Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Desert Fox]

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.

One important note is that while the individual items may be different, this case is not all that unique with the exception that they had the perpetrator yet yet going after two innocent people. Usually when they have a guilty party, they dust off the innocent parties.

 

[Grinder]

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 mind numbing explanations of things we all here are well aware of adds nothing to the discussion. As your definition from 1889 and all those from current dictionaries states, it is only when an innocent person is involved. The legal standard of presumption of innocence has nothing to do with guilt or innocence in fact. Someone that committed a crime but is found not guilty is not innocent of committing the crime in reality even if found that way by the judicial system. Do you know why the legal system has the presumption of innocence?

I believe in the presumption of innocence in the judicial process but am able to distinguish the difference between that and what really happened.

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

Well there you have it. Bill it was in effect in 2007.

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".

Drop the presumption of innocence for the definition of framing. It doesn't apply. In is not a frame or frame-up unless the police were setting up an innocent, in reality, person. Read the definition you provided.

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".

Go reread it. Are you part Italian? Was a relative an Italian judge? Maybe you've been reading too much Italian legal stuff.

{quote]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.)[/QUOTE]

The definition of framing is not built around the judicial systems definition of presumption of innocence. If a kid steals some cookies and leaves crumbs on his brother's bed he is framing him for cookie theft.

The definitions are clear including yours.

By your muddled thinking all misconduct must be framing which it clearly isn't.

Why people want to diminish a perfectly good word is beyond me.

 

[Grinder]

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.

I already addressed this. Whether you like it or not the definition remains as produced.

 

[Grinder]

{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.

Straw man. Never argued what the charges would be.

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).

Straw man. You are the one going on about "official misconduct" which has nothing to do with the definition of framing.

 

[carbonjam72]

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

What about the judges? Matteni inventing dialogue, and refusing to allow the defendants out of prison during the trial wait? Ricciardi (?) refusing to allow the recovery of CCTV camera video that would have supported the alibis? Micheli and Massei not enforcing or requiring full and fair discovery issues? Allowing in bogus witnesses? Not requiring an investigation of Knox's claims of being struck during the "interrogations"? And allowing Guede's trial to be broken off as fast track, and using his verdict ultimately against Amanda and Raf?

Seems to me a lot of people beyond the immediate cops and prosecutor had to lend a hand, and, IMHO, they did. You can argue 'states of mind', what they thought they were doing, in another post, but a heck of a lot went wrong in this long process.

 

[acbytesla]

The mind numbing explanations of things we all here are well aware of adds nothing to the discussion. As your definition from 1889 and all those from current dictionaries states, it is only when an innocent person is involved. The legal standard of presumption of innocence has nothing to do with guilt or innocence in fact. Someone that committed a crime but is found not guilty is not innocent of committing the crime in reality even if found that way by the judicial system. Do you know why the legal system has the presumption of innocence?

I believe in the presumption of innocence in the judicial process but am able to distinguish the difference between that and what really happened.



Well there you have it. Bill it was in effect in 2007.



Drop the presumption of innocence for the definition of framing. It doesn't apply. In is not a frame or frame-up unless the police were setting up an innocent, in reality, person. Read the definition you provided.



Go reread it. Are you part Italian? Was a relative an Italian judge? Maybe you've been reading too much Italian legal stuff.

{quote]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.)

The definition of framing is not built around the judicial systems definition of presumption of innocence. If a kid steals some cookies and leaves crumbs on his brother's bed he is framing him for cookie theft.

The definitions are clear including yours.

By your muddled thinking all misconduct must be framing which it clearly isn't.

Why people want to diminish a perfectly good word is beyond me.

You're a pit bull terrier Grinder. I think this discussion is absurd. And yet here I am discussing it. What does that tell you?

I just cannot understand your need to define this term in such a limited fashion? Which I think is fine for you, but it does not take into account the way it is used by a great many people.

 

[Grinder]

CJ72's Simplified Scorecard on "Framing":

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

Not framing. Bad police work most likely. They certainly didn't think she was innocent at the time. She was a prime suspect in common use of the word. Did they use anything except her mental state in the trial?

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

The opposite of framing.

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?

Somewhat unclear but most likely not framing if for no other reason than they were sure of his and her guilt at the time. Noble cause corruption perhaps.

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

Ridiculous. There is absolutely nothing to suggest they recognized his MO.

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?

Makes no sense.

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

Well we don't know about what you assume.

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?

He wasn't indicted for the excesses in claims but for wiretapping cops in another jurisdiction from himself. Throw out. Clearly he believe this crap so not framing.

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?

Nothing to do with framing

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'.

I don't think all those that would know would go along with this for 8 years.

 

[Grinder]

I just cannot understand your need to define this term in such a limited fashion? Which I think is fine for you, but it does not take into account the way it is used by a great many people.

The fact that a few people here have an issue with the correct use of the word doesn't make me wrong.

I've shown that even Chris' source Webster IIRC since at least 2010 and probably before makes the object of the framing innocent.

Do you know what peruse means? It used to mean read carefully word by word. I used win money betting in bars as most uneducated people would answer "scan read quickly". Because there wasn't an Internet for me to correct the word is moving to mean either or mean nothing.

