The Massei/Mignini Conspiracy Theory

LondonJohn said:
Yes, it does.
Click to expand...

Let's explain this to you. You said this:

Originally Posted by LondonJohn
The problem I have with your problem is this: the Chief of Police of Perugia (Arturo de Felice) stated in a press conference the following morning (6th November), that Knox

"...buckled and made an admission of facts we knew to be correct"?

This statement clearly implies that the police "knew" in advance that Lumumba was involved - before they even started questioning Knox on the 5th/6th. Either that, or the Perugia Chief of Police was (for some reason) lying when he made that statement. Interesting, huh?
Click to expand...

You created what's called a false dichotomy and that is that de Felice posited only that he knew Lumumba was involved or that he was lying. That's two choices. There are many other reasons that he could have said what he did:

  • The police knew that there had been a sexual assault against Meredith and Knox confirmed this in three signed statements.
  • The police knew that someone else had been in the cottage apart from Knox and Sollecito and Knox confirmed this in three signed statements.
  • Arthur de Felice was issuing a generic police statement to assuage the fears of Perugian citizens who thought a vicious sex killer was still on the loose.
  • The police knew that Meredith's throat had been slashed, indicating that she had tried to scream and was silenced, and Knox confirmed this by telling them that Meredith had screamed while she plugged her ears standing in the kitchen.
That's not even an exhaustive list but it exposes your false dichotomy as fraudulent and dishonest.

You also replied to me here:

Quote:
Simple question: Was there a conspiracy to frame Amanda Knox for murder?
Click to expand...
Smple answer: I don't know, but I'm inclined to think that a miscarriage of justice was more down to incompetence, malpractice and tunnel vision than to the nasty c-word. Does that make my position any clearer?
Click to expand...

If you reject the conspiracy then say so and stop saying things such as that the police told Knox that her boss had murdered Meredith or that the chief of police either lied or knew beforehand that Knox would name Patrick. Incompetence on his part doesn't explain why you think de Felice said they knew ahead of time that Knox would tell them Lumumba was the killer.

Please, for everyone's sake, try again.
 
stilicho said:
Let's explain this to you.
Click to expand...

Are you speaking on behalf of a group, or yourself?

You said this:

You created what's called a false dichotomy and that is that de Felice posited only that he knew Lumumba was involved or that he was lying. That's two choices. There are many other reasons that he could have said what he did:

  • The police knew that there had been a sexual assault against Meredith and Knox confirmed this in three signed statements.
  • The police knew that someone else had been in the cottage apart from Knox and Sollecito and Knox confirmed this in three signed statements.
  • Arthur de Felice was issuing a generic police statement to assuage the fears of Perugian citizens who thought a vicious sex killer was still on the loose.
  • The police knew that Meredith's throat had been slashed, indicating that she had tried to scream and was silenced, and Knox confirmed this by telling them that Meredith had screamed while she plugged her ears standing in the kitchen.
That's not even an exhaustive list but it exposes your false dichotomy as fraudulent and dishonest.
Click to expand...


No. These are remote possibilites. I posit that the only logical interpretation of the statement "Knox buckled and gave a version of events that we knew to be correct" is that the "version of events" essentially encompasses all of what was contained in Knox's infamous confession/accusation. If you want to pretend otherwise, be my guest.

Oh, and your final sentence here is a personal insult. What grounds do you have to accuse me of fraud or dishonesty in my argument? Please retract and apologise.


You also replied to me here:

If you reject the conspiracy then say so and stop saying things such as that the police told Knox that her boss had murdered Meredith or that the chief of police either lied or knew beforehand that Knox would name Patrick. Incompetence on his part doesn't explain why you think de Felice said they knew ahead of time that Knox would tell them Lumumba was the killer.
Click to expand...


Please stop repeating the word "conspiracy" ad nauseam. I realise it's somewhat of an obsession of yours in relation to this case, and that you're keen for those who believe Knox's/Sollecito's convictions are unsafe to start labelling themselves as conspiracy theorists. However, it does not take a conspiracy theory to believe that the police knew Knox had sent a text to Lumumba on the evening of the 1st (01 NOV 2007), and that as soon as they found out the contents of that text, they convinced themselves that Knox had arranged to meet Lumumba. And since Knox had denied going out or meeting up with anyone that night, they then surmised that the meeting was related to the murder. So it's also logical that by the time Knox "crumbled", the police "knew" that she'd met with Lumumba that night, and "knew" that the two of them (at least) had gone back to the cottage where Meredith was subsequently murdered. No conspiracy. Just tunnel vision. Different.

