Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

Grinder,

If the police believe that someone is guilty and tamper with or falsify the evidence in some way to increase the odds of a conviction, are you saying that you would not use the word "frame" to describe it. If so, what term do you suggest?

If someone says I was framed, it means he didn't do it. It doesn't mean they used fake evidence to convict me because I was guilty.

All the definitions I can find make it clear that framing is an act of conspiracy to convict an innocent person.

I thought you had a term, noble something. False evidence. Corrupt.

False evidence, fabricate evidence, forge evidence or taint evidence is information created or obtained illegally, to sway the verdict in a court case. Also, misleading by suppressing evidence can be used to sway a verdict; however, in some cases, suppressed evidence is excluded because it was found hidden or locked away in areas the accused could not be proven to know. In Britain, falsifying evidence to convict the guilty is known as 'Noble Cause Corruption'.

 

[Bill Williams]

Andrea Vogt is tweeting that the case has been assigned to Section 5 of Cassation. No date is yet set for a hearing. Luca Cheli reports that Section 5 is the one which receives cases which are a result of a previous Cassation annulment.

Section 5, apparently, also makes the decision whether or not the case goes to a United Sections panel. That is more than likely why no date has been set, because the final disposition decision needs to come first.

 

[Kaosium]

It was reported immediately after his capture that it was from a previous knife fight over drugs that Rudy was involved in where the police got his fingerprints to make the identification. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-fourth-suspect-in-kercher-murder-758731.html

The same report then shows several lies from the police trying to tie Amanda to Rudy. I think this definitively demonstrates when the coverup for their raw incompetence began.

This one is most intriguing:

"Investigators say Mr Guede left Perugia on the morning after the murder and went to Milan, where he was stopped by police but not detained. Detectives locked on to his mobile phone signal in Milan as recently as this weekend, but it then went dead. Amanda Knox made at least two calls to his number, one of them at 11am on 2 November, around the time police discovered Kercher's body."​

Assuming the reporting is accurate, how can this be anything but a bold-faced lie on the part of police? There are no calls to or from Amanda's phone at 11 AM on November 2nd, her phone doesn't become active until 12:08 PM. There's no calls at 11 AM on November 1st, so it's not a case where they conflated the date of the discovery with the date of the murder.

At any rate, what's this about Rudy being involved in a knife fight?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

noble cause corruption

If someone says I was framed, it means he didn't do it. It doesn't mean they used fake evidence to convict me because I was guilty.

All the definitions I can find make it clear that framing is an act of conspiracy to convict an innocent person.

I thought you had a term, noble something. False evidence. Corrupt.

False evidence, fabricate evidence, forge evidence or taint evidence is information created or obtained illegally, to sway the verdict in a court case. Also, misleading by suppressing evidence can be used to sway a verdict; however, in some cases, suppressed evidence is excluded because it was found hidden or locked away in areas the accused could not be proven to know. In Britain, falsifying evidence to convict the guilty is known as 'Noble Cause Corruption'.

Grinder,

What is the stuff in italics, and from where does it come? Please link to your sources if possible.

In addition, you changed what I wrote, and you are muddying the waters IMO. The salient issue (with respect to terminology) is not whether a person really is innocent or guilty, it is whether or not the police believe that person to be guilty. I can see distinguishing a situation in which the police believe a person to be innocent and yet plant evidence, from a situation in which the police believe a person to be guilty and plant evidence to further the conviction. I don't see any utility in making a distinction on the basis of actual innocence or guilt, which may not be known to the police at the time of their actions.

 

[Bill Williams]

This one is most intriguing:

"Investigators say Mr Guede left Perugia on the morning after the murder and went to Milan, where he was stopped by police but not detained. Detectives locked on to his mobile phone signal in Milan as recently as this weekend, but it then went dead. Amanda Knox made at least two calls to his number, one of them at 11am on 2 November, around the time police discovered Kercher's body."​

Assuming the reporting is accurate, how can this be anything but a bold-faced lie on the part of police? There are no calls to or from Amanda's phone at 11 AM on November 2nd, her phone doesn't become active until 12:08 PM. There's no calls at 11 AM on November 1st, so it's not a case where they conflated the date of the discovery with the date of the murder.

At any rate, what's this about Rudy being involved in a knife fight?

