hard drives.

 

[acbytesla]

The MA obliges us to focus on the arguments of posters with whom we disagree, rather than the posters themselves. Vixen's 'argument', which I guess must be taken to be encapsulated in her extraordinary theory of the crime, rests on a seemingly endless series of falsehoods which she blithely trots out, one after the other, from which no amount of correction can detach her. She may as well be speaking to us from a fantasy world. Perhaps she is.

I ask, what is the point?

That's your first mistake. There is no point. Hell, let's face it Anglo. There is little point in discussing this at all anymore since the acquittal. We're not going to get this heathen to see the errors in her ways.

Amanda and Raffaele have been acquitted. Game's over. We're just basking in the victory and Vixen is wallowing in the sour grapes complaining over the umpire's call.

 

[Desert Fox]

That's your first mistake. There is no point. Hell, let's face it Anglo. There is little point in discussing this at all anymore since the acquittal. We're not going to get this heathen to see the errors in her ways.

Amanda and Raffaele have been acquitted. Game's over. We're just basking in the victory and Vixen is wallowing in the sour grapes complaining over the umpire's call.

I actually did not post for a while on this thread and actually don't really understand what is being argued anymore. I am kind of at a loss on just how many posts there are and wish that people would instead focus on other innocent people with the Sword of Damocles still over their head.

 

[anglolawyer]

That's your first mistake. There is no point. Hell, let's face it Anglo. There is little point in discussing this at all anymore since the acquittal. We're not going to get this heathen to see the errors in her ways.

Amanda and Raffaele have been acquitted. Game's over. We're just basking in the victory and Vixen is wallowing in the sour grapes complaining over the umpire's call.

With the greatest respect to my learned and honourable friend, one cannot 'wallow in sour grapes'. Anyway, whether you can or not, Vixen's tone strikes me as more gay than sour. We could at least have a pissed off guilter to chisel away at

 

[anglolawyer]

Never heard that term before, it fits this case possibly...without the standard definition of "noble". Actually, noble and corruption contradict , right?
Maybe noble as in gas molecule, as possibly inactive.

Isnt that like saying "he was an innocent liar", or better, the Perugia Polizia were noble and corrupt? Can you be both?

Anyway....I liked the slang, "noble corruption", catchy.

lol like the "Computer Experts" that fried all those hard drives.

The truncation has confused you. Blame Grinder (but not too much, he is American). It's noble cause corruption. The cause is noble but it is pursued by foul means.

 

[Katody Matrass]

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.

Baffling ignorance. You're so quick to opine about a case you're so absolutely unfamiliar with.

Filomena testified at trial. You will never come to an informed opinion if you only read tabloids from 2007 while the case file and court transcripts are freely available.

 

[Katody Matrass]

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.

With all respect, nonsense. No one but the corrupt cops and prosecutor need to be aware of the foul play.

 

[Bill Williams]

With the greatest respect to my learned and honourable friend, one cannot 'wallow in sour grapes'. Anyway, whether you can or not, Vixen's tone strikes me as more gay than sour. We could at least have a pissed off guilter to chisel away at

You're always bringing up Machiavelli.

 

[acbytesla]

I actually did not post for a while on this thread and actually don't really understand what is being argued anymore. I am kind of at a loss on just how many posts there are and wish that people would instead focus on other innocent people with the Sword of Damocles still over their head.

Lol. I agree. People are naturally attractef to conflict. Pretty much every story is bases on a conflict or a series of conflicts. If Vixen hadn't appeared, there would be a lot less posts. We are also creatures of habit.

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

With all respect, nonsense. No one but the corrupt cops and prosecutor need to be aware of the foul play.

One would think, using Vixen's logic, that wrongful convictions never happen. Ruben "The Hurricane" Carter spent years in jail based on a flawed case and withheld evidence. Debra Milke spent years on death-row on a fabricated confession she never made.

For some reason, everyone above the cops "played along", whatever that means.

 

[Kauffer]

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.

"...a little later, she had succeeded in speaking to Amanda, Amanda had told her that in Filomena's room the windowpane was broken, everything was in a mess, and that she should come back home."
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Filomena_Romanelli (pro guilt source, summary of Romanelli testimony)

"Romanelli said that later she again spoke with Knox, who told her to come home because the window in her room had been broken and her room was a mess."

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/International/story?id=6826939

This above, in comparison to your claim, as follows:

"she didn't tell Filomena at any time her room had been ransacked or burgled."

Kindly withdraw this claim.

And one final attempt - if you wish to retain any credibility as an honest poster, writing in good faith, correct this and withdraw both of the claims you make.

"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?"

 

[acbytesla]

One would think, using Vixen's logic, that wrongful convictions never happen. Ruben "The Hurricane" Carter spent years in jail based on a flawed case and withheld evidence. Debra Milke spent years on death-row on a fabricated confession she never made.

For some reason, everyone above the cops "played along", whatever that means.

Where there is smoke there must be fire. This is probably what the aversge juror probably thinks.

 

[acbytesla]

"...a little later, she had succeeded in speaking to Amanda, Amanda had told her that in Filomena's room the windowpane was broken, everything was in a mess, and that she should come back home."
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Filomena_Romanelli (pro guilt source, summary of Romanelli testimony)

"Romanelli said that later she again spoke with Knox, who told her to come home because the window in her room had been broken and her room was a mess."

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/International/story?id=6826939

This above, in comparison to your claim, as follows:

"she didn't tell Filomena at any time her room had been ransacked or burgled."

Kindly withdraw this claim.

And one final attempt - if you wish to retain any credibility as an honest poster, writing in good faith, correct this and withdraw both of the claims you make.

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

I'll bet she doesn't. This demonstrates a lack of intellectual maturity. Admitting that you are mistaken when it is clear is part if growing up.