The Massei/Mignini Conspiracy Theory

stilicho said:
What is my position on the medical considerations? Do you know? Your apology is not accepted because you restate the lie in the second paragraph but using different words.

I don't ask people questions because I want them to accept any presumed position that I hold. I don't have any medical qualifications and I can't see any harm receiving intelligent information from someone who does.

There was nothing in my request to Rolfe, and nothing in my statement that I had contacted Rolfe, to suggest that she might think anything at all about the possibility of a conspiracy theory. I've only encountered her on medical, scientific, and general scepticism threads and never in the CT forum until just now.

Try apologising again and drop the explanation that simply restates your original position. Sometimes when you're wrong you're just plain wrong.

Now, about those conspirators. This is the CT sub-forum. If you can't even figure out who is in the conspiracy then how could you possibly believe there might have been one?
Click to expand...


I am sorry that you haven't accepted my apology, but won't be taking you up on your offer of having another go at it. And I also find the content of the argument in your post to be patronising and dictatorial. Bye.
 
Last edited:
Stilicho said:
I had asked Rolfe (a longtime JREF member who has been a stalwart against homeopathy, acupuncture, naturopathy, and chiropracty) to weigh in on some of the medical considerations in JAN or FEB 2010 and he outright refused on the basis of tl;dr. When someone of that stature avoids the thread then I know something is terribly wrong.
Click to expand...


If I outright refused, and I have some vague memory of this, it was primarily on the ground of being up to my neck (or maybe even my eyelashes) in humungous piles of evidence in the Lockerbie case. Which, by the way, is a definite miscarriage of justice, so let's not get too excited about which side of the Kercher case I might espouse if I got up to speed.

I'm interested enough in this one to sit in the peanut gallery, partly because it's another possible miscarriage of justice case, and these interest me. However, I have not been able to glean enough about the issues from dipping into the threads to assess which side has the better case. Those supporting a miscarriage of justice have some good points, but then I have enormous respect for Fiona, and I'd be interested in hearing her reasons for believing the conviction was sound.

I find the idea that if I declined to get seriously involved in the Kercher discussions this must mean there is something TERRIBLY WRONG to be quite bizarre. The implication seems to be that I've looked, I've seen evidence of some sort of wrongdoing, and as a result I don't want to touch it with a barge pole.

Anybody who has followed my threads on the Lockerbie affair will know that I have indeed looked at that one, found something terribly wrong (the man convicted was deliberately railroaded by the US authorities), and I'm going on about it ad nauseam to anyone who will listen. So why anyone might imagine that I'd back off from discussing the Kercher case if I saw signs of murkiness is quite beyond me.

Rolfe.
 
Kaosium said:
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.
Click to expand...

If that is the case then the fact they were a pair of lying morons didnt help. Who named Patrick by the way?
 
LondonJohn said:
I might have some ideas, but I'm not naming names on here. Nice try though!
Click to expand...

It's not clear to me at all why you won't name which persons in the Perugia police and justice are, according to you, part of the conspiracy you posit.

JREF rules obviously allow you to accuse non-members, no problem there.

Or are you afraid that an Italian lawsuit is initiated for defamation? Do you really think they'll go after a poster on a US based internet forum? Apart from the legal hurdles then to get your true identity?
 
ddt said:
It's not clear to me at all why you won't name which persons in the Perugia police and justice are, according to you, part of the conspiracy you posit.

JREF rules obviously allow you to accuse non-members, no problem there.

Or are you afraid that an Italian lawsuit is initiated for defamation? Do you really think they'll go after a poster on a US based internet forum? Apart from the legal hurdles then to get your true identity?
Click to expand...


Well, the simple answer is that I'm not "positing a conspiracy" by any means. I think that it's just as likely (if not more so) that a miscarriage of justice resulted from malpractice, tunnel vision and confirmation bias amongst the law enforcement personnel. A conspiracy heavily implies a conscious decision to act in concert, usually with wilful deception. I don't think that this was at all necessary in this case - although I can see opportunities where such behaviour might possibly have occurred (e.g. the curious incident of the knife transfer in the police station, and the curious discovery of the bra clasp).
 
funk de fino said:
If that is the case then the fact they were a pair of lying morons didnt help. Who named Patrick by the way?
Click to expand...


The Italian police did. They just got Knox to agree to it.

They already (according to an official statement from their chief) knew "the truth" before Knox ever sat down for her interrogation - a "truth" which involved Lumumba as one of the killers.
 
funk de fino said:
If that is the case then the fact they were a pair of lying morons didnt help. Who named Patrick by the way?
Click to expand...

