The Massei/Mignini Conspiracy Theory

[Kaosium]

It has been stated numerous times that those who believe that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent are in fact conspiracy theorists. Those that have said that elsewhere complain that they are treated rudely when they make that claim, so I have created a place where that shouldn't happen. However, if you make that claim it would be nice if you could produce a cogent argument and supply some evidence, and I hope you don't mind being called one back, because that's what I believe is in fact the case. I think you've fallen for one if you believe that. The 'conspiracy theory' involved in this case is in fact the Massei Report, and it's main impetus, prosecutor Giuliano Mignini is a dyed in the wool conpiracy theorist.

In fact, I think the idea that those who believe Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent are 'conspiracy theorists' is downright preposterous, which might explain why some are treated rudely when they bring it up elsewhere. It's not only silly and pejorative, in fact the opposite is true, and someone who knows better can jump to the conclusion that whoever says it is doing so simply to repeat a meme that's gotten far too much traction in the vast multitudes of JREF outside the Amanda Knox thread. You see, outside a website and a messageboard elsewhere, basically the only place you'll find that idea proposed is JREF oddly enough. The reasons for that are very curious, and in fact kinda funny if you have a twisted sense of humor like I do. I think you've been played.

Some have accused those who have followed that debate of not venturing outside that thread and into the rest of JREF, and that's probably true. However it's also true that it appears some here have not ventured much into the rest of the media regarding the Amanda Knox story and just don't realize how many outlets consider the innocence of Amanda Knox a rational proposition. Not all of them are convinced of it, but they'd look at you awfully funny if you suggested that to believe so you must be a conspiracy theorist. If that were true, you'd have to include the most of the media of the United States, the British Guardian and Independent, and one of the most popular magazines in Italy, Oggi.

That's just a small sampling, in fact it's getting hard to find media outlets convinced of her guilt, indeed one of the fiercest proponents of her guilt, the tabloid that conducted perhaps the most disgusting smear campaign ever seen, the UK's Daily Mail, published a piece by one of its reporters who covered the trial and changed his mind, despite being one of the ones throwing trash at her for two years. It's not just media, two retired FBI agents, a forensics engineer, college professors, scientists, Pulitzer prize-winning columnists, top defense attorneys, one of the defense attorneys is an Italian member of their Parliament, another Parliamentarian from the top opposing party wrote a book and said he was convinced of her innocence after meeting Amanda Knox frequently in jail. Hell, even Donald Trump weighed in, wanting to encourage people to boycott Italy until she was released until talked out of it, including by Amanda herself saying it was a bad idea.

Thus what I have to ask is, where did you ever get the idea that Amanda Knox being innocent was the realm of conspiracy theorists? Was it hearsay, or something a friend at JREF believes, or was it because you've stared so long into the abyss, the abyss now stares into you? In other words you've been beating down conspiracy theorists and woo-peddlers for years and now anything out of the ordinary must be the result of conspiratorial thinking? Is all institutional corruption inherently 'conspiracy theory' now to you? I ask because that's what happened here, that and other factors combined to cause Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to be found guilty in the first trial, but they aren't going to stay in prison very much longer as they get a new trial as their appeal and the conditions of the first one that unfairly convicted them can't be repeated. That's because there isn't actually any evidence against them that passes the smell check, which is of course what you'd find if they were innocent and the police went beyond their bounds to try and find some to convict them with.

Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Patrick Lumumba were all arrested after police interrogated Amanda and Raffaele all night and convinced her under intense interrogation by twelve police that she had 'repressed memories' of the murder of Meredith Kercher by Patrick Lumumba who they suspected because of a number of misunderstandings, confirmation bias and coincidence. They hadn't even gotten the forensics back from the crime scene when they arrested them, and when they did they found traces of only one man, Rudy Guede, who'd fled to Germany. Rudy left evidence in the form of shoeprints, DNA on the clothes, purse, toilet and inside the body of Meredith Kercher.

Nothing was found of either Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito until they realized that something they'd attributed to Raffaele was in fact Rudy's and they went back to the crime scene and 'found' his DNA on the bra clasp, very curious being as it had been filmed 46 days earlier when they initially swept down the site in one location, yet 'found' it in a different location and passed it around and put it back on the floor when 'collecting' it, a very strange way of handling DNA 'evidence.' A knife in Raffaele's drawer was found with Amanda's DNA on the handle from cooking, and a tiny amount of non-blood DNA of Meredith Kercher on the middle of the blade, but the odds of that actually being because of murder are so extreme it takes a conspiracy theory to pretend it could ever happen.

That's all the case against the two actually is: a series of events taken out of context and strung together by the most tenuous string of logic it comes off as absurd. Massei, the judge at the trial and the one who had to write the Motivations report linked above, has a favorite phrase he uses repeatedly: 'It is possible, indeed probable.' Then he goes on to say something silly which may be possible but by no means is probable in a rational universe. The idea that the three of them could ever have conspired to murder Meredith Kercher at all is ridiculous. There's no evidence of it, just a theory. A conspiracy of three people who barely knew each other to rape and murder a girl for no reason at all or very strange ones. A conspiracy without evidence but a theory=conspiracy theory. Guess who decided to prosecute these three after Rudy was substituted for Patrick Lumumba? PM Mignini, who with no evidence to support it decided upon a theory where the three of them got together to murder Amanda's roommate, then stage a break-in, when the more rational proposition is that Rudy Guede broke in and raped and murdered Meredith and police just jumped to to the wrong conclusion from coincidence and error on their part along with a misunderstood text to arrest Amanda and Raffaele, who'd been the ones to discover the crime and called police.

