ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amanda Knox , Italy cases , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Reply
Old 19th November 2019, 10:03 PM   #361
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,461
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Good grief. I just waded into the Cesspit (only up to my ankles, fortunately) to see, straight from the horse's mouth (so to speak) what was being written there. My word, that small cadre of lunatics haven't lost any of their self-righteous zeal, have they?! (I imagine that moron Dylan Avery is still as zealous with his 9/11 conspiracy theories as well.....).

And gosh, "KrissyG" must have an awful lot of time on his/her hands to have come out with that latest turd tsunami of a post on there. The post and its comments are both illuminating and amusing (for their tortured logic () and sheer stupidity). I especially enjoyed the risible exchange of comments about the light switch in the small bathroom. For starters, "KrissyG" didn't even appear to know whose blood & DNA was and was not found on that light switch (only Kercher's blood and DNA was found). Then we were treated to a discourse of Raper's and "KrissyG"'s insight, the conclusion of which was - surprise, surprise - that one could conclude with reasonable certainty that it must have been Knox who operated the switch with Kercher's blood on her fingers. We can only thank the stars that none of these "commentators" is anywhere near a position of actual power and persuasion.

(Oh and there was another amusing/illuminating part where "KrissyG" and an unknown "friend" discussed the notion that the sink in the small bathroom must have contained Kercher's and Knox's blood comingled (and deposited at the same time) on account of the fact that the reasonable similarity of DNA chart peaks was incompatible with the relatively small amount of Knox's DNA that would have been deposited their through touch alone. Do these morons even realise that nobody's even talking about touch DNA being the alternative viable explanation?! Someone please tell them about cheek and gum cell DNA that's sloughed off and expelled when someone (Knox) spits out into the sink after brushing their teeth? And at the same time, that someone can tell them that Knox had without doubt bled from the ear into the sink the day before the murder, after a couple of her new ear piercings went bad? Sheeeeeeesh.....)
Well LJ, you can't say that I didn't try to warn you. Personally, I always feel like a visit to the cesspool is like going out of my way to see the results of a bad car wreck - I know it's going to be bad, it will likely be disturbing, but there is an innate curiosity to 'check it out' just the same. I almost always regret my decision, although on occasion there is sufficient entertainment value to warrant the visit. This really wasn't one of those times.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 11:21 PM   #362
TruthCalls
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,461
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
By "deliberate" framing do you mean "intentional" framing rather than an "accidental" framing? That is, are you claiming there was "framing", but it was unintended?

Are you stating that in your definition of "framing", it can only occur if the police and/or prosecutor sincerely believe the alleged suspect to be innocent? Thus, if the police and/or prosecutor sincerely believe the alleged suspect to be guilty, is it your position that any violation of defense rights, even intentional misrepresentations of alleged evidence or fabrications of evidence, cannot, by definition, be "framing"? Why is a confession or incriminating statement obtained from a coercive interrogation not to be considered "framing", even in the case of Keven Fox, or the case, still under appeal, of Melissa Calusinski?

Do you accept or reject the proposition that there was "official misconduct", such as violations of defense rights and, as claimed by Knox, threats and hitting, during the interrogations of Knox on November 5/6? If "official misconduct" including, for example, threats and hitting, is aimed at producing a confession, is it to be considered "framing" or defined in some other way? Does it matter for the word used in that situation whether or not the police and/or prosecutor sincerely believed the alleged suspect is guilty?

Why did Mignini and the police level a criminal charge of calunnia against Knox for her statements (testimony) in the Massei court trial, and in her appeals, giving her account of the interrogations of Nov. 5/6? The criminal charge of calunnia, as shown in the Boninsegna MR, claimed that Knox was falsely claiming, by implication, in her statements that the police and Mignini had committed 4 crimes (related to abuse of power) under Italian law, with 3 aggravating circumstances. The criminal charge of calunnia against the police and Mignini resulted in Knox being put on trial and eventually being acquitted; that is, no judge dismissed the case on the basis that Knox's statements should were not descriptive (by implication) of specific violations of Italian criminal law. Knox was acquitted on the basis that there was no evidence that her statements describing the actions of the police and prosecutor during the interrogation were false.

Now, what is your definition of "conspiracy"? While I've posted mine, you have only provided an attempt at reductio ad absurdum by counter-example ("Were the townspeople paid off to turn hateful against Kevin and the family?")

The interrogations of Nov. 5/6 were planned or scheduled events, although not necessarily scripted in detail. Under US law, which I am using for my definition, a "conspiracy" does not require the kind of secret and explicit agreement that you are suggesting. The conspirators don't need to be paid off or otherwise benefit from participating in the conspiracy. The conspiracy does not need to be directed against specific persons or to actually accomplish its ends.

For example, if two jail guards working together allegedly decide to take naps and spend time online during their guard duty, while not conducting their appointed rounds of the jail cells, and allegedly falsely document that they conducted their rounds, among the charges which may be brought against them is "conspiracy".*

*https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/n...-arrested.html

"Guards Accused of Napping and Shopping Online the Night Epstein Died

The two jail staff members were charged with falsifying records and conspiring to defraud the United States."

Here's another example, this of a police officer convicted of conspiracy:

https://wtop.com/baltimore/2019/06/r...to-conspiracy/

"A retired Baltimore police sergeant accused of planting a BB gun at the scene of an arrest and telling another officer to lie about the incident to federal investigators has pleaded guilty to conspiracy.

Fifty-one-year-old Keith Allen Gladstone of New Park, Pennsylvania, pleaded guilty Monday to conspiring to deprive a man arrested in the incident of his civil rights."

Here's another example, where 3 Chicago police officers were charged with conspiracy in how they reported another officer came to shoot and kill a young man armed with a knife; their accounts were contradicted by dashcam videos. These officers were acquitted (some observers claimed the acquittal was an example of the lack of accountability of the police):

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...sh/2573940002/

The relevance of conspiracy (US law definition) to the Knox - Sollecito case includes but is not limited to: 1) if an police agent hit Knox during the interrogation, and the other police witnessing the incident did not notify authorities of that crime, under US law they would be chargeable with conspiracy. 2) The interpreter admitted in testimony to the Boninsegna court, according to the MR, that she was aware during the interrogation that Knox's text message was possibly the English language greeting "See you later" translated into Italian, but the interpreter did not inform the other police. 3) The interpreter provided an account of her personal history of traumatic amnesia apparently to influence Knox. 4) In denying Knox an attorney during the interrogation, even after her first incriminating statement, the police and prosecutor failed to follow Italian procedural law. 5) The police and prosecutor failed to take any investigatory action following either of Knox's two hand-written statements, documenting her claims of mistreatment, following the interrogation.

