|
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. |
19th November 2019, 10:03 PM | #361 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,607
|
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.
|
19th November 2019, 11:21 PM | #362 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,607
|
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. |
20th November 2019, 04:59 AM | #363 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
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.
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
20th November 2019, 05:01 AM | #364 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
20th November 2019, 05:04 AM | #365 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
20th November 2019, 05:06 AM | #366 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
20th November 2019, 05:11 AM | #367 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
20th November 2019, 05:19 AM | #368 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
20th November 2019, 06:40 AM | #369 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
|
"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. |
|
20th November 2019, 08:31 AM | #370 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,313
|
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). |
20th November 2019, 09:05 AM | #371 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 298
|
|
20th November 2019, 09:08 AM | #372 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 298
|
|
20th November 2019, 09:20 AM | #373 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 2,272
|
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 |
20th November 2019, 11:27 AM | #374 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
|
20th November 2019, 11:40 AM | #375 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
|
20th November 2019, 11:46 AM | #376 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
|
20th November 2019, 12:02 PM | #377 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
20th November 2019, 12:09 PM | #378 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
20th November 2019, 12:41 PM | #379 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
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:
What do you think he meant by "all sorts of stuff"? |
20th November 2019, 12:55 PM | #380 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
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:
Quote:
|
20th November 2019, 12:57 PM | #381 |
Muse
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 550
|
|
__________________
The pro-guilt psychology is that if you can't nail K&S with evidence, don't presume innocence, try something else. |
|
20th November 2019, 01:01 PM | #382 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
|
20th November 2019, 01:04 PM | #383 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,306
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
20th November 2019, 01:07 PM | #384 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
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? |
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
20th November 2019, 01:53 PM | #385 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 15,561
|
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. |
|
20th November 2019, 03:31 PM | #386 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,306
|
|
20th November 2019, 03:43 PM | #387 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
|
20th November 2019, 04:18 PM | #388 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
|
20th November 2019, 04:28 PM | #389 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,313
|
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:
Source: https://www.law.umich.edu/special/ex...rsByCrime.aspx |
20th November 2019, 04:39 PM | #390 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,306
|
It the Dunning-Kruger effect.
|
20th November 2019, 04:54 PM | #391 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
|
20th November 2019, 05:55 PM | #392 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 6,119
|
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”?Fail. |
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Carl Schurz |
|
20th November 2019, 06:03 PM | #393 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
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! |
20th November 2019, 06:46 PM | #394 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 20,637
|
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..... |
20th November 2019, 06:55 PM | #395 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
|
21st November 2019, 04:10 AM | #396 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 6,119
|
|
__________________
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Carl Schurz |
|
21st November 2019, 04:32 AM | #397 |
Muse
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 654
|
|
21st November 2019, 10:18 AM | #398 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 6,313
|
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. |
21st November 2019, 12:02 PM | #399 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 34,989
|
|
__________________
who claims the soulless Who speaks for the forgotten dead ~ Danzig |
|
21st November 2019, 01:03 PM | #400 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 32,926
|
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. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|