The Massei/Mignini Conspiracy Theory

[funk de fino]

In the early days of the thread here many supporters of Knox and the other Italian dude were acting exactly like truthers that is why they were called CT fantasists. There are more rational posters now but this thread still has the same sneering style posting seen when I last read it.

 

[lionking]

Huh, and here it looks to me like any other mundane screw-up followed by a cover-up and a little scapegoating. We don't call those 'conspiracy theories' where I come from, we call that 'The Chicago Way...'

'There's truth, there's justice....and then there's The Chicago Way.'

The 'gain' is no one ends up losing their job or facing prosecution. If they get away with it that is....

How many police were involved in the investigation? Each and every one of them was actively involved in the cover up? Do you know anything about policing?

 

[Disbelief]

How many police were involved in the investigation? Each and every one of them was actively involved in the cover up? Do you know anything about policing?

Compartmentalization. Haven't you learned anything from the truthers?

 

[LondonJohn]

How many police were involved in the investigation? Each and every one of them was actively involved in the cover up? Do you know anything about policing?

How many police officers needed to have known that the single particle of gunshot residue in Barry George's coat pocket was bogus evidence? How many police officers in that case were involved in covering up the fact that armed police had been involved in the search of George's apartment? Each and every one of the officers involved in the case?

How many police officers in the Birmingham Six case needed to know that the "confessions" were obtained by unlawful means, and that pages of the "confessions" were written and inserted by police officers after the statements were signed? Each and every one of the officers involved in the case?

I'll finish by asking your final question right back at you..........

 

[Kaosium]

How many police were involved in the investigation? Each and every one of them was actively involved in the cover up? Do you know anything about policing?

No, hardly everyone was involved, most probably even believed it all the way through the trial, everyone did. That was a big part of the conviction in my view, the fact the jury went in there knowing Raffaele and Amanda were guilty. The problem was they didn't actually have the evidence they said they had through the papers in the year or so before the trial. There was no 'bleach receipt,' the bathroom didn't really look like it had been soaked in blood when she took a shower, there was no 'clear cut' CCTV picture of Amanda entering the house at 8:43 or whatever it was posted above. None of that actually existed, or it was misconstrued or they were just plain mistaken.

No one would really know how weak the case was until the end except Mignini and Comodi. I still wonder what they think of it. Now their careers will be defined by it.

The only ones who really had to 'know' were the ones who perjured themselves, Monica Napoleoni for one, as there's no way to square her testimony with the actual hard evidence there is of the interrogation. There was a 1:45 statement, this doesn't exist in her 'notes' or her account. This is big this is where Amanda first broke and started babbling about 'flashes' and produced that incoherent statement where she 'vaguely remembers' the murder. It was deemed inadmissible by the Italian Supreme Court so in an exercise of sheer moxy she goes in there knowing the defense can't produce that to refute her account. She gives the impression it was girls night out, belied by the (unexpected and later) charge of calunnia filed that had twelve cops originally eligible for it, but only eight are currently pressing it. Giobbi testifies to Amanda screaming and that he gave the order to bring them both in, again refuting what Monica said. Oh, and she apologizes for 'forgetting' to tape the interrogation.

Stefanoni for all the DNA 'wizardry' and the 'bloody footprints' lie. The postal policeman might just be his own kind of idiot as far as I know, just 'helping.'

This isn't all that complicated and so much of it is out in the open anyway. They actually did motor out to the crime scene the day after being humiliated on TV for their mis-attribution of Rudy's shoeprint for Raffaele's and 'collect' the bra clasp just as it's shown in the link in the first post. It's not like a sinister frame-up, it's more a tragedy of errors and people got caught up in it.

 

[Rolfe]

That was a big part of the conviction in my view, the fact the jury went in there knowing Raffaele and Amanda were guilty. The problem was they didn't actually have the evidence they said they had through the papers in the year or so before the trial. There was no 'bleach receipt,' the bathroom didn't really look like it had been soaked in blood when she took a shower, there was no 'clear cut' CCTV picture of Amanda entering the house at 8:43 or whatever it was posted above. None of that actually existed, or it was misconstrued or they were just plain mistaken.