All these actions, and others, show intent by the police and prosecutor to violate Knox's rights. The failures to provide a lawyer and to investigate the claim of police misconduct in Knox's first Memoriale appear to be clear violations of Italian procedural laws at the relevant time. The police and prosecutor did this as a group, even if some took part at different times and performed different acts contributing to the misconduct, and the misconduct was coordinated either by implicit or explicit agreement.

Stefanoni's misconduct in testimony, forensic interpretations, suppression of data, and forensic methods, occurring later, can be lumped into the violations of rights. Stefanoni actually wrote a response to Judge Micheli stating that to request her raw DNA data was to accuse her of falsification of data - suggesting to me that she believed the raw DNA data would incriminate her. (Honest forensic scientists, such as Berti and Barni, simply and generously provide their raw data to the defense for potential examination in court.)

Under US law, these facts would justify a charge of conspiracy against the police, including the scientific police, and the prosecutor.

Sorry, no charge of conspiracy against the towns people from the facts of the interrogation or forensics.
Lots of questions there, Numbers. I'll make a few, quick comments and then revisit this in the morning.

If I'm not mistaken, didn't we (this board) have a lengthy discussion about framing many months (years?) ago? Hopefully I don't contradict anything I might have said in the past....

I do not believe there was an intentional effort to frame Amanda or Raffaele. Well, I'm reasonably certain of that up until perhaps early 2008. After that things get a lot more fuzzy.

To me, deliberate or intentional framing means to purposely implicate someone for something by knowingly providing false evidence. I don't know that the framer must sincerely believe the suspect is innocent before it can be considered framing. I might honestly believe the suspect to be guilty, but if I fabricate false evidence in support of that belief I'm still guilty of framing the suspect.

I think by it's very definition, coercive interrogations are a form of framing. But I think there's a distinction between an interrogator who thinks they already have enough evidence to prove guilt and the interrogation is simply to provide 'incentive' to tell the truth versus an interrogator who realizes they don't have any credible evidence to back their suspicion, and in that case the interrogation is intended to create evidence by coercing the suspect into say something incriminating, with no regard for whether it's the truth or not.

I think in this case, those involved with the interrogation of 5/6 Nov honestly thought Amanda and Raffaele were involved and they were trying to manipulate them into telling the truth. I think they honestly believed if they could get Amanda to believe Raffaele was no longer providing her an alibi she would stop lying and tell them what really happened. Or, to put it another way, I don't think they thought Amanda was innocent at the time of the interrogation. After all, they didn't have any forensic evidence yet to indicate one way or another. They thought she looked guilty, acted guilty, and once she realized her 'false' alibi had been discredited, she'd own up to it.

There was definitely official misconduct. But the real question should be, did the police, in their heart of hearts, truly believe Amanda was guilty and was their concern that they needed to hurry up and 'incentivize' her into telling the truth before her mother arrived, got her lawyered up, and never get another chance to get the truth out of her? Did they honestly believe there was an unspoken truth to be had and they knew they were going to have to resort to illegal or unethical tactics to get it? OR, did they really have no idea and their only goal on that night was to fabricate a piece of evidence regardless of what the truth was so they could close the case? Perhaps I'm giving the investigators too much credit, but I think it's the former.

IMHO, where the case goes off the rails is AFTER their massive international press conference proclaiming the case closed, AFTER Giobbi beat his own chest, proclaiming his own greatness in solving the case without even needing forensic evidence. This is when the real, physical evidence starts to come into focus. Those shoe prints they thought were Raffaele's weren't Raffaele's. They get the DNA results back and it's not Amanda or Raffaele. The palm print is evaluated and it's not Raffaele. It's at this point where the investigation had to begin to realize they might have the wrong people. And I believe it's at this point where Migini's focus shifted from solving the case to saving face. Once they had identified Guede, once they listened to his Skype conversation where he clears Amanda and Raffaele of involvement, and once they matched the DNA found in Meredith's room to Guede... it was at this point where I think he decided he was not willing to endure the embarrassment of admitting he had the case completely wrong. And I think it's at this point and moving forward where one can possibly make a case for intentionally framing, and possibly the start of a conspiracy to hide his mistakes.

I'm ending this here cause I'm tired and I might disagree with everything I wrote when I read it in the morning. I reserve the right to completely redo this. The issues are not easy to address and no doubt there are many grey areas.
TruthCalls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 04:59 AM   #363
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 18,942
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
You're still flapping in the breeze.

Let's assume Amanda was there with Guede and they committed the crime together. It seems logical that if Guede is caught he'll implicate Amanda. Therefore, doing whatever she could to ensure Guede is not caught seems a reasonable course of action. Given this, can you explain;

(1) Why did she not clean up as much of Guede's forensic trace as possible, especially the easy and obvious stuff like the feces in the toilet and the bloody shoe prints?

(2) What do you think was the reason she "got the bright idea to blame "A N Other" (whatever that means)"?

(3) Once she got this bright idea, why would she do anything other than try to point at someone completely different from Guede? Why name another black man?

And exactly what makes you think YOU know "how a criminal thinks"? Anything about you we should know?
You either make a good detective or you don't. Crooks operate by staying several steps ahead of the latest security methods and the police operate by keeping a few steps ahead of the crooks. You can't do that unless you can foresee what they might do next and lay a trap. The hunter and the hunted.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!

Last edited by Vixen; 20th November 2019 at 05:02 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 05:01 AM   #364
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 18,942
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Hmmmmm. Not a very well thought out excuse. Let's see what the problem with your logic is.

1. They had "maybe only six hours" to clean up. Yet they were the ones who initiated the discovery of the body by calling Filomena and the police about the break in. If they needed more time to clean up, why start the discovery process?

2. Since the "blood on the bath mat, on the tap, in the sink, excrement in the toilet" were all pointed out by Knox and Sollecito to the police, they obviously knew about them BEFORE they called the police. If they needed more time to clean up, why start the discovery process?

3. The 5:30 AM activation of RS's phone places them at his apartment, not the cottage. If they needed more time to clean up, why go back to his apartment instead of finishing the clean up? If they needed more time to clean up, why start the discovery process hours later at 12:08 PM when Knox calls Filomena and at 12:51 when Sollecito calls the police to report the break in?



Whoops! There is no evidence that they placed the lamp in Meredith's room in the first place. DOH!
If but, if but if, but...If my grandmother wore trousers she'd be my granddad.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 05:04 AM   #365
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 18,942
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
LOL! Instead of addressing the points of my post, you resort to this?

By the way, you're wrong.


https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/25/torturous/

Dumbed down rubbish.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 05:06 AM   #366
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 18,942
Originally Posted by Bill Williams View Post
What was the lamp used for? Take your time.
Possibly looking for the butterfly clip when her earring was ripped out of her ear in the melée.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 05:11 AM   #367
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 18,942
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
I'd say words mean what they commonly become accepted to mean. In the case of "tortured logic", it's a term that has become common usage as in these examples:

https://www.washingtonpost.com › opinions › 2014/12/16


https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ure-mi5-terror


https://archives.cjr.org/full_court_...tortured_l.php
I think London John said he was a great fan of learning grammar from the tabloids. And that's why adding an apostrophe to a surplus of s' is wrong because he saw how they done it in the SUN.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 05:19 AM   #368
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 18,942
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
http://truejustice.org/ee/

Since the light switch yielded no DNA or fingerprints of Knox, I wonder just what evidence of Knox's involvement the light switch presented. If Mignini did say that, then I'd suggest he needs to rethink what inculpating evidence actually is.

More from the same article:



LOL! Not exactly. The problem is not that it was a single trace, but the fact that it was collected with a long pressing motion which could have picked up any underlying, previously deposited trace that Knox had left in the sink during daily use. KrissyG is being dishonest in her claim.



WHAT? I'm trying to figure out how that relates to the previous claim in any way.

By the way, someone should tell KrissyG that there is no such word as "themself" and that the possessive of Knox is Knox's. There is no such possessive as X'.



Stefanoni was wrong but Massei believed her because he knew no better.



Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/c...#ixzz65mHpyAI9

Let's see.....whom to believe? "Dr." (4 yr. college degree) Stefanoni or



That's like asking who knows better about how to treat your cancer: your x-ray technician or your oncologist.
So you'd rather have your cancer treated by some bozo on the internet than someone who has actually physically examined you, taken samples and has carried out real tests.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 06:40 AM   #369
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,750
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Possibly looking for the butterfly clip when her earring was ripped out of her ear in the melée.
"Possibly"!? You do know, don't you, that as an accuser of someone it's your job to provide... lessee, it was here a moment ago where is it....

Oh yes, EVIDENCE of this? And all you have is "possibly"?

You managed 6 posts in 20 minutes with nothing but accusation, and not one whit of evidence. So why is it no one believes you.....?

Take your time.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

Last edited by Bill Williams; 20th November 2019 at 06:42 AM.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 08:31 AM   #370
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,277
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Lots of questions there, Numbers. I'll make a few, quick comments and then revisit this in the morning.

If I'm not mistaken, didn't we (this board) have a lengthy discussion about framing many months (years?) ago? Hopefully I don't contradict anything I might have said in the past....

I do not believe there was an intentional effort to frame Amanda or Raffaele. Well, I'm reasonably certain of that up until perhaps early 2008. After that things get a lot more fuzzy.

To me, deliberate or intentional framing means to purposely implicate someone for something by knowingly providing false evidence. I don't know that the framer must sincerely believe the suspect is innocent before it can be considered framing. I might honestly believe the suspect to be guilty, but if I fabricate false evidence in support of that belief I'm still guilty of framing the suspect.

I think by it's very definition, coercive interrogations are a form of framing. But I think there's a distinction between an interrogator who thinks they already have enough evidence to prove guilt and the interrogation is simply to provide 'incentive' to tell the truth versus an interrogator who realizes they don't have any credible evidence to back their suspicion, and in that case the interrogation is intended to create evidence by coercing the suspect into say something incriminating, with no regard for whether it's the truth or not.

I think in this case, those involved with the interrogation of 5/6 Nov honestly thought Amanda and Raffaele were involved and they were trying to manipulate them into telling the truth. I think they honestly believed if they could get Amanda to believe Raffaele was no longer providing her an alibi she would stop lying and tell them what really happened. Or, to put it another way, I don't think they thought Amanda was innocent at the time of the interrogation. After all, they didn't have any forensic evidence yet to indicate one way or another. They thought she looked guilty, acted guilty, and once she realized her 'false' alibi had been discredited, she'd own up to it.

There was definitely official misconduct. But the real question should be, did the police, in their heart of hearts, truly believe Amanda was guilty and was their concern that they needed to hurry up and 'incentivize' her into telling the truth before her mother arrived, got her lawyered up, and never get another chance to get the truth out of her? Did they honestly believe there was an unspoken truth to be had and they knew they were going to have to resort to illegal or unethical tactics to get it? OR, did they really have no idea and their only goal on that night was to fabricate a piece of evidence regardless of what the truth was so they could close the case? Perhaps I'm giving the investigators too much credit, but I think it's the former.

IMHO, where the case goes off the rails is AFTER their massive international press conference proclaiming the case closed, AFTER Giobbi beat his own chest, proclaiming his own greatness in solving the case without even needing forensic evidence. This is when the real, physical evidence starts to come into focus. Those shoe prints they thought were Raffaele's weren't Raffaele's. They get the DNA results back and it's not Amanda or Raffaele. The palm print is evaluated and it's not Raffaele. It's at this point where the investigation had to begin to realize they might have the wrong people. And I believe it's at this point where Migini's focus shifted from solving the case to saving face. Once they had identified Guede, once they listened to his Skype conversation where he clears Amanda and Raffaele of involvement, and once they matched the DNA found in Meredith's room to Guede... it was at this point where I think he decided he was not willing to endure the embarrassment of admitting he had the case completely wrong. And I think it's at this point and moving forward where one can possibly make a case for intentionally framing, and possibly the start of a conspiracy to hide his mistakes.