Further evidence to support my interpretation can be found from the fuller version of de Felice's statement, which went like this: "Initially, Knox gave a version of events that we knew to be untrue, but eventually she crumbled and told a version of events that we knew to be true". So it's clear (to any objective observer) that the "untrue" version involved Knox being at Sollecito's apartment with him all night, and the "true" version by contrast is the one where she meets up with Lumumba to go to the cottage. That was the difference in Knox's story during the course of that interrogation. Knox (and many others) knew on the afternoon of the 2nd November (02 NOV 2007) that Meredith's throat had been cut, and incidentally this is no evidence whatsoever that Meredith ever screamed.


Please, for everyone's sake, try again.
Click to expand...

No. Your argument is incorrect in my opinion. And telling people to "try again" isn't going to advance your position, nor promote an atmosphere of civility. Thank you for your fine communication though.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Further evidence to support my interpretation can be found from the fuller version of de Felice's statement, which went like this: "Initially, Knox gave a version of events that we knew to be untrue, but eventually she crumbled and told a version of events that we knew to be true". So it's clear (to any objective observer) that the "untrue" version involved Knox being at Sollecito's apartment with him all night, and the "true" version by contrast is the one where she meets up with Lumumba to go to the cottage.
Click to expand...

So, to clarify, you are stating unequivocally that Arthur de Felice of the Perugia Flying Squad knew ahead of time that Amanda Knox would name Patrick Lumumba as the one who murdered Meredith Kercher, or that they could force her to name him based on what they already knew about the case.

Yes or no.
 
Last edited:
stilicho said:
So, to clarify, you are stating unequivocally that Arthur de Felice of the Perugia Flying Squad knew ahead of time that Amanda Knox would name Patrick Lumumba as the one who murdered Meredith Kercher, or that they could force her to name him based on what they already knew about the case.

Yes or no.
Click to expand...


I have no idea whether or not Arturo (not Arthur) de Felice personally knew this information in advance of Knox making her confession/accusation.

But what I am suggesting is that the interrogating police had made the connection between the timing of the text from Knox to Lumumba, the content of that text (which they mistakenly interpreted to mean that Knox had arranged to meet Lumumba), and the fact that Knox was insisting that she'd been with Lumumba inside his apartment all night on 01/02 NOV 2007.

I'm suggesting that the interrogating police might therefore have concluded that Knox was lying when she said she'd been with Sollecito in his apartment all night.

I'm then suggesting that the police came to the conclusion that the only explanation for Knox lying was that she was involved in the murder, and that the meeting with Lumumba was an integral part of the crime.

And then I'm suggesting that the police might have put it to Knox that she was lying, and that they had evidence that she'd met Lumumba (or "the person to whom you sent this text message") and perhaps they told her that they had other evidence firmly connecting her to the murder scene.

I'm then suggesting that the police "suggested" to Knox that she was suppressing her menory of these horrific events, and that if she tried harder, she'd remember what "actually happened". The interpreter (Anna Donnino) gave evidence in court that she told Knox that once she'd broken her ankle, and that the trauma of the accident had caused her to forget the actual moment of the fall. This conversation would have made no sense unless the police were suggesting to Knox that she needed to remember the "truth".


I have no idea whether all this is what actually happened. It's just what I think might have happened, and I think it's a credible explanation as to why Knox suddenly placed herself at the murder scene and accused Lumumba. Furthermore, this "what might have happened" explanation involves no element of conspiracy.
 
LondonJohn said:
I have no idea whether all this is what actually happened. It's just what I think might have happened, and I think it's a credible explanation as to why Knox suddenly placed herself at the murder scene and accused Lumumba. Furthermore, this "what might have happened" explanation involves no element of conspiracy.
Click to expand...

If you have no idea whether de Felice knew ahead of time then why are you stating that there are only two logical alternatives? You said this:

LondonJohn said:
This statement clearly implies that the police "knew" in advance that Lumumba was involved - before they even started questioning Knox on the 5th/6th. Either that, or the Perugia Chief of Police was (for some reason) lying when he made that statement.
Click to expand...

Can you explain what the difference between "clearly implies" and "what I think might have happened" is? In my world, "clearly implies" offers a direct route between subject and predicate. In my world, "what I think might have happened" is worthless speculation.

So which is it? Which statement are you prepared to withdraw?
 
stilicho said:
If you have no idea whether de Felice knew ahead of time then why are you stating that there are only two logical alternatives? You said this:



Can you explain what the difference between "clearly implies" and "what I think might have happened" is? In my world, "clearly implies" offers a direct route between subject and predicate. In my world, "what I think might have happened" is worthless speculation.

So which is it? Which statement are you prepared to withdraw?
Click to expand...


Neither.

"Clearly implies" does not equal "definitely means". Hope that makes things clearer.
 
LondonJohn said:
The problem I have with your problem is this: the Chief of Police of Perugia (Arturo de Felice) stated in a press conference the following morning (6th November), that Knox

"...buckled and made an admission of facts we knew to be correct"?

This statement clearly implies that the police "knew" in advance that Lumumba was involved - before they even started questioning Knox on the 5th/6th. Either that, or the Perugia Chief of Police was (for some reason) lying when he made that statement. Interesting, huh?
Click to expand...

LJ,

That statement doesn't imply anything of the sort. That is just your bias showing.
 
LondonJohn said:
Neither.

"Clearly implies" does not equal "definitely means". Hope that makes things clearer.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't make anything clearer. Arturo de Felice was either referring to Patrick Lumumba's involvement as a fact that the police knew beforehand or he wasn't. Which one is it?

"I have no idea and I'm just pulling stuff out of my ass" is an acceptable alternative response.
 
funk de fino said:
All of us that see that you made stuff up. Your bias is clear for all to see.
Click to expand...


Who are "all of us"? This is getting worryingly factional. I thought everybody spoke for him/herself here, rather than coalescing into cliques.....

And what do you think my bias is, given that it's clear for all to see?
 
LondonJohn said:
Who are "all of us"? This is getting worryingly factional. I thought everybody spoke for him/herself here, rather than coalescing into cliques.....

And what do you think my bias is, given that it's clear for all to see?
Click to expand...

Amanda is innocent and anyone who doesn't agree hates her, is stupid and kowtows to authority.
 
LondonJohn said:
Who are "all of us"? This is getting worryingly factional. I thought everybody spoke for him/herself here, rather than coalescing into cliques.....
Click to expand...

The people reading who saw the flaw in your post. Most of them probably agree with the post that pointed it out.

And what do you think my bias is, given that it's clear for all to see?
Click to expand...

You do not seem to like the Italian authorities.
 
LondonJohn said:
And what do you think my bias is, given that it's clear for all to see?
Click to expand...

You start with the assumption that the facts that De Felice refers to are the same ones as you mention. This is however not at all clear when reading that statement.
 
Amazer said:
You start with the assumption that the facts that De Felice refers to are the same ones as you mention. This is however not at all clear when reading that statement.
Click to expand...


It's not an assumption. It's an implication. Yes, sophistry could support an argument that perhaps the "facts" de Felice was referring to were the "fact" that Meredith screamed (still not an established fact, incidentally), or that she was sexually assaulted (which was known by the whole world by November 5th, before Knox's interrogation).

In my opinion, the only rational way to interpret what de Felice meant by the "version of events we knew to be correct" is that he was referring to Knox meeting up with Lumumba and going to the cottage. As I said before, this opinion is bolstered by the fact that de Felice contrasted this "version" with Knox's initial "version" which the police "knew to be incorrect" - which was the version where Knox stayed at Sollecito's apartment all night.

The police would have had cellphone records by the 3rd November. Heck, they even started tapping Knox's and Sollecito's cellphones at that time. They would therefore have known well in advance of the 5th/6th interrogation that Knox had exchanged text messages with Lumumba on the evening of the murder.The only question is whether they knew the content of the Knox-to-Lumumba text before they read it from her phone in the interrogation room that night - it's unclear as to whether the police had examined Knox's phone memory prior to the 5th/6th interrogation. But even if they only read the text message for the first time during the 5th/6th interrogation, they quickly came to the conclusion (by their own admission) that the "see you later" part meant that Knox had arranged to meet up with Lumumba later that same evening.

To me, it's logical that this misinterpretation provided the final "proof" to the interrogating police of what the "truth" really was: that Knox had met with Lumumba later on the night of the 1st, and that this meeting was integral to the murder of Meredith Kercher.

I don't see any other rational interpretation of de Felice's words. But if you do, that's fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom