Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[carbonjam72]

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

Its June 1, so this is now on the near horizon. Due by month end (90 days from March 27 - would be - due by June 25? Could start to come any day now.

Also, I think Raf/Gumbel Honor bound is coming up for another session, June 9 or 11? And isn't Amanda's next court date for defamation on June 6, is it?

Apologies if I got any of these court dates wrong. I'm losing track of these.

 

[Bill Williams]

Its June 1, so this is now on the near horizon. Due by month end (90 days from March 27 - would be - due by June 25? Could start to come any day now.

Also, I think Raf/Gumbel Honor bound is coming up for another session, June 9 or 11? And isn't Amanda's next court date for defamation on June 6, is it?

Apologies if I got any of these court dates wrong. I'm losing track of these.

It's why this thread needs Machiavelli/Yummi. Of all following this, he (even better than innocenter sources) knew the court dates and what they were about.

 

[RoseMontague]

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

I've been saving that one, just about five years now, waiting for the perfect opportunity.

 

[RoseMontague]

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

Good one, Dan O!

 

[lonepinealex]

It's kind of important, the framing definition thing, but only really on an individual level.

As I said before, if you want to make life difficult for yourself when trying to explain to someone why Knox and Sollecito are innocent, go ahead and mangle the meaning of the word framed. If you say, "they were framed", people are going to think you mean "the cops set them up knowing they were innocent", and you will look like a conspiracy theorist.

So if you insist on saying that, despite having to add a load of qualifying statements and quotations from random court documents, that's your funeral.

 

[carbonjam72]

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.

No one has a personal monopoly concerning the definitions of words, or an interpretation of dictionary definitions of words, as seems to be a frequent occurrence of late.

I haven't been troubled by anyone's use of language or word usage, not for framing, Beyond reasonable doubt, suspects, witnesses informed of the facts, or any other examples that come to mind.

I understand what people have been posting, what they intended to say, and if something isn't clear to me, I ask and for the most part people respond.

I don't need the hyper sensitive reading of minutiae to score a point in argument, that no one was actually arguing.

 

[Numbers]

.... Not one of Numbers' judge quotes used the word as a few people here are suggesting....

"Framing" is not a typical statutory word used as denoting a criminal offense, as by police, in the US. There are more specific terms to denote official misconduct. "Framing" is used colloquially by judges in the US, as I showed in earlier posts quoting appellate court opinions, and was used in cases to persons alleging that they were falsely made to appear guilty of at least one specific crime. Of course, each appellant was maintaining his or her innocence of that specific crime.

Since Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollicito were subjected to police misconduct to make them appear guilty, as of Nov. 5/6, 2007, and they indeed maintained their innocence, they were subjected to framing by the police in accordance with the US appellate courts' usage of the term. According to Grinder, they were "quarked" and I certainly respect Grinder's used of this term to describe the framing, especially because it was a cheesy act by the police.

I will point out that in the US appellate courts' usage, it is of no relevance whether or not the police suspected or believed the appellant to be guilty or innocent; what matters is the overall weight of the evidence. Grinder may have a different view, to which he is entitled.

Here is US Justice Department terminology on police misconduct, as consistent with US law (18 United States Code 55 241, 242):

It is a crime for one or more persons acting under color of law willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (18 USC. 55 241, 242). “Color of law” simply means that the person doing the act is using power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local, State, or Federal). A law enforcement officer acts “under color of law” even if he or she is exceeding his or her rightful power. The types of law enforcement misconduct covered by this law include excessive force, sexual assault, intentional false arrests, or the intentional fabrication of evidence resulting in a loss of liberty to another. Enforcement of these provisions does not require that any racial, religious, or other discriminatory motive existed. Violations of these laws are punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. There is no private right of action under these statutes; in other words, these are not the legal provisions under which you would file a lawsuit on your own. {There are other provisions to be used for filing a private lawsuit.}

Source: Addressing Police Misconduct: Laws enforced by the US Department of Justice www.justice.gov/crt/about/cor/Pubs/polmis.pdf

 

[Numbers]

It's kind of important, the framing definition thing, but only really on an individual level.

As I said before, if you want to make life difficult for yourself when trying to explain to someone why Knox and Sollecito are innocent, go ahead and mangle the meaning of the word framed. If you say, "they were framed", people are going to think you mean "the cops set them up knowing they were innocent", and you will look like a conspiracy theorist.
So if you insist on saying that, despite having to add a load of qualifying statements and quotations from random court documents, that's your funeral.

Thank you for expressing my thought, which is that the police and prosecutor set them up knowing they were innocent. Even if the police and prosecutor suspected them of being guilty, the official misconduct constituted framing, since 1) the individuals claimed to be innocent, 2) there was no reliable evidence of guilt, and 3) they were finally acquitted.

There was indeed a conspiracy among the police and prosecutor, in my opinion, specifically involving Mignini, Giobbi, and a few others in authority.

Conspiracies by the authorities intended to convict an innocent person - a convenient suspect - have on occasion been seen in the US. There are currently 1607 exonerations in the National Registry of Exoneration (period covered: 1989-2015), and about 46% involved official misconduct (not all of which were "framing").

ETA: In US Federal law, as I showed in an earlier post, the question of whether police believed or suspected a person to be guilty does not arise if the police are alleged to have committed official misconduct. Furthermore, suspects and accused in the US, and in Italy, are presumed innocent (until proved guilty BARD) and that is Constitutional law in both countries.

 

[Grinder]

Thank you for expressing my thought, which is that the police and prosecutor set them up knowing they were innocent.

Well that would be framing.

Even if the police and prosecutor suspected them of being guilty, the official misconduct constituted framing, since 1) the individuals claimed to be innocent, 2) there was no reliable evidence of guilt, and 3) they were finally acquitted.

That's not framing and the court verdict has absolutely nothing to do with it. That would be appealing to authority.

There was indeed a conspiracy among the police and prosecutor, in my opinion, specifically involving Mignini, Giobbi, and a few others in authority.

Could expand a bit on how this worked? Why did they decide to frame (mainline def.) the kids from the beginning?

Conspiracies by the authorities intended to convict an innocent person - a convenient suspect - have on occasion been seen in the US. There are currently 1607 exonerations in the National Registry of Exoneration (period covered: 1989-2015), and about 46% involved official misconduct (not all of which were "framing").

But you have maintained all misconduct is framing.

ETA: In US Federal law, as I showed in an earlier post, the question of whether police believed or suspected a person to be guilty does not arise if the police are alleged to have committed official misconduct. Furthermore, suspects and accused in the US, and in Italy, are presumed innocent (until proved guilty BARD) and that is Constitutional law in both countries.

That would be because there is no criminal act called framing. The presumption of innocence has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion in any manner shape or form. Police don't work on a presumption of innocence as they work a case. They don't look at the guy smelling of gasoline standing watching the arson blaze and think he's probably innocent.

When a case goes to trial the standard is POI and BARD becomes the conviction standard.

Your examples of judges' comment are mostly if not all just summaries of what the defendant or convicted person claimed. The fact a judge uses the word means nothing.

 

[Planigale]

And may I call a rose a skunk cabbage?

Word definitions are not a matter of personal preference

'A rose by any other name would smells as sweet.' Capulet, J.

 

[Planigale]

And may I call a rose a skunk cabbage?

Word definitions are not a matter of personal preference

'When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.' Dumpty, H.

Since rosemontague (presumably no capulet) beat me to the former quote I had to come up with another.

 

[Numbers]

Well that would be framing.




1. That's not framing and the court verdict has absolutely nothing to do with it. That would be appealing to authority.



2. Could expand a bit on how this worked? Why did they decide to frame (mainline def.) the kids from the beginning?



3. But you have maintained all misconduct is framing.



4. That would be because there is no criminal act called framing. The presumption of innocence has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion in any manner shape or form. Police don't work on a presumption of innocence as they work a case. They don't look at the guy smelling of gasoline standing watching the arson blaze and think he's probably innocent.

When a case goes to trial the standard is POI and BARD becomes the conviction standard.

5. Your examples of judges' comment are mostly if not all just summaries of what the defendant or convicted person claimed. The fact a judge uses the word means nothing.

1. It's not simply the court verdict (final acquittal). The verdict was based on, at a minimum, insufficient evidence. Reasonable people (such as many posters on ISF) agree that there is no reliable credible evidence of guilt in the AK-RS case. The court verdict confirms that. In fact, there should never have been arrests of Knox, Sollecito, or Lumumba for the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher, because there was no evidence. Coerced statements from interrogations conducted without the suspects' lawyers are not reliable for purposes of arrest.

2. There you go again. What beginning? The "framing" - official misconduct began at least as early as the Nov. 5/6 interrogation, and the planning for that interrogation (Giobbi testified he planned the interrogation). The motivation may be surmised to be to end the case quickly by arresting "convenient suspects" who would have difficulty defending themselves from false charges.

3. False. I have not stated that. With all respect, you should read more carefully. There are many types of official misconduct. For example, if a police officer arrests someone and sexually assaults that person, that is official misconduct. It is not framing.

4. The presumption of innocence belongs to the suspect/accused. No one could be framed by your standards, since the police suspect all their suspects.

5. No. The opinions were the words of the judges, they were not direct quotes of the appellants. US judges have tried to be colloquial in their usage, insofar as possible, for some years now.

 

[Desert Fox]

If it is framing or not, is there any argument that it is manufactured evidence?

We need a term for evidence created by somebody which points to guilt but is not real evidence.

 

[Grinder]

If it is framing or not, is there any argument that it is manufactured evidence?

We need a term for evidence created by somebody which points to guilt but is not real evidence.