I'm ending this here cause I'm tired and I might disagree with everything I wrote when I read it in the morning. I reserve the right to completely redo this. The issues are not easy to address and no doubt there are many grey areas.
I am not sure I fully understand your position, but I am confident I disagree with it.

We are, in some sense, looking at two different things.

In my view:

You are looking at the mental state of the police during the interrogation and seeing that these are honest police who may apply some illegal methods to get false evidence, but its not "framing" because they are, after all, the police and, therefore, they wouldn't do something illegal. Maybe they did something sort of illegal things (violations of Italian law), and maybe we can call it official misconduct, but we must not call it framing, because we should not speak ill of the police ever, and framing sounds like a bad thing. The police have a job to do, and if they suspect someone of a crime, it's the job of the police to make that person produce statements that support the police suspicions, even if the police need to violate Italian law, hopefully, just a little bit. No electric shocks or waterboarding allowed, but threats, lies, and hitting, anything that doesn't leave marks, that's okay. And don't tell the suspect that he or she is a suspect, or needs a lawyer, all fussy Italian laws that get in the way of getting this obviously guilty person. Knox, for example, was clearly acting suspicious, because, among similar behaviors, she was observed by VQA Giobbi to wiggle her hips when putting on protective shoe covers, as he testified before the Massei court.

My position relates more to behavior of the police. I look at the many violations of Italian law by the police and by the prosecutor during the interrogation. I take these violations as valid indications of intent, because the police and prosecutor are well-trained in these laws (or should be - it's the responsibility of the Italian government to assure their training; this is international law - Italy's treaty membership in the Council of Europe, meaning the Convention on Human Rights and ECHR case-law).

The police and prosecutor, considering Knox and Sollecito suspects before the interrogation, and wishing to interrogate them, should have notified both that they were suspects and that each should bring a lawyer to the police station for his or her interrogation. That's Italian law. The failure of the police and prosecutor to do this was the initial official misconduct - assuming the VQA Giobbi was not committing perjury when he testified in court that Knox and Sollecito were indeed suspects before the interrogation.

This failure, and all the subsequent official misconduct during the interrogations on Nov. 5/6, can only reasonably be interpreted as aimed at producing statements that conformed to the police suspicions, statements to be obtained against the will of the persons being questioned. That itself is in violation of Italian law CPP Article 188, Moral freedom of the person during evidence gathering, which states: Methods or techniques which may influence the freedom of self-determination or alter the capacity to recall and evaluate facts shall not be used, not even with the consent of the person concerned. And evidence gathered unlawfully cannot be used lawfully, according to CPP Article 191.

All this official misconduct during the interrogation can only be understood, in my opinion, as an attempt by the police and prosecutor to frame Knox and Sollecito. My definition of framing includes any attempt by the police or prosecutor to generate false evidence, whether or not they believe the suspect to be truly guilty. In the case of Knox's interrogation, the police would have known that the evidence in Knox's statement was false, because they used coercion to obtain it, she had initially and very consistently denied involvement, there was no credible forensic or witness evidence of her involvement, they resorted to violations of Italian law to obtain the statement, they did not allow Knox to have a lawyer, and did not allow Knox to have a fair interpreter.

The ECHR found that Knox's rights had been violated by Italy convicting her of calunnia against Lumumba, due to the violations of ECHR case-law rights in the interrogation. The Boninsegna court found that Knox had not committed calunnia against the police or prosecutor by her testifying in court to her recollections of their mistreatment of her during the interrogation.

Both of these verdicts are consistent with the view that reasonable judgment indicates official misconduct by the police and prosecutor during the interrogation, and the aim of that misconduct was to frame Knox (and Sollecito).

Last edited by Numbers; 20th November 2019 at 09:08 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 09:05 AM   #371
AnimalFriendly
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 196
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The hunter and the hunted.
Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove breach of rule 12

Last edited by Agatha; 20th November 2019 at 11:22 AM.
AnimalFriendly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 09:08 AM   #372
AnimalFriendly
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 196
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
If but, if but if, but...If my grandmother wore trousers she'd be my granddad.
No she wouldn't. She'd just be a woman who wore pants. Probably unstylish ones.
AnimalFriendly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 09:20 AM   #373
bagels
Master Poster
 
bagels's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,213
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You either make a good detective or you don't. Crooks operate by staying several steps ahead of the latest security methods and the police operate by keeping a few steps ahead of the crooks. You can't do that unless you can foresee what they might do next and lay a trap. The hunter and the hunted.
It takes genius level cops to switch off the recording equipment in the interrogation room, allowing Amanda to claim the narrative of what happened there all the way to ECHR (where she won).

Either that or they slapped and manipulated a statement out of her and didn't want anyone to witness that. Hmmm I wonder what's more likely
bagels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 11:27 AM   #374
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,435
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
If but, if but if, but...If my grandmother wore trousers she'd be my granddad.
Once again, instead of addressing the points of my post, you respond with this tired old nonsense. Your failure to address them is tantamount to an admission that you can't. But carry on.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 11:40 AM   #375
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,435
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Dumbed down rubbish.
From the (English) Cambridge Dictionary:

Quote:
Tortured:

involving suffering and difficulty:

•the country's tortured past

• the tortured history of race relations
According to you, the Cambridge Dictionary is 'dumbed down rubbish'. Wow.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 11:46 AM   #376
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,435
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I think London John said he was a great fan of learning grammar from the tabloids. And that's why adding an apostrophe to a surplus of s' is wrong because he saw how they done it in the SUN.
You have been repeatedly asked to present one, just one, source that presents X' as a proper and accepted possessive. You have repeatedly failed to do so. Do you know why? We do.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 12:02 PM   #377
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 18,942
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
From the (English) Cambridge Dictionary:



According to you, the Cambridge Dictionary is 'dumbed down rubbish'. Wow.
The past and history can be tortured in the context the events being described therein as an abstract noun literally suffered in the same way a person or an animal could be.

To describe an argument as tortured is dumbing down.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 12:09 PM   #378
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 18,942
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
You have been repeatedly asked to present one, just one, source that presents X' as a proper and accepted possessive. You have repeatedly failed to do so. Do you know why? We do.
Thankfully, I had a good education so have no need to fret about these things.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 12:41 PM   #379
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,435
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
So you'd rather have your cancer treated by some bozo on the internet than someone who has actually physically examined you, taken samples and has carried out real tests.
Equating Prof. Peter Gill with 'some bozo on the internet' is fascinating.