On the other hand there is hard evidence of police misconduct, starting with the interrogation, and provable perjuries on the stand, not of minor things but very important things, like whether bloody footprints tested negative for blood, and how the interrogation was conducted. There's also the fact the police seized four computers and one by one erased exculpatory data from them saying it was just a mistake. That 'mistake' wiped their electronic alibi away for the first trial, though the defense says it has recovered the data for the appeal.

Thus my contention is the prosecution theory is a conspiracy theory given the way it is constructed and who formulated it, while the idea that Amanda Knox being innocent belongs in the realm of conspiracy theorists an idea advanced only by a couple websites and has taken hold at JREF for bizarre reasons which should be dispelled. I've evidence and good arguments to back up my claims and would like to have a friendly discussion with some who honestly believe that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito being innocent is a conspiracy theory. I think I understand how some might have gotten that impression, and perhaps a lower key environment such as this under the parameters set will be conducive to that occurring.

While obviously I cannot abridge the MA, I did set the tags to allow humor and banter, as if I can't make a joke sometimes I'm just not going to post. I am hoping that some good humored friendliness will keep this from deteriorating, as discussing this topic shouldn't devolve into open melee as has happened elsewhere. I believe that in fact the prosecution case is in fact a conspiracy theory, mainly developed by a man who has a history of advancing and believing in them, and the report issued contains the same tenuous logic of conspiracy theories. If you believe differently feel free to contest my claim, but be advised I have actual evidence and you'll find that 'evidence' of the opposite is in fact nebulous, which is generally what happens to conspiracy theories when exposed to scrutiny.

 

[Nonpareil]

I've tried to get into the Amanda Knox threads on here, but they devolve into arguments over minutiae quite quickly, and it's impossible for someone like me - who has no real knowledge of the case - to understand anything that's going on.

So I'm not going to contest your claims here, but I would like to thank you for laying out the case against Knox's guilt so concisely. I look forward to the rest of this thread with interest.

 

[Kaosium]

I've tried to get into the Amanda Knox threads on here, but they devolve into arguments over minutiae quite quickly, and it's impossible for someone like me - who has no real knowledge of the case - to understand anything that's going on.

So I'm not going to contest your claims here, but I would like to thank you for laying out the case against Knox's guilt so concisely. I look forward to the rest of this thread with interest.

Lord knows I understand that! I'm more of a 'big picture' guy myself, keeping track of the break-in argument and the esoteric details of the actual murder site causes my eyes to glaze over too.

In just a general sense, either way there was a 'conspiracy' by definition in this case. Either three people who barely knew each other conspired to kill a girl for unknown or bizarre reasons, or police and prosecutor colluded to convict two innocent people along with the one who left his DNA everywhere at the scene and has since been convicted in finality by the Italian Supreme Court as he opted for a 'fast track trial.'

Amanda and Raffaele are undergoing their appeal currently, with the DNA 'evidence' (the 'murder knife and bra clasp) currently being re-examined by independent experts and might be thrown out, along with the homeless guy who testified in his third murder trial and we now find out the police had hard evidence of him heroin dealing for all three.

Here's a couple sites that I've not yet linked, the best one I've found for the case for innocence, and the one for guilt. If you poke around in them you can get an overview from both sides.

 

[Nonpareil]

Thank you very much.

 

[Rolfe]

As I've said elsewhere, the labelling of those who believe a court verdict was a miscarriage of justice as "conspiracy theorists" is ridiculous. It's not as if verdicts in the past have such a great record of infallibility after all. I've had a minor interest in miscarriage of justice cases for some time, and every single one I've followed (with the exception of the Megrahi case which ain't over yet) has concluded with the verdict being overturned.

Nevertheless I have noticed this as a tendency on JREF - someone brings up the subject of a possible miscarriage of justice, to be met with a number of posters jumping into the thread announcing that since a court convicted, that settled the matter, "they're in jail, that's all I need to know" and so on. The most recent was when someone started a thread on the West Memphis Three.

I don't know why this should be. I think it's bad scepticism. However, I have a tentative theory. Fundamentally, a lot of this forum is about supporting the mainstream line on so many subjects. Real medicine works, alternative medicine is bunk. Rationalism is good, and psychic necromancers are frauds out to get your money. Oswald shot JFK. Crop circles are made by a bunch of pranksters having fun. Panthers are not roaming the English countryside. Al-Qaida suicide bombers crashed four airliners on 9/11. Man really did land on the moon. And so on. We are not overwhelmed by evidence which overturns accepted reality.

Allegations of miscarriage of justice threaten that safe worldview. The Official Version, sanctioned by authority, is not necessarily objective truth. Some people don't feel comfortable admitting this possibility, so react the same way as they'd react to someone claiming Oswald was innocent.