That's a very interesting observation. I think it's important in quite a lot of cases, and a very difficult issue.

Sorry to bring up the Lockerbie parallel again, but some aspects of that affair are quite similar. In that example, the case against the two accused was trumpeted to the corners of the globe by the investigators for eight years before the trial. The unsupported allegations were used to insist that punitive sanctions be imposed on Libya, sanctions which are said to have cost thousands of innocent lives. It was all about the evidence the US Department of Justice and the CIA said they had.

http://plane-truth.com/Aoude/geocities/silence.html

Oh I think the evidence available to the Department of Justice in their case, which they're keeping under wraps, is overwhelming, it's conclusive. I think it is mind boggling in the amount of detail that they have. They have also…. they have a live witness for one thing, who would be presented in a court of law. I think there is a tremendous amount of evidence that will allow the prosecutors to present the chronology of the operation from its very inception, and that chronology would start even before Malta, go to Malta and then….. you know….. describe and in almost excruciating detail exactly how they made the bomb, how they secreted it, how they got it on board the aircraft, and I think that's a fairly strong case.

He was lying. They didn't have any of that at all. None of it. They did have a live witness who was presented in court, that's true. The first problem was that he didn't testify to any of that and neither did anyone else. No such evidence was led.

The second problem was that the live witness had been both bribed and threatened by the CIA and the DoJ to provide evidence implicating the accused in the bombing. This was all completely proved in court, when the court ordered certain CIA cables to be produced in evidence uncensored. As a result, the star witness's credibility fell apart in a heap, and his evidence was thrown out.

Most observers believed the case would collapse at that point. It was regarded as bizarre that the prosecution didn't just fold and drop the whole thing. But they went on. And the judges convicted. Based on the remaining evidence, that I personally wouldn't give anyone a parking ticket on. The "determination to convict" demonstrated in their written judgement is staggering. The rules of evidence are thrown to the winds, and the concept of reasonable doubt doesn't even get a look in.

Why? That's the $64,000 question. It seems to me that the narrative put forward by the prosecution over eight years was too ingrained to ignore. The sanctions and the deaths and the major international hoo-ha probably played a role as well. It was as if a structure had been erected based on a perishable framework, and after the framework was destroyed the structure went right on standing in defiance of gravity, physics and mechanics.

So I think this is perhaps a more important point than we often appreciate.

Rolfe.

 

[Kaosium]

In the early days of the thread here many supporters of Knox and the other Italian dude were acting exactly like truthers that is why they were called CT fantasists. There are more rational posters now but this thread still has the same sneering style posting seen when I last read it.

I need a mustache. I can't sneer properly without one. A mustache always adds something to a good sneer, don't you think?

If the 'sneering posting style' comes from the 'I-know-something-you-don't' attitude, I know what you mean and honestly I'd have to admit I'm guilty as charged. I would guess they always say 'you'll find out someday!' too, don't they?

Just keep in mind this one is really easy, there's no vast globetrotting conspiracy, no billions of dollars and the fate of the world at stake, this is just one where the police and prosecutor screwed up bigtime and managed to get it through the first court with some misdirection and perhaps some slight of hand. They told us something preposterous, provided scant and contrived evidence, and then topped it off with ludicrous reasoning that would embarrass the John Birch society.

It's the story of how they did that and got people to believe it that fascinates me. That's what the draw is here, explaining all those books and movies, the story of how all this happened in our day and age is quite remarkable. They didn't just frame her, that would have been far easier and less obvious.

 

[odeed]

How many police officers needed to have known that the single particle of gunshot residue in Barry George's coat pocket was bogus evidence? How many police officers in that case were involved in covering up the fact that armed police had been involved in the search of George's apartment? Each and every one of the officers involved in the case?

Zero officers knew that the gunshot residue was bogus, it was the FSS scientist who changed his mind after being confronted with new facts. As for the armed officers, two witnesses claimed to have seen them, the police denied they were used, the defense did not use the witnesses in the appeal.

