Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

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".)

I know you are struggling with the difference between the judicial system and the world outside of it. Exculpatory evidence doesn't necessarily prove innocence but of course by your standards people can start using it that way because they want to. Crazy idea that establishing what one means by a word rather than using it as it is defined is the way to better communication. If you want to coin a new word for falsifying evidence, go for it but don't go and make frame both for guilty and innocent people.

One may call a home run a sacrifice fly, but it isn't one and one would like an idiot for calling it that.

 

[acbytesla]

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​

I mean this with all respect. You crack me up.

 

[Grinder]

I mean this with all respect. You crack me up.

BTW several people agree with me, so your "you alone" is a lie. I hope I can say that because Anglo and others have countered you here on the meaning and who "won".

 

[Kauffer]

I mean this with all respect. You crack me up.

BTW several people agree with me, so your "you alone" is a lie. I hope I can say that because Anglo and others have countered you here on the meaning and who "won".

Isn't it possible for a prosecutor to fit up or frame a perpetrator who had a minor role in the commission of a crime with a major role? Isn't this what the PGP allege re Guede? Isn't it what Ross Ulbricht's defence alleged?

- excuse me for butting in on your debate.

 

[Numbers]

I know you are struggling with the difference between the judicial system and the world outside of it. Exculpatory evidence doesn't necessarily prove innocence but of course by your standards people can start using it that way because they want to. Crazy idea that establishing what one means by a word rather than using it as it is defined is the way to better communication. If you want to coin a new word for falsifying evidence, go for it but don't go and make frame both for guilty and innocent people.

One may call a home run a sacrifice fly, but i isn't one and one would like an idiot for calling it that.

One point relating to your statement: What was the meaning of "quark" before Murray Gell-Mann first used it? What dictionary did he use to justify that word, which he applied to a hypothesized sub-atomic (sub-nuclear) particle? What was the meaning of "fission" before Otto Robert Frisch and Lisa Meitner used it to describe the splitting of the atomic nucleus? How could they use a word to mean something different than it was defined in any dictionary at that time, since the concept of splitting of an atomic nucleus was a new one?

To me, your approach is a fallacy of appealing to authority and a failure to understand that the meanings of words are those that the persons communicating adopt either explicitly or implicitly.

Dictionaries are summaries of the known usage and definitions of words, not legislators of the usage and definitions.

ETA: Perhaps I could recommend the book Frindle by Andrew Clements as an introduction to some of these concepts of the meaning of words. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frindle

ETA2: Yes, someone could define "exculpatory evidence" as, for example, the current definition of a "home run"; the question is whether or not that would be useful in a communication with one or more other persons.

But the use of "exculpatory evidence" as: evidence that exonerates or tends to exonerate a person accused of a crime --- would be more useful (IMO), for the AK-RS case, and corresponds to a good approximation with definitions in dictionaries (that is, other people use the word that way).

 

[acbytesla]

BTW several people agree with me, so your "you alone" is a lie. I hope I can say that because Anglo and others have countered you here on the meaning and who "won".

Just because they agree with your definition doesn't mean they care.

 

[davefoc]

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?

It is, of course, plausible. However, it would require that Stefanoni be taking an active role in supporting a prosecution case that she knew to be false as opposed to what is normally believed here that she misrepresented evidence or manufactured evidence to support the prosecution's case of defendants she believed were guilty.

When I was looking at a video that was linked to above another video followed it with Steve Moore and another professional that has advocated for the defendants. I was surprised at a view that they were pushing which was that the prosecutor pursued the case against Knox and Sollecito to hide police involvement with Guede. I had seen that kind of thing suggested in this thread, but was fairly skeptical. However if he's right then the active involvement of Stefanoni to convict two people she believed to be innocent is more plausible. Still, if Stefanoni was really doing that it seems like she would have done a good enough job that AK/RS would have been convicted with no hope of a reversal.