Maybe this is cod-psychology, but it's how I see it.

Rolfe.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'm probably not the intended audience for this thread, because the whole thing looks to me like it could be one of two things: either a bizarre and unusual murder, for which the conviction hangs on some very tenuous evidence, or a bog standard fit-up of the nearest unfortunates for a crime that an incompetent police department was under too much pressure to appear to have solved. Whether I favour the former or the latter, the very fact that the verdict is currently being re-examined makes it clear that someone in authority with direct access to good-quality information on the case is able to see a rational argument for innocence, whereas the very fact of the original conviction means that some kind of argument for guilt must have persuaded some group of people. Therefore, it seems almost axiomatic that, although only one can be right, neither the guilt or the innocence side of the argument is completely untenable.

I agree that some people seem to use the accusation of conspiracy theory for the wrong reasons. That's why I try always to remember that it's a conclusion to label an argument a conspiracy theory, and that, like all other conclusions, it should follow from, rather than inform an interpretation of, the evidence available. Having done that, I feel reasonably comfortable using it, knowing that, in cases like this, I wouldn't.

Dave

 

[tsig]

I'm probably not the intended audience for this thread, because the whole thing looks to me like it could be one of two things: either a bizarre and unusual murder, for which the conviction hangs on some very tenuous evidence, or a bog standard fit-up of the nearest unfortunates for a crime that an incompetent police department was under too much pressure to appear to have solved. Whether I favour the former or the latter, the very fact that the verdict is currently being re-examined makes it clear that someone in authority with direct access to good-quality information on the case is able to see a rational argument for innocence, whereas the very fact of the original conviction means that some kind of argument for guilt must have persuaded some group of people. Therefore, it seems almost axiomatic that, although only one can be right, neither the guilt or the innocence side of the argument is completely untenable.

I agree that some people seem to use the accusation of conspiracy theory for the wrong reasons. That's why I try always to remember that it's a conclusion to label an argument a conspiracy theory, and that, like all other conclusions, it should follow from, rather than inform an interpretation of, the evidence available. Having done that, I feel reasonably comfortable using it, knowing that, in cases like this, I wouldn't.

Dave

Appeals are automatic in Italy so your whole argument collapses.

 

[Rolfe]

The one miscarriage of justice people seem to be quite comfortable accepting is the O. J. Simpson affair. I can see a reason for this, though. It's accepted that guilt, not innocence, has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. This accepts the probability that some genuinely guilty defendants will be acquitted because the evidence presented admits of reasonable doubt. On the other hand there is not supposed to be reasonable doubt about a verdict of guilty. The trouble is, this isn't always the case.

I admit I know little about the evidence in the Kercher murder. I've read a couple of pro-innocence web sites and can see a perfectly reasonable case being put. The fact that there is an appeal in progress suggests there is indeed a reasonable case still to be heard. (I just hope the Italian appeal process is better than the Scottish system, though - that one seems to consist mainly of the appeal court judges saying, well, it's not up to us to second-guess the trial court on this (irrational) conclusion.)

The pro-innocence sites make a good point that the basic allegation is far-fetched. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, of course, but it does mean you need some fairly compelling evidence to go with it. I haven't yet seen that evidence.

I'm thoroughly familiar with the "bog-standard fit-up of the nearest unfortunates" scenario. Barry George, when they simply couldn't find any other leads. Sion Jenkins (that was a bizarre one!) because they couldn't get to the schizophrenic tramp who was originally suspected of Billie-Jo's murder. And lots more. At base, that also covers Megrahi's conviction, though the reason the probable culprits weren't pursued is a bit more murky in that case.

The odd thing about the Knox/Sollecito conviction is that the cops did get the actual killer. Why did they also go after two quite unlikely people as co-conspirators? I'm also quite swayed by Fiona. She's someone I have huge respect for, and she's right a helluva lot of the time. She participated in the Lockerbie threads for a while, and believes Megrahi is innocent. She believes Knox and Sollecito are guilty.

So one way and another, it's clear that it's fundamentally a reasonable discussion in which it is possible for reasonable people to take different views. What I can't understand is why it has become so personalised. So many people seem emotionally involved to an almost unhealthy degree. What's Amanda to them, or they to Amanda, that they should weep for her?

I find the case interesting, but I couldn't keep up with the original "cartwheel" thread when it started and I certainly can't get up to speed on it now. I'll be interested to see how the appeal progresses. Shouting "conspiracy theory" on either side is just plain dumb though.

Rolfe.

 

[bobc]

The odd thing about the Knox/Sollecito conviction is that the cops did get the actual killer. Why did they also go after two quite unlikely people as co-conspirators?

That's a good question. I don't think there is a motivations report for the police investigation, only for the verdict. But I think the police operate in a common sense way: eliminate those who have an alibi, look for anyone attempting to lie. Also naturally, you start with people who are known to the victim. If those avenues are exhausted then cast the net wider.

I believe Knox and Sollecito drew attention because they had a shaky alibi, and were clearly lying or evasive about their real actions. Now it may be that a lot of smoke was left by the real perpetrators, and that Knox and Sollecito were the ones in sight when the smoke cleared. But they cast a lot of smoke of their own. Perhaps they are incredibly naive, and just did not realise spinning tales to the police during a murder investigation is a really bad idea.

