Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[JREF2010]

If it turned out he did it and he made that statement I would think he is either really stupid or really crafty. If you stage a break-in it seems logical you would stage a state of ignorance over the crime scene. That he didn't is why I don't find that statement suspicious.

On the other hand there's things Raff did that are, if not suspicious, at least curious. His lie about Meredith pricking her hand with the knife, and some of his statements regarding what he was doing on the night of the murder. I think there's reasonable explanations (obviously) but those turn my head significantly more than his casual observation about the state of the cottage.

That was one of those events of the "TV Reality Show Nightmare" as Raffaele called it, that grabbed a lot of attention. Even in his book he doesnt go into much detail about that comment.

Writing stuff for the police to confiscate also adds to the world of a lot of 20yr olds, who were put into the most bizarre situation, a horrific situation.

Just for me watching the huge amount of details and attention this case provided was something never seen. Even the courtroom odd things like Raffaele fixing the prosecutions laptop presentation for them, was total "bizarro-world".

Commode making jokes about penus sizes in relate to shoe sizes, and Massei checking his cell phone, and jurors sleeping during the Massei trial in plain view was an insight to a murder trial that left me thinking anything could happen in this case.

 

[Numbers]

Does the ISC have a way to acquit someone for merely insufficient evidence? I thought the crime does not exist and did not commit the act were their only choices?

I'm convinced now that 620 (L) and 530 (2) apply to A, D and F, which is why there is a comma not a semi colon in that section of the dispositivo. So I think you are right. It was my mistake not Numbers' to suggest that 620 (a) applied throughout. I hadn't read the text closely enough. Carbonjam spotted that, so thanks to him. art 61 applies exclusively to the aggravating circumstances of the calunnnia charge and since the murder charge was dismissed, it had to be excluded.

Numbers, do you have a translation of the complete Art 530 you can post?

Because of the interest expressed, I post the English translation of CPP Articles 530 and 531 here.

Source: The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation, ed. M. Gialuz, L. Luparia, and F. Scarpa, Wolters Kluwer Italia, (c) 2014.

CPP Article 530 Judgment of acquittal

1. If the criminal act did not occur, the accused did not commit it, the act is not deemed an offence by law or it has been committed by a person who cannot be accused or punished for a different reason, the judge shall deliver a judgment of acquittal, mentioning the cause in the operative part of the judgment.

2. The judge shall deliver a judgment of acquittal also in case of insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof that the criminal act occurred, the accused committed it, the act is deemed an offence by law, the offence was committed by a person with mental capacity.

3. The judge shall deliver a judgment of acquittal under paragraph 1 if there is proof that the underlying causes of the committed act are either a reason for justification or a personal reason for exemption from punishment or there is a doubt on the existence of such reasons.

4. By means of the judgment of acquittal, the judge shall apply the security measures, in the cases provided for by law.

CPP Article 531 Declaration of extinguishment of the offence

1. Without prejudice to the provision of Article 129, paragraph 2, if the offence is extinguished, the judge shall deliver a judgment of non-prosecution, mentioning the cause in the operative part.

2. The judge shall follow the same procedure if there are doubts regarding the cause for extinguishing an offence.

 

[Numbers]

If the Kercher's attorney Maresca said to them that there was no path forward then that would signify that the accused have been found innocent. If the ruling had been insufficient evidence then they might have still been able to sue a la O.J. Simpson. But the innocent ruling rules that out.

Poor Francesco!

IIUC, the civil parties who were suing in the same proceedings as the criminal case cannot now again sue due to the final acquittal. That would be true for insufficient evidence as well as "did not commit the act". Had the civil parties not participated in the criminal case, perhaps they would be able to sue now, although I am unsure of this.

Here is my view on "insufficient evidence": Suppose X wants to buy something, for example a car, which costs $10,000. However, X only has $1000 total resources. X has insufficient resources to buy the car. What if X has NO resources. Then X still has insufficient resources. In other words, to me, "insufficient evidence" is a general term that means the evidence was so lacking or defective that it never reached the level of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is actually no reliable evidence at all, that is a particular case of "insufficient evidence".

 

[Numbers]

Thank you for the thoughtful post. I will say that had he said the "pricking" remark to the police rather than writing it in his diary it would be of some interest. In the diary it went more to him being a spaced cadet.

