The Massei/Mignini Conspiracy Theory

[Fuji]

Sorry, confused you with tsig, since you responded to questions aimed at him.

No worries.

Yes suspects can lie, and how would you determine that? If they say things that you know aren't true is usually the best way. Getting them to tell you things that you believe are true is generally not the best way, especially when you then learn after the fact, that they aren't true.

You left out a very important word from my question - "deliberate".

There is no question that what Knox stated to the police, about Lumumba murdering Kercher, was demonstrably false. What is at issue in this sub-debate is whether or not her doing so was intentional, i.e. a "deliberate lie". That the statement itself is false, in and of itself, gives no indication one way or another whether the deception was deliberate or unintentional.

This is the issue in this case. By the police's own admissions, Amanda told them what they already believed was true with these confessions.

This is not correct. The Perugian investigators did not "believe" prior to their questioning of Knox that Lumumba raped and murdered Kercher while Knox was in the kitchen with her hands over her ears. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would like to see that.

If you are going to lie to the police, why would you make up a lie that agrees with what they already think happened,

I have adressed this point above.

especially one that puts you at the scene of the crime?

Desperation, naïvete, stupidity - or some combination thereof - are all likely reasons, in my opinion.

Why not stick to the alibi she already had?

Perhaps because, after intermittent questioning over four days' time, she finally realized that the police did not believe her alibi?

 

[babycondor]

There is no question that what Knox stated to the police, about Lumumba murdering Kercher, was demonstrably false. What is at issue in this sub-debate is whether or not her doing so was intentional, i.e. a "deliberate lie". That the statement itself is false, in and of itself, gives no indication one way or another whether the deception was deliberate or unintentional.

You forgot the issue of whether or not her false statement was coerced.

Desperation, naïvete, stupidity - or some combination thereof - are all likely reasons, in my opinion.

Those are also likely reasons for signing a coerced false confession, in my opinion.

 

[Kaosium]

This is not correct. The Perugian investigators did not "believe" prior to their questioning of Knox that Lumumba raped and murdered Kercher while Knox was in the kitchen with her hands over her ears. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would like to see that.

"Initially the American gave a version of events we knew was not correct. She buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them all in. They all participated but had different roles."

The only detail of note that they could have 'known' was correct is that Patrick Lumumba was involved. The statements Amanda signed were otherwise virtually worthless. The chief of police here is stating baldly that they knew "they all participated" and that Amanda "buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct." Now, the police would then go on to present Patrick Lumumba to the Court of Freedom with bogus 'evidence' mustered against him, where do you suppose that 'evidence' came from?

Ever wonder why the police seemed so uninterested in Raffaele? They've got him sitting in a room nearby, he's the boyfriend and the obvious 'accomplice' if there ever was one, but they let Amanda get away with signing statements that barely acknowledge Raffaele's existence. She doesn't even mention them asking about him in her testimony to my recollection. What made them keep pushing for Patrick's name?

 

[tsig]

Doncha suppose the twelve trained cops were aware that a subject might lie and try to place blame elsewhere? So...how did the twenty year-old girl manage to fool those twelve cops so completely with her accusation 'out of the blue' that they went and arrested him posthaste...yet still arrested her for 'confessing' to being a traumatized girl cowering in the corner and instead gave her a lead role in the murder? There's a piece of the puzzle missing, isn't there?

Cool story but what does it have to do with this case?

 

[el buscador]

Cool story but what does it have to do with this case?

Exactly!

 

[Katody Matrass]

Doncha suppose the twelve trained cops were aware that a subject might lie and try to place blame elsewhere? So...how did the twenty year-old girl manage to fool those twelve cops so completely with her accusation 'out of the blue' that they went and arrested him posthaste...yet still arrested her for 'confessing' to being a traumatized girl cowering in the corner and instead gave her a lead role in the murder? There's a piece of the puzzle missing, isn't there?

That's the question that requires some evasive action

Cool story but what does it have to do with this case?

Yep, as I thought.

 

[Kaosium]

Cool story but what does it have to do with this case?

It's what they arrested her for.

 

[Kaosium]

That's the question that requires some evasive action



Yep, as I thought.

LOL! Doncha sometimes wish we could interrogate these guys?

 

[Amazer]

It's what they arrested her for.

I doubt that is what they arrested her for... but your welcome to your own personal delusions.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I doubt that is what they arrested her for... but your welcome to your own personal delusions.

Lovely, when you don't feel like discussing the argument, and evasiveness is noted, it's time to attack the arguer

 

[Amazer]

Lovely, when you don't feel like discussing the argument, and evasiveness is noted, it's time to attack the arguer

Well, then I'm sure you can provide the necessary documents from which it is clear that the cops arrested Amanda for 'confessing' to be a traumatized girl cowering in the corner.

Since I am certain that you cannot... that particular fantasy which was proposed is a delusion and as such is not an attack on the arguer.

 

[Kaosium]

Well, then I'm sure you can provide the necessary documents from which it is clear that the cops arrested Amanda for 'confessing' to be a traumatized girl cowering in the corner.

Since I am certain that you cannot... that particular fantasy which was proposed is a delusion and as such is not an attack on the arguer.

Are we playing semantic games, or are you unaware that Amanda was arrested after she signed the two statements that said she was covering her ears in the kitchen when Patrick raped and murdered Meredith? If it's the latter, you can find them on page five. If it's the former, ciao!

 

[Amazer]

Are we playing semantic games, or are you unaware that Amanda was arrested after she signed the two statements that said she was covering her ears in the kitchen when Patrick raped and murdered Meredith? If it's the latter, you can find them on page five. If it's the former, ciao!

I'm sure you are aware that cowering in a corner and covering your ears are not illegal activities, not even in Italy. Likewise for being traumatized. Thus, the reason you gave for Amanda being arrested is patently absurd.

 

[Kaosium]

I'm sure you are aware that cowering in a corner and covering your ears are not illegal activities, not even in Italy. Likewise for being traumatized. Thus, the reason you gave for Amanda being arrested is patently absurd.

I agree, it is absurd. It's even more absurd in the context I presented it, now let's talk about that. How did they go from her cowering in the kitchen to taking a lead role in killing and raping Meredith without any evidence to get them there?

Imagine this for a moment: Amanda has been having bad dreams and odd 'flashes' of memory that scare her but she doesn't know if she's just imagining it, or if she's actually experiencing 'recovered' memories due to trauma. So let's say she wanders into the police station with Raffaele and while he's talking to the police she strikes up a conversation with one of them and they start talking about it. The more she talks about it the more she seems to think perhaps she did experience the murder and repressed the memory, as unlikely as that might be, but she's not sure. She tells them of these things she seems to be seeing and they have her sign statements to that effect.


Then they go out and haul Patrick out of his home and imprison him, then arrest her and Raffaele for the murder and place her in a primary role.

Would that be justice, and if not to whom would you look askance at?

 

[tsig]

Doncha suppose the twelve trained cops were aware that a subject might lie and try to place blame elsewhere? So...how did the twenty year-old girl manage to fool those twelve cops so completely with her accusation 'out of the blue' that they went and arrested him posthaste...yet still arrested her for 'confessing' to being a traumatized girl cowering in the corner and instead gave her a lead role in the murder? There's a piece of the puzzle missing, isn't there?

It's what they arrested her for.

For being a traumatized girl cowering in the corner? I thought it was for turning cartwheels.

 

[tsig]

LOL! Doncha sometimes wish we could interrogate these guys?

I'm detecting some hostility here.

 

[Amazer]

I agree, it is absurd. It's even more absurd in the context I presented it, now let's talk about that. How did they go from her cowering in the kitchen to taking a lead role in killing and raping Meredith without any evidence to get them there?

Imagine this for a moment: Amanda has been having bad dreams and odd 'flashes' of memory that scare her but she doesn't know if she's just imagining it, or if she's actually experiencing 'recovered' memories due to trauma. So let's say she wanders into the police station with Raffaele and while he's talking to the police she strikes up a conversation with one of them and they start talking about it. The more she talks about it the more she seems to think perhaps she did experience the murder and repressed the memory, as unlikely as that might be, but she's not sure. She tells them of these things she seems to be seeing and they have her sign statements to that effect.


Then they go out and haul Patrick out of his home and imprison him, then arrest her and Raffaele for the murder and place her in a primary role.

Would that be justice, and if not to whom would you look askance at?

So you agree that you make stuff up... and then want to talk about more stuff that you have made up?

I see no reason to spent any more time on your little fantasy stories.

 

[Kaosium]

So you agree that you make stuff up... and then want to talk about more stuff that you have made up?

I see no reason to spent any more time on your little fantasy stories.

Are you looking to score some 'points?' I award you twenty snark points, you can spend them freely anywhere curmudgeons are sold!

No, I was hoping to engage you on the interrogation, Amazer. Make you wonder just how they got from cowering in the corner (I did it again! ) covering her ears to leading the frenzied assault on poor Meredith. That ought to make you at least a little curious...

 

[Kaosium]

For being a traumatized girl cowering in the corner? I thought it was for turning cartwheels.

I have it on the highest authority Italy has not yet outlawed 'cartwheels.' A pity, as that would really cripple them during the Olympics and might thus favor our teams.

I'm detecting some hostility here.

Did you detect the laughing and the big grin too?

 

[PhantomWolf]

I'm sure you are aware that cowering in a corner and covering your ears are not illegal activities, not even in Italy. Likewise for being traumatized. Thus, the reason you gave for Amanda being arrested is patently absurd.

Honestly, are you only posting to snipe? It's blatently obvious even to a total newbie in this, like me, what Kaosium meant, so for you to play such silly games really doesn't do your side of the arguement justice.

I haven't actually seen any decent arguements from the side of guilt at all, just a lot of sniping, one liners, and refusing to answer questions with anything beyond, "The court found them guilty." From someone trying to wade through the murk of this case and find out what really happened, reading the threads and articles quickly shows that the only ones posting actual details to further understanding are those on the side of innocent, and such silly game playing and snide comments simply make your side look weak and unable to answer.

I for one and very interested in how the police jumped from having a confession of being crouched in the kitchen listening to a murder to arresting for being intimately involved in the attack without any other evidence at all. How did they manage this? And what did they mean by "She buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them all in", if they didn't already believe what she confessed to was true?

Poster like Kevin and Kaosium are willing to answer these, I don't see the same thing from those backing guilt.