I wonder if this is not just connected to Machiavelli's claim, but is also what he is referring to when he used to say, Amanda had the number of a known drug dealer in her mobile-phone?

There's that saying that a rumour is half way around the world before the truth can get its shoes on. This seems to be one of them - and shows the "staying power" of these leaked factoids when emotions are running high. It actually doesn't matter how many times this is refuted, the emotive power of the first impact remains and not easily purged.

True, it is a fictional retelling and a fictionalization - but when Thomas and Melanie hook up in "The Face of an Angel", and Thomas decides to experience Siena (Perugia) through the eyes of an actual 20-something student, rather than the sexed-up tabloid retelling of Barbie Nadeau....

..... one of the first things Melanie does is voluntarily/casually enters into Thomas's cellular the number of a local cocaine dealer.

So, if Winterbottom is blowing the lid off of the sexed-up account Nadeau had once supplied, this lie from the PLE about Amanda's cellular on the morning of Nov 2 vis a vis Rudy becomes even less interesting, other than that it is a lie to begin with.

I mean, about everyone is agreed that the PLE were intently interested in Meredith's contacts before Nov 1, and the contacts lists/call histories/SMS histories of Meredith's friends were then a focus of investigation, Amanda's cellular included.

If this is anything other than a bald faced lie, it begs another question. The cops had been put on to Lumumba through Amanda's phone with a simple SMS-exchange about work. Why would they also not have had access to this factoid-call on Nov 2 between Rudy and Amanda, when going through her phone on Nov 5 late at night?

Once again, it is a lie, but also an awkward lie. Like many awkward lies it simply does not stand scrutiny.....

..... except that the emotive heavy-lifting is already done.

 

[Dan O.]

Popham was one of the least anti-kids reporter some on the PGP side would say pro Knox.

Dan are there other reports about this knife fight or drug activity? Certainly would think these items would have been featured by the defense. It was my impression that his prints came from his alien registration.

There are at least three reports of how the Italian police used their policing skills to identify Rudy from the palm print left on the pillow case. The ones we have heard are the immigration registery, the Milan incident and this one from the knife fight. But what we can see of the palm print indicates that there would be insufficient ridge detail to do a CODIS search. The crease lines in the print would though be sufficient to confirm the identity.

It is my beliefe that Rudy was outed by one of his Skype friends.

 

[carbonjam72]

It was reported immediately after his capture that it was from a previous knife fight over drugs that Rudy was involved in where the police got his fingerprints to make the identification. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-fourth-suspect-in-kercher-murder-758731.html

The same report then shows several lies from the police trying to tie Amanda to Rudy. I think this definitively demonstrates when the coverup for their raw incompetence began.

Below is a quote from the article. It seems to claim that Amanda's fingerprints were found in the room where Meredith was killed, which we know is false. So I have to wonder how reliable the information contained in it actually is.

Did ABC news, in the quote Grinder provided, obtain the same information fro the same source at the time? I believe Dempsey and Burleigh claim Guede's palm print was matched to his immigration file, and that's how he was identified in the case.

Conflicting reports are hard to sift through, but information being leaked by the prosecutor's office, especially incriminating to defendants seems particularly questionable.

I would rely with more confidence on Burleigh and Dempsey, by virtue of the fact that they are highly professional, and working in book length format. A 30 second report from an ABC news correspondent with the days 'sausage link new product' seems inherently less reliable.

Mr Guede's fingerprints were found on a blood-soaked pillow in the room where Kercher died, and his DNA on faeces in the flat's lavatory. No prints of Mr Sollecito or Mr Lumumba and only scant ones of Ms Knox were found in the room where the killing occurred. If the new theory is sustained, Mr Guede may have acted alone, although aided after the killing by Ms Knox, who may have covered up for him since.

Italian media reported that Mr Guede, who was fostered by a wealthy family in Perugia, had broken away from them and become a small-time drug dealer, providing students with cannabis. Police were able to match his fingerprints and DNA at the crime scene to those from an incident when Mr Guede was stabbed in a fight over drugs.

Investigators say Mr Guede left Perugia on the morning after the murder and went to Milan, where he was stopped by police but not detained. Detectives locked on to his mobile phone signal in Milan as recently as this weekend, but it then went dead. Amanda Knox made at least two calls to his number, one of them at 11am on 2 November, around the time police discovered Kercher's body.