I don't think we will ever know definitively as the police did not tape that interrogation session with Knox.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
If I outright refused, and I have some vague memory of this, it was primarily on the ground of being up to my neck (or maybe even my eyelashes) in humungous piles of evidence in the Lockerbie case. Which, by the way, is a definite miscarriage of justice, so let's not get too excited about which side of the Kercher case I might espouse if I got up to speed.

I'm interested enough in this one to sit in the peanut gallery, partly because it's another possible miscarriage of justice case, and these interest me. However, I have not been able to glean enough about the issues from dipping into the threads to assess which side has the better case. Those supporting a miscarriage of justice have some good points, but then I have enormous respect for Fiona, and I'd be interested in hearing her reasons for believing the conviction was sound.

I find the idea that if I declined to get seriously involved in the Kercher discussions this must mean there is something TERRIBLY WRONG to be quite bizarre. The implication seems to be that I've looked, I've seen evidence of some sort of wrongdoing, and as a result I don't want to touch it with a barge pole.

Anybody who has followed my threads on the Lockerbie affair will know that I have indeed looked at that one, found something terribly wrong (the man convicted was deliberately railroaded by the US authorities), and I'm going on about it ad nauseam to anyone who will listen. So why anyone might imagine that I'd back off from discussing the Kercher case if I saw signs of murkiness is quite beyond me.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...


Hi Rolfe,

I've enjoyed reading your posts on this subject, and also share an interest in the Lockerbie case. I think that in time I'll post on some of those threads too - I broadly adhere to your position there.

My take on the Kercher case is that there appears to have been a miscarriage of justice. I have no idea whether or not Knox and/or Sollecito are actually innocent of the crime (although I tend towards thinking that they are), but I'm fairly confident in my view that they should never have been found guilty. I think their first trial outcome was the complex result of poor defence representation, police malpractice/incompetence presented as solid evidence, misleading (and probably incorrect) witness testimony, and some factors related to the judicial process itself.

I'm therefore interested in the case as a potential study in judicial mistakes, and in a more meta- context as a study in bystanders' adherence to entrenched positions. I myself don't really care whether or not Knox and Sollecito get acquitted from an emotional point of view (I don't know them or their families/friends, and don't really wish to), but I care about it from an intellectual and justice-oriented point of view. Similarly, while I think it's tragic that Meredith Kercher was murdered, I no more grieve for her than I do any other victim of murder where I didn't know the victim or his/her family or friends.
 
Rolfe said:
...

I find the idea that if I declined to get seriously involved in the Kercher discussions this must mean there is something TERRIBLY WRONG to be quite bizarre. The implication seems to be that I've looked, I've seen evidence of some sort of wrongdoing, and as a result I don't want to touch it with a barge pole.

...
Click to expand...

The value judgement that there must be something terribly wrong (all lower case) is mine. I didn't state nor imply that it was yours. I was clear that your reply to me was tl;dr and not that you had read anything whatsoever about it.

My question to you, at that time, was purely about the medical considerations and nothing more.

------------

You may have just noticed that I just asked someone directly who participated in the Kercher case conspiracy and/or cover-up. I even offered some prospective names. It's crickets. It always has been.

Our position has always been the same. If there has been a miscarriage of justice here then it would necessarily include a conspiracy, a cover-up, and perhaps a modicum of mesmerism.

There are alternative explanations supplied for everything from how Guede entered the cottage, through the reasons visible footprints are missing from the bedroom to the bathmat (where there is a partial print), to why Sollecito told the police he slept until 10:00 or 10:30 the next day when his computer and cell records proved he was awake as early as 06:00. Much of the tl;dr thread involves speculation that was not even presented in the courtroom by the defence lawyers.

The Lockerbie case is a poor parallel. This one is much closer in its tone and elements to the Reena Virk case or the slaying of two schoolgirls by Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo.

There is nothing to be gained from any of the three principals telling the truth because there are no plea bargains, as such, in the Italian system. Dig in and enjoy yourself. You might be more successful than I have been in getting anyone to identify the conspirators.
 
stilicho said:
My question to you, at that time, was purely about the medical considerations and nothing more.
Click to expand...


In that case, I don't remember the question. I remember someone asking me to look at the Kercher evidence, but not specifically mentioning medical aspects.

stilicho said:
You may have just noticed that I just asked someone directly who participated in the Kercher case conspiracy and/or cover-up. I even offered some prospective names. It's crickets. It always has been.
Click to expand...