Frame has had the meaning I have demonstrated over and over since 1889 according to Numbers. Instead of saying "well I like to use it another way" why not say "oh thanks for showing me the correct definition"

A while back LJ corrected my use of a word. Instead of trying to find an obscure source that would back my use I thanked him and now am aware when I use the expression to use the correct spelling.

 

[lonepinealex]

FWIW I agree with Grinder about the definition of framing. Any other definition confuses the issue and makes us sound like conspiracists with respect to this case. So there.

 

[acbytesla]

The fact that a few people here have an issue with the correct use of the word doesn't make me wrong.

I've shown that even Chris' source Webster IIRC since at least 2010 and probably before makes the object of the framing innocent.

Do you know what peruse means? It used to mean read carefully word by word. I used win money betting in bars as most uneducated people would answer "scan read quickly". Because there wasn't an Internet for me to correct the word is moving to mean either or mean nothing.

Frame has had the meaning I have demonstrated over and over since 1889 according to Numbers. Instead of saying "well I like to use it another way" why not say "oh thanks for showing me the correct definition"

A while back LJ corrected my use of a word. Instead of trying to find an obscure source that would back my use I thanked him and now am aware when I use the expression to use the correct spelling.

Wow!! I've read the same dictionary entries and understand it to mean much more than you do. And that Numbers more broad interpretation is not wrong even by Webstrr. Not even close. Just because a term has an original definition does not mean that word or term cannot evolve over time, even change dramatically. ie: mouse, bad, cool, etc. etc etc. This is why there are secondary definitions.

 

[Numbers]

I already addressed this. Whether you like it or not the definition remains as produced.

Grinder,

1. Suppose someone who is (as known by God) guilty, but is not known or suspected by any person, including the police to be guilty, is subjected to police misconduct in order to be made to seem guilty. What category do you place that person in, framed or not?

2. Suppose someone who is (as known by God) innocent, but is suspected by the police as being guilty, is subjected to police misconduct in order to seem guilty. What category do you place that person in, framed or not?

3. Suppose that there is no information from God on who is or is not guilty, and the police decide someone is a suspect but on an arbitrary, unreasonable basis. There is no credible evidence available concerning the guilt of that person. Then the police subject that person to police misconduct in order to make the person appear guilty. What category do you place that person in, framed or not?

 

[lonepinealex]

Grinder,

1. Suppose someone who is (as known by God) guilty, but is not known or suspected by any person, including the police to be guilty, is subjected to police misconduct in order to be made to seem guilty. What category do you place that person in, framed or not?

2. Suppose someone who is (as known by God) innocent, but is suspected by the police as being guilty, is subjected to police misconduct in order to seem guilty. What category do you place that person in, framed or not?

3. Suppose that there is no information from God on who is or is not guilty, and the police decide someone is a suspect but on an arbitrary, unreasonable basis. There is no credible evidence available concerning the guilt of that person. Then the police subject that person to police misconduct in order to make the person appear guilty. What category do you place that person in, framed or not?

I wouldn't call any of these framing. And 1 probably wouldn't happen.

 

[acbytesla]

Interesting that you also say this about the word "peruse" since Webster first definition says it means to read something in a relaxed or casual way. Clearly that word has also changed over time.

 

[The Big Dog]

I see the latest kerfuffle involves Knox singing “Zombie, zombie, zombie, hey, hey” a few nights ago on the Karaoke.

 

[Bill Williams]

I see the latest kerfuffle involves Knox singing “Zombie, zombie, zombie, hey, hey” a few nights ago on the Karaoke.

Where was this kerfuffle, among who, and what does it ha to do with the Kercher murder?

 

[Grinder]

Interesting that you also say this about the word "peruse" since Webster first definition says it means to read something in a relaxed or casual way. Clearly that word has also changed over time.

Have you ever been on the Internet?

There's this thing called Google to search.

If you put peruse in thisd is what is the top hit

pe·ruse
pəˈro͞oz/Submit
verbformal
read (something), typically in a thorough or careful way.
"he has spent countless hours in libraries perusing art history books and catalogues"
examine carefully or at length.
"Laura perused a Caravaggio"

Now I made the point that while peruse had meant only to read carefully fools using incorrectly have made it meaningless since if I say please peruse the documents before arriving you may now either read it carefully or as you have found casually.

I will not let that happen to framing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Framing has not changed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ETA - verb (used with object), perused, perusing.
1.
to read through with thoroughness or care:
to peruse a report.
2.
to scan or browse:
The shoppers perused the magazines near the cash register while waiting to check out.

Because I wasn't able in the pre Internet days to correct all the misuse now the word is useless - might as well just say read.

 

[The Big Dog]

Where was this kerfuffle, among who, and what does it ha to do with the Kercher murder?

1. TMZ
2. folks.
3. that knox is not showing the proper respect for the deceased, or something.

 

[Grinder]

I wouldn't call any of these framing. And 1 probably wouldn't happen.

Agreed

 

[anglolawyer]

This would not be a good time for an innocent passer-by to happen upon this discussion

 

[anglolawyer]

1. TMZ
2. folks.
3. that knox is not showing the proper respect for the deceased, or something.

Obviously she must spend the rest of her life in sackcloth and ashes.