How many police officers in the Birmingham Six case needed to know that the "confessions" were obtained by unlawful means, and that pages of the "confessions" were written and inserted by police officers after the statements were signed? Each and every one of the officers involved in the case?

I'll finish by asking your final question right back at you..........

Three officers were charged for their part in the Birmingham six case.

The difference in this case, is that every witness of the prosecution, and now that includes the judges, have been part of the conspiracy according to Knox supporters.

 

[Kaosium]

The difference in this case, is that every witness of the prosecution, and now that includes the judges, have been part of the conspiracy according to Knox supporters.

A real conspiracy wouldn't stink to high heaven like this. The whole point of 'conspiring' is to keep it secret...

Monica Napoleoni, Head of Homocide, waltzes into that courtroom with 'notes' that manage to exclude the big breakthrough, the 1:45 statement--it never even exists. Most of the eleven other cops with her are unmentioned, she's just having a nice little chick-chat with Amanda. She can do this because the defense cannot raise the 1:45 statement because it was declared inadmissible by the Supreme Court. That's irony in a nutshell. That's why sometimes I think the best movie made out of this has to be a black comedy. You couldn't make this stuff up.

 

[LondonJohn]

Three officers were charged for their part in the Birmingham six case.

So that makes everything OK then? How on earth is this relevant?

In addition, I note that Darat posted an illuminating portion of Lord Denning's judgement in one of the earlier Birmingham 6 appeals, which he denied. In this excerpt, he (one of the UK's most senior and learned judges at the time) argued exactly what some have argued here: essentially that the level of police misconduct necessary to have led to an incorrect guilty verdict was so wildly improbable as to be inconceivable, therefore appeal denied:

Just consider the course of events if their [the Six's] action were to proceed to trial ... If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous. That would mean that the Home Secretary would have either to recommend that they be pardoned or to remit the case to the Court of Appeal. That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, 'It cannot be right that these actions should go any further.' They should be struck out either on the ground that the men are stopped from challenging the decision of Mr. Justice Bridge, or alternatively that it is an abuse of the process of the court. Whichever it is, the actions should be stopped.

Of course, the guilty verdicts were subsequently overturned, and exactly this level of police misconduct was demonstrated to have taken place. Funny old world, eh.....?

The difference in this case, is that every witness of the prosecution, and now that includes the judges, have been part of the conspiracy according to Knox supporters.

According to which "Knox supporters" exactly? Certainly not me (and, BTW, I wouldn't describe myself as a Knox supporter (or a Sollecito supporter either, for that matter), but as a supporter of correct judicial rulings).

Oh and again, it strongly appears to me that you are deliberately employing the term "conspiracy" in a pejorative manner, with the intention of implying that all those who believe that Knox's/Sollecito's convictions are unsafe are some sort of "conspiracy nutters". Maybe I'm wrong in that suggestion though, who knows....

 

[Rolfe]

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZijN_Z0ZJsgC&pg=PA157&dq=denning+%22appalling+vista%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=3&as_pt=ALLTYPES#v=onepage&q=denning%20%22appalling%20vista%22&f=false

It seems to have been a civil action by the convicted men against the police, in respect of injuries the men sustained after they were arrested. If I'm reading the reference correctly, the men won that action, but the police appealled, and Denning's pronouncement was made in the course of him granting that appeal.

The case seems to have been re-opened precisely because that outrageous statement meant the proceedings could be seen as unfair. It was all looked at again, and the police and forensics misconduct was discovered.

One of the forensic scientists strongly criticised in that case for "sexing-up" his findings to make it appear the men were guilty, was the man who did pretty much all the crucial forensic examinations in the Lockerbie case. He left the forensic science service rather abruptly and re-trained as a chiropodist, despite having a PhD in electronics or something like that.

His written notes in the Lockerbie evidence contain some absolutely jaw-dropping anomalies relating to the single most important piece of debris found, and his performance in the witness box when challenged on these anomalies was a masterpiece of obfuscation and amnesia.