Well, whatever I said to you, it wasn't crickets. I may have said that I didn't have time to assimilate the details of the Kercher evidence, if that's what you meant by tl;dr.

stilicho said:
The Lockerbie case is a poor parallel. This one is much closer in its tone and elements to the Reena Virk case or the slaying of two schoolgirls by Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo.
Click to expand...


Indeed, the Lockerbie case is a poor parallel. The Kercher case is a rather ordinary murder, albeit with lurid details. The Lockerbie case, well, isn't. There are some similarities though, in particular when the conduct of the investigation and in particular court procedures are being discussed.

My main point in bringing it up, however, was to point out that anyone inferring that I could be anticipated to enter the Kercher debate on the side of guilt might not be taking everything into consideration, and anyone inferring that if I saw something murky about an incident being discussed I would be even remotely likely to shut up and say nothing, really hasn't been paying attention.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
....

My main point in bringing it up, however, was to point out that anyone inferring that I could be anticipated to enter the Kercher debate on the side of guilt might not be taking everything into consideration, and anyone inferring that if I saw something murky about an incident being discussed I would be even remotely likely to shut up and say nothing, really hasn't been paying attention.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Neither of those things were either stated or implied except by LondonJohn. I asked you over a year ago about some of the specific medical considerations and you declined to participate. I did not attribute any motive to this decision of yours and, in your reply, you explained that it was tl;dr. I didn't ask you anything further about it.

I don't know why we're still at this very basic misunderstanding, which was only raised by LondonJohn and since explained away (by him) as a "misremembering" of what I'd actually said.

This particular thread is not about the evidence in the case. It's about the conspiracy to frame Knox, Sollecito and Guede for a crime which they did not commit.

I eagerly anticipate any evidence of this conspiracy and that should probably start with the names of the conspirators. To date, crickets.
 
Well, I don't know who's right. I haven't examined the details of the evidence for myself, and nor am I likely to. Neither side of the debate has presented a case that seems to be compelling. I'll be interested to see what transpires at the appeal.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Well, I don't know who's right. I haven't examined the details of the evidence for myself, and nor am I likely to. Neither side of the debate has presented a case that seems to be compelling. I'll be interested to see what transpires at the appeal.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

It's crawling along, too. I'd expect a result by the end of the summer. The highest probability is that the double-DNA knife will be excluded due to non-repeatability, the Disco Bus Defence will accomplish nothing, and the bra clasp evidence will be confirmed (with a strong possibility that new findings will show Knox DNA on it as well).

Since all mitigating circumstances have already been included in the light sentences they received, and they did not choose the fast track option, we should expect no change in jail time offered.
 
LondonJohn said:
The Italian police did. They just got Knox to agree to it.

They already (according to an official statement from their chief) knew "the truth" before Knox ever sat down for her interrogation - a "truth" which involved Lumumba as one of the killers.
Click to expand...

Now we are back to the CT stuff. Excellent. Knew it wouldnt take long.
 
funk de fino said:
Now we are back to the CT stuff. Excellent. Knew it wouldnt take long.
Click to expand...

Where's the conspiracy here? The police had erroneously convinced themselves (from misinterpreting an ambiguously-written text message from Knox to Lumumba on the evening of 1st November) that Knox had arranged to meet Lumumba later that same evening, and that since Knox had denied meeting up with Lumumba, this meeting was linked to the murder.

No conspiracy, but I know how some like to bandy that little word around at the slightest opportunity. I'll shout it if you like, if it helps get it out there some more: CONSPIRACY!!!!! CT!!!!!! CONSPIRACY THEORY!!!!!
 
stilicho said:
I eagerly anticipate any evidence of this conspiracy and that should probably start with the names of the conspirators. To date, crickets.
Click to expand...

Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice, they say.

What happened is very consistent with incompetence mixed with tunnel vision and confirmation bias. Is cops tightening ranks to cover up for their and their buddies' blunders a conspiracy? If it is, it's a very common one. What we witnessed in this case is a festival of unprofessionalism - from the unlawful interrogations thrown away by the Supreme Court, forgetting to record that and only that single interrogation, incredible failures of the "scientifica" and other "experts" - accidental frying of all the hard drives, loosing vital piece of evidence and finding it 47 days later in a pile of rubbish, dirty and moved in an undocumented way on a crime scene that had been trampled, turned upside down, completely trashed and contaminated in the meantime, to the unheard of methods of DNA testing and strange reluctance to disclose those methods and the data.

We've seen Napoleoni and her colleagues from the "flying squad" perjury themselves about the all night interrogation, Stefanoni from the scientifica lying about what tests she did and lying about and withholding important data etc. Are they all conspiring? Maybe they just try to look good and save the incredibly week case?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom