Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[lonepinealex]

Not referring to you, these are Grinder's conjectures and assertions.

The journalists are the journalists. Steve Moore is a subject matter expert commenting on his area of expertise.

If Rudy were on a crime spree prior to killing Meredith, and the Perugians didn't arrest or prosecute him because he was an informant, AND the Perugians called Milan to spring Rudy 5 days before he killed Meredith because he was an informant for them, then the Perugians and Mignini are responsible for failing to control Guede, and allowing him to remain free and return to Perugia to kill Meredith. In this view, Mignini & the Perugians are responsible for Meredith's death because they enabled Rudy to kill her.

Under this theory, Moore's theory, the Perugians and Mignini had an incentive to protect Guede, not because they cared about protecting Rudy, but rather to protect themselves. It was their incompetence and poor judgement which cost Meredith Kercher her life. That's why it matters if Rudy was on a crime spree before the killing, and was protected and enabled by Mignini and the Perugians.

That's the argument. You don't have to accept it. But I do. That's the only way the evidence and the behaviors of the police, and their baloney explanations of what "made them suspicious" make any sense to me. Perhaps we disagree. Perfectly fine.

I don't see what relevance Grinder's arguments have to do with mine.

The theory holds no water for me because Guede is the only one behind bars. His story was not believed, and despite his shockingly short sentence he is still a convicted murderer. If they were so eager to protect him why bother revealing him when they discovered the forensic evidence? They already had three people in custody.

If they had actually recognised the break in as Guede's MO (which there's no reason to believe he had, or that it would be recognisable), why not cover it all up from the start? After all, to believe this aspect of the theory one has to believe that even the cops on the beat were aware that Rudy was an informant, as they declared it to be no break-in during the first tour of the cottage. Was that part of the cover up?

I don't think this theory explains the behaviour of the police at all. Their behaviour largely contradicts it.

 

[lonepinealex]

So is your position that most of the key players in the prosecution side consider Amanda to be guilty of murdering her roommate?

That is not what I said. Do you know what framing means and implies?

 

[Bill Williams]

I don't see what relevance Grinder's arguments have to do with mine.

The theory holds no water for me because Guede is the only one behind bars. His story was not believed, and despite his shockingly short sentence he is still a convicted murderer. If they were so eager to protect him why bother revealing him when they discovered the forensic evidence? They already had three people in custody.

If they had actually recognised the break in as Guede's MO (which there's no reason to believe he had, or that it would be recognisable), why not cover it all up from the start? After all, to believe this aspect of the theory one has to believe that even the cops on the beat were aware that Rudy was an informant, as they declared it to be no break-in during the first tour of the cottage. Was that part of the cover up?

I don't think this theory explains the behaviour of the police at all. Their behaviour largely contradicts it.

Strangely, Judge Nencini writes in his motivations report that the reason Guede would never have faked the break-in to look the way it did, was because the PLE would have recognized it as Rudy's M.O.

That is a strange comment. It's almost as if Nencini is blackmailing the PLE!!!!

But back to Steve Moore. I agree, if Rudy-as-informant were demonstrable, that would be game-over for the PLE.

 

[lonepinealex]

Strangely, Judge Nencini writes in his motivations report that the reason Guede would never have faked the break-in to look the way it did, was because the PLE would have recognized it as Rudy's M.O.

That is a strange comment. It's almost as if Nencini is blackmailing the PLE!!!!

yeah I think we've discussed this before (this thread is going round and round!). It's more of Nencini's convoluted logic, and it doesn't even make sense as a thought in itself in his motivation report, let alone the whole case.

 

[Desert Fox]

That is not what I said. Do you know what framing means and implies?

You can consider somebody guilty but you do not have the evidence.
If you manufacture "evidence", that is still framing.

 

[lonepinealex]

You can consider somebody guilty but you do not have the evidence.
If you manufacture "evidence", that is still framing.

By that definition everyone who has been wrongfully convicted has been framed. A frame up occurs when someone knowingly implicates an innocent person.

I really don't think they chose someone they knew to be innocent to pin the murder on - what possible reason would there be to do that? And why pick such an unlikely candidate, crime stats-wise?

 

[Dan O.]

The real framing happened with the bra clasp and Dan O has suggested a route for contamination, collecting dna from Raff's jail cell, which elegantly explains predominantly Raff dna and less so previous inmates. They really needed this in a serious way, before imploding.

I have suggested a lot of things. I have two top contenders for the bra clasp results. One is the deliberate planting of the evidence such as exposing the clasp to something Raffaele was close to. And the other involves Meredith being the intermediate transfer agent collecting DNA from the people she interacted with the night before and that morning and then transferring that collection to the clasp.

Since these vectors involve mostly non-overlapping sources for the extra DNA it is theoretically still possible to validate one or the other. All it would take is the collection of DNA from the likely individuals until one is found that matches.

Of course, the prosecution has no interest in doing that. And besides, they can't afford to since they blew their budget on wire taps and cartoons. The defense would probably not be able to bring this up in court at this late date. But nothing really is in the way of individuals doing this on their own just to find the truth.

 

[Grinder]

Not referring to you, these are Grinder's conjectures and assertions.

The journalists are the journalists. Steve Moore is a subject matter expert commenting on his area of expertise.

First off I addressed your list why don't you provide the best facts to back your assertions? Most of them that I challenge are pure vapor. Don't confuse a journalist with a crime novelist. Look at Moore's own bio. This case is NOT his area of expertise. Just like forensic DNA isn't a field that Novelli is an expert in.

If Rudy were on a crime spree prior to killing Meredith, and the Perugians didn't arrest or prosecute him because he was an informant, AND the Perugians called Milan to spring Rudy 5 days before he killed Meredith because he was an informant for them, then the Perugians and Mignini are responsible for failing to control Guede, and allowing him to remain free and return to Perugia to kill Meredith. In this view, Mignini & the Perugians are responsible for Meredith's death because they enabled Rudy to kill her.

And if Amanda stabbed Meredith she would be guilty of murder. Do you have credible sources for 1. the Perugians calling Milan or 2. he being an informant? Of course you have nothing. KayPea perhaps or one of the many GroundReport reporters

Under this theory, Moore's theory, the Perugians and Mignini had an incentive to protect Guede, not because they cared about protecting Rudy, but rather to protect themselves. It was their incompetence and poor judgement which cost Meredith Kercher her life. That's why it matters if Rudy was on a crime spree before the killing, and was protected and enabled by Mignini and the Perugians.

And if pigs could fly...

That's the argument. You don't have to accept it. But I do. That's the only way the evidence and the behaviors of the police, and their baloney explanations of what "made them suspicious" make any sense to me. Perhaps we disagree. Perfectly fine.

If they wanted to fit somebody besides Rudi for the murder they could have picked Kokomani or even Curatolo. It makes no sense that they let Rudi be caught.

The theory really makes no sense in any way, not withstanding Moore.

 

[Desert Fox]

By that definition everyone who has been wrongfully convicted has been framed. A frame up occurs when someone knowingly implicates an innocent person.

I really don't think they chose someone they knew to be innocent to pin the murder on - what possible reason would there be to do that? And why pick such an unlikely candidate, crime stats-wise?

http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2012-11-02/framing-the-guilty/all/
Framing the Guilty?
If Houston police did indeed corrupt the process, it may be quite difficult to determine whether Hughes is guilty or innocent. According to the New York-based Innocence Project, government misconduct is a leading cause of wrongful convictions. Equally problematic is when otherwise well-meaning police attempt, in effect, to "frame the guilty" – or those they believe to be guilty – thereby tainting legitimate evidence of guilt. In those circumstances, how can the system determine who should be punished – or in capital cases, deserve to die?

Edit: Framing the guilty is actually a trope
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FramingTheGuiltyParty

 

[Grinder]

Who is 'they'? I don't think every single person involved in the investigation of this case believes her to be guilty, but I think enough of the key players are so entrenched by confirmation bias or pride to stand by that position. I think when evidence like the knife and bra clasp were brought into play, as well as all the 'odd behaviour' stuff, that they probably believed her guilty (and, by extension, Raffaele) but needed to 'find' some evidence to convict. Now, all these years on, who knows what some of them think.

