The Massei/Mignini Conspiracy Theory

[Kaosium]

Ok, so let me see how this goes:

The police find some black "hairs/fibres" at the crime scene. Without waiting for forensic confirmation, they start looking for a black man, and also assume he must be dark skinned.
Starting with Meredith friends presumably, they don't find the black man they are looking for (skipping over Rudy?). So they move on to friends of friends, and for some reason latch on to Amanda.
They find Amanda works for a black man, and also exchanged text messages on the might in question. Bingo! So they check his alibi, right?
Apparently not.
But they call him for questioning don't they?
Nope.
So they call Knox for questioning?
No...they call in Sollecito for questioning.
Then they question Amanda, and for the first time find they discover the content of the text message she sent to Patrick. Amanda duly fingers Patrick.

Huh. A pretty round about way to finding the black man.
So then they release Knox and Sollecito and thank them for the cooperation?
No... they lump them in with the black man they were seeking all along.
Then later... after the first black guy has an alibi they swap in another black guy who matches the forensics....
And all this was planned before 4 Nov 2007, apparently, based on some black fibres and some text messages exchanged with an occupant of the cottage which they didn't know the content of. Remarkable.

This is whole "looking for a black man" theory appears to be a way of saying the Perugia police are simply racists and are willing to run rings to get a black guy, any black guy, to match the crime. I don't believe that for a second. It does seem to be part of the same campaign to smear the ILE as incompetent, corrupt or anti-American, which has been a theme of Knox supporters. Surely by now they realise this campaign is obviously untenable, and worse counter-productive, and leading Amanda's parents to face prosecution.

I think you misunderstood. The theory here is not that the police were looking for a black man because they were racist, but because they found indications at the scene that suggested a black man committed the crime. They wouldn't know which black man, but Patrick as the boss of Amanda and who recently met Meredith and (might have?) been about to hire her would be a more likely suspect than Rudy who had almost no contact with either girl, and certainly nothing they'd easily find out about initially.

At any rate the official story is so bad it's an admission itself they're incompetent, corrupt, or most probably, both. It's also rather easy to determine they're lying, so trying to figure out what really happened is necessary whether you want to consider them innocent or guilty. Do you actually know what their story is, Bob? Have you gone all the way through it and realized how stupid it makes them sound? The one that you posted in satire of what we were discussing is better than what they came up with, what PMF put together was even better than that. Let me just say I don't think any of them is the whole story and that's what I'm interested in.

I started to type out my theory, but instead let's just make sure everyone understands what the police account of the interrogation actually is, and why they arrested Amanda, Patrick and Raffaele. Anyone can play:

What do you think their version actually is?

What do you think about what it implies?

What do you think about where it contradicts the law and known facts?

 

[RoseMontague]

The "evidence" was some black fibres, not yet identified. Yet we are to believe that the police made a leap to this being a "dark skinned man" without evidence, and further conspired to frame Lumumba, because he had a tenuous connection with the victim, but yet had an alibi for the night of the murder? It is quite preposterous. The only reason I think to make such an inept attempt to frame the *wrong* black guy was racial prejudice.

I don't share that opinion.

In fact, I believe that the ILE were not after any black guy, they were following SOP, checking on Knox and Sollicito's alibi, and then trying to unpick their lies and evasions. There was no attempt made to coerce Knox to name Patrick, she volunteered that herself.

Evidence has been offered otherwise.

Amanda's parents are being prosecuted because of their persistent slander of the ILE, which has got them nowhere. I don't think Mignini is even involved in this prosecution. Continuing to slander Mignini without evidence of any abuse in the Knox case is pointless and stupid. People think Knox is a liar, now they think that her parents are liars. They are probably thinking it runs in the family. Whatever Mignini's behaviour in other cases, his behaviour in the Knox case has been by the book.

Prosecuting a parent for believing what their child has said and defending her by repeating that in the press is an example of intimidation and arrogance on the part of the Italian authorities. It is a ridiculous case and just makes them look bad, in my opinion. If it were my daughter I would do the same.