Please note that all I'm saying is that in the context and at the time it was reasonable for the police to seized on the phrase as suspicious. If he had been involved in the murder and a staged burglary of course the comment would have been really stupid. But people in the circumstances do make stupid mistakes and that's what police look for.
The police would have looked at many things. His knife he brought. His attitude. His being stoned.

Not directed at you, but no one I've seen has come up with anything suspicious he could have said.

Anyone seen his witness statements?

I will suggest that police who were not as stupid, incompetent, and lazy, would have considered the possibility that nothing appreciable (except Meredith's life, her rent money, and cell phones) had been taken, were indications that an intruder, having killed Meredith, minimized his time in the flat and the loot he decided to escape with.

Raffaele's statement was suspicious only to those police and the prosecutor who were looking for a convenient suspect or had some other bias.

You have not shown where Raffaele was questioned by police about his statement. Was any witness statement obtained by police from Raffaele prior to the Nov. 5/6 interrogation?

 

[carbonjam72]

Because of the interest expressed, I post the English translation of CPP Articles 530 and 531 here.

Source: The Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: Critical essays and English translation, ed. M. Gialuz, L. Luparia, and F. Scarpa, Wolters Kluwer Italia, (c) 2014.

CPP Article 530 Judgment of acquittal

1. If the criminal act did not occur, the accused did not commit it, the act is not deemed an offence by law or it has been committed by a person who cannot be accused or punished for a different reason, the judge shall deliver a judgment of acquittal, mentioning the cause in the operative part of the judgment.

2. The judge shall deliver a judgment of acquittal also in case of insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof that the criminal act occurred, the accused committed it, the act is deemed an offence by law, the offence was committed by a person with mental capacity.

3. The judge shall deliver a judgment of acquittal under paragraph 1 if there is proof that the underlying causes of the committed act are either a reason for justification or a personal reason for exemption from punishment or there is a doubt on the existence of such reasons.

4. By means of the judgment of acquittal, the judge shall apply the security measures, in the cases provided for by law.

CPP Article 531 Declaration of extinguishment of the offence

1. Without prejudice to the provision of Article 129, paragraph 2, if the offence is extinguished, the judge shall deliver a judgment of non-prosecution, mentioning the cause in the operative part.

2. The judge shall follow the same procedure if there are doubts regarding the cause for extinguishing an offence.

It seems pretty clear that Amanda's lawyer thought the result was more emphatic - stronger - than simply insufficient evidence. The dispsitivo formulation was "did not commit the act".

So it can't be that "insufficient evidence" is the same as "innocent".

I feel like we're talking about which is better, "Classic Coke" or "New Coke".

530 (1) seems to cover the finding of "didn't commit the act".

530 (2) seems to cover, insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof" that defendants committed the act.

So the options under 530 (2) must have been, "insufficient proof defendants committed the act", or "did not commit the act".

But it can't b both ways. "Insufficient proof" (some uncertainty) can't be the same as "did not commit the act" (no uncertainty).

Is there a separate standard, code for standards of guilt & acquittal? And that the standards of acquittal are then threaded into the 530 paragraphs?

What is the language of 620 (L)? Could that be of any help?

 

[Numbers]

It seems pretty clear that Amanda's lawyer thought the result was more emphatic - stronger - than simply insufficient evidence. The dispsitivo formulation was "did not commit the act".

So it can't be that "insufficient evidence" is the same as "innocent".

I feel like we're talking about which is better, "Classic Coke" or "New Coke".

530 (1) seems to cover the finding of "didn't commit the act".

530 (2) seems to cover, insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof" that defendants committed the act.

So the options under 530 (2) must have been, "insufficient proof defendants committed the act", or "did not commit the act".

But it can't b both ways. "Insufficient proof" (some uncertainty) can't be the same as "did not commit the act" (no uncertainty). Is there a separate standard, code for standards of guilt & acquittal? And that the standards of acquittal are then threaded into the 530 paragraphs?

What is the language of 620 (L)? Could that be of any help?

I believe that the issue is largely semantic.

If there is "insufficient, contradictory, or lacking proof that...the accused committed it {the criminal act}" [CPP Art. 530 para. 2], then the accused is "not guilty" - because CPP Art. 533 para. 1 states: "The judge shall deliver a judgment of conviction if the accused is proven guilty of the alleged offense beyond a reasonable doubt." And the Italian Constitution states, in Article 27:
"Criminal responsibility is personal. A defendant shall be considered not guilty until a final sentence has been passed...."