As to the suppressed evidence downstairs, I don't think that passed the Grinder test and as such, I tend to remain undecided about it. I understand many people here think there's obviously something fishy going on there, but without a Grinder stamp of approval on a claim or at least a no opinion stamp, I put that claim in my plausible but not proven category. I don't know enough about the minutia of this case to form an opinion on everything so I have chosen Grinder as my go to contrarian to test claims.

 

[Bill Williams]

Amazon is paying close attention to the comments made on NVDL's book, "Deceit". I left a 1-star review, calling it basically a rehash of all the old guilter-memes, focussing on attacking Ms. Knox's personality.

A guilter accused me of being part of a "Rent-a-Mob", employed by Amanda Knox to leave glowing messages for her book, while trashing the books that this counter-reviewer claimed, "told the truth."

Apparently that sentiment does not pass muster at Amazon, basically (like here at ISF) attacking the poster, not the post. Amazon deleted the "Rent-a-Mob" post.

And for the umpteenth time, if I am part of a Rent-a-Mob, I still have not seen any money!!!! Can someone at least pass me the proper paper-work so that I can submit an invoice?

 

[Grinder]

Isn't it possible for a prosecutor to fit up or frame a perpetrator who had a minor role in the commission of a crime with a major role? Isn't this what the PGP allege re Guede? Isn't it what Ross Ulbricht's defence alleged?

- excuse me for butting in on your debate.

Clearly a prosecutor, the police or any citizen could frame someone for a bigger crime than he was actually guilty of. I don't think the PGP think the police or Mignini framed him for a different charge but they believe that Amanda was the ringleader and led both the boys (Rudi more so) in the crime. I don't believe they have maintained the PLE phonied up evidence.

Had the PLE created evidence against Rudi and he was innocent then they would have framed him. Since he was guilty, they couldn't frame him for a crime he committed. Had they produced fingerprints from the lawyers' office that were fake and convicted him of burglary that would be framing. Of course, they only charged him with possession of stolen goods.

It is possible that there is a framing plan against a person that in fact was guilty and it turns into falsified evidence against a guilty person.

Just like the fly ball where it lands or is caught determines what it is called. Over the fence, home run; caught and no run scores, fly out; and caught allowing a runner to score sacrifice fly.

Sometimes the accurate terminology can't be known until the deal is done and even then maybe not. Even if a person proves he was/is innocent that doesn't mean he can prove there was a framing that got him convicted.

 

[Grinder]

Just because they agree with your definition doesn't mean they care.

They posted of their own free will.

care
ker/
verb
1.
feel concern or interest; attach importance to something.
"they don't care about human life"
synonyms: be concerned, worry (oneself), trouble oneself, concern oneself, bother, mind, be interested; More

 

[davefoc]

Just because they agree with your definition doesn't mean they care.

As one that weakly agrees with Grinder on the definition, I do not wish to be included in the agrees with Grinder on the overall issue group.

Regardless of what definitions one digs up about the word, the fact is that the word is used informally by people that could not provide an exact definition that would explain exactly when it applies. That is typical of terms used informally. That is why, when precise language is desired a term is defined exactly in the context or a new term is used that does have a precise meaning.

That was the point of my "Is a marmot a squirrel" post and my even funnier (self assessment) "Is a prairie dog a squirrel" post. When scientists wanted an exact term for the squirrel family, they didn't bother trying to convince the general public of an exact meaning for a word used without precision by the general public. They invented the word Sciuridae to describe a family of squirrel like animals and they then went about carefully defining it and determining what was in the Sciuridae family and what wasn't.

My suggestion was not to use the word the word, frame, at all because of its imprecision and disagreements about exactly what it meant. However, at the time I failed to note that it could be used to annoy Grinder. That seems like a good usage and, of course, for that purpose its use is completely legitimate.

 

[Grinder]

One point relating to your statement: What was the meaning of "quark" before Murray Gell-Mann first used it? What dictionary did he use to justify that word, which he applied to a hypothesized sub-atomic (sub-nuclear) particle? What was the meaning of "fission" before Otto Robert Frisch and Lisa Meitner used it to describe the splitting of the atomic nucleus? How could they use a word to mean something different than it was defined in any dictionary at that time, since the concept of splitting of an atomic nucleus was a new one?

AFAIK "quark" is a breakfast cheese:

Quark is soft, fresh cheese, that has a similar creamy texture to sour cream and a mild tangy taste. Originating in Europe (the name essentially means "curd"), quark is a versatile creamy cheese, useful in everything from cake recipes to dips and low-fat spreads. Like low-fat yoghurt or fromage frais, quark contains less fat than most creamy cheeses (although there is a full-fat version available), making it an ideal choice for those on weight loss programs, such as the Dukan Diet.​

People here suggesting changing the definition are not scientists naming a new building block. I'm sure he wrote a paper and coined the phrase in a peer reviewed pub.

If you think you and Tesla are on the level of Murray Gell-Mann et al. so be it.

To me, your approach is a fallacy of appealing to authority and a failure to understand that the meanings of words are those that the persons communicating adopt either explicitly or implicitly.

Are you serious? Using a dictionary is an example of the logical fallacy of appealing to authority?

Dictionaries are summaries of the known usage and definitions of words, not legislators of the usage and definitions.

Right. They tell us how words are used. No one sat down as an authority and made up words and definitions.

ETA: Perhaps I could recommend the book Frindle by Andrew Clements as an introduction to some of these concepts of the meaning of words. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frindle

Perhaps you could read Websters, the Oxford or Collins.

 

[Numbers]

....

Had the PLE created evidence against Rudi and he was innocent then they would have framed him. Since he was guilty, they couldn't frame him for a crime he committed. Had they produced fingerprints from the lawyers' office that were fake and convicted him of burglary that would be framing. Of course, they only charged him with possession of stolen goods.

....

Sometimes the accurate terminology can't be known until the deal is done and even then maybe not. Even if a person proves he was/is innocent that doesn't mean he can prove there was a framing that got him convicted.

But what if in the "real world" Rudi had committed the burglary? How does anyone know that he did not. It appears to be that there was insufficient evidence to BARD convict him of such burglary, but that doesn't mean in the "real world" he didn't do it - by your standards. Therefore, if the police had planted his fingerprints in the lawyers' office, it wouldn't be framing - according to your standards. In your standards, we somehow know the state of the "real world" without needing to rely on evidence. (If we start to rely on evidence, then we are looking at the court world, which doesn't meet your ideal of definition.)

By my standards, and those of the US appeals courts, since there was insufficient evidence to convict BARD of burglary, but the police went and planted evidence to falsely make him appear guilty of burglary, that would be "framing". But if the police were to be prosecuted for the framing, the charge would be, for example, "official misconduct". That Rudy had been framed for burglary would not necessarily mean he was not guilty BARD of possession of stolen goods, if the evidence for that charge was valid and convincing.

 

[lonepinealex]

I agree with Grinder, he is right. But I can't be fagged with this malarkey anymore.

 

[Grinder]

As one that weakly agrees with Grinder on the definition, I do not wish to be included in the agrees with Grinder on the overall issue group.

Regardless of what definitions one digs up about the word, the fact is that the word is used informally by people that could not provide an exact definition that would explain exactly when it applies. That is typical of terms used informally. That is why, when precise language is desired a term is defined exactly in the context or a new term is used that does have a precise meaning.

Really. Not one of Numbers' judge quotes used the word as a few people here are suggesting. All the definitions are consistent with the person being innocent. The use of using fake evidence for a false charge is the vaguest. But what is a false charge? Can one be guilty of a false charge? I say no. Therefore the person was innocent.

The word is exactly defined. There is no question what it means. Why not create this seemingly needed word for the police manufacturing evidence against someone that is guilty or at least thought to be guilty. I know the police quarked him.

So the PLE quarked the kids by using the Reed technique.

My suggestion was not to use the word the word, frame, at all because of its imprecision and disagreements about exactly what it meant. However, at the time I failed to note that it could be used to annoy Grinder. That seems like a good usage and, of course, for that purpose its use is completely legitimate.

The word is not imprecise among the vast majority of English speaking people. Go out and ask people what it means when someone was framed for a crime. Try to be fair. Ask if a person claims he was framed, if he is saying he is innocent or just the prosecution didn't play fair.

 

[Bill Williams]

I agree with Grinder, he is right. But I can't be fagged with this malarkey anymore.

The motivations report cannot come soon enough. Then we'll have a whole host of other terms to get all anal-retentive about!

 

[Numbers]

AFAIK "quark" is a breakfast cheese:

Quark is soft, fresh cheese, that has a similar creamy texture to sour cream and a mild tangy taste. Originating in Europe (the name essentially means "curd"), quark is a versatile creamy cheese, useful in everything from cake recipes to dips and low-fat spreads. Like low-fat yoghurt or fromage frais, quark contains less fat than most creamy cheeses (although there is a full-fat version available), making it an ideal choice for those on weight loss programs, such as the Dukan Diet.​

People here suggesting changing the definition are not scientists naming a new building block. I'm sure he wrote a paper and coined the phrase in a peer reviewed pub.

If you think you and Tesla are on the level of Murray Gell-Mann et al. so be it.



Are you serious? Using a dictionary is an example of the logical fallacy of appealing to authority?



Right. They tell us how words are used. No one sat down as an authority and made up words and definitions.



Perhaps you could read Websters, the Oxford or Collins.

Thank you for the definition of quark as a cheese.

Perhaps the issue is a lack of clarity as to the meaning of "innocent".

Full Definition of INNOCENT
1
a : free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil : blameless <an innocent child>
b : harmless in effect or intention <searching for a hidden motive in even the most innocent conversation — Leonard Wibberley>; also : candid <gave me an innocent gaze>
c : free from legal guilt or fault; also : lawful <a wholly innocent transaction>
2
a : lacking or reflecting a lack of sophistication, guile, or self-consciousness : artless, ingenuous
b : ignorant <almost entirely innocent of Latin — C. L. Wrenn>; also : unaware <perfectly innocent of the confusion he had created — B. R. Haydon>
3
: lacking or deprived of something <her face innocent of cosmetics — Marcia Davenport>
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innocent

The definition states free from legal guilt or fault - suggests to me that courts and evidence may be involved, not simply a "real world" where we know if someone is guilty or not somehow without evidence.

ETA: Frindle is a kid's book about a boy who coined the word "frindle" for the writing instrument we generally call a "pen" (in English). In the book, others liked the word and adopted it.

No PhD or license required to coin a word, at least not in the US.

 

[Grinder]

Perhaps the issue is a lack of clarity as to the meaning of "innocent".

Full Definition of INNOCENT
1
a : free from guilt or sin especially through lack of knowledge of evil : blameless <an innocent child>
b : harmless in effect or intention <searching for a hidden motive in even the most innocent conversation — Leonard Wibberley>; also : candid <gave me an innocent gaze>
c : free from legal guilt or fault; also : lawful <a wholly innocent transaction>
2
a : lacking or reflecting a lack of sophistication, guile, or self-consciousness : artless, ingenuous
b : ignorant <almost entirely innocent of Latin — C. L. Wrenn>; also : unaware <perfectly innocent of the confusion he had created — B. R. Haydon>
3
: lacking or deprived of something <her face innocent of cosmetics — Marcia Davenport>
Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innocent​

The definition states free from legal guilt or fault - suggests to me that courts and evidence may be involved, not simply a "real world" where we know if someone is guilty or not somehow without evidence.

You are just being disingenuous as the first definition has nothing to do with the court system.

The presumption of evidence isn't relevant. The BARD standard is not relevant.

It is clear the police quarked Rudi.

 

[RoseMontague]

And may I call a rose a skunk cabbage?

Word definitions are not a matter of personal preference

"What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;"

Meaning, no matter what you name this framing thing, it's still going to stink.

 

[davefoc]

"What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;"

Meaning, no matter what you name this framing thing, it's still going to stink.

Brilliant post, but because it didn't mention prairie dogs I had to subtract a few points.