Can you present a single forensic expert who agrees that Stefanoni conclusively proved the DNA and blood were deposited at the same time, together?
You can't. Even your much touted Garofano said:

Quote:
The fact that the sample was collected by wiping both the edge and the plughole is dangerous. You’re likely to find all sorts of stuff in the plughole.
(p. 371, “Darkness Descending”)

What do you think he meant by "all sorts of stuff"?
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 12:55 PM   #380
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,435
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The past and history can be tortured in the context the events being described therein as an abstract noun literally suffered in the same way a person or an animal could be.

To describe an argument as tortured is dumbing down.
Now that is some tortured logic there, Vix.

Lessee....whom to believe...an accountant on the internet who has provided no evidence that "tortured logic" or "tortured argument" is incorrect....or....Prof. Paul Brians (Ph.D), Department of English at Washington State University and author of the book "Common Errors in English Usage"? Gee, I dunno.....

ETA: More 'dumbed down' usage:

Quote:
...a very tortured argument that is actually directly inconsistent with the policies expressed in the Rules of Professional Conduct.
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/a-...-cannot-55577/

Quote:
A Tortured Argument
JEREMY A. RABKIN
https://www.the-american-interest.co...ured-argument/

Last edited by Stacyhs; 20th November 2019 at 01:14 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 12:57 PM   #381
TomG
Critical Thinker
 
TomG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 294
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Thankfully, I had a good education so have no need to fret about these things.
What a waste of a good brain.

Hoots
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else.
TomG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 01:01 PM   #382
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stacyhs
You have been repeatedly asked to present one, just one, source that presents X' as a proper and accepted possessive. You have repeatedly failed to do so. Do you know why? We do
.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Thankfully, I had a good education so have no need to fret about these things.
LOL!

Apparently you missed the day your teacher taught possessives in English class!
You still cannot provide a single source that states X' is a correct possessive. Not one. Why is that, Vix?
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 01:04 PM   #383
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,745
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Now that is some tortured logic there, Vix.

Lessee....whom to believe...an accountant on the internet who has provided no evidence that "tortured logic" or "tortured argument" is incorrect....or....Prof. Paul Brians (Ph.D), Department of English at Washington State University and author of the book "Common Errors in English Usage"? Gee, I dunno.....
He's probably bent.
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 01:07 PM   #384
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 18,942
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Now that is some tortured logic there, Vix.

Lessee....whom to believe...an accountant on the internet who has provided no evidence that "tortured logic" or "tortured argument" is incorrect....or....Prof. Paul Brians (Ph.D), Department of English at Washington State University and author of the book "Common Errors in English Usage"? Gee, I dunno.....
Oh dear. If you have ever read Shakespeare, Chaucer, Keats, Burns, etcetra, you really ought to know that an apostrophe represents a missing letter. Thus were I to mention B'mg'm' or L'pool, please do not (don't) bother correcting me. When you have a plethora of same sound letters it is quite OK to do the same, although of course in speech you would ennuciate them to show you are referring to a possessive. For example, St James' would be written thus but spoken as 'Saint Jameses'.

All clear now?
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 01:53 PM   #385
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 14,750
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Oh dear. If you have ever read Shakespeare, Chaucer, Keats, Burns, etcetra, you really ought to know that an apostrophe represents a missing letter. Thus were I to mention B'mg'm' or L'pool, please do not (don't) bother correcting me. When you have a plethora of same sound letters it is quite OK to do the same, although of course in speech you would ennuciate them to show you are referring to a possessive. For example, St James' would be written thus but spoken as 'Saint Jameses'.

All clear now?
The term "Knox's" is not the result of a missing letter, it is something which indicates ownership. Despite repeated requests by Stacyhs, you still have not cited anything to support your mistaken point of view.

At the very least start citing things appropriate to the topic. "Missing letters" have nothing to do with this. However, your repeated defense of the indefensible is illustrative of your overall approach to evidence. Or more properly put, your aversion to evidence.
__________________
In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.
Bill Williams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 03:31 PM   #386
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 704
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
So you'd rather have your cancer treated by some bozo on the internet than someone who has actually physically examined you, taken samples and has carried out real tests.
There are a lot of Bozos on the internet who think they know something......
whoanellie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 03:43 PM   #387
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,435
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Oh dear. If you have ever read Shakespeare, Chaucer, Keats, Burns, etcetra, you really ought to know that an apostrophe represents a missing letter. Thus were I to mention B'mg'm' or L'pool, please do not (don't) bother correcting me. When you have a plethora of same sound letters it is quite OK to do the same, although of course in speech you would ennuciate them to show you are referring to a possessive. For example, St James' would be written thus but spoken as 'Saint Jameses'.

All clear now?
What letter is missing in "Knox'"?

Your post is nothing more than an attempt at diversion. Provide one source, just one, that supports your use of Knox' as a possessive. But you can't because you are wrong. All clear now?
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 04:18 PM   #388
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,435
Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
There are a lot of Bozos on the internet who think they know something......
There are plenty of bozos on the internet who think they know everything.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 04:28 PM   #389
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,277
Originally Posted by TruthCalls View Post
Lots of questions there, Numbers. I'll make a few, quick comments and then revisit this in the morning.

If I'm not mistaken, didn't we (this board) have a lengthy discussion about framing many months (years?) ago? Hopefully I don't contradict anything I might have said in the past....

I do not believe there was an intentional effort to frame Amanda or Raffaele. Well, I'm reasonably certain of that up until perhaps early 2008. After that things get a lot more fuzzy.

To me, deliberate or intentional framing means to purposely implicate someone for something by knowingly providing false evidence. I don't know that the framer must sincerely believe the suspect is innocent before it can be considered framing. I might honestly believe the suspect to be guilty, but if I fabricate false evidence in support of that belief I'm still guilty of framing the suspect.

I think by it's very definition, coercive interrogations are a form of framing. But I think there's a distinction between an interrogator who thinks they already have enough evidence to prove guilt and the interrogation is simply to provide 'incentive' to tell the truth versus an interrogator who realizes they don't have any credible evidence to back their suspicion, and in that case the interrogation is intended to create evidence by coercing the suspect into say something incriminating, with no regard for whether it's the truth or not.