There is no such judgment as "may be guilty, we're not sure". The final judgment of an Italian court is either not guilty or guilty.

Someone may be not guilty by reason of diminished mental capacity, or because they acted in self-defense, for example.

Or, as in the case of Knox and Sollecito, they may be not guilty because they did not commit the criminal act. That is, they are innocent. The reasons the court finds that they did not commit the criminal act is because the prosecution's evidence is defective: it is insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof that the accused committed a criminal act. In fact, in this case I believe there was no reliable or relevant evidence whatsoever.

CPP Art. 620 para. 1L states: "In addition to the cases specifically provided for by the law, the CSC shall deliver a judgment of annulment without referral: in any other case in which the CSC believes the referral is superfluous or may proceed to the determination of the sentence or take the necessary decisions."

In other words, as applied to this case, the CSC did not believe that there was any further need to evaluate evidence at the lower court level. I believe that this means the that the CSC believed that there was no credible evidence of guilt to be evaluated.

 

[Grinder]

I will suggest that police who were not as stupid, incompetent, and lazy, would have considered the possibility that nothing appreciable (except Meredith's life, her rent money, and cell phones) had been taken, were indications that an intruder, having killed Meredith, minimized his time in the flat and the loot he decided to escape with.

Raffaele's statement was suspicious only to those police and the prosecutor who were looking for a convenient suspect or had some other bias.

You have not shown where Raffaele was questioned by police about his statement. Was any witness statement obtained by police from Raffaele prior to the Nov. 5/6 interrogation?

You have yet to provide any statement that could be suspicious. It seems you think since the kids were ultimately found innocent nothing they said or did could be suspicious.

I have not shown where he was questioned because for whatever reason to the best of my knowledge he has not released his witness statements. I asked yesterday if anyone had them and no one has produced them AFAIK.

I'm pretty sure he was questioned more than once before the 2nd. Whether or not he was asked about the phrase doesn't change the point that when investigating the crime it would be suspicious.

 

[Numbers]

1. You have yet to provide any statement that could be suspicious. 2. It seems you think since the kids were ultimately found innocent nothing they said or did could be suspicious.
I have not shown where he was questioned because for whatever reason to the best of my knowledge he has not released his witness statements. I asked yesterday if anyone had them and no one has produced them AFAIK.

3. I'm pretty sure he was questioned more than once before the 2nd. Whether or not he was asked about the phrase doesn't change the point that when investigating the crime it would be suspicious.

This (1) is one of those reversal of the burden of proof ideas.

This (2) is a bizarre supposition, not supported by anything I have posted. A suspicious statement could be any seemingly incriminating statement. A statement of apparent fact - that nothing had been taken {which was based on a statement from a resident, and appeared to be true, based on a superficial survey, and only applying by necessity exterior to Meredith's closed-off room} does not seem suspicious to me. If it seems suspicious to you, I believe that is because you are seeing it from the viewpoint of the suspect-centric police, who are looking for "convenient suspects" close to Meredith, rather than conducting an open-minded inquiry into the crime. See Giobbi's testimony on his method - it concentrates only on those who are close to the victim; he never considered the possibility of a (relative) stranger committing the crime.

Is this (3) a typo?

 

[Bill Williams]

I will suggest that police who were not as stupid, incompetent, and lazy, would have considered the possibility that nothing appreciable (except Meredith's life, her rent money, and cell phones) had been taken, were indications that an intruder, having killed Meredith, minimized his time in the flat and the loot he decided to escape with.

Raffaele's statement was suspicious only to those police and the prosecutor who were looking for a convenient suspect or had some other bias.

You have not shown where Raffaele was questioned by police about his statement. Was any witness statement obtained by police from Raffaele prior to the Nov. 5/6 interrogation?

You have yet to provide any statement that could be suspicious. It seems you think since the kids were ultimately found innocent nothing they said or did could be suspicious.
I have not shown where he was questioned because for whatever reason to the best of my knowledge he has not released his witness statements. I asked yesterday if anyone had them and no one has produced them AFAIK.

I'm pretty sure he was questioned more than once before the 2nd. Whether or not he was asked about the phrase doesn't change the point that when investigating the crime it would be suspicious.