I think the police continued with suspicion of Knox and Sollecito because of the (disputed) DNA and forensic evidence.

 

[bobc]

I have several problems with the OP, as some might guess

If Mignini and the prosecution are conspiracy theorists, then aren't all prosecutors conspiracy theorists? It is their job to present a picture of the assembled evidence which demonstrates that the accused are guilty. So calling prosecutors conspiracy theorists is just a trivial observation.

As in 9/11 truthers, there seems to be an element of "back at ya". After the innocentisti are accused of being conspiracy theorists, they say "ha, well so are you". I also find this a trivial argument, and rather childish to boot.

As for why people think the innocentisti are conspiracy theorists, it's because the pretty much said so. We could do with a decent definition of CT, but the innocentisti show the hallmarks. In order to explain away certain pieces of evidence, more and more contrived theories are put forward to explain them. "Obvious" mistakes by prosecuting officials can only be explained by suggesting that the official was lying or incompetent. If incompetent, then it has to be suggested that other officials are turning a blind eye. Thus we have the innocentisti suggest a very long of people involved in the Knox prosecution, who have either lied, been incompetent or who are complicit in a cover up. The list includes police, forensics, the prosecutors, the prosecution witnesses, the defence, the judge...

One of the classic hallmarks of the CT, is the "obvious fact", which is so obvious that anyone on the internet should immediately see it. In the Knox case, if these facts are so obvious and compelling, why didn't the defence bring them up? Is it because the defence are incompetent or part of the conspiracy, or it the "obvious fact" not what it seems?

A case in point is the "dirty knife". From pictures on the internet, innocentisti conclude that the kitchen knife taken from Sollecitos kitchen is very dirty. However, police and forensics said the knife was "extremely clean". Rather than question whether they might be mistaken in looking at photo, the innocentisti claim that those people were lying. They then need to explain why the judge or the defence didn't call them on it. So the judge and defence must be in on it too. But.... the knife is not dirty. The "dirt" in the photo is just a reflection, because the knife is actually very clean, and very shiny.

The "dirty knife" is a typical example of the way innocuous things are spun into a conspiratorial web by the innocentisti, and one of the reasons I have remained skeptical of the innocentistis general case for innocence.

On the other hand, the case does not have the typical hallmarks of a miscarriage of justice. It's also worth saying, the case is not half way through, we can't say Italian justice has failed, because it has not yet finished.

 

[Kaosium]

I'm probably not the intended audience for this thread, because the whole thing looks to me like it could be one of two things: either a bizarre and unusual murder, for which the conviction hangs on some very tenuous evidence, or a bog standard fit-up of the nearest unfortunates for a crime that an incompetent police department was under too much pressure to appear to have solved.

I think one of the most interesting things is they didn't initially try to frame anyone. Although it was just coincidence, confirmation bias and misunderstandings, at one point it probably did look like Amanda and Raffaele were probably guilty. However as they started to find nothing but evidence of Rudy at the scene, some of the 'evidence gathering' and what happened to potentially exculpatory evidence starts to get a little ripe...

Then you get to the trial and you can prove some of them outright lied, with hard evidence that is so. At that point I'm not sure who among them still believed it, though I suspect most of them did. They held Amanda and Raffaele for about a year before they charged them, then the trial took another year or so, thus two full years had passed since the murder therefore they had some time to reflect.

It is interesting that only eight of the twelve cops eligible for the calunnia charge stemming from the interrogation chose to participate, and only five of them in the charges filed against her parents. It should be free money, being as there's basically no defense against the charge, although the actual charge filed stemmed from a very vague 'infraction' of that archaic stricture.

Calunnia is when you say something in court that suggests police misconduct. There's no investigation into whether it occurred, they just look at the trial transcripts and see if the defendant did in fact say something like that. Amanda on the stand in response to a question said that one of the officers clipped her in the back of the head a couple times 'to help her remember' which is what the charge was filed for. Her mother and step father repeating that (although I believe they put it as 'beaten') to a British reporter in Seattle is what got charges filed on them.

The thing is though, I still think they believed it. Perhaps I am wrong and extending the benefit of the doubt too much, but many events would seem to make more sense to me in them just 'helping' or trying to make sure the jury wasn't 'confused.'

Whether I favour the former or the latter, the very fact that the verdict is currently being re-examined makes it clear that someone in authority with direct access to good-quality information on the case is able to see a rational argument for innocence, whereas the very fact of the original conviction means that some kind of argument for guilt must have persuaded some group of people. Therefore, it seems almost axiomatic that, although only one can be right, neither the guilt or the innocence side of the argument is completely untenable.

What I found is it is possible to come to the conclusion that of anyone in Perugia that night, the least likely people to have been involved in the crime were Patrick Lumumba, Raffaele Sollecito, and Amanda Knox. The reason I say that is the cops conducted an 'investigation' beyond the bounds of propriety against all three and could come up with absolutely no evidence of murder.