 

[Danceme]

It is hard to tell fact from fiction in this case with so much false information being reported. Personally, I believe there was some disagreement between the flat-mates over the non flushing of the toilet.

I believe so too, the toilet and perhaps more, general cleaning duties have been said before. 'Disagreement' is a pretty mild term for how young girls and women can behave towards each other. I'm basing this on how teenage girls talk about and think of one another where there is some antagonism, rivalry, jealousy or the like. There's nothing mild about it. I definitely can see it resulting in shouting.

I think you misunderstood. The theory here is not that the police were looking for a black man because they were racist, but because they found indications at the scene that suggested a black man committed the crime.

Can you list these indications. I heard there was a "black" hair, then I heard it was black fibres, like wool. Those hairs on the floor in Meredith's room I thought were eventually attributed to her. I suppose her assailants could have pulled her by the hair in the struggle.
What about the hair found in her hand. Was it African type hair? What other indications were there to suggest a black man?

 

[Amazer]

Frank Sfarzo is the only reporter who attended every court session and has produced voluminous amounts of first-hand information about the case. PMF is the reservoir of a megaton of documents and assembled sources. You need to be able to identify the difference between analysis and information provided of relevance to the case.

I don't have the time and interest to trawl through a fan-site and sifting the facts from the fantasy being presented there.

Everyone has a bias, that doesn't mean that all information produced is biased, or even if it is, that it is of no value. This is why corroboration is crucial, and I have found that much information from both of those sites can be trusted. I have also found that in some or even many cases I disagree with the analysis of that information from both places, but there is an important difference there you might want to try distinguishing.

Snarky comments like this will get you nowhere.

You need to read it closer then, and at this point I'm not making any 'claim'--you are. I think all of us are taking notes to see how you manage to support the position that both the police did not lie and no interrogation took place after 1:45, especially now that you've chosen to eliminate from your potential canon the two single best sources of information about the case.

This is exactly why I wasn't interested in answering your question. Because if you had read carefully then you'd be aware that I've not said that no interrogation/interview took place after 1:45. I did however however ask you to provide evidence for your claim that the interview/interrogation lasted the whole night. So far you have been found wanting in providing that evidence.

No, at this point we're done. Your argument at this juncture brings to mind a vision of your avatar putting both hands over their ears and making rude noises.

I agree that we're done at this point. Your inability to support your claim with reliable evidence kind of excludes any other option.

 

[Dan O.]

??? Leaving aside the sheer fiction that Ms. Knox was not considered a "suspect" prior to 1:45 a.m., I don't think there is any dispute whatsoever that Ms. Knox was further interviewed/interrogated beginning around 3:00 - 3:30 a.m. and that the latter session resulted in the 5:45 a.m. 'statement' being written.

The 1:45 statement itself is problematic regardless of Amanda's status prior to that interview. I believe it is Article 63 of the Italian code of Criminal Procedure that states when a witness provides information that incriminates themselves, the interview must "stop immediately" and the interviewee must be advised of their new status.

I can understand Mignini continuing beyond that point on the general principle that Italian men don't understand what the term "stop" means. But Mignini was supposedly at home at this time. Rita Ficarra was on top of this. I gather she's not one to be saying stop.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Hi, Amazer
You wrote about Amanda's internalized false confession:

Not unheard of... but usually only achieved this quickly with people with some serious disabilities.

I'm also interested in the topic of false confessions and I'd like to also ask (since Kevin asked before) what are you basing that very specific opinion on.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I don't have the time and interest to trawl through a fan-site and sifting the facts from the fantasy being presented there.

Snarky comments like this will get you nowhere.

This is exactly why I wasn't interested in answering your question. Because if you had read carefully then you'd be aware that I've not said that no interrogation/interview took place after 1:45. I did however however ask you to provide evidence for your claim that the interview/interrogation lasted the whole night. So far you have been found wanting in providing that evidence.