I suggest that the issue is not whether or not the kids did anything "suspicious", it is whether or not the kids did anything qualitatively MORE suspicious than anyone else - so much so as to justify this case eventually slipping into its.....

...... suspect-centrism.

It is already a matter of record what the "behaviours" were that caused the police to focus on them. All three of those behaviours were trivial. What is relevant is: what behaviours did others do (who also were keyholders, or within one-degree of separation of a key) which could be said to be "suspicious".

For the police to get locked into the staging of the crime-scene so early, combined with their assumption that the climb in through Filomena's window was undoable were the chief reasons why the investigation when so bad so early - and, thus, became unduly suspect-centred on to AK and RS.

I'd suggest to you both that everything within two-degree of separation of Meredith did something suspicious. (Filomena, for instance, swiped her own laptop from behind crime-scene tape, and with her lawyer returned it to the cops later at the Questura.)

Some of the British girls lied about Meredith's drug use, as counselled Amanda to do the same when talking to police.

The missing element in your back-and-forth with each other is suspect-centrism.

 

[Grinder]

This (1) is one of those reversal of the burden of proof ideas.

No it isn't. You can't give an example of anything he could have said that would have been suspicious because you believe that something suspicious needs to be a proof of guilt.

You seem to think that all actions are either a part of guilt BARD or shouldn't be considered at all.

This (2) is a bizarre supposition, not supported by anything I have posted. A suspicious statement could be any seemingly incriminating statement. A statement of apparent fact - that nothing had been taken {which was based on a statement from a resident, and appeared to be true, based on a superficial survey, and only applying by necessity exterior to Meredith's closed-off room} does not seem suspicious to me. If it seems suspicious to you, I believe that is because you are seeing it from the viewpoint of the suspect-centric police, who are looking for "convenient suspects" close to Meredith, rather than conducting an open-minded inquiry into the crime. See Giobbi's testimony on his method - it concentrates only on those who are close to the victim; he never considered the possibility of a (relative) stranger committing the crime.

They were looking for the killer(s) not "convenient suspects". The fact that Giobbi made his statements doesn't mean Raf's remark wasn't suspicious to the police. A suspicious statement need not be incriminating. While profiling and observation of people's behavior is not by any means an exact science, it is used widely. 911 calls are analyzed.

Giobbi's testimony has been portrayed as putting him in the best light as far as he was concerned. He said with mathematical certainty he called in both of the kids but has been refuted.

Filomena the only one that checked her own room was in a position to know nothing was missing but the makeup.

There is no doubt that if Raf had been part of the murder and the burglary was staged his remark would have been suspicious.

Basically since you are sure in he is completely innocent nothing he did or said could have been suspicious in POV.

Is this (3) a typo?

Should have read by the end of the day. Some of the british girls or Shaky had two on the second IIRC. The more important question is why we haven't seen them

 

[Bill Williams]

Thank you for the thoughtful post. I will say that had he said the "pricking" remark to the police rather than writing it in his diary it would be of some interest. In the diary it went more to him being a spaced cadet.

Please note that all I'm saying is that in the context and at the time it was reasonable for the police to seized on the phrase as suspicious. If he had been involved in the murder and a staged burglary of course the comment would have been really stupid. But people in the circumstances do make stupid mistakes and that's what police look for.
The police would have looked at many things. His knife he brought. His attitude. His being stoned.

Not directed at you, but no one I've seen has come up with anything suspicious he could have said.

Anyone seen his witness statements?

I will suggest that police who were not as stupid, incompetent, and lazy, would have considered the possibility that nothing appreciable (except Meredith's life, her rent money, and cell phones) had been taken, were indications that an intruder, having killed Meredith, minimized his time in the flat and the loot he decided to escape with.

Raffaele's statement was suspicious only to those police and the prosecutor who were looking for a convenient suspect or had some other bias.

You have not shown where Raffaele was questioned by police about his statement. Was any witness statement obtained by police from Raffaele prior to the Nov. 5/6 interrogation?

One of the "mistakes" police now say they are trained to detect is false confessions. Another pair of eyes through the one-way glass at interrogation, as well as the review of a tape-recording of the interaction, can detect if an interrogator actually introduced an idea to a suspect - so that when that idea surfaces later in the suspect's mouth, it can be seen for what it is.