Even the 'murder knife' and bra clasp having legitimate DNA is not evidence of murder, being as there's absolutely no other trace of them at the scene, which was gone over twice in desperation to find anything of either of them. Meaning with absolutely nothing to corraorate it, that DNA must have gotten there somehow else, notably through contamination or secondary transfer. The knife most definitely never left Raffaele's drawer, I can go through the litany of why if you want.

I agree that some people seem to use the accusation of conspiracy theory for the wrong reasons. That's why I try always to remember that it's a conclusion to label an argument a conspiracy theory, and that, like all other conclusions, it should follow from, rather than inform an interpretation of, the evidence available. Having done that, I feel reasonably comfortable using it, knowing that, in cases like this, I wouldn't.
Dave

I like reading conspiracy theories because they're often imaginative, and ultimately harmless. I just am not able to believe them, though I don't think badly of those who do, they're fun to talk to.

 

[Kaosium]

The one miscarriage of justice people seem to be quite comfortable accepting is the O. J. Simpson affair. I can see a reason for this, though. It's accepted that guilt, not innocence, has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. This accepts the probability that some genuinely guilty defendants will be acquitted because the evidence presented admits of reasonable doubt. On the other hand there is not supposed to be reasonable doubt about a verdict of guilty. The trouble is, this isn't always the case.

With OJ I think the misunderstanding there was that it was simply not realized that if you take an American black jury and tell them the police had it in for a black man the 'burden of proof' for that is exceptionally low. Mark Fuhrman caught lying on the stand was all they really needed. Add to that the glove that didn't fit and you have some comfortable with the concept of it being reasonable doubt.

I admit I know little about the evidence in the Kercher murder. I've read a couple of pro-innocence web sites and can see a perfectly reasonable case being put. The fact that there is an appeal in progress suggests there is indeed a reasonable case still to be heard. (I just hope the Italian appeal process is better than the Scottish system, though - that one seems to consist mainly of the appeal court judges saying, well, it's not up to us to second-guess the trial court on this (irrational) conclusion.)

The Italian System is different in that it is a three tier procedure, or four to five in a sense. There's the initial 'Court of Freedom' or somesuch which determines if they have enough evidence to prosecute, then an initial trial, then an appeal trial de novo which means it's basically another whole trial unlike in our systems, then it goes to the Supreme Court where it must be ratified to ensure it's in total compliance with the law.

It is highly unlikely this case will get past the Italian Supreme Court as by a rational definition there's simply no way to pretend this case can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but it got past the first trial mainly because due to a bizarre fusion of police 'leaks,' lies seeded and papparazzi/tabloid imagination they'd basically been condemned before the trial even began. If it does, it will go to the ECHR, which will probably soon after be having some in depth discussions of the Italian legal system.

The pro-innocence sites make a good point that the basic allegation is far-fetched. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, of course, but it does mean you need some fairly compelling evidence to go with it. I haven't yet seen that evidence.

I don't expect anyone to defend the basic allegation, especially the initial 'theories!' At this point I'd be happy to debate with someone who would cede that neither of them were in that room, but that they were involved somehow anyway. That might just be what the new prosecutor will try and prove, being as he has wide latitude to make an entirely different case than the Massei Report detailed.

The odd thing about the Knox/Sollecito conviction is that the cops did get the actual killer. Why did they also go after two quite unlikely people as co-conspirators? I'm also quite swayed by Fiona. She's someone I have huge respect for, and she's right a helluva lot of the time. She participated in the Lockerbie threads for a while, and believes Megrahi is innocent. She believes Knox and Sollecito are guilty.

So one way and another, it's clear that it's fundamentally a reasonable discussion in which it is possible for reasonable people to take different views. What I can't understand is why it has become so personalised. So many people seem emotionally involved to an almost unhealthy degree. What's Amanda to them, or they to Amanda, that they should weep for her?

Let me put it this way, in a general sense. Imagine three years or so ago in a ethernode far, far away a group of people got interested in this crime for various different reasons. There were amongst this diverse group some brilliant and talented people, and made for wonderful socializing. As the 'facts' came out they were overwhelmingly damning of Amanda Knox in particular, and many of these people thought themselves fair in that they dismissed some of the more bizarre stuff but stuck to the 'facts.' However it just so happened these 'facts' were lies and errors seeded to the (mainly) tabloid press by the police and prosecutor who realized they didn't actually have much of a case.

Also despite dismissing some of the more absurd trash being disseminated about Amanda Knox, a lingering loathing remains under the assumption there must be something awful about her at the bottom of it all. There's run-ins with passionate people who are outraged by their depiction of Amanda Knox, being as they know the 'Foxy Knoxy' mythology is a pack of lies, and they're not exactly restrained in their condemnation, causing some strain on the crime board they're on, thus in respect to their host and to store the massive amount of accumulating case files, they build a new home, one just for them.

Then after the trial a thread is started at JREF by a longtime regular. It soon becomes populated by some who've gotten different information about Amanda Knox, mainly from American media which was a bit more skeptical of the idea of 'Foxy Knoxy' and her attendant boytoys thrill killing (or whatever) a beautiful young girl. They're also adamant about the dearth of real evidence of murder. These people think something entirely different happened, but it sounds 'conspiratorial' as it requires the police, prosecutor and court in Italy to be eminently corruptible. Let's also say they don't always have all their facts straight either, but are passionate in the promotion of them as they think something terrible has happened.