I think in this case, those involved with the interrogation of 5/6 Nov honestly thought Amanda and Raffaele were involved and they were trying to manipulate them into telling the truth. I think they honestly believed if they could get Amanda to believe Raffaele was no longer providing her an alibi she would stop lying and tell them what really happened. Or, to put it another way, I don't think they thought Amanda was innocent at the time of the interrogation. After all, they didn't have any forensic evidence yet to indicate one way or another. They thought she looked guilty, acted guilty, and once she realized her 'false' alibi had been discredited, she'd own up to it.

There was definitely official misconduct. But the real question should be, did the police, in their heart of hearts, truly believe Amanda was guilty and was their concern that they needed to hurry up and 'incentivize' her into telling the truth before her mother arrived, got her lawyered up, and never get another chance to get the truth out of her? Did they honestly believe there was an unspoken truth to be had and they knew they were going to have to resort to illegal or unethical tactics to get it? OR, did they really have no idea and their only goal on that night was to fabricate a piece of evidence regardless of what the truth was so they could close the case? Perhaps I'm giving the investigators too much credit, but I think it's the former.

IMHO, where the case goes off the rails is AFTER their massive international press conference proclaiming the case closed, AFTER Giobbi beat his own chest, proclaiming his own greatness in solving the case without even needing forensic evidence. This is when the real, physical evidence starts to come into focus. Those shoe prints they thought were Raffaele's weren't Raffaele's. They get the DNA results back and it's not Amanda or Raffaele. The palm print is evaluated and it's not Raffaele. It's at this point where the investigation had to begin to realize they might have the wrong people. And I believe it's at this point where Migini's focus shifted from solving the case to saving face. Once they had identified Guede, once they listened to his Skype conversation where he clears Amanda and Raffaele of involvement, and once they matched the DNA found in Meredith's room to Guede... it was at this point where I think he decided he was not willing to endure the embarrassment of admitting he had the case completely wrong. And I think it's at this point and moving forward where one can possibly make a case for intentionally framing, and possibly the start of a conspiracy to hide his mistakes.

I'm ending this here cause I'm tired and I might disagree with everything I wrote when I read it in the morning. I reserve the right to completely redo this. The issues are not easy to address and no doubt there are many grey areas.
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
I am not sure I fully understand your position, but I am confident I disagree with it.

We are, in some sense, looking at two different things.

In my view:

You are looking at the mental state of the police during the interrogation and seeing that these are honest police who may apply some illegal methods to get false evidence, but its not "framing" because they are, after all, the police and, therefore, they wouldn't do something illegal. Maybe they did something sort of illegal things (violations of Italian law), and maybe we can call it official misconduct, but we must not call it framing, because we should not speak ill of the police ever, and framing sounds like a bad thing. The police have a job to do, and if they suspect someone of a crime, it's the job of the police to make that person produce statements that support the police suspicions, even if the police need to violate Italian law, hopefully, just a little bit. No electric shocks or waterboarding allowed, but threats, lies, and hitting, anything that doesn't leave marks, that's okay. And don't tell the suspect that he or she is a suspect, or needs a lawyer, all fussy Italian laws that get in the way of getting this obviously guilty person. Knox, for example, was clearly acting suspicious, because, among similar behaviors, she was observed by VQA Giobbi to wiggle her hips when putting on protective shoe covers, as he testified before the Massei court.

My position relates more to behavior of the police. I look at the many violations of Italian law by the police and by the prosecutor during the interrogation. I take these violations as valid indications of intent, because the police and prosecutor are well-trained in these laws (or should be - it's the responsibility of the Italian government to assure their training; this is international law - Italy's treaty membership in the Council of Europe, meaning the Convention on Human Rights and ECHR case-law).

The police and prosecutor, considering Knox and Sollecito suspects before the interrogation, and wishing to interrogate them, should have notified both that they were suspects and that each should bring a lawyer to the police station for his or her interrogation. That's Italian law. The failure of the police and prosecutor to do this was the initial official misconduct - assuming the VQA Giobbi was not committing perjury when he testified in court that Knox and Sollecito were indeed suspects before the interrogation.

This failure, and all the subsequent official misconduct during the interrogations on Nov. 5/6, can only reasonably be interpreted as aimed at producing statements that conformed to the police suspicions, statements to be obtained against the will of the persons being questioned. That itself is in violation of Italian law CPP Article 188, Moral freedom of the person during evidence gathering, which states: Methods or techniques which may influence the freedom of self-determination or alter the capacity to recall and evaluate facts shall not be used, not even with the consent of the person concerned. And evidence gathered unlawfully cannot be used lawfully, according to CPP Article 191.

All this official misconduct during the interrogation can only be understood, in my opinion, as an attempt by the police and prosecutor to frame Knox and Sollecito. My definition of framing includes any attempt by the police or prosecutor to generate false evidence, whether or not they believe the suspect to be truly guilty. In the case of Knox's interrogation, the police would have known that the evidence in Knox's statement was false, because they used coercion to obtain it, she had initially and very consistently denied involvement, there was no credible forensic or witness evidence of her involvement, they resorted to violations of Italian law to obtain the statement, they did not allow Knox to have a lawyer, and did not allow Knox to have a fair interpreter.

The ECHR found that Knox's rights had been violated by Italy convicting her of calunnia against Lumumba, due to the violations of ECHR case-law rights in the interrogation. The Boninsegna court found that Knox had not committed calunnia against the police or prosecutor by her testifying in court to her recollections of their mistreatment of her during the interrogation.

Both of these verdicts are consistent with the view that reasonable judgment indicates official misconduct by the police and prosecutor during the interrogation, and the aim of that misconduct was to frame Knox (and Sollecito).
I'm repeating the above posts because I have found a news article that discusses a specific US case in which three police officers are claimed to have "fabricated evidence" of someone's guilt by coercing a witness to testify falsely.

I think many will agree that "fabricating evidence" of someone's guilt, even if that evidence is a false witness statement or a false confession, in a criminal case is equivalent to "framing" that person.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/n...oneration.html

Quote:
Falsely Imprisoned for 23 Years: Now He’s Received $7 Million

The payout “doesn’t settle what I went through,” said Derrick Hamilton, who accused the police of fabricating evidence.

