Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Chris_Halkides]

nobody knows the troubles I've seen

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

This song by the Cranberries, is about The Troubles in Ireland.

 

[carbonjam72]

A fair question deserves a fair answer

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?

CJ: Here was the set-up & question I asked you to answer if you disputed this was an indication of "FRAMING": For one thing, there was the trip to the cottage with Amanda on November 4, where Napoleone asked her to pick out a utensil that could have been used in the murder. As I've argued before, the fact that Stef was able to generate Meredith's profile on the blade from Raf's kitchen knife, suggests she could have done the same with any knife Amanda had picked out. If you doubt getting Amanda's prints or DNA on a knife wasn't the point of that Nov 4th visit to the cottage, then what reasonable alternative explanation is there for asking Amanda to handle a utensil that "could have been used for the murder"?
So in all fairness, what is your alternative explanation for asking Amanda to pick up a knife that "could have been used for the murder"?

WHAT ARE YOU SUGGESTING THE POLICE WERE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH WITH THIS REQUEST? DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD HAVE SEIZED THAT KNIFE AND PRESENTED IT AS EVIDENCE, THEN CONGRATULATED THEMSELVES FOR BEING SO CLEVER AS TO TRICK AMANDA INTO SHOWING THEM THE MURDER WEAPON, WITH MEREDITH'S DNA ON THE BLADE TO PROVE IT? (I do apologize for the caps).

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

 

[acbytesla]

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.

You are cracking me up Grinder. Seems pedantic to me. But I get it if it's some kind of thing that bugs you.

 

[Bill Williams]

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

Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

And they accuse people on this thread of having too much time on their hands.

For pity's sake, would the following please consider coming back to restore this thread to some sanity:

Machiavelli
Briars
Platonov
Vibio

 

[The Big Dog]

Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

And they accuse people on this thread of having too much time on their hands.

For pity's sake, would the following please consider coming back to restore this thread to some sanity:

Machiavelli
Briars
Platonov
Vibio

what an odd comment.

 

[Numbers]

Warning: ECHR Discussion Follows

Fair Trials, an NGO, has published an analysis of the A.T. v. Luxembourg 30460/13 judgment of the ECHR. This case is relevant to the failure of the Italian authorities to provide Amanda and Raffaele lawyers during their interrogations on Nov. 5/6, 2007 and the lack of timeliness of providing lawyers for them before there arrest hearings. Here are the major points of their analysis:

1. You cannot waive a right that you do not have.

The decision found a violation of the right to a lawyer. The judgment clarifies that when there is no legal right to a lawyer there is no question of that right being ‘waived’: you cannot waive something to which you have no right.

2. If access to a lawyer is denied, a remedy may be needed even in absence of a confession.

That being established, the ECtHR found that the courts had infringed Article 6 ECHR by not making taking any remedial action to repair the restriction on A.T.’s right to a lawyer.

3. Access to a lawyer includes a right to prior consultation before questioning.

The judgment is, perhaps, most notable for its extension of the Article 6(3)(c) ECHR case-law by stating confirming that access to a lawyer includes a right to consult with that lawyer privately before any questioning takes place. The legal assistance provided to A.T. during the questioning, without such a prior opportunity, was not ‘effective’ and so did not meet the requirements of the ECHR.
{Emphasis added to highlight the most relevant points.}

http://www.fairtrials.org/press/a-t...an-rights-follows-eu-law-on-access-to-lawyer/

 

[Kauffer]

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

She was at the Innocence project gala in New York and went on to a karaoke bar. She sang "zombie". Did a good job too.

 

[Numbers]

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.

Grinder,
Some words in the English language have essentially different or opposite meanings, and the meaning to be understood depends on context. Example: Sanction, Sanctions

I do not sanction smoking in our house.
The UN is imposing a sanction on the country X.

 

[Kauffer]

Grinder,
Some words in the English language have essentially different or opposite meanings, and the meaning to be understood depends on context. Example: Sanction, Sanctions

I do not sanction smoking in our house.
The UN is imposing a sanction on the country X.

A peculiar thing. An auto-antonym! It is also an example of a phenomenon known as enantiosemy.

http://blog.oup.com/2013/09/simpleton-capsize-kibosh-hobo-bragi-sanction-coleslaw/

 

[Numbers]

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.

{Highlighting added to quote.}

Your point is exactly right. To state that a person the police suspect can't be "framed" by the police by definition is in reality stating that if a person is suspected, that person is guilty. But that is a violation of the presumption of innocence, a legal right that some ISF posters (I hope not including Grinder) do not acknowledge, at least for Amanda Knox and/or Raffaele Sollecito.