So yeah, not entirely dismissing the possibility that Knox and Sollecito were stiched up simply on grounds of implausibility, I have to say.

Rolfe.

 

[odeed]

So that makes everything OK then? How on earth is this relevant?

You asked

How many police officers in the Birmingham Six case needed to know that the "confessions" were obtained by unlawful means, and that pages of the "confessions" were written and inserted by police officers after the statements were signed? Each and every one of the officers involved in the case?

I provided an answer, simple....

 

[Matthew Best]

You provided an answer, but not an answer to the question that was asked.

 

[odeed]

You provided an answer, but not an answer to the question that was asked.

I answered the question(s) that was asked:

How many police officers in the Birmingham Six case needed to know that the "confessions" were obtained by unlawful means,

Three, from the wiki link

"Superintendent George Reade and two other police officers were charged with perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice but were never prosecuted."

and that pages of the "confessions" were written and inserted by police officers after the statements were signed?

Three.

Each and every one of the officers involved in the case?

Three, is there any evidence that more or less than three officers were involved?

 

[Matthew Best]

I answered the question(s) that was asked:

Three, from the wiki link

"Superintendent George Reade and two other police officers were charged with perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice but were never prosecuted."

Three.

Three, is there any evidence that more or less than three officers were involved?

I may be being persnickety, but that is not an answer to the question that was asked. It's only an answer to the question "how many police officers were charged?", not the question "how many needed to know?"

 

[odeed]

I will put my answer this way, the three officers charged for conspiracy, needed to know what was lawful or unlawful when obtaining the confessions, so if/when they were asked how they got the confessions they could lie about the unlawful parts.

 

[LondonJohn]

I will put my answer this way, the three officers charged for conspiracy, needed to know what was lawful or unlawful when obtaining the confessions, so if/when they were asked how they got the confessions they could lie about the unlawful parts.

Perhaps it's time to remind ourselves that this area of discussion arose from Lionking's incorrect assertion that if there was police misconduct in the Kercher case, it must have involved many, many officers:

How many police were involved in the investigation? Each and every one of them was actively involved in the cover up? Do you know anything about policing?

My original response was explicitly intended to illustrate that not many people need to be actively involved in deliberate deception for a miscarriage of justice to occur.

 

[Alt+F4]

Did you know Amanda Knox was Italy's Woman of the Year for 2009?

So? Hitler was Time Magazine's Man of the Year for 1938.

 

[Alt+F4]

How many police officers needed to have known that the single particle of gunshot residue in Barry George's coat pocket was bogus evidence? How many police officers in that case were involved in covering up the fact that armed police had been involved in the search of George's apartment? Each and every one of the officers involved in the case?

How many police officers in the Birmingham Six case needed to know that the "confessions" were obtained by unlawful means, and that pages of the "confessions" were written and inserted by police officers after the statements were signed? Each and every one of the officers involved in the case?

I'll finish by asking your final question right back at you..........

These were both unsolved cases that the police were under pressure to solve. Doesn't apply at all to this case where there was clear evidence of RG's involvement. No need for anyone to frame AK and RS but the conspiracy theory said they did.....for no reason whatsoever.

 

[Alt+F4]

No, hardly everyone was involved, most probably even believed it all the way through the trial, everyone did.

No evidence of this, you're just making it up.

That was a big part of the conviction in my view, the fact the jury went in there knowing Raffaele and Amanda were guilty.

No evidence of this, you're just making it up.

There was no 'bleach receipt,'

No bleach receipt was presented as evidence at the trial.

the bathroom didn't really look like it had been soaked in blood when she took a shower,

That photo was not presented as evidence at the trial.

No one would really know how weak the case was until the end except Mignini and Comodi.

YOU think the case was weak. The jury who saw and heard all the evidence didn't. You have not seen and heard all the evidence.

The only ones who really had to 'know' were the ones who perjured themselves, Monica Napoleoni for one

Again, no evidence of this, you're just making it up.

You still have nothing but an elaborate conspiracy theory.