The Massei/Mignini Conspiracy Theory

[platonov]

Conspiracy Theory 101

You guys aren't very good at CT's - the 'arguments' put forward here are not just banal but easily disproven as I showed (with neither response nor rebuttal from LJ etc) earlier.

Here's how its done....

The first name on the list has to be ........Amanda Knox
- if we take the later part of her testimony at face value.

Now the Q is .......is she part of the conspiracy against herself OR how did the cops manage to brainwash her into giving such self incriminating testimony in 2009.

Perhaps they had access to the MkUltra program thru Operation Gladio ??

Operation Gladio - Andreotti - Bongiorno* - Knox

* Defence lawyer for Sollecito and links to Berlusconi.

I could probably work Kevin Bacon in here if I used google ( the context free tool of choice in these cases) but I will leave that the Knox CT' ists. Despite excessive reliance on this tool you appear to need more practice

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Since this is the conspiracy theory thread, there are a few aspects to this case which I have never seen satisfactorily explained and which could be taken to support the theory of actual criminal conspiracy on the part of some participants in the prosecution as opposed to mere incompetence.

1. Destroying three hard drives, including the one (Raffaele's) which they already knew to be vital to establishing his alibi, that he was at home with Amanda all night. It's bordering on the ridiculously implausible for anyone who should be trusted with a computer at all, let alone a trained computer forensics officer, to trash one hard drive. Three in a row is even more bizarre.

This was after they overwrote the metadata for Stardust which they also knew was vital to establishing Raffaele's alibi.

2. The break-in fit Rudy's MO and he was already known to the police at the time of the murder. Heck, they released him themselves about a week ago. Yet they seem to have evinced no clue that he might be involved until his fingerprints came back from the lab.

Presumably the official story is that in the vast metropolis of Perugia nobody down the local nick ever asks "Do we know a second-storey man with previous for chucking rocks through windows? Maybe packing a knife while he did so? Anyone ever heard of anyone like that? Because it looks a bit like someone chucked a rock through a second-storey window, climbed in and knifed a woman".

If you think it likely that in the early days if the crime the police thought a man with dark, curly hair was responsible because they mistook wool fibres on Meredith's hands for hair, it makes it even stranger that nobody thought of Guede.

"Oh yeah, the second-storey man with the rock MO and the knife also might have dark, curly hair. Does that ring any bells for anyone? Possibly he could be of North African descent? Anyone seen anyone like that in the last week? I guess not.".

3. Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp, which was "found" when Stefanoni made a special and unorthodox personal expedition to round up more evidence, but which was somehow not spotted, bagged or given its own evidence number at the time of the first search despite its obvious relevance to the crime, and which requires significant bending over backwards to incorporate into any narrative of the crime whatsoever.

It's obvious to a rational observer that the bra clasp DNA result is almost certainly the result of innocent contamination or deliberate falsification, but the shady circumstances surrounding its appearance and collection make me think that deliberate falsification is quite likely.

One pro-guilt response is to argue that the likelihood of three instances of police corruption or misconduct is determined by simply cubing the probability of one isolated instance of police corruption or misconduct. So if you think one in one thousand pieces of evidence or whatever are corrupted, then the odds of three pieces being corrupted are one in a thousand cubed, or one in a billion. One in a billion! If you buy this line of thinking it proves that never, ever in the history of the world have three crooked police been in on something. That must be a comforting conclusion for blind authoritarians.

However if you accept the idea that sometimes police departments go bad all over (as happened with the Vice Squad in Queensland during the Lewis/Bjelke-Petersen era), and that multiple highly suspicious circumstances taken together make this more likely rather than less likely, then it follows that significant suspicion must be entertained of widespread and knowing conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

I think you could make a plausible narrative of the case that starts with the ILE realising "Oh crap, the informant we let out a week ago raped and murdered a foreign student" and from there assumes the ILE as a disorganised group take exactly whatever actions seemed most likely at the time to deflect or lessen their short-term embarrassment.

 

[platonov]

Not just banal but easily disproven.

<snip>

1. Destroying three hard drives, including the one (Raffaele's) which they already knew to be vital to establishing his alibi, that he was at home with Amanda all night. It's bordering on the ridiculously implausible for anyone who should be trusted with a computer at all, let alone a trained computer forensics officer, to trash one hard drive. Three in a row is even more bizarre.

This was after they overwrote the metadata for Stardust which they also knew was vital to establishing Raffaele's alibi.

<snip>

Not just banal but easily disproven

It wasn't destroyed, as has been pointed out to you eleventyseven times, as your argument ................

<snip>

1. Destroying three hard drives, including the one (Raffaele's) which they already knew to be vital to establishing his alibi, that he was at home with Amanda all night. It's bordering on the ridiculously implausible for anyone who should be trusted with a computer at all, let alone a trained computer forensics officer, to trash one hard drive. Three in a row is even more bizarre.

This was after they overwrote the metadata for Stardust which they also knew was vital to establishing Raffaele's alibi.
<snip>

............5 lines later shows.

Presuming you, like all CT's, opened with your best material I didn't read any further.

Forget google - read your own posts


ETA (upon further reading)

It's obvious to a rational observer .....

<snip>
It's obvious to a rational observer ...
<snip>

..........that although the 'thermite people' (holohoax people might be more appropriate) fail to be consistent, even they seldom contradict themselves in their first point !

 

[Kaosium]

You guys aren't very good at CT's - the 'arguments' put forward here are not just banal but easily disproven as I showed (with neither response nor rebuttal from LJ etc) earlier.

Here's how its done....




Operation Gladio - Andreotti - Bongiorno* - Knox

* Defence lawyer for Sollecito and links to Berlusconi.

I could probably work Kevin Bacon in here if I used google ( the context free tool of choice in these cases) but I will leave that the Knox CT' ists. Despite excessive reliance on this tool you appear to need more practice

Platonov, how do you square your argument with what the police in Perugia said about the interrogation? You're not buying the 'oh it's him, he's the murderer!' break down during the nice friendly chick-chat?

To me, reading Amanda's testimony, it is apparent the police were trying to obey the rule of the interrogation protocol whilst destroying its spirit. They wouldn't name Patrick outright, but had no problem leading her right to his name and then demanding she name him.

They had Amanda's phone records, they knew who she'd talked to. They didn't set up this twelve cop overnight session to play chutes and ladders with the girl. They broke her alibi, then they broke her, and then they arrested Patrick, Amanda and Raffaele in a rush to judgment that will live in infamy.

 

[platonov]

Frankie goes to Perugia

<snip of CT stuff >

They broke her alibi, then they broke her, and then they arrested Patrick, Amanda and Raffaele in a rush to judgment that will live in infamy.

infamy, infamy, they have all got it in for me.

 

[Kaosium]

infamy, infamy, they have all got it in for me.

Oh, this will get remembered, somewhere in the annals of 'most brutally botched investigation.' Perhaps in the 'stonewalling and scapegoating' aisle of the 'corruption' section. You can see the display from here, it's the one that looks like the shirtless Mario bros appealing to the sky with the caption: 'we really screwed the pooch!' The look on their faces like they just juiced their drawers is priceless.

Just a quick question, Platonov. Is Amanda Knox's 'guilt' falsifiable to you? Is there anything that would convince you she didn't do it? Or when they're acquitted will you believe forevermore that the 'PR campaign' or political pressure or whatnot was responsible?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Not just banal but easily disproven

It wasn't destroyed, as has been pointed out to you eleventyseven times, as your argument ................

............5 lines later shows.

That's not much of a counter-argument. It doesn't respond to the point at all, as I'm sure you're aware. At best you are nitpicking the choice of word "destroy", possibly because you think that something which has been destroyed cannot possibly ever be repaired or rebuilt. If it makes you happier to say "destroyed vital parts of" instead of the shorter "destroy" we can make that change for you and the thrust of the argument goes through exactly as before.

Presuming you, like all CT's, opened with your best material I didn't read any further.

Funny that. A lot of the pro-guilt posse at PMF seem to have the same reaction you do to my writing, which is in turn a lot like the reaction of a vampire to a cross.

Would you care to try again, only this time addressing the actual points? As opposed to finding a dubious semantic objection, and using it as an excuse to hide from the actual points?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

cubism

3. Raffaele's DNA on the bra clasp, which was "found" when Stefanoni made a special and unorthodox personal expedition to round up more evidence, but which was somehow not spotted, bagged or given its own evidence number at the time of the first search despite its obvious relevance to the crime, and which requires significant bending over backwards to incorporate into any narrative of the crime whatsoever.

It's obvious to a rational observer that the bra clasp DNA result is almost certainly the result of innocent contamination or deliberate falsification, but the shady circumstances surrounding its appearance and collection make me think that deliberate falsification is quite likely.

One pro-guilt response is to argue that the likelihood of three instances of police corruption or misconduct is determined by simply cubing the probability of one isolated instance of police corruption or misconduct. So if you think one in one thousand pieces of evidence or whatever are corrupted, then the odds of three pieces being corrupted are one in a thousand cubed, or one in a billion. One in a billion! If you buy this line of thinking it proves that never, ever in the history of the world have three crooked police been in on something. That must be a comforting conclusion for blind authoritarians.

Kevin_Lowe,

Early into her interest in the case, RoseMontague made a similar argument with respect to the bra clasp and knife DNA. What are the odds of both being contaminated? My response at the time was to say in effect, "What are the odds of (at least) four determinations of ethylene glycol in blood serum or elsewhere being falsely positive?" Yet, that is exactly what happened in the Patricia Stallings case. Where, exactly, the fallacy is in the cubing argument is I will leave to those more grounded in probability theory than I am.

A second response to RoseMontague's question is that one event might be contamination, and the other might be secondary transfer, and so forth.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

special

Does special pleading figure into defining whether or not something is a conspiracy theory?

 

[Katody Matrass]

You guys aren't very good at CT's

Hi again, platonov! You're probably right

Why don't you show how it's done and say what was the plan behind Amanda's voluntary accusation of Lumumba?

 

[platonov]

Groundhog Day seems to come around faster these days.

Hi again, platonov! You're probably right

Why don't you show how it's done and say what was the plan behind Amanda's voluntary accusation of Lumumba?

I just did upthread - did you miss it
I was dealing with a much more mysterious CT i.e.

Now the Q is .......is she part of the conspiracy against herself OR how did the cops manage to brainwash her into giving such self incriminating testimony in 2009.

As with Kaosium you appear to be confusing the 2007 waterboarding in a dungeon in Perugia with AK's testimony in open court in 2009.
Now unless you are going to invoke the 'Mayan Calendar' stuff or Dan O's time travel conspiracy this is a mystery worth investigation.
If you think you can get from Operation Gladio - Knox in less than 2 moves be my guest.
I thought my attempt wasnt bad, going on memory alone, but I had the advantage of having previously heard of Italy and several of its more high profile events before coming across the greatest MoJ since the trial of JC.
Feel free to use google.

ETA I am - see Kevin Lowe's effort above, fell at the first hurdle.

 

[Dan O.]

Now unless you are going to invoke the 'Mayan Calendar' stuff or Dan O's time travel conspiracy this is a mystery worth investigation.

Your repetition of that crap about time travel is getting downright annoying and has long ago reached the level of being a personal attack. See if you can support your position before I dig up the numerous examples of this repetition and file a complaint.


ETA:

[Post 12035]
Author : platonov
Date : 21st October 2010 11:43 AM

I wouldn't necessarily dispute the distinction but given the retrocausality claims & the broken window perplexity noted earlier, well ........???

[Post 12100]
Author : platonov
Date : 21st October 2010 06:46 PM

B Indeed ; You have already explained this due to 'the lies of Comodi ' - via retrocausality. Has your position also moved on this & To where ; Katodys police 'mind wipe' ?

[Post 15185]
Author : platonov
Date : 16th November 2010 02:58 AM
Thread Title : Tachyons again ?

Good theory but it falls foul the retrocausality rule that came up earlier.

[Post 15260]
Author : platonov
Date : 16th November 2010 11:06 AM

How is retrocausality not 'beyond stupid' - had RS mentioned the Knife before the cops announced it had been tested & the result it would have been worse for him - in fact fatal.

[Post 15344]
Author : platonov
Date : 16th November 2010 03:18 PM

In my honest opinion its less reasonable than the earlier retrocausality idea.

[Post 15357]
Author : platonov
Date : 16th November 2010 03:39 PM

Where are you getting this knife talk - Also there is retrocausality in your theory again.

[Post 16040]
Author : platonov
Date : 18th November 2010 06:37 PM

Retrocausality issues again I'm afraid

[Post 16962]
Author : platonov
Date : 24th November 2010 02:41 PM
Thread Title : What are they thinking.

Comodi's lies & retrocausality,

[Post 17183]
Author : platonov
Date : 26th November 2010 09:58 AM

See how others deal with the their 'mistakes' [the p= 0.213 issue, retrocausality, Hutzlike statements , whatever - the list is endless]
​

I could give a simple example - a poster on this thread Dan O has claimed (in the past ~3 days) that a Q posed by a prosecutor* in 2009 somehow via retrocausality caused perplexity back in 2007. Despite repeated prompting he has failed to justify or withdraw this claim or even respond.

[Post 155]
Author : platonov
Date : 23rd October 2010 08:34 PM

And the retrocausality / mind wipe I mentioned earlier is a strong contender.

[Post 167]
Author : platonov
Date : 24th October 2010 01:04 AM

But surely claims of retrocausality (bad skepticism) and requests to defend this claim (good skepticism)would fall under the purview of this thread.

[Post 268]
Author : platonov
Date : 24th October 2010 10:53 AM

Any chance on a response on the retrocausality claims.

[Post 343]
Author : platonov
Date : 25th October 2010 08:17 AM

platonov,

No one on either thread brought up retrocausality besides you. No one made claims that imply retrocausality. Therefore, it does not fall under the purview of the present thread.

False.

Dan O did

[Post 451]
Author : platonov
Date : 26th October 2010 07:58 AM

To suggest that this memory failure has anything to do with how the Q about the 12.47 call was later posed by a prosecutor in court in 2009 is to invoke retrocausality.

[Post 464]
Author : platonov
Date : 26th October 2010 12:44 PM

In any case you should have enlightened Dan O, Katody Matrass & others and we wouldn't now be waiting for a response from them on retrocausality and mind wipe conspiracies.

[Post 472]
Author : platonov
Date : 26th October 2010 02:39 PM

But a friendly piece of advice, if you want to use that argument [ assuming all the non-'innocentsi' haven't been LOL'd away] ..........it appears to fall foul of the retrocausality problem.

​

I try to ignore really stupid arguments that appear to be nothing but trolling for a fight. Nobody claimed retrocausality. It's all in your own inability to read. Now I shall contemplate if this behavior needs to be reported.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Dan O. - just wow

platonov - nice formatting, but the gist of the question was

what was the plan behind Amanda's voluntary accusation of Lumumba?


I hope your theory won't involve time travel

 

[Kaosium]

I just did upthread - did you miss it
I was dealing with a much more mysterious CT i.e.

Now the Q is .......is she part of the conspiracy against herself OR how did the cops manage to brainwash her into giving such self incriminating testimony in 2009.

As with Kaosium you appear to be confusing the 2007 waterboarding in a dungeon in Perugia with AK's testimony in open court in 2009.

Alright, here it is. What is so 'self-incriminating' about this testimony? I find it absolutely refreshing after having to wade through the lies of ILE in this matter. There's no fried computers, missing tapes, or homeless smack-dealing 'super-witnesses' either.

If you think you can get from Operation Gladio - Knox in less than 2 moves be my guest.

Oh! That's what you were getting at, I didn't piece that together. I doubt you could get there in less than two steps, although one with a Machiavellian mind might go Operation Gladio--->Freemasons---->Bongiorno---->Amanda and Raffaele.

I thought my attempt wasnt bad, going on memory alone, but I had the advantage of having previously heard of Italy and several of its more high profile events before coming across the greatest MoJ since the trial of JC.

Are you invoking 'retrocausality?' Some might not have heard of that JC fellow if it wasn't for the Amanda Knox case enlightening us on previous miscarriages of justice! I used your beloved 'google' tool to find out that wasn't any miscarriage of justice, it was a conspiracy! Indeed it was, here he admits he knows it's coming! I found out he's actually talking to himself though, he's conspiring against himself! Just like you claim Amanda Knox is with her testimony, except there's only one of her and supposedly there's not just two of him, there's another one spiriting around somewhere. That makes three now! It's all very confusing. That last link look like CT logic to you too?!

However I see the deft hand of ILE involved, they done him in and then blamed the jooz! Apparently it took until recently before the guy in the funny hat in Rome realized it was really ILE's mistake, and a lazy-ass judge who just washed his hands and let him twist in the wind. 'Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose!

 

[RoseMontague]

Alright, here it is. What is so 'self-incriminating' about this testimony? I find it absolutely refreshing after having to wade through the lies of ILE in this matter. There's no fried computers, missing tapes, or homeless smack-dealing 'super-witnesses' either.



Oh! That's what you were getting at, I didn't piece that together. I doubt you could get there in less than two steps, although one with a Machiavellian mind might go Operation Gladio--->Freemasons---->Bongiorno---->Amanda and Raffaele.




Are you invoking 'retrocausality?' Some might not have heard of that JC fellow if it wasn't for the Amanda Knox case enlightening us on previous miscarriages of justice! I used your beloved 'google' tool to find out that wasn't any miscarriage of justice, it was a conspiracy! Indeed it was, here he admits he knows it's coming! I found out he's actually talking to himself though, he's conspiring against himself! Just like you claim Amanda Knox is with her testimony, except there's only one of her and supposedly there's not just two of him, there's another one spiriting around somewhere. That makes three now! It's all very confusing. That last link look like CT logic to you too?!

However I see the deft hand of ILE involved, they done him in and then blamed the jooz! Apparently it took until recently before the guy in the funny hat in Rome realized it was really ILE's mistake, and a lazy-ass judge who just washed his hands and let him twist in the wind. 'Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose!

Are you sure you have gone far enough back with this retrocausality?

And could I get one of you to open the pod bay doors?

 

[platonov]

I mentioned it once ...

Are you sure you have gone far enough back with this retrocausality?

And could I get one of you to open the pod bay doors?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_383964d716bde9ffc5.jpg[/qimg]

Will you guys please stop mentioning time travel/retrocausality - I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it - its upsetting to some posters and in danger of becoming a thread meme like cartwheels or 'the death of Simon the Zealot'.

 

[platonov]

Your repetition of that crap about time travel is getting downright annoying and has long ago reached the level of being a personal attack. See if you can support your position before I dig up the numerous examples of this repetition and file a complaint.

<snip>

I could, but to do so now that you have already dug 'up the numerous examples of this repetition' would, I'm afraid, involve time travel on my part and there is a moratorium on that kind of thing

The only example of a personal attack here is where you repeat your earlier It's all in your own inability to read

I try to ignore really stupid arguments that appear to be nothing but trolling for a fight. Nobody claimed retrocausality. It's all in your own inability to read. Now I shall contemplate if this behavior needs to be reported.

Now this is unnecessary and possibly OT, so can we please get back to the CT I dealt with above - have I cracked it ??

 

[tsig]

Will you guys please stop mentioning time travel/retrocausality - I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it - its upsetting to some posters and in danger of becoming a thread meme like cartwheels or 'the death of Simon the Zealot'.

I think Amanda's innocent of that one unless she used time travel.

 

[platonov]

I think Amanda's innocent of that one ....

First off - we are waiting for an answer from DOC on this before any declarative statements can be made.

...............unless she used time travel.

Secondly - didn't I just speak to this issue (above)
Won't anyone think of the children (looks for shaking fist smiley)

 

[babycondor]