Continuation Part 15: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

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.

Well blind marmet look at the squirrel that found the acorn.

By Jove you got it. Now had they been guilty, the exact same behavior by the police would be misconduct and Noble Cause Corruption.

 

[lonepinealex]

Well blind marmet look at the squirrel that found the acorn.

By Jove you got it. Now had they been guilty, the exact same behavior by the police would be misconduct and Noble Cause Corruption.

But he hasn't got it! It's only framing if they police think they're innocent.

 

[carbonjam72]

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.

How can someone be known to be innocent?
Unless this means the police have no reason to believe they were guilty? In which case they could be guilty or innocent. And then, far more likely innocent.

Seems to be a problem that guilt or innocence can only be believed, but neve known.

I think the usage of this word is problematic, and a distraction. It illuminates nothing. The question is only the value of the evidence and reliability of the witnesses put forward.

Serial tramp witnesses are inherently unreliable. Manufactured evidence isn't real, its always an attempt to "frame" a suspect. which I would say means to show the suspect in a guilty light.

You could if you like say the defense will try to "frame" a suspect in a sympathetic light.
The use of "frame" to imply guilt, is I believe a colloquial use. Watching Hollywood movies from the 30s and 40s can often be hilarious for their use of slang, and reflection of values of the day, and what was permitted under the production code.

In short, the use of the word frame, seems to me less important than the facts one is trying to express. Getting caught up in mincing definitions seems like trying to win a debating point, as opposed to trying to more accurately describe a series of events, and the truth of the matter.

By the way, there's a case in New York unfolding that looks like a 'frame-up' regarding a woman kayaker accused of killing her fiance by drowning him. Speaks english poorly, and most of the case seems based on her "behavior" after the crime. Stories coming from the prosecution are gyrating wildly now. The prosecutors should be removed from the case immediately, IUAM. There's zero evidence it was anything but an accident.

 

[Grinder]

CJ72's Simplified Scorecard on "Framing":

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

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).

They were doing exactly what they have said they were doing. They believe in observing the behavior of people and they think from that observation they can deduce guilt. Given your theories they could have put AK's DNA on anything they wanted or they could have had Stef just whip a little up.

They thought she was guilty and they were trying to get her to buckle and tell them the truth. Somewhere in the ILE handbook they suggest taking suspects (common usage, not Italian technical legal sense) to scene of the crime.

 

[Samson]

How can someone be known to be innocent?
Unless this means the police have no reason to believe they were guilty? In which case they could be guilty or innocent. And then, far more likely innocent.

Seems to be a problem that guilt or innocence can only be believed, but neve known.

I think the usage of this word is problematic, and a distraction. It illuminates nothing. The question is only the value of the evidence and reliability of the witnesses put forward.

Serial tramp witnesses are inherently unreliable. Manufactured evidence isn't real, its always an attempt to "frame" a suspect. which I would say means to show the suspect in a guilty light.

You could if you like say the defense will try to "frame" a suspect in a sympathetic light.
The use of "frame" to imply guilt, is I believe a colloquial use. Watching Hollywood movies from the 30s and 40s can often be hilarious for their use of slang, and reflection of values of the day, and what was permitted under the production code.

In short, the use of the word frame, seems to me less important than the facts one is trying to express. Getting caught up in mincing definitions seems like trying to win a debating point, as opposed to trying to more accurately describe a series of events, and the truth of the matter.

By the way, there's a case in New York unfolding that looks like a 'frame-up' regarding a woman kayaker accused of killing her fiance by drowning him. Speaks english poorly, and most of the case seems based on her "behavior" after the crime. Stories coming from the prosecution are gyrating wildly now. The prosecutors should be removed from the case immediately, IUAM. There's zero evidence it was anything but an accident.

Is there a link? Could be worth a thread.

 

[Numbers]

Another word on framing and frame-up

Example of the use of "framing" as a defense (appeal of the denial of a writ of habeas corpus).