 

[Kaosium]

I wonder if this is not just connected to Machiavelli's claim, but is also what he is referring to when he used to say, Amanda had the number of a known drug dealer in her mobile-phone?

I thought that turned out to be Fredrico, who was later busted for cocaine possession? Did I miss the definitive chapter on that?

 

[carbonjam72]

United Sections? What dat?

Andrea Vogt is tweeting that the case has been assigned to Section 5 of Cassation. No date is yet set for a hearing. Luca Cheli reports that Section 5 is the one which receives cases which are a result of a previous Cassation annulment.

Section 5, apparently, also makes the decision whether or not the case goes to a United Sections panel. That is more than likely why no date has been set, because the final disposition decision needs to come first.

The final disposition of what needs to come first? The case? Or the decision whether it will be heard by a united sections panel.

The "United sections" panel, that means what exactly?

Did Cheli comment or explain this stuff recently?

Any links or more info you can provide Bill? This stuff is fascinating.

I gather the decision as to whether a United sections panel is approved will be a major development as to whether the case is likely to receive careful review on the merits, or rubber stamped convictions.

 

[Bill Williams]

I wonder if this is not just connected to Machiavelli's claim, but is also what he is referring to when he used to say, Amanda had the number of a known drug dealer in her mobile-phone?

I thought that turned out to be Fredrico, who was later busted for cocaine possession? Did I miss the definitive chapter on that?

You are probably right. Perhaps this is the way stories get conflated, but what I was thinking about when typing the above, was how certain Machiavelli claimed to be that Knox had known drug dealers in her phone, while at the same time being short on citations proving it one way or another.

Okay, I am assuming that the Winterbottom film is well researched, and from what I saw (with one or two exceptions) it was. Specifically, it (like Candace Dempsey) seemed to rely on Frank Sfarzo a lot, to paint the picture of corruption and incompetence of the PLE, unlike what Barbie Latza Nadeau did. She simply ignored incompetence and took everything the police/prosecutors said as gospel truth....

.... the point being that what Winterbottom exposes is that if anything, Amanda herself was quite conservative in the student-drug-culture. The fictional character Melanie shows Thomas (the Winterbottom-substitute) just how easy and casual it was to get cocaine. Just ask.

If anything, then, Knox would have been on the prudish side of the drug culture among the students. Had the obligatory puff on a recreational marijuana cigarette in a group of people wanting to fit in.

It just puts into perspective (for Winterbottom a full 7 years after the tragedy involving Meredith) this business of the PLE lying to the press about Amanda allegedly calling Rudy on Nov 2. It's easy to see that as a conflation of stories, making the murder seem a little more drug fueled - not just lying about establishing a link with Guede.

 

[Bill Williams]

The final disposition of what needs to come first? The case? Or the decision whether it will be heard by a united sections panel.

The final disposition of whether or not this goes to the United Sections.

The "United sections" panel, that means what exactly?

The best I can tell is that if this is bumped up to a United Sections panel, that would give it more legitimacy as being a virtual appeal's body more important than an ordinary Sections' decision. My hope would be that this would increase the chances of overturning a perceived order-to-convict from Cassation Section 1 in 2013. It is unknown that if Section 5 refuses the request for a United Sections hearing, then does it get referred back to Section 1 or does it remain with Section 5?

Did Cheli comment or explain this stuff recently?

Section 5 is the section receiving any appeal against a ruling issued as consequence of an annulment decided by Section 1. It is up to Section 5 now to decide if to accept or not the request for a United Sections ruling, as per article 618 of the Penal Procedural Code.

Any links or more info you can provide Bill? This stuff is fascinating.

Not that I know of. I am way up in the bleachers.

I gather the decision as to whether a United sections panel is approved will be a major development as to whether the case is likely to receive careful review on the merits, or rubber stamped convictions.

That's my assumption too, but I am completely ignorant. So far I have got every court decision wrong, and have failed miserably in second guessing why they made the decisions they did. Take that for what it's worth.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder,

What is the stuff in italics, and from where does it come? Please link to your sources if possible.