Other JRERers interested in the case are dubious in the extreme of these outsiders, and an idea becomes 'established' that they are the result of a PR firm being hired by the family to handle press requests as they don't want their phone ringing off the hook anymore. As on the Marriot website it says something about 'political campaigns' and 'grassroots' something or another, the idea becomes set that the majority of the supporters of Amanda Knox are the result of this PR campaign spreading lies on behalf of her freedom. At the same time, those from the first group, that has already tried and condemned her and saw their decision ratified by the first Italian Court, come to JREF to battle this 'massive PR campaign' spreading their message of Amanda Knox's innocence, along with Raffaele Sollecito's whom some have now remembered got royally screwed too.

Some longtime JREFers have become invested in this debate, and see these ones supporting the 'established' position as wise and noble in their intentions, and they have translators who are working on the ultimate achievement in the Amanda Knox case, the fountain of wisdom that is supposed to be the Massei Report. In there they will find all the 'facts' to refute this growing (!) PR campaign, which now has notables coming forth to 'crusade' on the behalf of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito on a monthly basis it seems, almost part of a plot.

However it soon becomes noticeable as it's translated bit by bit that the holes in the case aren't going to be answered by the Massei Report, which in fact makes rather embarrassing reading for guilt in many respects. At this point though, the very idea of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito being possibly innocent is beyond question, as there's just a 'mountain of evidence' it must be so, and there's so much 'established' that they're guilty, the thought that there's nothing actually at the bottom of the well simply unthinkable. Plus those damned 'groupies' are exceptionally annoying! There's too much 'memorable shame' as they've been reasonable they think, they've realized that perhaps some mistakes were made, but in which case isn't there?

Amongst the group, which has compiled more information available on the case than one could possibly imagine, there's some with political experience, and if the 'groupies' of this disgusting murderess and her boyfriend can use PR tactics, they can too! They know some tricks, they've been studying this case longer than anyone, maybe the Massei report isn't perfect, but it is the official word, which is far better than the 'conspiracy theories' of those devotees of the murderess, whom they're not going to be gentle with anymore, nor that disgusting 'trailer trash family' or those damned 'crusaders,' the result of that dishonest PR campaign! They need to be exposed!

Thus they descend upon the ether in 'burnished rows of steel,' selling the Massei Report and disseminating their 'knowledge' to refute the 'lies' of the PR campaign. Unfortunately at this point their group has polarized, no dissent allowed and that has lead to a dissonance between what they have 'established' and what has since been uncovered by sources more skeptical of the decision. Since the Massei Report is now readily available in English, those who read it without the background of months if not years surrounded by those who passionately believe them guilty, are coming to entirely different conclusions. Especially media outlets that don't seem to be swayed overmuch by their comments sections being spammed, which they thought had worked so well for the 'groupies' PR campaign.'

The truth is there never was and still isn't a 'PR campaign.' The Marriot group handled the scheduling of interviews for the Knox family with the media as they're interested in the story, not because of the sinister machinations of a PR campaign. At some point, sometime after Curt Knox gets his head handed to him by Ann Coulter in a 'debate,' it is decided not to schedule any more adverse encounters. Thus each media event with the family comes off as positive, though that is in fact the media decision to book it with that restriction, not because they kowtow to the will of the Marriot group. The latter naturally having no desire to sacrifice more family members to rabid talking heads.

People got interested individually for various reasons, for one thing it is a risible injustice, for another it is exotic and unique. There's also the fact there are just so many bizarre coincidences and happenings in this case, it is an intricate puzzle, and no one has it completely figured it out nor what it all means. ILE and the Italian Court system may have placed it on the line here, they blew this so bad there may be significant consequences for reversal. The case is essentially an illusion, but not just masterminded by a wizard, for example no one could have foreseen the creation of the mythical 'Foxy Knoxy' by the British tabloids, a creature some people still believe in! The two main players in the debate here chose the red and blue pill and the white rabbit as their avatars, perhaps acknowledging this.

I find the case interesting, but I couldn't keep up with the original "cartwheel" thread when it started and I certainly can't get up to speed on it now. I'll be interested to see how the appeal progresses. Shouting "conspiracy theory" on either side is just plain dumb though.
Rolfe.

The thread is kind of a dried husk now though, Charlie Wilkes is gone, the links to all that unique data dead. All because he made an on topic post that someone who had no idea what they were doing decided was 'off topic.' You can find him at the IIP site I linked in my second post.

 

[lionking]

No comment about post #10? Which I agree with by the way.

 

[uk_dave]

No comment about post #10? Which I agree with by the way.

seconded

 

[Kaosium]

I have several problems with the OP, as some might guess

If Mignini and the prosecution are conspiracy theorists, then aren't all prosecutors conspiracy theorists? It is their job to present a picture of the assembled evidence which demonstrates that the accused are guilty. So calling prosecutors conspiracy theorists is just a trivial observation.

Then provide a coherent theory of the crime, with a motive and evidence to support it. No one can do that, not Massei, not I, not all the bunnies and kittens down the rabbit hole. That's what I'm getting at.

As in 9/11 truthers, there seems to be an element of "back at ya". After the innocentisti are accused of being conspiracy theorists, they say "ha, well so are you". I also find this a trivial argument, and rather childish to boot.

It sure worked on you and others here though, didn't it?

Mignini came up with his conspiracy theory first, Massei wrote it down, then others muddied the waters and called supporters of innocence that. We're just talking a bungled investigation and a cover-up, a pretty banal 'conspiracy.' They didn't try calling us that on the Harvard Political Review now, did they? That's 'cause the sort of people reading that would laugh at them if they did.

As for why people think the innocentisti are conspiracy theorists, it's because the pretty much said so. We could do with a decent definition of CT, but the innocentisti show the hallmarks. In order to explain away certain pieces of evidence, more and more contrived theories are put forward to explain them. "Obvious" mistakes by prosecuting officials can only be explained by suggesting that the official was lying or incompetent. If incompetent, then it has to be suggested that other officials are turning a blind eye. Thus we have the innocentisti suggest a very long of people involved in the Knox prosecution, who have either lied, been incompetent or who are complicit in a cover up. The list includes police, forensics, the prosecutors, the prosecution witnesses, the defence, the judge...

The difference being there's actual evidence of a cover-up. There's hard evidence of Napoleoni, Stefanoni, the postal policeman whose name escapes me all perjuring themselves on important things. There's utterly absurd witnesses believed despite evidence they're mistaken or lying.

There's no evidence of anyone but Rudy killing Meredith Kercher. Let me put it this way: every time a person is prosecuted and it turns out they're innocent (as opposed to merely not guilty meaning the real perpetrator is caught) then that means all the 'evidence' collected against them is wrong, all the witnesses mistaken or lying. It is not that uncommon for that to happen.

Some strange things happened in this case, but in many ways those just excuse some of the mistakes police made. I understand why they put the screws to Amanda, it sure looked like Patrick might have had something to do with it, figure the odds he changes his cellphone that day and then Amanda sends him that text with her nascent Italian causing her to imply she'd meet him that night instead of just saying good bye like she thought. Add in their beloved black hair, and it looks like Patrick is the murderer!

One of the classic hallmarks of the CT, is the "obvious fact", which is so obvious that anyone on the internet should immediately see it. In the Knox case, if these facts are so obvious and compelling, why didn't the defence bring them up? Is it because the defence are incompetent or part of the conspiracy, or it the "obvious fact" not what it seems?

Not exactly, odds are the defense did bring them up, but the jury wasn't listening at that point. They walked into that courtroom like just about the rest of the known world thinking there was no way Amanda and Raffaele were innocent. So many mistakes and lies had been disseminated into the press they probably never noticed that the prosecution never showed the picture of the 'blood-soaked bathroom' (really just having been treated with a chemical that made everything pink/red) they saw in the paper, or that the police had to admit the CCTV camera picture they announced as Amanda was actually Meredith. Besides, what does the defense always do? Attack the 'evidence,' refute the 'witnesses' and say they were 'really nice kids.' Yawn.

That's where I started myself!

A case in point is the "dirty knife". From pictures on the internet, innocentisti conclude that the kitchen knife taken from Sollecitos kitchen is very dirty. However, police and forensics said the knife was "extremely clean". Rather than question whether they might be mistaken in looking at photo, the innocentisti claim that those people were lying. They then need to explain why the judge or the defence didn't call them on it. So the judge and defence must be in on it too. But.... the knife is not dirty. The "dirt" in the photo is just a reflection, because the knife is actually very clean, and very shiny.

The "dirty knife" is a typical example of the way innocuous things are spun into a conspiratorial web by the innocentisti, and one of the reasons I have remained skeptical of the innocentistis general case for innocence.

I know what you mean, actually. Some arguments are better off not being made. I came to the same conclusion regarding the knife. I couldn't really see what others were seeing there on my monitor anyways, and it didn't correlate with other data.

However, Bob, did you ever wonder why if it was said it was 'extremely clean' that it had both Amanda's and Meredith's DNA on it?

On the other hand, the case does not have the typical hallmarks of a miscarriage of justice. It's also worth saying, the case is not half way through, we can't say Italian justice has failed, because it has not yet finished.

Very true, and there is very little that is typical about this case.

 

[lionking]

The difference being there's actual evidence of a cover-up.

Wrong.

 

[bri1]

One of the most shocking aspects of the this case in my view is the leaking of information to the press by the police.
I'm from the UK where there are strict rules about what the media can report in the time from the arrest of a suspect to the trial. (There's been a furore recently over media reporting in the Jo Yeates case in my city, Bristol, and the police's attitude has become extremely cautious).
In the case against both RS and AK (although especially AK) the police have seemed more interested in being heroes, closing the case, coming accross as competent than actually being heroes and being competent by ensuring justice is served. (A curse of modern society- the need to appear competent as opposed to actually being competent?) They contributed to a trial by media and the consequence was that the jury had made up their minds by the time they stepped foot in the court, based on 'evidence' that turned out not to be evidence at all, and could never be introduced in court.
Anyone care to calculate what percentage of the 'evidence' leaked by the police was actually presented in court? I'm going to give it a try (I'll report back when I can).
I'll throw the question out there- what percentage would it have to be for it to become obvious that the police were engaged in a deliberate smear campaign (releasing leaks referring to 'evidence' they knew could never be presented in court)? What percentage would it have to be for it to be obvious that the police were incompetent (releasing leaks referring to 'evidence' they had no clue whether it would stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever)?