 

[Grinder]

I'd suggest to you both that everything within two-degree of separation of Meredith did something suspicious. (Filomena, for instance, swiped her own laptop from behind crime-scene tape, and with her lawyer returned it to the cops later at the Questura.)

She took it with permission and didn't steal her own computer. Why would her retrieving her work computer seem suspicious? Not the same as Raf saying what he did.

Some of the British girls lied about Meredith's drug use, as counselled Amanda to do the same when talking to police.

Amanda lied about drug use at Laura's bidding. I don't recall the british girls lying about it, but why would that make them suspicious anyway?

 

[Bill Williams]

She took it with permission and didn't steal her own computer. Why would her retrieving her work computer seem suspicious? Not the same as Raf saying what he did.

Citation please.

The trouble with suspect-centrism.... if this case had been thrown at Filomena and her boyfriend, and if PLE had spent a year inventing evidence against her - then it WOULD be the same as "Raf saying what he did." That comment is 20/20 hindsight and part of the suspect-centrism point being made.

Amanda lied about drug use at Laura's bidding. I don't recall the british girls lying about it, but why would that make them suspicious anyway?

Was it not Sophie who also advised Amanda to lie? As to why that would make them suspicious - once again, 20/20 hindsight: if the PLE had spent a year fabricating evidence against Sophie or Laura on all this, that would be manufacturing suspicion against them.....

..... which was the problem with the case against AK and RS from the git-go.

 

[zotz]

She took it with permission and didn't steal her own computer. Why would her retrieving her work computer seem suspicious? Not the same as Raf saying what he did.

If a person walks into a crime scene and takes a computer that is tampering with evidence whether the incompetent police allow it or not. What if Amanda decided to take her clothes from her room? Would that be acceptable?

 

[carbonjam72]

I believe that the issue is largely semantic.

If there is "insufficient, contradictory, or lacking proof that...the accused committed it {the criminal act}" [CPP Art. 530 para. 2], then the accused is "not guilty" - because CPP Art. 533 para. 1 states: "The judge shall deliver a judgment of conviction if the accused is proven guilty of the alleged offense beyond a reasonable doubt." And the Italian Constitution states, in Article 27:
"Criminal responsibility is personal. A defendant shall be considered not guilty until a final sentence has been passed...."

There is no such judgment as "may be guilty, we're not sure". The final judgment of an Italian court is either not guilty or guilty.

Someone may be not guilty by reason of diminished mental capacity, or because they acted in self-defense, for example.

Or, as in the case of Knox and Sollecito, they may be not guilty because they did not commit the criminal act. That is, they are innocent. The reasons the court finds that they did not commit the criminal act is because the prosecution's evidence is defective: it is insufficient, contradictory or lacking proof that the accused committed a criminal act. In fact, in this case I believe there was no reliable or relevant evidence whatsoever.

CPP Art. 620 para. 1L states: "In addition to the cases specifically provided for by the law, the CSC shall deliver a judgment of annulment without referral: in any other case in which the CSC believes the referral is superfluous or may proceed to the determination of the sentence or take the necessary decisions."

In other words, as applied to this case, the CSC did not believe that there was any further need to evaluate evidence at the lower court level. I believe that this means the that the CSC believed that there was no credible evidence of guilt to be evaluated.

Numbers, I was under the impression that Italian courts have 3 possible verdicts: Guilty, Not Guilty, and Innocent.

Is this false?

Can a person be found to "did not commit the act" and be merely "not guilty"?

Sorry if I'm being dense here, but I swear I can't wrap my head around it. I refuse to give in and say, 'well it's just Italy, stop trying to make sense out of it'.

 

[Grinder]

It was not Sophie AFAIK but if it was it doesn't rise to the "nothing was stolen" response.

If Amanda had asked a cop if she could take her clothes or took them as the cop watched what would be suspicious since she could have taken them before the police arrived unlike Filomena.

Bill the ball is in your court. Prove that she was accused of stealing the laptop. Also explain how the police would have known she took it from the cottage after the "burglary" if the police didn't let her.

There is no doubt that the police should have sealed the room as soon as they found the body. Taking the computer with permission is not tampering with evidence.