I agree that we're done at this point. Your inability to support your claim with reliable evidence kind of excludes any other option.

So I take it that you are going to make no attempt whatsoever to support your own opinion with facts, and that your contribution to this discussion is going to consist solely of demanding that others make a case to your personal satisfaction or you will withhold your belief?

Wouldn't it be much more constructive of you, and possibly even educational too, for you to attempt to respond to Kaosium's challenge? Look, I'll cut and paste it for your convenience.

I started to type out my theory, but instead let's just make sure everyone understands what the police account of the interrogation actually is, and why they arrested Amanda, Patrick and Raffaele. Anyone can play:

What do you think their version actually is?

What do you think about what it implies?

What do you think about where it contradicts the law and known facts?

If your current answers are, in order, "I dunno...", "Think?" and "Huh?" then maybe you should do a bit of research until you can answer them a bit better than that. Then your belief or the lack thereof might mean something.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I started to type out my theory, but instead let's just make sure everyone understands what the police account of the interrogation actually is, and why they arrested Amanda, Patrick and Raffaele. Anyone can play:

What do you think their version actually is?

What do you think about what it implies?

What do you think about where it contradicts the law and known facts?

...Crickets...

 

[babycondor]

When did they convince her of this? How did they accomplish this? Which individuals can you name among the officers present at her interviews who planned to convince her? Can you point to any testimony (police or Amanda) identifying anyone of doing what you are alleging them to have done?

Amanda describes it in her trial testimony. The specific details of when, how, and who are unprovable due to the mysterious lack of tapes of the event. Whose fault is that?

I want to make it clear that I am not alleging a conspiracy (despite the forum sub-topic under which we're discussing this.) I think what happened is adequately explained by incompetence, bias, and corruption.

What evidence do you have that the police were advised by the PM's office to "deny, deny, deny"? This is possibly a brand new facet of your conspiracy theory.

Names, times, evidence, would all be helpful here.

As Kaosium pointed out above, you are mischaracterizing what I said. I never said that the PM's office advised the police to "deny, deny, deny." What I said was "Deny, deny, deny, any lawyer will tell you. Make the accuser prove the allegation."

In this case, in the absence of a tape of the interview, it is impossible for Amanda to prove her allegations (unless any of the police officers who were present decide to break the code of silence and corroborate her story).

Kafka didn't kill his roommate, stage a break-in, continuously lie to the police, implicate his boss in murder, and attract a mob of conspiracy theorists to support an unending series of unfounded allegations against the police, the prosecution, and anyone else standing in the way of their fantasies.

How do you know?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

How do you know?

I heard he had a mop, and once he put one shoe in one place and another shoe in another place. Plus maybe his lamp moved. I mean, seriously, join the dots. Stilicho's reduced to unscientifically denying the blatantly obvious conclusion that Kafka killed Meredith.

(There is contested forensic evidence that Kafka died in 1924 and hence it's impossible for him to have been in the room when Meredith died. However the people saying this aren't pathologists so what do they know? Science isn't about what's factually possible or impossible, it's about who says it).

 

[Cuddles]

Once again several posts have been removed to AAH. Please could you at least try to stay vaguely on topic.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[Amazer]

So I take it that you are going to make no attempt whatsoever to support your own opinion with facts, and that your contribution to this discussion is going to consist solely of demanding that others make a case to your personal satisfaction or you will withhold your belief?

You can take it anyway you want to, i'm not too bothered. The simple fact that the interview was halted after the 1:45 statement is a matter of public record. It's been discussed numerous times in the AK threads. If you want to argue that it was an interview/interrogation that lasted the whole night, i will ask you to provide evidence of that. If instead you argue that there were two interviews/interrogations that night, one ending at 1:45 and the next one starting at about 3:00-3:30 then you would hear me asking for evidence. I would however note that the second interview/interrogation was requested by Amanda.