The reality is that we don't know who is guilty or not, even when a person is under police suspicion or a defendant in a trial. Guilt is legally determined by a fair trial. And furthermore, even persons found guilty as a result of an apparently fair trial are sometimes actually innocent.

 

[toto]

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.

My edition of The Oxford English Dictionary does not support that definition I have to say:

1. To use up, to wear out by use
2a To go through (a series of things or persons) so as to deal with one after another; to handle, deal with, describe, or examine (a number of things) one by one. (Obs)
2b To go through by name; to name or recount in order (Obs)
2c To survey, inspect, examine, or consider in detail (arch)
2d To travel or journey through observingly or scrutinizingly (Obs exc.dial)
3 To go from one to another of a series to proceed, continue (obs) to travel (humourous)
4a To go over (a writing etc)again; to revise, reconsider (Obs)
4b To go through (a book) critically; to review, criticise; also to set forth or expound critically
5 To read through or over, to read thoroughly or carefully; hence (loosely) to read.

So Webster seems to be defining the word as it has evolved to mean by some speakers rather than the general trend of the definitions above which involve the concept of scrutiny.

 

[toto]

Not looking up any definitions of "framing", but my understanding on hearing someone was "framed" would be that they were innocent but made to look guilty.

 

[Bill Williams]

what an odd comment.

I know.

 

[Numbers]

Not looking up any definitions of "framing", but my understanding on hearing someone was "framed" would be that they were innocent but made to look guilty.

And how was that person known to be innocent? If the person was suspected of a crime by the police, would the person be innocent or guilty? Can a person suspected by the police be framed by the police?

Those are the perhaps odd questions that are IIUC being debated.

 

[Grinder]

Not looking up any definitions of "framing", but my understanding on hearing someone was "framed" would be that they were innocent but made to look guilty.

And that's what the vast majority of people believe it means and what the vast majority of main line dictionaries say.

We have a few people here that want to change it to mean any police misconduct involving fabrication of evidence or even improper interrogation techniques.

Some here believe that the police were framing the kids from the very first day, which using the standard definitions seems highly unlikely and makes no sense to me. When those people respond that not taking the temperature was evidence of framing, using the real definition it makes no sense so they want to change the definition.

 

[lonepinealex]

And how was that person known to be innocent? If the person was suspected of a crime by the police, would the person be innocent or guilty? Can a person suspected by the police be framed by the police?

No. Framing is when someone is known to be innocent and evidence is fabricated to make them look guilty. It's really not complicated. What you're talking about is noble cause corruption.

 

[Strozzi]

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

I know of case 1 occurring where individuals were known by the police authorities to be innocent of a crime but arrested and framed by the police for the crime because the police needed to satisfy their superior and intimidate the public. In the case of which I am aware a senior security official instructed/ordered his subordinates to arrest anyone around and charge them with the crime. He did it to satisfy his boss to show that he could contain the situation.

ETA: I think this kind of framing (noble cause corruption) by the police occurs somewhat commonly when police are trying to limit or break up a public demonstration. Police single out active leaders or more vical participants in a crowd, arrest them for interferring with a police officer or for assaulting a police officer (when no contact was made), and fabricate false statements in the police report. (of course, the prevalence of camera-phones is now a good counter to that.)

 

[acbytesla]

And how was that person known to be innocent? If the person was suspected of a crime by the police, would the person be innocent or guilty? Can a person suspected by the police be framed by the police?

Those are the perhaps odd questions that are IIUC being debated.

I hate, but I like this discussion. The fact is that Knox and Sollecito were innocent, so any deliberate dishonesty to make them appear guilty is in fact a frame up.

 

[Grinder]

And how was that person known to be innocent?1. If the person was suspected of a crime by the police, would the person be innocent or guilty? 2.Can a person suspected by the police be framed by the police?

Those are the perhaps odd questions that are IIUC being debated.

No pretty much that is your debate.

If a person is innocent and the police make a plan to produce evidence that makes them look guilty then they were framed.

If a person is guilty and the police make a plan to produce evidence they were victim of police misconduct and it could be noble cause corruption.

Your odd questions would be answered 1. Could be either 2. Yes.

It all depends on their actual innocence and an untoward plan to make them look guilty.

 

[lonepinealex]

I know of case 1 occurring where individuals were known by the police authorities to be innocent of a crime but arrested and framed by the police for a crime because the police needed to satisfy their superior and intimidate the public.

That's not what case 1 was. What you're describing is framing though.