Twenty years ago, Derrick Hamilton was at his lowest point: locked in solitary confinement for a murder he insisted he did not commit. .... Twenty-three years later, he finally persuaded prosecutors to throw out his own conviction, after an eyewitness recanted her testimony.

Late last week, Mr. Hamilton, 54, took on a new role in the long drama of his fight against injustice: a successful plaintiff. City officials in New York and New Haven, Conn., agreed on Friday to pay him a total of $7 million to settle a lawsuit he had filed against three police officers, accusing them of fabricating evidence against him.


In 1991, when he was 28 and living in New Haven, Mr. Hamilton was arrested by Mr. Scarcella and the local police, accused of having murdered a Brooklyn {a borough of New York City} man, Nathaniel Cash, whom he had known when he lived in the borough.

.... Mr. Scarcella, a {now-retired} New York City police detective, has emerged in recent years as symbol of wrongful convictions, as numerous cases he handled have fallen apart....

The only eyewitness against him at his trial in State Supreme Court was Mr. Cash’s girlfriend, Jewel Smith, who had given conflicting accounts to the police about Mr. Hamilton’s role in the killing.

Still, the jury convicted him ....

In 2007, Ms. Smith went to the authorities and asserted that Mr. Hamilton was innocent. Mr. Scarcella, she said, had coerced her into testifying against him. Eight years later, the Conviction Review Unit of the Brooklyn district attorney’s office asked a judge to toss out Mr. Hamilton’s guilty verdict. Prosecutors noted that Ms. Smith had been “unreliable, untruthful and incredible in her testimony.”

By that point, the district attorney’s office was two years into an expansive investigation of dozens of Mr. Scarcella’s former murder cases, looking into allegations that he had coerced other witnesses and had threatened people to get them to confess. That investigation, which is ongoing, has led to the release of 14 inmates and has resulted in the city and state paying tens of millions of dollars to settle lawsuits against Mr. Scarcella.
For the US, the National Center for Exonerations reports that of the cases known to them, 71% (718/1014) wrongful convictions for murder involved "official misconduct", and 54% (1355/2519) of wrongful convictions for all types of crime involved "official misconduct".

Source: https://www.law.umich.edu/special/ex...rsByCrime.aspx
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 04:39 PM   #390
whoanellie
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 704
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
There are plenty of bozos on the internet who think they know everything.
It the Dunning-Kruger effect.
whoanellie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 04:54 PM   #391
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,435
Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
It the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Yes, I've interacted on the internet with people to whom this would clearly apply.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 05:55 PM   #392
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 5,071
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Oh dear. If you have ever read Shakespeare, Chaucer, Keats, Burns, etcetra, you really ought to know that an apostrophe represents a missing letter. Thus were I to mention B'mg'm' or L'pool, please do not (don't) bother correcting me. When you have a plethora of same sound letters it is quite OK to do the same, although of course in speech you would ennuciate them to show you are referring to a possessive. For example, St James' would be written thus but spoken as 'Saint Jameses'.

All clear now?

First, as others have mentioned, an apostrophe does not indicate missing letters when used to show possession.

Further, from Pain in the English:
Is it “Fort Knox’s walls” or “Fort Knox’ walls”?

The possessive form of singular nouns is always made by adding an appostrophe and an "s," even if the word ends with an s-like sound.

So it's Fort Knox's walls.
Fail.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 06:03 PM   #393
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,435
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
First, as others have mentioned, an apostrophe does not indicate missing letters when used to show possession.

Further, from Pain in the English:
Is it “Fort Knox’s walls” or “Fort Knox’ walls”?

The possessive form of singular nouns is always made by adding an appostrophe and an "s," even if the word ends with an s-like sound.

So it's Fort Knox's walls.
Fail.
A professional proofreading service is just some bozo on the internet.

Besides, we've been presented multiple...er...a few....er...one...er no sources that prove that X' is an acceptable possessive form.

But we have been entertained by the revelation that an apostrophe can indicate a missing letter or letters!

Last edited by Stacyhs; 20th November 2019 at 06:07 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 06:46 PM   #394
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 14,840
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
A professional proofreading service is just some bozo on the internet.

Besides, we've been presented multiple...er...a few....er...one...er no sources that prove that X' is an acceptable possessive form.

But we have been entertained by the revelation that an apostrophe can indicate a missing letter or letters!


If I may interject here (in the hope of preventing this turning into an off-topic derail): apostrophes do in fact always indicate missing letters, even as used in possessives. To explain:

In old and middle English, the possessive was formed by adding "-es" to the root word - for example "The Queenes crown". The pronunciation articulated the "e" (so the above example would be pronounced "QUEEN-es"). The apostrophe slowly took over - not only did it replace and represent the missing "e", but it also shortened pronunciation by one syllable (eg from "Queen-es" to "Queen's"). That's why the apostrophe-based version of the possessive quickly gained traction to the point where it became effectively the only way to write possessives.

And the possessive of Knox should be written Knox's, not Knox'. The only time it's acceptable to write possessives ending with the apostrophe is either when the root word ends in an "s" (though actually this is now changing such that it's becoming commonplace to add 's to words ending in an "s"), or to plurals. A good rule of thumb is that if you'd not pronounce the 's when saying the word, you should therefore write the word ending with the apostrophe. An example would be: My parents' house is up for sale" - you don't say "parents-es", so you don't write "parents's".

Here endeth the lesson. Back to your regular Foxy Knoxy programming.....
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 06:55 PM   #395
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,435
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
If I may interject here (in the hope of preventing this turning into an off-topic derail): apostrophes do in fact always indicate missing letters, even as used in possessives. To explain:

In old and middle English, the possessive was formed by adding "-es" to the root word - for example "The Queenes crown". The pronunciation articulated the "e" (so the above example would be pronounced "QUEEN-es"). The apostrophe slowly took over - not only did it replace and represent the missing "e", but it also shortened pronunciation by one syllable (eg from "Queen-es" to "Queen's"). That's why the apostrophe-based version of the possessive quickly gained traction to the point where it became effectively the only way to write possessives.