Wouldn't it be much more constructive of you, and possibly even educational too, for you to attempt to respond to Kaosium's challenge? Look, I'll cut and paste it for your convenience.

No, it just provides you with an opportunity to divert the attention.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal comment

 

[babycondor]

...I would however note that the second interview/interrogation was requested by Amanda.

Please cite the source of this information.

 

[funk de fino]

I can understand Mignini continuing beyond that point on the general principle that Italian men don't understand what the term "stop" means.

You have got to be joking. Now the clear bias is shown for what it really is.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You can take it anyway you want to, i'm not too bothered.

Cheers, I'll take you up on that.

No, it just provides you with an opportunity to divert the attention.

Discussing the facts about what happened, the evidence for those facts and the claims the police made is diverting the attention? I thought that was exactly what we were talking about.

I suppose we can add "no guilter has a coherent theory of the interrogation which conforms with the facts as we know them and leads to the conclusion Amanda's confession was not an internalised false confession" to "no guilter has a coherent theory of the crime which conforms with the facts as we now know them in which Amanda and Raffaele did it".

I do wish, as Komponisto has wished in the past, that there was a pro-guilt speaker who was a competent rationalist with a joined-up theory about the case. Maybe I'm wishing for a contradiction in terms.

 

[Kaosium]

I don't have the time and interest to trawl through a fan-site and sifting the facts from the fantasy being presented there.

Then I guess you're going to have to take my word for it. I'm not going to 'drop' Frank Sfarzo as a source merely because he irritates you, as I noted before he's the only reporter that was at every court session and has produced more information about the case than any other single person.

Snarky comments like this will get you nowhere.

I'm not trying to 'get' anywhere with you, Amazer.

This is exactly why I wasn't interested in answering your question. Because if you had read carefully then you'd be aware that I've not said that no interrogation/interview took place after 1:45. I did however however ask you to provide evidence for your claim that the interview/interrogation lasted the whole night. So far you have been found wanting in providing that evidence.

Not exactly. You stated something to the effect of you believed ILE's version of accounts at the same time you were doubting there was any interrogation taking place after 1:45. Those are mutually exclusive, and I was hoping you'd come to that realization through your own auspices.

I agree that we're done at this point. Your inability to support your claim with reliable evidence kind of excludes any other option.

I haven't been trying to support any 'claim.'

You can take it anyway you want to, i'm not too bothered. The simple fact that the interview was halted after the 1:45 statement is a matter of public record. It's been discussed numerous times in the AK threads.

Ummm...Amazer, that's the PMF theory of the interrogation, it's not 'public record.' The 'public record of the interrogation' is the lies ILE told in court. As I noted before their version is better than the police version as part of it is backed up with logic and evidence, whereas what Napoleoni, Ficarra and Zugarini said flies in the face of it, makes no sense, and is contradicted by the man running the interrogation.

The front end of the PMF theory has hard evidence to support it, off the top of my head it has a 10:39 call with Filomena in which Amanda is talking about a place to live and then cuts her off saying police are approaching, which happens to correspond with when Raffaele would be signing his statement. As at that moment he's 'dropped' her alibi, suggesting Amanda has been lying all week about going out that night, logic dictates they'd be wanting to have a talk with her ASAP.

The back end, however, is merely supported by the assumption that ILE would do things in a way that minimized their violations of the rights of official suspects, which is dubious being as the Supreme Court ruled they did anyway, they lied about it in court, and there was no fallout for having the statements thrown out anyway thus no reason to fear repercussions. Oh, and (amongst some) a misunderstanding of what 'stop order' means, which is just the way the concept of 'arrest' gets translated into English.

Think about it: the idea that they'd set up this 12 police breaking crew in the middle of the night and then gotten a breakthrough and then decided not to pursue it is counter-intuitive. Note that I think it is possible that there was a stoppage in the middle, and that makes sense for one of my theories, but that doesn't make it 'fact.'

If you want to argue that it was an interview/interrogation that lasted the whole night, i will ask you to provide evidence of that. If instead you argue that there were two interviews/interrogations that night, one ending at 1:45 and the next one starting at about 3:00-3:30 then you would hear me asking for evidence. I would however note that the second interview/interrogation was requested by Amanda.

All of this that you've posted is supposition, not fact. The actual 'evidence' is that there was a 5:45 AM statement, it changed slightly from the 1:45 version, Amanda says they were still interrogating her, and that's what makes sense. Thus the evidence suggests an all-night session, the theory you've adopted as 'fact' says something else, and is indeed something you'd need to prove.

No, it just provides you with an opportunity to divert the attention.

Actually no, Amazer, I thought you were playing games, especially when you tried to morph the ILE's lies with the PMF theory of the interrogation. It just so happens I don't believe either is the whole story, which is why I'm still working on it.

 

[LashL]

Hello and welcome to the conspiracy theories section of the JREF.

Actually, I've been here for coming up to 5 years now, since before you were even a member here, when I first came here to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theorists so there's really no need to "welcome" me to a sub-forum I've been at for years, but thanks just the same.

Here you will be able to articulate and provide evidence you have doubtlessly uncovered regarding the police conspiracy to frame Amanda Knox for aggravated murder.

Why would I do that since I do not think that the police actively conspired to frame Ms. Knox for the murder of Ms. Kercher?

Rather, I think that the police in this case made the same mistakes that other police forces before and since have made; i.e., that they suffered from tunnel vision, engaged in active demonization of suspects in the media, fell sway to "noble cause corruption", rushed to judgment, used shady and coercive interrogation techniques, etc., in order to fulfill what they believed to be their mandate to "solve" the crime quickly and bring "relief" to the frightened citizens of the city by claiming to have "solved" it even though the evidence was not at all compelling. Then, in my view, the police (and prosecution) followed it up with junk science, unreliable eyewitness evidence, unreliable "ear witness" evidence, incompetent investigators (especially those who did not collect evidence properly and those who destroyed the computers that they were supposed to be preserving and examining), and a prosecutor a vivid imagination who ignored exculpatory evidence while misrepresenting what he put forward as inculpatory evidence. This kind of scenario (although usually absent the bit about having a prosecutor with a vivid imagination also being convicted of charges of his own and still prosecuting) has played out many times in the past and continues to play out in various cities and towns across the globe far more often than it should, but does not a "police conspiracy to frame" make.

I'm not in this thread to argue that it was a police conspiracy to frame Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito; in fact, I would argue against that proposition as I believe it was a combination of police incompetence and/or misconduct and prosecutorial misconduct rather than deliberate conspiracy that led to the unsafe convictions in this case. It doesn't take an active conspiracy to do so, especially when so many of the hallmarks of wrongful convictions are present, as they are in this case. I do not ascribe to conspiracy that which can be easily explained by incompetence and misconduct.

If anyone's promoting a conspiracy theory in this case, it appears to me that it's Mignini and Massei.

I notice, by the way, that even though you quoted my post, you didn't actually address it in any way. So, here it is again:

??? Leaving aside the sheer fiction that Ms. Knox was not considered a "suspect" prior to 1:45 a.m., I don't think there is any dispute whatsoever that Ms. Knox was further interviewed/interrogated beginning around 3:00 - 3:30 a.m. and that the latter session resulted in the 5:45 a.m. 'statement' being written.

Do you dispute that Ms. Knox was further interviewed/interrogated after 1:45 a.m. and that the later interview/interrogation resulted in the 5:45 "statement" being written?

 

[LondonJohn]

Actually, I've been here for coming up to 5 years now, since before you were even a member here, when I first came here to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theorists so there's really no need to "welcome" me to a sub-forum I've been at for years, but thanks just the same.




Why would I do that since I do not think that the police actively conspired to frame Ms. Knox for the murder of Ms. Kercher?

