Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[christianahannah]

As for what appeared to be hairlike filaments found on the victim's body, when examined under a microscope they appeared to be strands of wool and gave no results.
Only the DNA of the victim was found in the samples taken from underneath the fingernails. It was noted, however, that the nails were very short and probably could not have given any significant scratches to the attacker.

Can we please end this pedantic discussion on hairs? If not, please produce court documents indicating the court gave a flying hoot about the hairs found.

Could hair proponents please provide a list of all hair colors and lengths for all people in the cottage and their friends?

Some of the hair or fibers collected would be of interest depending on where they were collected. The hair on Filomena's window sill comes to mind as would any fibers or hair on Meredith. Analyzing, testing and getting results from them is another matter.

Later, along with the SALs I'll check and see if the court gave a flying hoot about the hairs found.

 

[Grinder]

Wow! We've been over this a hundred times. I've read the different definitions too. I'm going to keep calling it framing. Probably for two reasons. One, I can't think of anything else to call it and two, because it annoys you.

You are now calling it a sacrifice fly? Cool!

The definitions are consistent.

Police misconduct in fabricating evidence. And yes ignorance is annoying.

 

[RoseMontague]

Some of the hair or fibers collected would be of interest depending on where they were collected. The hair on Filomena's window sill comes to mind as would any fibers or hair on Meredith. Analyzing, testing and getting results from them is another matter.

Later, along with the SALs I'll check and see if the court gave a flying hoot about the hairs found.

I recall Gino in her testimony was not too happy about the lack of effort put in by Steffi in trying to get DNA from the hair on the window sill. The fiber they thought might be hair was mentioned in Massei, IIRC.

 

[Grinder]

Some of the hair or fibers collected would be of interest depending on where they were collected. The hair on Filomena's window sill comes to mind as would any fibers or hair on Meredith. Analyzing, testing and getting results from them is another matter.

Later, along with the SALs I'll check and see if the court gave a flying hoot about the hairs found.

They were analyzed but nothing was found in terms of identification.

Now if they had a blue or pink hair...

 

[Grinder]

I recall Gino in her testimony was not too happy about the lack of effort put in by Steffi in trying to get DNA from the hair on the window sill. The fiber they thought might be hair was mentioned in Massei, IIRC.

In Filomena Romanelli's room a few items were tested: a hairlike fibre [formazione pilifera] on the lower part of the window frame, and a presumed haematological substance on the wooden part of the window which held the broken pane. Both of these items yielded negative results on analysis. During the second search, on the suggestion of the defence’s technical consultant Professor Saverio Potenza, the large rock and two fragments found on the floor of the room were tested, but they yielded negative results.​

 

[Numbers]

It seems to me that there is no point in getting hung up on the definition of the word "framed" or the word "framing" when discussing the genuine problem of police and/or prosecution manufacturing evidence. The important bit is that police and prosecutors do sometimes manufacture evidence in an effort to obtain a conviction, and that seems to be the issue here.

At the point when the police and/or prosecution manufacture evidence to try to obtain a conviction, the accused is presumed innocent, is quite possibly factually innocent, and is certainly not known to be guilty, so it seems reasonable to use the terminology of "framed" or "framing" in relation to manufactured evidence.
That said, I can appreciate the semantic quibble as well, but I just don't see any purpose in getting sidetracked with such a semantic quibble. So, perhaps the interested parties can agree to refer to it as manufactured evidence rather than "framing" if that would help to progress the discussion instead of bogging it down in silly semantic sidetracks.

Just a suggestion.

I thank you for your suggestion.

I had joined ISF some months ago, when there was an earlier endless quibble about the meaning of "framing", in part to point out that the apparent dilemma could be avoided by the use of the phrase "official misconduct" for the Knox-Sollecito case. However, not everyone was accepting of that.

I believe some of us wish to argue trivia, and while seeming to demand precision of others, do not hesitate to engage, perhaps unknowingly, in circular reasoning. That reasoning is that if the police suspect someone, that person cannot be "framed". As you have pointed out, suspects are presumed innocent and the police view is simply an opinion, not a demonstrated fact.

