You guys are free to use the word frame however you like, it's none of my business. You can even use all the other definitions of the word frame and apply them to this case if you want to be really confusing like carbonjam.
All I'm saying is, if you go around bandying about phrases like "Amanda and Raff were framed", don't be surprised to get some supplemental incredulous questions, or be accused of being a conspiracy theorist. That is all.
1. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were subjected to clearly apparent police misconduct beginning on Nov. 5, 2007 with a police interrogation that violated Italian procedural law and ECHR case-law, due to failure to provide the legally mandated cautions, failure to provide counsel, and failure to provide a fair interpreter. There was a violation of the Convention prohibition against inhuman and degrading treatment.
2. There was clearly apparent police and prosecution misconduct in the failure, not corrected by the Italian courts, to produce all relevant information, including descriptions of test methods, faithful descriptions of samples and controls tested, DNA quantification results, DNA profile results, and raw DNA profile data (EDFs) which would provide a fair "best evidence" record of equipment settings and test results, resulting in a denial of potentially exculpatory information from the police forensic lab. Furthermore, a non-validated novel LCN DNA test method was used in a lab not equipped to conduct LCN DNA testing, and which did not show evidence of adequate contamination control.
The introduction in court of circumstantial evidence - the LCN DNA alleged results - was a violation of Italian procedural law that such evidence must be serious, precise, and consistent.
There was a violation of ECHR case-law mandating the provision of all necessary facilities for the defense. ECHR case-law states that all information gathered by the police and prosecution that may assist the defense, such as exculpatory evidence or evidence that would allow the impeachment of inculpatory evidence must be provided to the defense.
3. There are other instances of misconduct, such as the misrepresentation of the luminol data and late disclosure of the TMB testing for the footprints, destruction of computer hard drives, misleading analysis of the mat footprint, and failure to test or report the presumed semen stain on the pillow.
4. The list above does not include all the instances of misconduct.
5. The CSC final judgment found that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were innocent.
6. One may conclude that the instances of misconduct were intended to "frame" innocent persons. Since the CSC judgment was that the defendants were innocent, it is apparent that the frame was unsuccessful.