Rather, I think that the police in this case made the same mistakes that other police forces before and since have made; i.e., that they suffered from tunnel vision, engaged in active demonization of suspects in the media, fell sway to "noble cause corruption", rushed to judgment, used shady and coercive interrogation techniques, etc., in order to fulfill what they believed to be their mandate to "solve" the crime quickly and bring "relief" to the frightened citizens of the city by claiming to have "solved" it even though the evidence was not at all compelling. Then, in my view, the police (and prosecution) followed it up with junk science, unreliable eyewitness evidence, unreliable "ear witness" evidence, incompetent investigators (especially those who did not collect evidence properly and those who destroyed the computers that they were supposed to be preserving and examining), and a prosecutor a vivid imagination who ignored exculpatory evidence while misrepresenting what he put forward as inculpatory evidence. This kind of scenario (although usually absent the bit about having a prosecutor with a vivid imagination also being convicted of charges of his own and still prosecuting) has played out many times in the past and continues to play out in various cities and towns across the globe far more often than it should, but does not a "police conspiracy to frame" make.

I'm not in this thread to argue that it was a police conspiracy to frame Ms. Knox and Mr. Sollecito; in fact, I would argue against that proposition as I believe it was a combination of police incompetence and/or misconduct and prosecutorial misconduct rather than deliberate conspiracy that led to the unsafe convictions in this case. It doesn't take an active conspiracy to do so, especially when so many of the hallmarks of wrongful convictions are present, as they are in this case. I do not ascribe to conspiracy that which can be easily explained by incompetence and misconduct.

If anyone's promoting a conspiracy theory in this case, it appears to me that it's Mignini and Massei.

I notice, by the way, that even though you quoted my post, you didn't actually address it in any way. So, here it is again:



Do you dispute that Ms. Knox was further interviewed/interrogated after 1:45 a.m. and that the later interview/interrogation resulted in the 5:45 "statement" being written?

What she said

 

[Dan O.]

You have got to be joking. Now the clear bias is shown for what it really is.

There is definitely a bias here. But it is not a prior condition.


Perhaps you can provide your interpretation as to what "stop immediately" means in the case of interviewing a witness that becomes a suspect. Does it mean they should put their pen down and inform the suspect of their new status and then wait for the suspect to be represented by a lawyer before continuing the interrogation? Or, does it mean that just the questioning has to stop but you can still write up what you wanted the suspect to say and insist that they sign it before you will let them take a break!?

 

[luark]

There is a conspiracy theory here, it's that Rudy Guede was a police informer. Apparently the defense team thought so, and Mark Waterbury wrote a book "The Monster of Perugia" that included this theory.
The idea is that Rudy Guede was burglarizing houses often before the murder, he was a professional burglar, and the reason he wasn't in jail was that he was a police informer. And when he raped and murdered someone, it would have made the police seem culpable, for letting him be free. So they conspired in some way to cover their tracks.
It seems likely that he was a police informer, but I don't know about the rest.
The judge's report in this case definitely seems like conspiracy-theory thinking. He brings up many small details, so trivial on their own that I wondered what they're even doing in the report. Like, that Amanda and Raffaele didn't look into the room when it was unlocked to see Meredith Kercher's body. This is taken as "evidence" that they already knew what was there. And this mass of small details, taken together, are supposed to make an overwhelming case for their guilt.
This is how conspiracy theories work: Pointing out many little suspicious details that wouldn't seem suspicious in another context; then gathering all these suspicious little details together and coming to a radical and very shocking conclusion.
But in this case there wasn't any definitive proof, and I think Steve Moore, a retired FBI agent, made very convincing arguments for their innocence on the Injustice in Perugia website.
This case begs for feminist and social analysis, not of Amanda or Raffaele but of the prosecution and Italian judicial system and Italian society. Which shows you how screwed up it is. The feeling they're in jail because they smoked marijuana and were casual about sex, and someone who does that is capable of anything, to the toxic repressed Catholics who condemned them.