LaskL, I appreciate your effort to frame the word better but to me, a native speaker of American English, the verb "frame" is much more than manufacturing evidence. It can mean to try to secure a conviction by deliberately failing to collect, concealing, or destroying exculpatory evidence.

In my colloquial use of the language, police and prosecutors can frame an individual they believe is innocent.

Failing to fully collect or analyze or disclose all the evidence downstairs was an effort by Stefanoni to limit the court's knowledge of the full extent of Rudi's activities on the property, in order to inflate attention on Amanda and Raffaele and minimize Rudi's role to a secondary role. That is framing, in my view and in my use of the term.

Stefanoni's deliberate destruction of the bra clasp was, in my view, a deliberate effort to prevent others from examining it further. I call that framing.

The concept of "framing" includes (at least in the US) the idea of intentionally suppressing or hiding exculpatory evidence.

As I pointed out in previous posts, where I quoted from actual US State and Federal appeal court opinions, the word "framing" enters the legal discourse in the US and is actually employed in some opinions. The context is that the appellant claims that the police or other persons (not necessarily officials) falsely made the appellant appear guilty, while the appellant is of course claiming to be actually innocent (in whole or part) of crimes for which he had been convicted. (That of course is why the the appellant is seeking redress from a court of appeals.)

In practical terms, the appeals court does not seek to determine whether the individual is "absolutely" actually innocent (a probably impossible task), but whether evidence exists that 1) the person has a plausible claim of innocence that was not properly addressed in the lower court and/or 2) police or other persons plausibly falsely made the appellant appear guilty although the weight of the evidence otherwise (with improperly included evidence excluded or with improperly excluded evidence included) would not plausibly support a finding of guilt. (In evaluating the actions of the lower court for reasonableness, IIUC the appeals court proceeds by assuming the most favorable construction for the prosecution.)

The point is that the term "framing" is not used in those US appeal courts in some kind of abstract philosophical fashion, with quibbles over "actual innocence" versus "if the police suspected the defendant, the police could not have framed them by definition". Police or prosecutorial misconduct may be called "framing" in a US State or Federal appeals court, if there is an allegation that there had been an effort by those authorities to falsely make the appellant (then a defendant) appear guilty. The word "framing" may also be used to describe such alleged efforts by those who are not authorities.

ETA: Note that item (1), the finding that a plausible claim of innocence - that is, that a reasonable alternative to the prosecution case - had been improperly ignored is itself a reason for the appeals court to grant relief (which may be a new trial or an acquittal). The "framing" issue is sometimes merely a supplement; for example, in one case it was the plausible explanation for why a tiny trace of an illegal drug is found in a container otherwise containing laundry soap powder.

 

[carbonjam72]

Some of the hair or fibers collected would be of interest depending on where they were collected. The hair on Filomena's window sill comes to mind as would any fibers or hair on Meredith. Analyzing, testing and getting results from them is another matter.
Later, along with the SALs I'll check and see if the court gave a flying hoot about the hairs found.

Didn't Planigale mention something about mitocondrial testing of hair being a possibility that Stef didn't have at her own lab, but might have been available at another lab if not for cost?

Wonder if that type of mitocondrial test on the hairs from Filo's window is still possible?

Sure would be interesting to find Rudy's hair on that window by a visible blood stain (even though they couldn't get a reading on it, supposedly).

 

[Grinder]

At least the discussion about the hairs is about the case and not semantics.

So when you say the police were framing the kids from the first day that's not about the case. Good to have you make that clear.

It is also not about the case when you repeat true crime writers' uncorroborated claims. I certainly agree.

You forgot to explain what it means if a person claims he was framed by the police.

All the major dictionaries have framing defined the same. Do you believe the 1% of scientists that don't believe the world is heating up too?

 

[carbonjam72]

ooooooohhhhh, I'm gonna git that wabbit!!!

You really think the five pages of hair is more important?

Look if I say there was exculpatory evidence held back that means the person was innocent isn't correct because there can be exculpatory evidence that doesn't prove innocence. Should we change the definition because some people here want to misuse it?

snip...
Btw, nothing to do with Newton.

The use here of "exculpatory" is almost Machiavellian (our Mach, not the real one).