That would be to quark. The policed quarked the fingerprints found at the scene. You may not be able to find a dictionary that agrees but we don't need no stinking roses definitions.

 

[Desert Fox]

That would be to quark. The policed quarked the fingerprints found at the scene. You may not be able to find a dictionary that agrees but we don't need no stinking roses definitions.

Did or did not the police in this case create false evidence of guilt?
Granted, they did a poor job of it.

 

[Mary_H]

<snip>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.<snip>

Some people have believed Rudy was a police informant. IMO, that is unlikely. There is no evidence the police there are allowed to prosecute drug crimes. Deaths from drug use are higher in Umbria than in any other part of Europe.

The drug trade is run by the 'Ndrangheta, currently the most powerful mafia family in the world. The Africans who sell the drugs for the mob are from a completely different part of Africa from Rudy. There is no way he would have been able to infiltrate. Besides, if he were providing information (that the police couldn't use anyway), he presumably would be paid and would not have been completely penniless.

It is possible the police wanted to cover up the fact that Rudy had not been prosecuted for his previous crimes. If he had been, he might not have been on the streets the night of the murder. If the police were protecting Rudy, it is most likely because of his connection to the Caporalis, the wealthiest family in Perugia. That is probably also the reason for his light sentencing.

 

[Kauffer]

Did or did not the police in this case create false evidence of guilt?
Granted, they did a poor job of it.

I would argue that the lack of discovery validating the DNA results permits the conclusion that false evidence was created. If the raw data supported the findings it would have been produced. It rises to the level of intent to deceive the court. We must also consider that in her letter to Massei attempting to prevent the release of the raw data, Stefanoni made false claims, which appear to have gone unchallenged. There's a lot of evidence missing, much of which logically must be of an exculpatory nature.

 

[Grinder]

Did or did not the police in this case create false evidence of guilt?
Granted, they did a poor job of it.

I've been most suspicious of the bra clasp DNA. I think that Steffi did "find" MK's DNA on the blade but clearly violated multiple rules and protocols. I think she hid records to cover her lack of proper procedure. I doubt very much that she thought the kids were innocent. Clearly they could have put an abundant amount of MK's DNA on the blade if they were framing the kids.

The police detective (Volturno) recorded Quintavalle and Curatolo's statements that countered what they eventually said.

What we don't know is how much exculpatory evidence they destroyed if they did.

 

[Grinder]

Some people have believed Rudy was a police informant. IMO, that is unlikely. There is no evidence the police there are allowed to prosecute drug crimes. Deaths from drug use are higher in Umbria than in any other part of Europe.

The drug trade is run by the 'Ndrangheta, currently the most powerful mafia family in the world. The Africans who sell the drugs for the mob are from a completely different part of Africa from Rudy. There is no way he would have been able to infiltrate. Besides, if he were providing information (that the police couldn't use anyway), he presumably would be paid and would not have been completely penniless.

Turin, 5 July (AKI) - Police in the northern Italian city of Turin on Friday said they broken up an Internet-based Albanian drug trafficking gang and arrested 43 suspects.

Police said the gang had networks in six regions: Lazio surrounding Rome, Lombardy, Piedmont and Veneto in the north and Tuscany and Umbria in central Italy.

The gang also specialised in extortion and kidnapping and used social networking websites including Facebook and email for its communications including taking drugs orders from customers and instructions to members, police said.
---------------------------------------------------------
In fact, some organizations which reached Italy in the early 1990s, infiltrated the Lombardy narco-traffic network run by the ‘ndrangheta​

It is possible the police wanted to cover up the fact that Rudy had not been prosecuted for his previous crimes. If he had been, he might not have been on the streets the night of the murder. If the police were protecting Rudy, it is most likely because of his connection to the Caporalis, the wealthiest family in Perugia. That is probably also the reason for his light sentencing.

Second point yes but I see no evidence that they didn't prosecute anything that would have had him in jail. The only thing the PLE had him on was, well, nothing. He was found and later convicted in Milan of possession of stolen loot. There was nothing in Perugia.

 

[Mary_H]

Turin, 5 July (AKI) - Police in the northern Italian city of Turin on Friday said they broken up an Internet-based Albanian drug trafficking gang and arrested 43 suspects.

Police said the gang had networks in six regions: Lazio surrounding Rome, Lombardy, Piedmont and Veneto in the north and Tuscany and Umbria in central Italy.

The gang also specialised in extortion and kidnapping and used social networking websites including Facebook and email for its communications including taking drugs orders from customers and instructions to members, police said.
---------------------------------------------------------
In fact, some organizations which reached Italy in the early 1990s, infiltrated the Lombardy narco-traffic network run by the ‘ndrangheta​

This does not prove the point I believe you are trying to make. Turin is not Perugia. The Internet is not North African drug dealers in person. Albanians are not 'Ndrangheta. For all we know, the 'Ndrangheta engineered the arrests to eliminate their competition.

Where is your link?