And the possessive of Knox should be written Knox's, not Knox'. The only time it's acceptable to write possessives ending with the apostrophe is either when the root word ends in an "s" (though actually this is now changing such that it's becoming commonplace to add 's to words ending in an "s"), or to plurals. A good rule of thumb is that if you'd not pronounce the 's when saying the word, you should therefore write the word ending with the apostrophe. An example would be: My parents' house is up for sale" - you don't say "parents-es", so you don't write "parents's".

Here endeth the lesson. Back to your regular Foxy Knoxy programming.....
Interesting. Thanks.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 04:10 AM   #396
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 5,071
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Interesting. Thanks.

+1
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 04:32 AM   #397
Mr Fied
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 489
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
If but, if but if, but...If my grandmother wore trousers she'd be my granddad.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Possibly looking for the butterfly clip when her earring was ripped out of her ear in the melée.
hmmmmmmmmmm

Last edited by Mr Fied; 21st November 2019 at 04:38 AM.
Mr Fied is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 10:18 AM   #398
Numbers
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,277
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
I'm repeating the above posts because I have found a news article that discusses a specific US case in which three police officers are claimed to have "fabricated evidence" of someone's guilt by coercing a witness to testify falsely.

I think many will agree that "fabricating evidence" of someone's guilt, even if that evidence is a false witness statement or a false confession, in a criminal case is equivalent to "framing" that person.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/n...oneration.html



For the US, the National Center for Exonerations reports that of the cases known to them, 71% (718/1014) wrongful convictions for murder involved "official misconduct", and 54% (1355/2519) of wrongful convictions for all types of crime involved "official misconduct".

Source: https://www.law.umich.edu/special/ex...rsByCrime.aspx
We should not fear to use the term "framing" to describe official misconduct by the police or a prosecutor that is aimed toward generating false evidence of guilt; and that false evidence may be false testimony, a false confession, or a false statement, or some other fabrication of evidence.

Here's an example of the use of "framing" in that context:

"Louis Scarcella is a retired American NYPD detective who is known for framing dozens of innocent men for crimes they did not commit."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_N._Scarcella

Some time ago, I researched some appeal case opinions (judgments) from one of the circuits of the US Court of Appeals. In some of those cases, the appellant (or his lawyer) was quoted in the opinion as appealing on the grounds that he had been "framed" by the official misconduct of police. The opinion, in addressing this legal issue of misconduct, initially called it an allegation of "framing" before using more specific legal terms in discussing the details.

"Frame" and "frame-up" are somewhat colloquial US terms for the more legalistic phrase "incrimination on false evidence", as indicated by the following:

"Framing someone is, in legal terms, an incrimination on false evidence.

Whether or not based on evidence, framing someone by an official action (presumably in writing) is a libel.

Framing someone in any way, whether formal or informal, is a slander."

Source: https://legalese.nasil-yazilir.com/2...g-someone.html

And here's some other definitions of "frame" in the relevant context:

Frame: to make a person seem to be guilty of a crime by providing false information

Source: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/.../english/frame

Frame:
a : to contrive the evidence against (an innocent person) so that a verdict of guilty is assured
b : to devise (something, such as a criminal charge) falsely

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/frame



Thus, there can be no doubt that Knox and Sollecito were framed by the police and prosecutor, that is, incriminated on false evidence, during and at the conclusion of the interrogations of Nov. 5/6, 2007.

Last edited by Numbers; 21st November 2019 at 10:42 AM.
Numbers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 12:02 PM   #399
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 18,942
Originally Posted by Numbers View Post
We should not fear to use the term "framing" to describe official misconduct by the police or a prosecutor that is aimed toward generating false evidence of guilt; and that false evidence may be false testimony, a false confession, or a false statement, or some other fabrication of evidence.

Here's an example of the use of "framing" in that context:

"Louis Scarcella is a retired American NYPD detective who is known for framing dozens of innocent men for crimes they did not commit."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_N._Scarcella

Some time ago, I researched some appeal case opinions (judgments) from one of the circuits of the US Court of Appeals. In some of those cases, the appellant (or his lawyer) was quoted in the opinion as appealing on the grounds that he had been "framed" by the official misconduct of police. The opinion, in addressing this legal issue of misconduct, initially called it an allegation of "framing" before using more specific legal terms in discussing the details.

"Frame" and "frame-up" are somewhat colloquial US terms for the more legalistic phrase "incrimination on false evidence", as indicated by the following:

"Framing someone is, in legal terms, an incrimination on false evidence.

Whether or not based on evidence, framing someone by an official action (presumably in writing) is a libel.

Framing someone in any way, whether formal or informal, is a slander."

Source: https://legalese.nasil-yazilir.com/2...g-someone.html

And here's some other definitions of "frame" in the relevant context:

Frame: to make a person seem to be guilty of a crime by providing false information

Source: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/.../english/frame

Frame:
a : to contrive the evidence against (an innocent person) so that a verdict of guilty is assured
b : to devise (something, such as a criminal charge) falsely

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/frame



Thus, there can be no doubt that Knox and Sollecito were framed by the police and prosecutor, that is, incriminated on false evidence, during and at the conclusion of the interrogations of Nov. 5/6, 2007.
And why would whole teams of literally hundreds of staff conspire together to incriminate your heroes with false evidence?

Back to the drawing board.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2019, 01:03 PM   #400
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 14,435
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
And why would whole teams of literally hundreds of staff conspire together to incriminate your heroes with false evidence?

Back to the drawing board.
Your usual gross exaggeration. The persons specifically mentioned by Numbers were "..the police and prosecutor, that is, incriminated on false evidence, during and at the conclusion of the interrogations of Nov. 5/6, 2007.
If you have to resort to hyperbolic misrepresentation, then you obviously don't have a solid base for your counter-argument.

"False", or at the very least highly misleading, testimony was presented by Stefanoni when she kept using the term "luminol revealed footprints" without revealing the negative TMB results. This omission heavily implied the footprints were in blood. Indeed, that is exactly what Massei concluded...they were Knox's footprints in blood. I assume you find it plausible that Stefanoni simply forgot to mention these very important tests?


What I find amusing is this coming from the person who has repeatedly accused the mafia, the Masons, and the US State Dept. of orchestrating two acquittals including by the Supreme Court of Italy.

Last edited by Stacyhs; 21st November 2019 at 01:14 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:56 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.