 

[lionking]

One of the most shocking aspects of the this case in my view is the leaking of information to the press by the police.
I'm from the UK where there are strict rules about what the media can report in the time from the arrest of a suspect to the trial. (There's been a furore recently over media reporting in the Jo Yeates case in my city, Bristol, and the police's attitude has become extremely cautious).
In the case against both RS and AK (although especially AK) the police have seemed more interested in being heroes, closing the case, coming accross as competent than actually being heroes and being competent by ensuring justice is served. (A curse of modern society- the need to appear competent as opposed to actually being competent?) They contributed to a trial by media
and the consequence was that the jury had made up their minds by the time they stepped foot in the court, based on 'evidence' that turned out not to be evidence at all, and could never be
introduced in court.
Anyone care to calculate what percentage of the 'evidence' leaked by the police was actually presented in court? I'm going to give it a try (I'll report back when I can).
I'll throw the question out there- what percentage would it have to be for it to become obvious that the police were engaged in a deliberate smear campaign (releasing leaks referring to 'evidence' they knew could never be presented in court)? What percentage would it have to be for it to be obvious that the
police were incompetent (releasing leaks referring to 'evidence' they had no clue whether it would stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever)?

Edit. Not worth it.

 

[Kaosium]

Wrong.

How come Monica Napoleoni's testimony is refuted by the 1:45 statement which she pretends didn't happen and isn't in her 'notes?' Or her version of Amanda not being summoned is contradicted by Giobbi just days later? How come in her version of the interrogation it's just a nice little girltalk, which is again proven wrong when the calunnia charge is pressed showing twelve cops were involved in the interrogation? She's the one who says she just 'forgot' to turn on the cameras too, she's lying about that as well...

How come whatshisface of the postal police says he saw Raffaele making a call after he arrived, implying that Raffaele lied about calling the police before he arrived, which is disproven by Raffaele's phone records? How come the camera also catches him arriving after Raffaele made the call? How come he says he never went in the murder room and others say he did?

How come Stefanoni says she never made a confirmatory blood test, thus implying the footprints hadn't tested negative for blood, which is refuted by her own records? That's huge Lionking, you don't 'forget' about what would have been by far the most damning evidence of Amanda being involved in the murder!

How come the court accepted the testimony of the celebrity-seeking twit despite the two people with him refuting him, and the written records of the police officer who interviewed him showing he was shown a picture of Amanda and said he hadn't seen her the day after the murder?

That's hardly it, either, I'm just getting warmed up!

But now, I need something from you. Just one piece of evidence of murder that implies that Amanda and Raffaele were involved, one! Or just one lie of Amanda's that wasn't fed to her by police in the backroom of a police station in the middle of the night surrounded by twelve cops.

Those can't be lies, can they? After all, the police chief said they 'matched' what they knew of the crime at the time, didn't he?

Except of course they didn't, 'cuz the police had everything wrong...

One lie, one piece of evidence of murder. Your turn.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Calunnia is when you say something in court that suggests police misconduct. There's no investigation into whether it occurred, they just look at the trial transcripts and see if the defendant did in fact say something like that. Amanda on the stand in response to a question said that one of the officers clipped her in the back of the head a couple times 'to help her remember' which is what the charge was filed for. Her mother and step father repeating that (although I believe they put it as 'beaten') to a British reporter in Seattle is what got charges filed on them.

The thing is though, I still think they believed it. Perhaps I am wrong and extending the benefit of the doubt too much, but many events would seem to make more sense to me in them just 'helping' or trying to make sure the jury wasn't 'confused.'

<snip>

I don't believe that this is even a remotely accurate definition of that law.

"Calunnia" does not seem to have an exact analogue in English common law. My understanding is that it involves someone knowingly making false accusations that someone else is guilty of having committed a crime. In common law countries this would fall under the umbrella of "defamation of character" (e.g. slander , libel, etc.). The Italian system seems to make a qualitative distinction between slurs of a moral or ethical nature and ones which make accusations of criminal transgressions. There are some elements of 'bearing false witness' to authorities which would overlap into what we would interpret as lying to the police that might incur other, criminal penalties under our system, but the idea of slander is a civil violation to us, requiring a legal protest by the injured party, and the calunnia law in Italy is a different beast. It is a criminal act of slander. It cannot be ignored by law enforcement any more than they could stand around and watch a carjacking.

In this particular instance, yes, it did happen that police were the ones the calunnia was alleged to have been committed against, and it did happen that the place it occurred was in a courtroom, but neither of those things are necessary conditions. Calunnia could be committed against anyone, police or civilian, and it could happen anywhere.

Choosing a courtroom to do it in is a remarkably poor decision, rather like trying to pull off a mugging in a precinct office full of armed cops.