colonelhall,
I think that Dr. Giobbi and PM Mignini decided that AK and RS were guilty fairly early on, and everyone else fell into line. Calling it a conspiracy is a Stilicho-inspired misnomer, IMO. Conspiracy theorists are people who are trying to explain something that is not true; for example, a claim that no Jewish people died in the WTC because they were all contacted by Mossad and told to stay home that day is a conspiracy theory. Unfortunately false accusations (for example, Duke lacrosse), and false convictions (for example, Randall Adams) happen all of the time. Some false accusations/convictions happen because of a degree of collusion within LE, but I doubt that all of them are. The case of Patricia Stallings does not have any collusion (to the best of my knowledge), but it does have serious investigator bias.
Absolutely. The very word "conspiracy" has extremely strong connotations, particularly post-9/11. In the world of law enforcement and justice, however, there doesn't need to be anything remotely approaching a conspiracy for a miscarriage of justice to occur.
It's worth noting that in any investigation and prosecution of a criminal offence, there is a built-in asymmetry which is utterly reliant on the probity of police and prosecutors to redress. This is because the investigation is not only carried out by police and prosecutors, but it is directed by them as well. So if the police/prosecutors choose to focus in on specific suspect(s) and theories to the exclusion of others, this will inevitably colour the investigation and presentation of the case. It is they who choose whom to prosecute and what evidence to put before the courts, but it's also their responsibility to share
everything that they find with the defence teams.
Of course, the one big advantage held by the defence side is that the burden of proof at trial lies solely with the prosecution, who must prove the defendants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e. such that a reasonable-minded person would have no doubts as to the guilt of the defendants).
It's my opinion that in this particular instance the system has acted imperfectly in both of these areas. I believe that the police/prosecutors' investigation and prosecution may have been slanted towards confirming a very early group-sex theory of the crime (viz the police statements as early as the 6th November, and Police Chief de Felice's infamous communication to the media on around November 7th, where he clearly indicated that the police knew in advance what Knox was going to say in her "confession/accusation" of the 5th/6th).
Thereafter, I believe that the entire investigation may have been influenced by seeking to find evidence to confirm this early theory. So, for example, the break-in was readily dismissed as staged, since if it had been a real break-in, the group-sex theory would have taken a big hit. So proper investigation of Filomena's room or the window or the outside wall or ground was never carried out. And curious incidents such as Knox's HIV test and list of lovers, and the discovery of Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp over six weeks after the crime, raise further questions about the direction of the investigation.
Also, as we have seen, the police/prosecutors have been less than forthright in their sharing of information with the defence. Clear examples of this include the underlying DNA test data, and the obfuscation around whether certain footprints were or were not tested for blood. This does not engender confidence in the police and prosecutors, and raises questions as to whether other interesting evidence might have been found which has never been disclosed because it doesn't support the police/prosecution's case.
And I believe that the case that was put before the court in Perugia may well not have met the criteria for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In my opinion, neither the prosecution's case, nor the court's reasoning (which drove a coach and horses through several key parts of the prosecution's case, and came up with its own baffling hybrid) were sufficient to prove guilt. I believe that the defence teams may have been, to a degree, imperfect in the way that they sought to raise reasonable doubt in certain key areas, but that also the court seemed pre-disposed to favour the prosecution's version over the defence's version in a number of areas without any foundation.
So, in summary: no conspiracy, and none required. All that's necessary is a powerful and zealous prosecutor and police force who have nailed their colours to the mast very early on, and who are determined not to be proven wrong. Then, an ensuing investigation and prosecution which is coloured by this overarching mandate, and where confirmation bias clearly begins to take hold (the instruction to find Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife, leading to the over-cranking of the testing equipment, being just one example). And lastly, a trial process which appears to subvert the maxim of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, aided by a less-than-perfect defence and a powerful lead prosecutor, and with an automatic appeals process on the horizon.
but there are also facts:
Now that's very interesting. There was nothing of that kind in the written "gift" of 6 Nov 2007. But she indeed wrote about flashbacks, not flashes. I can think of a few explanations how it was leaked in such a form to the press.