All due respect, there's a difference between arguing over definitions and arguing over semantics.

Debating how people are using words in their arguments, is not as important as understanding their arguments, and what they are trying to say.

I think its more helpful to address the arguments directly, rather than get overly hung up on definitions and word usage per se.

The object of discussion is a matter of facts and evidence. Not over the most appropriate words put to service that end, imo.

I think its preferable to excuse my/our poor english skills, and try to stay on point with respect to what is meant.

 

[Grinder]

The concept of "framing" includes (at least in the US) the idea of intentionally suppressing or hiding exculpatory evidence.

As I pointed out in previous posts, where I quoted from actual US State and Federal appeal court opinions, the word "framing" enters the legal discourse in the US and is actually employed in some opinions. The context is that the appellant claims that the police or other persons (not necessarily officials) falsely made the appellant appear guilty, while the appellant is of course claiming to be actually innocent (in whole or part) of crimes for which he had been convicted. (That of course is why the the appellant is seeking redress from a court of appeals.)

Please quote any law on framing.

You are unable to understand that being innocent in terms of the judicial system isn't necessarily the same as the truth.

No court has ruled on the definition of framing and even had they, the definition would rule outside a court room,.

The reason framing is used when the defendant claims innocence is that's the definition. Yes the court documents you quoted used framing to mean the defendant claimed misdeeds to make him look guilty BUT HE WAS INNOCENT.

Has the court ruled on "sacrifice fly"

 

[Grinder]

The use here of "exculpatory" is almost Machiavellian (our Mach, not the real one).

All due respect, there's a difference between arguing over definitions and arguing over semantics.

Debating how people are using words in their arguments, is not as important as understanding their arguments, and what they are trying to say.

I think its more helpful to address the arguments directly, rather than get overly hung up on definitions and word usage per se.

The object of discussion is a matter of facts and evidence. Not over the most appropriate words put to service that end, imo.

I think its preferable to excuse my/our poor english skills, and try to stay on point with respect to what is meant.

se·man·tics
səˈman(t)iks/
noun
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.
the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.
plural noun: semantics

def·i·ni·tion
ˌdefəˈniSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary.

This all started when people said the police were framing the kids the first or second day - now I don't believe they were in any case but the interrogation was clearly improper but still not framing because they thought they were involved. If the definition is ignored and what they mean is violating their rights that's not the same thing.

If we start using exculpatory to mean proof of innocence then we will have changed it's meaning. If people say that the police held back exculpatory evidence, does that mean the person was proven innocent? No, it doesn't, unless the user has decided it does mean that, so how is the reader supposed to know.

 

[RoseMontague]

Didn't Planigale mention something about mitocondrial testing of hair being a possibility that Stef didn't have at her own lab, but might have been available at another lab if not for cost?

Wonder if that type of mitocondrial test on the hairs from Filo's window is still possible?

Sure would be interesting to find Rudy's hair on that window by a visible blood stain (even though they couldn't get a reading on it, supposedly).

The hair is probably Filomena's, the blood stain probably Rudy's, in my opinion. Unfortunately no DNA results from Stefi on these two items so no way to know for sure.

 

[RoseMontague]

On the framing debate, as I said previously, just business as usual. What you call it is a matter of personal preference.

 

[Dan O.]

As for what appeared to be hairlike filaments found on the victim's body, when examined under a microscope they appeared to be strands of wool and gave no results.
Only the DNA of the victim was found in the samples taken from underneath the fingernails. It was noted, however, that the nails were very short and probably could not have given any significant scratches to the attacker.

Can we please end this pedantic discussion on hairs? If not, please produce court documents indicating the court gave a flying hoot about the hairs found.

Could hair proponents please provide a list of all hair colors and lengths for all people in the cottage and their friends?

The highlighted part seems to directly conflict something that was just previously posted.

ETA:

...Nadeau also writes of discussion of Kercher's fingernails.
MichaelB, have you seen the crime scene video where this was done?
Are you stating that this never occurred or was made up?

"She has long fingernails, doesn't she?" asked Stefanoni, examining Meredith's hand.
"She has medium long fingernails, corrected the officer.
...