United States of America Ex Rel. Roy Helwig, Appellant, v. James F. Maroney, Superintendent, Western State Penitentiary, Pittsburgh 33, Pennsylvania, Appellee, 271 F.2d 329 (3d Cir. 1959)

Throughout this lengthy litigation, appellant has asserted that he was "framed" by his wife, friends, a person who he alleges is the "real burglar" and various state and local officials; that this was accomplished by false and perjured testimony; and that the prosecutor knew the testimony was false. The issue of "framing" was exhaustively covered at the state court trial. Any conflicting testimony regarding it at that trial was before the jury for its consideration, and obviously resolved against Helwig. The District Court granted the habeas corpus hearing "* * * because relator represented that the testimony of five `eye witnesses' was suppressed and withheld by the prosecution `whose testimony would prove that [he] was falsely accused of burglary'

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/271/329/27043/

{Emphasis added.}
....

For those not yet fatigued by the debate on "framing", I call attention to the above post (#1638). Note that it is part of a US Federal Court appeal case, that it uses the words "framed" and "framing", that state officials are accused by the appellant of participating in the frame, and that the prosecutor is accused of knowing about the frame.

At the site law.justia.com, there are many other such cases: about 4800, which include accusations of "framing" by police.

So even if Grinder or others do not approve of the use of the word "framing" for official misconduct directed at a suspect, the US Federal Courts may have a different view. And there is the general modern opinion that words mean what people generally intend and use them to mean, not what one or a few elite word-smiths decree.

Grinder's argument should really be directed to US Federal judges.

 

[lonepinealex]

How can someone be known to be innocent?
Unless this means the police have no reason to believe they were guilty? In which case they could be guilty or innocent. And then, far more likely innocent.

Seems to be a problem that guilt or innocence can only be believed, but neve known.

I think the usage of this word is problematic, and a distraction. It illuminates nothing. The question is only the value of the evidence and reliability of the witnesses put forward.

Serial tramp witnesses are inherently unreliable. Manufactured evidence isn't real, its always an attempt to "frame" a suspect. which I would say means to show the suspect in a guilty light.

You could if you like say the defense will try to "frame" a suspect in a sympathetic light.
The use of "frame" to imply guilt, is I believe a colloquial use. Watching Hollywood movies from the 30s and 40s can often be hilarious for their use of slang, and reflection of values of the day, and what was permitted under the production code.

In short, the use of the word frame, seems to me less important than the facts one is trying to express. Getting caught up in mincing definitions seems like trying to win a debating point, as opposed to trying to more accurately describe a series of events, and the truth of the matter.

By the way, there's a case in New York unfolding that looks like a 'frame-up' regarding a woman kayaker accused of killing her fiance by drowning him. Speaks english poorly, and most of the case seems based on her "behavior" after the crime. Stories coming from the prosecution are gyrating wildly now. The prosecutors should be removed from the case immediately, IUAM. There's zero evidence it was anything but an accident.

Someone could quite easily be known to be innocent of a specific crime by those doing the framing. That is how the term is commonly understood.

Of course in this case the police couldn't have known, but that is why it was not a frame up.

 

[carbonjam72]

CJ72's Simplified Scorecard on "Framing":

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



They were doing exactly what they have said they were doing. They believe in observing the behavior of people and they think from that observation they can deduce guilt. Given your theories they could have put AK's DNA on anything they wanted or they could have had Stef just whip a little up.

They thought she was guilty and they were trying to get her to buckle and tell them the truth. Somewhere in the ILE handbook they suggest taking suspects (common usage, not Italian technical legal sense) to scene of the crime.

Specifically, what was the purpose of asking Amanda to reach into a draw and pull out a knife that could have been used in the murder? To observe her reaction? That's your answer? Ok. I can't say I agree. But Mignini claimed Amanda's reaction of nervous collapse at that time was yet another indication of guilt. The issue is, would they have used Amanda's traces on any knife she picked out to claim it was the murder weapon. They certainly did so with a randomly selected knife from Raf's kitchen, no?