The idea that everyone involved was consciously framing someone they thought was innocent is implausible.

It is also implausible that not one person has come forward to spill the beans on the whole deal. Many people would have known Rudi as the informant and any of them could have made a pretty penny with the true story told from the US.

I'm sure that some had doubts all along as they did with the Memphis 3 and other bad convictions. I'm sure plenty of them were told that this was a good case even if not perfect.

 

[Grinder]

http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2012-11-02/framing-the-guilty/all/
Framing the Guilty?
If Houston police did indeed corrupt the process, it may be quite difficult to determine whether Hughes is guilty or innocent. According to the New York-based Innocence Project, government misconduct is a leading cause of wrongful convictions. Equally problematic is when otherwise well-meaning police attempt, in effect, to "frame the guilty" – or those they believe to be guilty – thereby tainting legitimate evidence of guilt. In those circumstances, how can the system determine who should be punished – or in capital cases, deserve to die?

Edit: Framing the guilty is actually a trope
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FramingTheGuiltyParty

DF I'm sure that the police try to help a case along but that's not the same as framing someone. I totally believe that the PLE could have helped the prosecution of the guilty kids but that is far, far different than them protecting Rudi by framing the kids which is the whacky theory being contested.

I don't doubt that a single cop might have rubbed a little Raf on the bra clasp without anyone else knowing.

While the prosecution often "cheats" it is far different from saying we need someone to take the fall to protect us because we let him kill her which is the idiotic contention. As I said elsewhere, they would have picked an easier target like Koko.

 

[Desert Fox]

DF I'm sure that the police try to help a case along but that's not the same as framing someone. I totally believe that the PLE could have helped the prosecution of the guilty kids but that is far, far different than them protecting Rudi by framing the kids which is the whacky theory being contested.

I don't doubt that a single cop might have rubbed a little Raf on the bra clasp without anyone else knowing.

While the prosecution often "cheats" it is far different from saying we need someone to take the fall to protect us because we let him kill her which is the idiotic contention. As I said elsewhere, they would have picked an easier target like Koko.

Let us say that we do have a guilty suspect but the prosecution has not evidence. Assume that the prosecution fabricates evidence to convict them.

Is not the actual activity of the prosecution just as unethical as if they framing an innocent person?

The term "framing the guilty" also seems to be a term used at least on a limited basis in legal circles.

 

[Grinder]

Let us say that we do have a guilty suspect but the prosecution has not evidence. Assume that the prosecution fabricates evidence to convict them.

Is not the actual activity of the prosecution just as unethical as if they framing an innocent person?

The term "framing the guilty" also seems to be a term used at least on a limited basis in legal circles.

If they knew someone was guilty for sure but had done the perfect crime, I don't believe that it would be the same for them to "frame" that person as if they picked out a viable suspect in order to solve the crime knowing they are most likely innocent.

In the USA, a frame-up (frameup) or setup is the act of framing someone, that is, providing false evidence or false testimony in order to falsely prove someone guilty of a crime
​

So by that definition your example would not be framing. Grinder will now search the internet in order to correct all those using the word incorrectly.

 

[Desert Fox]

If they knew someone was guilty for sure but had done the perfect crime, I don't believe that it would be the same for them to "frame" that person as if they picked out a viable suspect in order to solve the crime knowing they are most likely innocent.

In the USA, a frame-up (frameup) or setup is the act of framing someone, that is, providing false evidence or false testimony in order to falsely prove someone guilty of a crime
​

So by that definition your example would not be framing. Grinder will now search the internet in order to correct all those using the word incorrectly.

Grinder, your own quote does not "falsely prove somebody guilty of a crime who is actually innocent."

Edit: Let us flip this around - what term would use for somebody producing false evidence to prove somebody guilty who is actually guilty but you have no evidence?

 

[Grinder]

Grinder, your own quote does not "falsely prove somebody guilty of a crime who is actually innocent."

I believe you are mistaken.