​

 

[Grinder]

On the framing debate, as I said previously, just business as usual. What you call it is a matter of personal preference.

And may I call a rose a skunk cabbage?

Word definitions are not a matter of personal preference

 

[Numbers]

....

Look if I say there was exculpatory evidence held back that means the person was innocent isn't correct because there can be exculpatory evidence that doesn't prove innocence. Should we change the definition because some people here want to misuse it?
....

Exculpatory evidence is evidence that proves or tends to prove innocence (that is, absence of guilt for a particular crime). See the following quote, for example:

HILITE]Exculpatory evidence is evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial that exonerates or tends to exonerate the defendant of guilt.[/HILITE][1] It is the opposite of inculpatory evidence, which tends to prove guilt.

In many countries, including the United States, police and prosecutors are required to disclose to the defendant exculpatory evidence they possess before the defendant enters a plea (guilty or not guilty).[2]

Per the Brady v. Maryland decision, prosecutors have a duty to disclose exculpatory evidence even if not requested to do so. While the prosecution is not required to search for exculpatory evidence and must disclose only the evidence in its possession, custody, or control, the prosecution's duty is to disclose all information known to any member of its team, e.g., police, investigators, crime labs, et cetera. In Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court held that such a requirement follows from constitutional due process and is consistent with the prosecutor's duty to seek justice.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exculpatory_evidence

 

[Numbers]

And may I call a rose a skunk cabbage?

Word definitions are not a matter of personal preference

Indeed, one may call a rose a skunk cabbage, but it would be advisable to define what one means.

Language is a matter of communication and establishing what one means by a word is important. One may indeed coin words or redefine them based on personal preference, but making the definition clear is important.

I suggest that lawyers, judges, and legislators know what "exculpatory evidence" and "proof" in the legal sense is, even if some of us are struggling with these concepts. (Legal "proof" is not the same as mathematical "proof", and is often meant by legal practitioners to simply mean "evidence"; it can also mean a "conclusive demonstration based on a body of evidence".)

Full Definition of PROOF
1
a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a factb : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
2
obsolete : experience
3
: something that induces certainty or establishes validity4
archaic : the quality or state of having been tested or tried; especially : unyielding hardness
5
: evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment of a tribunal
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof {Definitions truncated for relevance - I left out defs. 6-8}

 

[acbytesla]

You are now calling it a sacrifice fly? Cool!

The definitions are consistent.

Police misconduct in fabricating evidence. And yes ignorance is annoying.

No in fact, they are not. Virtually everyone understands the meaning of the word in this context. (Including you) Just because you alone insist on the "Queen's English" doesn't mean the rest of the world has to. Maybe we should all start speaking Cockney rhyming slang? That would really annoy you. I bet you're just dying to edit Huck Finn as well?

 

[carbonjam72]

The hair is probably Filomena's, the blood stain probably Rudy's, in my opinion. Unfortunately no DNA results from Stefi on these two items so no way to know for sure.

A finding of Rudy's blood on the window by the broken glass, would confirm the break-in was real.

So is it plausible stefanoni suppressed this result, given her preference to support the prosecution?

She certainly suppressed the downstairs DNA profiles, including blood on the lightswitch. In for a penny, in for a pound?

 

[Grinder]

No in fact, they are not. Virtually everyone understands the meaning of the word in this context. (Including you) Just because you alone insist on the "Queen's English" doesn't mean the rest of the world has to. Maybe we should all start speaking Cockney rhyming slang? That would really annoy you. I bet you're just dying to edit Huck Finn as well?

It isn't the "Queen's English" it's English. The british AFAIK use "fitted up" more than framed, which is used more here and fitted up is rarely used.

fit up

Definitions
verb (transitive, adverb)

(often followed by with) to equip or provide ⇒ the optician will soon fit you up with a new pair of glasses
(British, slang) to incriminate (someone) on a false charge; frame ⇒ he was fitted up for the bank job
noun

fit-up
(theatre, slang) a stage and accessories that can be erected quickly for plays
(British, slang) a deliberate attempt to make an innocent person seem guilty of a crime​