But Stef's technique in the lab isn't about deliberately planting DNA, I never said anything like that. She has happy accidents, then conceals the data that would expose the accidents she knows she's having. Stef never found Meredith's DNA on the knife blade, she just claims she did by jimmying the lab processing, data, and interpretation, and likely running the items in sequence through the equipment so that she can pick up the target profile by blowing up the noise. Those results are not real, and don't involve "planting" in the sense of dropping evidence at a crime scene.

 

[Desert Fox]

The reason why those who think you can frame somebody you think is guilty because framing defines a style of false evidence better than most others.

 

[lonepinealex]

For those not yet fatigued by the debate on "framing", I call attention to the above post (#1638). Note that it is part of a US Federal Court appeal case, that it uses the words "framed" and "framing", that state officials are accused by the appellant of participating in the frame, and that the prosecutor is accused of knowing about the frame.

At the site law.justia.com, there are many other such cases: about 4800, which include accusations of "framing" by police.

So even if Grinder or others do not approve of the use of the word "framing" for official misconduct directed at a suspect, the US Federal Courts may have a different view. And there is the general modern opinion that words mean what people generally intend and use them to mean, not what one or a few elite word-smiths decree.

Grinder's argument should really be directed to US Federal judges.

Am I an elite word-smith? Brilliant!

But I don't have a problem with framing being used to describe official misconduct, as long as those perpetrating the misconduct knew the suspects to be innocent. Your example above doesn't contradict that.

 

[carbonjam72]

Am I an elite word-smith? Brilliant!

But I don't have a problem with framing being used to describe official misconduct, as long as those perpetrating the misconduct knew the suspects to be innocent. Your example above doesn't contradict that.

Can defense attorneys attempt to frame their suspects in an innocent light?

Can one frame an argument, without trying to send it to jail?

Can I frame a house?

Can I frame my mind to a task at hand?

Can i frame a picture?

Can I paint another person into a frame?

 

[Grinder]

Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
Example of the use of "framing" as a defense (appeal of the denial of a writ of habeas corpus).

United States of America Ex Rel. Roy Helwig, Appellant, v. James F. Maroney, Superintendent, Western State Penitentiary, Pittsburgh 33, Pennsylvania, Appellee, 271 F.2d 329 (3d Cir. 1959)

Throughout this lengthy litigation, appellant has asserted that he was "framed" by his wife, friends, a person who he alleges is the "real burglar" and various state and local officials; that this was accomplished by false and perjured testimony; and that the prosecutor knew the testimony was false. The issue of "framing" was exhaustively covered at the state court trial. Any conflicting testimony regarding it at that trial was before the jury for its consideration, and obviously resolved against Helwig. The District Court granted the habeas corpus hearing "* * * because relator represented that the testimony of five `eye witnesses' was suppressed and withheld by the prosecution `whose testimony would prove that [he] was falsely accused of burglary'

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/...271/329/27043


So even if Grinder or others do not approve of the use of the word "framing" for official misconduct directed at a suspect, the US Federal Courts may have a different view. And there is the general modern opinion that words mean what people generally intend and use them to mean, not what one or a few elite word-smiths decree.

Grinder's argument should really be directed to US Federal judges.

Your argument is idiotic. I have never said that framing isn't official misconduct you were the one bring out. out legal definitions. Of course framing is misconduct, I've said that all along. All misconduct however is not framing which is what you've been saying. I don't see framing defined in the quote of yours so I think this is just babbling.

The definition doesn't say anything about the legal status of framing vis-a-vis the police.

This elite word-smith uses online sources of major dictionaries not obscure snippets that say nothing about the definition.

 

[acbytesla]

Well blind marmet look at the squirrel that found the acorn.

By Jove you got it. Now had they been guilty, the exact same behavior by the police would be misconduct and Noble Cause Corruption.

So in your opinion, it is only framing after the fact?

 

[Grinder]

Someone could quite easily be known to be innocent of a specific crime by those doing the framing. That is how the term is commonly understood.

Of course in this case the police couldn't have known, but that is why it was not a frame up.

I give 1 in a million odds that they will understand your succinct statement.

It is less likely the police frame as they wouldn't have motive in the vast majority of cases.

 

[Grinder]

So in your opinion, it is only framing after the fact?

No. As LP has just said in most framing cases the framers are not the police. In most cases the perp or someone protecting the perp plants evidence or leads so the police will go after the wrong man.

 

[Bill Williams]

Am I an elite word-smith? Brilliant!

But I don't have a problem with framing being used to describe official misconduct, as long as those perpetrating the misconduct knew the suspects to be innocent. Your example above doesn't contradict that.

Just to continue nuancing this to death.....

Is there a difference between knowing that your suspects are innocent, and not particularly caring if they are innocent at all? Meaning - just there and suspicious-enough?

The reason I ask is because there is reason to believe that the status of AK and RS in the polices' minds going into the interrogation was exactly how Barbie Latza Nadeau frames it....

Amanda knows something she's not telling us.​

The intent may not have been to frame, or pursue a noble cause prosecution.... it could have been simply to lean on them (particularly Raffaele) until they spilled what it was, exactly, the cops thought the kids knew and were not telling.

What the PLE/Mignini did not count on was the stubbornness of both AK and RS, simply not to admit to things they did not do. (They'd learned the lesson of caving in under pressure at interrogation.)

 

[Grinder]

Can defense attorneys attempt to frame their suspects in an innocent light?

Yes and they can also frame a picture of their cat. It is a different meaning of frame in both cases from framing a person for a crime.

Not worth the electrons to go on.

 

[Vixen]

"...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?"

You have cleverly made it appear Amanda rang Filomena to report her room ransacked/burgled. The actual timeline is as follows:

------


12:34pm Filomena calls Amanda again who tells her that her bedroom is in “chaos!” The window is broken, glass is everywhere and clothing thrown on the floor. Filomena hangs up, calls Marco and asks him to go to the villa since he is closer; now she is in a panic to get home. (2009 Filomena Romanelli testimony) (2009 Amanda Knox testimony) (2009 Massei Motivation) Note that at no point does Amanda call Filomena to tell her about her room. Filomena must call Amanda to find out. According to the dutiful dishwashers, the penny drops that there has – at a minimum – been a burglary in their home. But a further thirteen minutes pass and the happy couple see no reason to report anything. That will change soon, as the Italian police are on their way, in fact they’re already in the immediate vicinity.

--------
Excerpt DOUBT 2015 Nick van der Leek

There is no evidence the pair were in the slightest bit concerned by the events, as reported by Amanda in her email home and her later court testimony about "menstral blood, ew".

 

[Samzilla]

This is why I prefer the term "railroad". We don't have 10 pages of arguing the definition of that, lol.

How about this?:

Dictionary definition -> Grinder wins
Common use argument -> Numbers wins

Everybody's happy.

 

[Grinder]

Just to continue nuancing this to death.....

Is there a difference between knowing that your suspects are innocent, and not particularly caring if they are innocent at all? Meaning - just there and suspicious-enough?

The reason I ask is because there is reason to believe that the status of AK and RS in the polices' minds going into the interrogation was exactly how Barbie Latza Nadeau frames it....

Amanda knows something she's not telling us.​

The intent may not have been to frame, or pursue a noble cause prosecution.... it could have been simply to lean on them (particularly Raffaele) until they spilled what it was, exactly, the cops thought the kids knew and were not telling.

What the PLE/Mignini did not count on was the stubbornness of both AK and RS, simply not to admit to things they did not do. (They'd learned the lesson of caving in under pressure at interrogation.)

Read the thread. I went over this. They were suspicious of them and wanted them to buckle and tell all they knew.

They may have used techniques that were misconduct. They didn't begin framing them (using the dictionary def.) before the 5th and may never have manufactured evidence against them. I think Stef is incompetent and believed her work. She also wasn't used to American style defense and was shocked when her work was questioned.