Tampering with evidence, or evidence tampering, is an act in which a person alters, conceals, falsifies, or destroys evidence with the intent to interfere with an investigation (usually) by a law-enforcement, governmental, or regulatory authority. It is a criminal offense in many jurisdictions.

 

[Numbers]

Numbers, I was under the impression that Italian courts have 3 possible verdicts: Guilty, Not Guilty, and Innocent. Is this false? Can a person be found to "did not commit the act" and be merely "not guilty"? Sorry if I'm being dense here, but I swear I can't wrap my head around it. I refuse to give in and say, 'well it's just Italy, stop trying to make sense out of it'.

1. I have seen hints of this from posters, but I haven't seen any such indication in the CPP. Perhaps this was the original intent of CPP Art. 530 para. 1 compared to para. 2, but whether that is in effect currently as two different kinds of "not guilty" is unclear to me. I wonder if that was the situation before the concept of "guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt" was introduced into Italian law. The inquisitional system previously used by Italy essentially required a defendant to prove himself not guilty; there was no tradition of adversarial trial as practiced in common-law countries. The reform to the adversarial system started in 1988, and may not yet have been completed in the minds of the judges.

2. Part of the problem may be what the phrase "insufficient evidence" means. In common law jurisdictions, it may mean:

insufficient evidence

n. a finding (decision) by a trial judge or an appeals court that the prosecution in a criminal case or a plaintiff in a lawsuit has not proved the case because the attorney did not present enough convincing evidence. Insufficient evidence usually results in dismissal of the case after the prosecution or the plaintiff has completed his/her introduction of evidence or, if on appeal, reversal of the judgment by the trial court.

Source: http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=989

3. How can someone prove himself "innocent" rather than "not guilty"?

ETA: To clarify, IIUC, "insufficient evidence" in the US (and UK?) means the alleged evidence brought by the prosecutor or plaintiff is so clearly lacking in substance, in the opinion of the judge, that the trial should not even continue after the presentation of the evidence. On appeal, the judge's opinion is that the judgment of the lower court was totally in error, because there clearly wasn't evidence to support the lower court decision.

 

[Numbers]

It was not Sophie AFAIK but if it was it doesn't rise to the "nothing was stolen" response.

If Amanda had asked a cop if she could take her clothes or took them as the cop watched what would be suspicious since she could have taken them before the police arrived unlike Filomena.

Bill the ball is in your court. Prove that she was accused of stealing the laptop. Also explain how the police would have known she took it from the cottage after the "burglary" if the police didn't let her.

There is no doubt that the police should have sealed the room as soon as they found the body. Taking the computer with permission is not tampering with evidence.
Tampering with evidence, or evidence tampering, is an act in which a person alters, conceals, falsifies, or destroys evidence with the intent to interfere with an investigation (usually) by a law-enforcement, governmental, or regulatory authority. It is a criminal offense in many jurisdictions.

How would the police have known that Filomena's computer did not have value as evidence? They later took Amanda's, Raffaele's, and Meredith's computers to look for evidence.

ETA: And then the police apparently tampered with the evidence by destroying the information on the hard drives of the computers by "mistake".

 

[Grinder]

3. How can someone prove himself "innocent" rather than "not guilty"?

Are you serious? A iron clad alibi would be one obvious way. That doesn't mean Raf saying he was with Amanda and vice versa. Video of the person taking money out of a ATM at the time the crime occurred would be a good one. Video of the person buying gas 100 miles from the crime at the time of the crime.

Pretty much showing one was somewhere else or that some aspect of the crime was beyond the physical ability of the person would be the main ways.

 

[Grinder]

How would the police have known that Filomena's computer did not have value as evidence? They later took Amanda's, Raffaele's, and Meredith's computers to look for evidence.

Did I say they would known it didn't have value as evidence? I doubt that it did beyond testing for prints but it should have been.

They did have her bring it in to the police station and they looked at the HD. I don't remember offhand if they fried it.

ETA: And then the police apparently tampered with the evidence by destroying the information on the hard drives of the computers by "mistake".

If they destroyed the hard drives and the information on them with the intent to interfere with an investigation then yes they tampered with the evidence. If they just destroyed them because they were incompetent then no they weren't tampering with evidence.

This will very difficult for you and others to understand because in a similar way to framing the same act can have different meanings.

All destroyed evidence is not a result of tampering and I would bet in most cases is a result of incompetence.