In the USA, a frame-up (frameup) or setup is the act of framing someone, that is, providing false evidence or false testimony in order to falsely prove someone guilty of a crime

I will admit there is some vagueness but I believe the meaning is as I read it. What I am sure of is that a vast majority of people would see such a difference between the two situations they wouldn't accept it as the same thing.

frame-up
n
Slang
1 a conspiracy to incriminate someone on a false charge2 a plot to bring about a dishonest result, as in a contest

 

[Samson]

If they knew someone was guilty for sure but had done the perfect crime, I don't believe that it would be the same for them to "frame" that person as if they picked out a viable suspect in order to solve the crime knowing they are most likely innocent.

In the USA, a frame-up (frameup) or setup is the act of framing someone, that is, providing false evidence or false testimony in order to falsely prove someone guilty of a crime
​

So by that definition your example would not be framing. Grinder will now search the internet in order to correct all those using the word incorrectly.

Try noble cause corruption. Arthur Allan Thomas was the case here, but sadly, he was factually innocent.

 

[Grinder]

Try noble cause corruption. Arthur Allan Thomas was the case here, but sadly, he was factually innocent.

Next to Champagne of disinformation, I like this as well. Maybe I would like Noble Wrong better. I don't see a policeman making sure a guilty person is convicted (that means absolutely for sure guilty as in where evidence that was definitive was ruled our on technicality) in anyway the same as framing a person the police know is innocent or have only an inkling of guilt.

Maybe I'll look at the case later.

 

[lonepinealex]

I've already said somewhere above that I think they probably fabricated evidence and that you could call that framing (in the "framing the guilty" sense). But that happened later on, when the pathetic evidence they used to arrest the two fell apart.

There is no way you can call what happened in that first week a frame up by any generally accepted use of the phrase, unless you're indulging in conspiracies. That's why I wondered how you understood the term, in case we were talking at cross purposes. Most people use "framed" to mean deliberately stitched up despite being knowably innocent.

As I said before, if Mignini or the police were, for some reason, collectively intent upon framing someone from day one, they couldn't have picked a statistically less likely suspect for a rape and murder.

If arresting the wrong person (which by definition must rely on weak or non-existent evidence) can be defined as framing, then every wrongful conviction is a frame up.

 

[Samson]

I've already said somewhere above that I think they probably fabricated evidence and that you could call that framing (in the "framing the guilty" sense). But that happened later on, when the pathetic evidence they used to arrest the two fell apart.

There is no way you can call what happened in that first week a frame up by any generally accepted use of the phrase, unless you're indulging in conspiracies. That's why I wondered how you understood the term, in case we were talking at cross purposes. Most people use "framed" to mean deliberately stitched up despite being knowably innocent.

As I said before, if Mignini or the police were, for some reason, collectively intent upon framing someone from day one, they couldn't have picked a statistically less likely suspect for a rape and murder.

If arresting the wrong person (which by definition must rely on weak or non-existent evidence) can be defined as framing, then every wrongful conviction is a frame up.

Yet they did suspect Amanda immediately, without reflecting on the statistics. A couple of years later they jail Sabrina Miseri and her mother for killing Sarah Scazzi when Sabrina's father has confessed and is guilty. He is free and they are in jail, refused home pending appeal. Some Italians are perverts, Mignini definitely and many others flowing from these and other cases.

 

[lonepinealex]

Yet they did suspect Amanda immediately, without reflecting on the statistics. A couple of years later they jail Sabrina Miseri and her mother for killing Sarah Scazzi when Sabrina's father has confessed and is guilty. He is free and they are in jail, refused home pending appeal. Some Italians are perverts, Mignini definitely and many others flowing from these and other cases.

Suspecting is not the same as framing. Yes, they're terrible at their jobs and apparently can't run an investigation to save their lives, but that is not the same as knowingly arresting innocent people. They felt their suspicion to be legitimate, they thought they had their murderers.

The implication behind this framing theory malarkey is that all the cops immediately spotted that Guede did it, and to protect him they collectively decided to pin the crime on anyone else, only to then arrest him later on when the forensic results came in. That's bonkers.