In addition, you changed what I wrote, and you are muddying the waters IMO. The salient issue (with respect to terminology) is not whether a person really is innocent or guilty, it is whether or not the police believe that person to be guilty. I can see distinguishing a situation in which the police believe a person to be innocent and yet plant evidence, from a situation in which the police believe a person to be guilty and plant evidence to further the conviction. I don't see any utility in making a distinction on the basis of actual innocence or guilt, which may not be known to the police at the time of their actions.

The quote was from a Wiki. You may not see a dsitinction but it is my opinion and verified as best as I can that to be framed means the person didn't do the act.

I've checked a number of sites and everyone has it as an innocent person

http://www.yourdictionary.com/framed

transitive verb
framed, framing
to shape, fashion, or form, usually according to a pattern; design: to frame a constitution
to put together the parts of; construct
to put into words; compose; devise; contrive; conceive: to frame an excuse
to utter: his lips framed the words
to adapt for a particular use; adjust; fit: a law framed to equalize the tax burden
to enclose in a border; provide a border for (a mirror, picture, etc.)
to photograph or film (objects or activity) within the limits of the frame ()
☆ INFORMAL to falsify evidence, testimony, etc. beforehand in order to make (an innocent person) appear guilty
Faking evidence for a guilty person isn't framing.

Wiki - 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.

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/frame_19#frame_25

INFORMAL to make someone seem guilty of a crime when they are not, for example by lying to the police or by producing false
evidence.

 

[Grinder]

As much as I like Popham I think that article has too many known errors to accept anything in it without corroboration.

I did a search for Guede and "knife fight" and the results were interesting as all the hits seemed to emanate from a couple "crime detective" sites. Many hits were from comments by the usual suspects. PIPs

 

[AmyStrange]

Good Job g

-

The quote was from a Wiki. You may not see a dsitinction but it is my opinion and verified as best as I can that to be framed means the person didn't do the act.

I've checked a number of sites and everyone has it as an innocent person

http://www.yourdictionary.com/framed

transitive verb
framed, framing
to shape, fashion, or form, usually according to a pattern; design: to frame a constitution
to put together the parts of; construct
to put into words; compose; devise; contrive; conceive: to frame an excuse
to utter: his lips framed the words
to adapt for a particular use; adjust; fit: a law framed to equalize the tax burden
to enclose in a border; provide a border for (a mirror, picture, etc.)
to photograph or film (objects or activity) within the limits of the frame ()
☆ INFORMAL to falsify evidence, testimony, etc. beforehand in order to make (an innocent person) appear guilty
Faking evidence for a guilty person isn't framing.

Wiki - 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.

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/frame_19#frame_25

INFORMAL to make someone seem guilty of a crime when they are not, for example by lying to the police or by producing false
evidence.

-

All valid points, but that brings up the arguement that the only people who can truly frame innocent people are those that did the actual crime or were there when the crime was committed. And unless the police were in on it too, and also by your definitions above, only the real guilty person could actually frame the innocent.

I like your arguement, it has fact written all over it. Nice, but I still stand by my original statement.

It all comes down to, how do you know the person is innocent? It is the only way someone could technically "frame" someone, by your definition.

Maybe I'm being influenced by old detective novels from the 40s and 50s. I was an avid reader of Erle Stanley Gardner's Perry Mason novels. Framing people was, like, one of the most common themes in those stories, and the ones doing the framing was the guilty party, and never the police. As an aside, I learned a lot about legal forensics from my Perry Mason books.

Those novels were built upon your definition of "framing" and I tend to see your side more because of it, but I still stand by my opinion, that it doesn't matter whether your guilty or innocent whether you can be framed or not.

Personally, I believe Rudy framed Raffaele and Amanda with his eyewitness (letter) testimony. Even you have to agree that was a framing, but that still rest on how you know absolutely (100%) for sure that Raffaele and Amanda are innocent.

For the sake of the arguement and the following question, assume that "framing" by the police is possible, and also that it would be very very difficult to prove. First an example, I have this wild theory that the reason the forensic doughboys each knowingly picked the bra-clasp up is so that one of them would transfer Raffaele's DNA to it, and they put it on tape so they couldn't be accused of knowingly tampering with evidence. I have no proof, but what if that were the case, how would you prove it?

Like I said, it's just a wild theory, but my question is, would that be a "framing" to you? And if it would, how could the police possibly know absolutely (100%) for sure that Raffaele was innocent? And if it wouldn't, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Have a cool Saturday g,

d

-

 

[Samson]

-


-

All valid points, but that brings up the arguement that the only people who can truly frame innocent people are those that did the actual crime or were there when the crime was committed. And unless the police were in on it too, and also by your definitions above, only the real guilty person could actually frame the innocent.

I like your arguement, it has fact written all over it. Nice, but I still stand by my original statement.

It all comes down to, how do you know the person is innocent? It is the only way someone could technically "frame" someone, by your definition.

Maybe I'm being influenced by old detective novels from the 40s and 50s. I was an avid reader of Erle Stanley Gardner's Perry Mason novels. Framing people was, like, one of the most common themes in those stories, and the ones doing the framing was the guilty party. As an aside, I learned a lot about legal forensics from my Perry Mason books.

Those novels were built upon your definition of "framing" and I tend to see your side more because of it, but I still stand by my opinion, that it doesn't matter whether your guilty or innocent whether you can be framed or not.

Personally, I believe Rudy framed Raffaele and Amanda with his eyewitness (letter) testimony.

For the sake of the arguement, assume that "framing" by the police is possible, and also that it would be very very difficult to prove. For example, I have this wild theory that the reason the forensic doughboys each knowingly picked the bra-clasp up so that one of them would transfer Raffaele's DNA. I have no proof, but what if that were the case, how would you prove it?

Like I said, it's just a wild theory, but my question is, would that be a "framing" to you? And if it does, how could the police possibly know absolutely (100%) that Raffaele was innocent?

have a cool Saturday g,

d

-

It would be remarkable if the video was of framing or noble cause corruption in action. At least it should be viral in America, with the title

Who Framed Amanda Knox?

 

[AmyStrange]

-

It would be remarkable if the video was of framing or noble cause corruption in action. At least it should be viral in America, with the title

Who Framed Amanda Knox?

Ha ha. I like the title. I know it's not funny, but it reminded me of the cartoon movie a few years back, "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?". And as an aside, that was the last of the big budget direct to individual frame by frame cartoon painting. Real old school cartoon movie making,

d

-

 

[Grinder]

The police can frame. The guilty can frame someone else. A person could see an opportunity to frame someone even if that person wasn't the guilty party but just saw a way to get someone they didn't like.

If the police thought a person was innocent but really they were guilty then when they thought they were framing him, they wouldn't be.

The definition of framing, frame-up etc. is clear. It is perfectly clear that to be framed one must be innocent.

It is possible that the police could manufacture evidence to convict someone they thought was guilty but in fact be framing them because they were innocent. If the person was guilty and the police manufactured evidence then the person was convicted on tainted evidence by corrupt LE but they weren't framed.

In any case I refuse to accept the police were framing the kids in the first week or two.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

The police can frame. The guilty can frame someone else. A person could see an opportunity to frame someone even if that person wasn't the guilty party but just saw a way to get someone they didn't like.

If the police thought a person was innocent but really they were guilty then when they thought they were framing him, they wouldn't be.

The definition of framing, frame-up etc. is clear. It is perfectly clear that to be framed one must be innocent.

It is possible that the police could manufacture evidence to convict someone they thought was guilty but in fact be framing them because they were innocent. If the person was guilty and the police manufactured evidence then the person was convicted on tainted evidence by corrupt LE but they weren't framed.

In any case I refuse to accept the police were framing the kids in the first week or two.

I agree with you there. I don't see it either.

The rest of it is just you being stubborn. I can be stubborn too, and even though you can only see the "technically correct" side, I can understand totally where you are coming from, but I still stand by my opinion.

We'll just have to agree to disagree here,

d

-

 

[Chris_Halkides]

goosing a case

The Austin-Chronicle's Jordan Smith wrote, "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?"

 

[Samson]

Popper from PMF on section 5.

no, Section 5 is different from United Sections (Sezioni Unite)
If a case is assigned to a section a panel of 5 judges of that sections is chosen.
If a case goes to United Sections there will be 9 judges representative of all sections.
Section 5 means the case was not deemed worth of United Sections (in terms of some of the issues of law raised, they were not considered controversial or very complex).
It is not uncommon for cases remanded by Section 1 to be assigned, in case of new appeal, to Section 5.