The Massei/Mignini Conspiracy Theory

[Kaosium]

I'd guess they just said she left his flat, without detailing where exactly she went.

Good point, and as I recall she left him around the same times on Halloween, thus he might have figured in his state that he'd mixed them up.

 

[platonov]

Not quite, he admitted in his diary he told the cops a 'load of crap' because he was stoned.

<snip>

Kaosium

You are boggling my mind again and again not in a good way

Will respond in sections to avoid large blocks of quote.

Re A. Hard to know how to respond to your argument if it is genuine - suffice to say that if any 16 yr old of my acquaintance put this argument forward I would fear for their ability to survive in and deal with the real world. More than that I cant say.
# Although your later "You know better than that, the moment Raffaele 'dropped' her alibi Little Miss Cartwheels wasn't going anywhere" makes me wonder whether you actually believe this stuff yourself.


Re B This is just fanciful supposition [ part of your fixation with Nov 5 which we shall return to ] and as such can be dismissed without comment.

#Actually you have confused the 1st & 2nd statements in any case - RS is mentioned in the 2nd not the 1st. Which defeats your point but it makes little difference either way - its all nonsense/your own invention in any case.


Re Not that this is of any relevance whatsoever.
You appear to have confused the arrest with the pre-trial detention order [as halides1 did earlier] --- is the distinction really that subtle ?? I dont think so --- and further muddled in the defence motion to keep the 5.45 SD out of the trial. If you don't understand the distinctions I cant help.

You also misunderstand my asterisked notation [part of your fixation with Nov 5 again] ...If its revised to

What would they say - ""well OK there's lots of evidence against the pair and they will be going to trial /have been found guilty but you had no right to arrest them - so there"" and flounce off in a strop

would that help. Something tells me it wont.
The reality is once they had been arrested (for very good reason) the lawyers had to deal with that. You cant do so and so fail to accept this very simple point ...so build a time machine or flounce - your call.
Lawyers who wish to collect fees cant avail of either of these options.
It not retrocausality, its reality, as it was on Nov 8 2007. The reality today (post-trial) for the lawyers is even more stark.

BTW The original wording was deliberate - I suspect that by Dec 2007 the defence lawyers knew this was going to be a very tough case to win.



As for your last 5 or 6 paras - we're back to the Nov 5th fixation and demands for explanations that have been provided many times and which you should be able to work out for yourself. Your claim that I don't understand or cant produce the 'police story' is simply bizarre.
It is common knowledge.

You have written this post 500 times at this stage.
As I pointed out to you many months ago "its not a Watergate movie - research the list" i.e. the rest of the case.
But given you attempt to deal with A this would probably only add to your mystification at the conviction.

Finally with ref to the last 5 or 6 paras try responding to my Buridans Ass post here. If you can do so, I note nobody has managed yet, it may save the necessity for another wall of text, # 502

Note - that wasn't an analogy.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

please clarify

Re Not that this is of any relevance whatsoever.
You appear to have confused the arrest with the pre-trial detention order [as halides1 did earlier] --- is the distinction really that subtle ?? I dont think so --- and further muddled in the defence motion to keep the 5.45 SD out of the trial.

platonov,

Please explain the distinction.

 

[platonov]

Trollin, trollin, trollin

platonov,

Please explain the distinction.

If you don't understand the distinctions I cant help.

You could always apply to Ben Sayagh - I believe he's the go-to expert on Italian jurisprudence

 

[tsig]

Not quite, he admitted in his diary he told the cops a 'load of crap' because he was stoned. His statement suggests the reason he did that is he was also stoned the night of the murder and he'd just accepted Amanda's recollection as he wasn't sure, or he'd misunderstood what she had said previous due to language difficulties and hadn't thought out the 'contradictions'--which incidentally would turn out to be entirely imaginary. One can also get the impression from his diary that in his fogged state he just blew them off, told them what they wanted to hear so they'd go bug Amanda about it and leave him alone.

This process took a total of twenty-five minutes from the moment Raffaele and Amanda walked into the police station until the time of the statement Raffaele signed. That suggests to me that Raffaele didn't think any of this was a big deal and certainly didn't think he was recanting an alibi for a murder, after all Raffaele has no reason to think when he walked in there that the police would ever suspect him or Amanda of murder. My guess is they told him, like they did Amanda, that they had 'hard evidence' she was at the scene, and he just succumbed to their version as what's a stoned college student going to do in that situation, argue with them about it?




Did you ever wonder why Raffaele is barely mentioned in the statements? Here this is supposed to be a 'confession' to murder by three people, and all Raffaele gets is a one-liner in the first statement where she's not sure whether he was with her, and nothing at all in the second statement. Don't you suppose they might have been asking her about Raffaele? One would imagine that would be reflected by the second statement.

I think I know why Raffaele is hardly noted and wasn't the subject of intense inquiry, it's because when she walked in there they thought she had conspired with Patrick, and Raffaele wasn't involved. It wasn't until later when they thought they'd gotten a 'confession' and they noted Raffaele's shoe tread was similar to the pattern of Rudy Guede's in the murder room that they actually arrested Raffaele. Previous to that all they wanted from Raffaele was to 'confirm' their suspicion that Amanda had left that night.



It was challenged from the start, that's why those statements were taken all the way to the Supreme Court and ruled upon. However, your asterisked notation underlines why I tend to think of you as the 'White Knight talking backwards.' It seems there you take the position that because they were found guilty that's proof positive they were arrested properly, despite the fact you know they are innocent of the crime they were arrested for. Amanda and Raffaele did not conspire with Patrick Lumumba to murder Meredith Kercher and then then 'stage' a break-in to make it look like an outsider.

All the 'evidence' that the above occurred that they produced for the Court of Freedom is of course bogus or a misunderstanding. What you're failing to take into account is the possibility that because they were arrested improperly, that additional 'evidence' was compiled against them anyway, and as a result they were found guilty when they shouldn't have been. That what was produced in court is the sort of thing one would find when attempting to gather evidence of innocent people, it just happened to be enough for a jury who had numerous reasons to believe they were guilty due to the conditions of the time, and the nature of the Italian system which often gives the prosecution a wide latitude in trials of the first instance.



I like your analogy, I see you as a carnival barker here. It just so happens that right now you're standing behind the curtain. It was going through this part right here that caused me to see just what had happened in this case. I'd gone through the evidence piece by piece only to find it was either so embarrassing it indicted the prosecution ('murder knife' and bra clasp) or was irrelevant in the sense it was expected to be found whether they were involved in the murder or not.

However, I still maintained a lingering suspicion that Amanda and Raffaele might be involved somehow, after all perhaps the cops 'knew' she was involved, they just couldn't assemble a good enough case and just threw everything they could at her and went beyond the bounds of propriety; I understand 'greater good' arguments. So I decided to read up about the interrogation and the arrest of Amanda, Patrick and Raffaele and see if they had legitimate reasons to be suspicious of her, and just what the 'confession' and the 'gift note' amounted to, as I'd seen excerpts but hadn't read the source material for myself.

Now I want you to do it. You seem to have suggested above that arguing about whether they should have been arrested is pointless, as they'd be found guilty and evidence was presented that was accepted by a jury thus 'obviously' they must have been arrested properly. I think you're applying a little 'retro-causality' style thinking, as there is another possibility here: that because Amanda and Raffaele were arrested, then evidence was compiled against them which was tainted by investigator bias which would explain why it's all embarrassing or irrelevant, and why no one making the guilt argument ever wants to talk about the evidence anymore.

You have to 'remember, remember the Fifth of November' because that's where all this starts, when the cops put the pressure on a stoned college student and he folded like a cheap tent and told them what they wanted to hear, and then put the screws to a girl barely out of her teens and she eventually freaked out. As a result of that they arrested all three of them for a crime they didn't commit. I've outlined what I think happened, subject to better information of course, now why don't you produce the police's version of the interrogation and the arrest of Raffaele, Amanda, and Patrick? Note, not the PMF version, which I can still see some adhere to, notably when Tsig naively suggested Amanda could have just walked right out of there. You know better than that, the moment Raffaele 'dropped' her alibi Little Miss Cartwheels wasn't going anywhere.

Back on page eight I compiled some links detailing what the police said about the interrogation in court. Why don't you use them to try to explain to us all what the police version of the interrogation and the arrest of the 'murderers' actually is? I found that while Amanda's story is unusual it conforms to a known phenomenon, and when considering the circumstances is not as unlikely as one might think. The police's story in comparison is absolutely ridiculous and is shrouded by missing tapes and absurd leaps of logic that to this day have not been explained.

If you can't produce the police's story, if you don't even know it and think the PMF theory is what happened, doesn't that tell you something? Why is it this isn't common knowledge? Why instead of making fun of 'waterboarding' and the like you haven't hammered all us 'FOAKers' with the 'truth' of the interrogation by recounting the police's version of events so many times we're sick of hearing it? Shouldn't the 'official' account have some bearing, shouldn't you all be proud to regale all us 'groupies' with its infinite wisdom?

You're standing behind the curtain, Platonov. Do some real thinking and it will open your eyes.

They both had internalized false confession syndrome then?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

defining one's terms

If you don't understand the distinctions I cant help.

You could always apply to Ben Sayagh - I believe he's the go-to expert on Italian jurisprudence

Try defining the terms. That way we can see whether or not we using them in the same way. I agree that Ben Sayagh knows much more than you do.

 

[platonov]

Try defining the terms. That way we can see whether or not we using them in the same way. I agree that Ben Sayagh knows much more than you do.

Ouch

Requests for definitions (again) - Give it up halides1.

You should know better than to make posts like this (to me) and expect your obfuscation/confusion to pass unnoticed.

Seriously, wiser to just let it slide
Its not like I made a big deal of it - it was buried in a long post.

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium

You are boggling my mind again and again not in a good way

Will respond in sections to avoid large blocks of quote.

Re A. Hard to know how to respond to your argument if it is genuine - suffice to say that if any 16 yr old of my acquaintance put this argument forward I would fear for their ability to survive in and deal with the real world. More than that I cant say.
# Although your later "You know better than that, the moment Raffaele 'dropped' her alibi Little Miss Cartwheels wasn't going anywhere" makes me wonder whether you actually believe this stuff yourself.

So, what do you think happened in those twenty-five minutes between when they arrived and that statement was typed up at 10:40? Raffaele is stoned, but is he so stoned he just 'forgets' he needs to have an alibi worked out with Amanda? Doncha think they woulda worked this out on the way to the police station if they even actually went? They both planned this all out beforehand so they'd know to 'suspect' each other for a little while in their diaries, or was the latter just a contingency plan if their brilliant plan of going in without a clue and having Raffaele 'drop' Amanda failed? Or did they just spontaneously each 'know' that wondering if the other did it for a while and eventually deciding they hadn't was the proper play for caged sex-killers?

It seems to me twenty-five minutes is plenty time for a stoned college student to get confused and agree with what the cops tell him, but it doesn't quite fit with basically breaking down and 'dropping' Amanda's alibi and putting suspicion on both of them if they were both actually murderers. All he had to remember was they were together all that night, it's not like his alibi was all that complicated.

Re B This is just fanciful supposition [ part of your fixation with Nov 5 which we shall return to ] and as such can be dismissed without comment.

#Actually you have confused the 1st & 2nd statements in any case - RS is mentioned in the 2nd not the 1st. Which defeats your point but it makes little difference either way - its all nonsense/your own invention in any case.

I stand corrected, though I still find it interesting Raffaele plays such a limited role in the 'confessions,' and they're all about Patrick. Does that match 'the facts we knew to be correct?'

Re Not that this is of any relevance whatsoever.
You appear to have confused the arrest with the pre-trial detention order [as halides1 did earlier] --- is the distinction really that subtle ?? I dont think so --- and further muddled in the defence motion to keep the 5.45 SD out of the trial. If you don't understand the distinctions I cant help.

You also misunderstand my asterisked notation [part of your fixation with Nov 5 again] ...If its revised to

What would they say - ""well OK there's lots of evidence against the pair and they will be going to trial /have been found guilty but you had no right to arrest them - so there"" and flounce off in a strop

would that help. Something tells me it wont.
The reality is once they had been arrested (for very good reason) the lawyers had to deal with that. You cant do so and so fail to accept this very simple point ...so build a time machine or flounce - your call.

What I was getting at was something different. You claimed that no one ever contested the arrests, and as those were the result of the interrogation I noted that they did indeed contest that vigorously, and won. However my main point was that if you're going to assume that as a result of the trial that naturally means they were arrested on good grounds, then I want to remind you they most definitely weren't arrested on good grounds, and it should be remembered that there's nothing left of the 'evidence' compiled against them when arrested in complicity with Patrick for the murder. That was a wholly bogus arrest, and there's no reason to think it implies they might have been guilty of an entirely different crime.

Lawyers who wish to collect fees cant avail of either of these options.
It not retrocausality, its reality, as it was on Nov 8 2007. The reality today (post-trial) for the lawyers is even more stark.

BTW The original wording was deliberate - I suspect that by Dec 2007 the defence lawyers knew this was going to be a very tough case to win.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here, could you elaborate?

As for your last 5 or 6 paras - we're back to the Nov 5th fixation and demands for explanations that have been provided many times and which you should be able to work out for yourself. Your claim that I don't understand or cant produce the 'police story' is simply bizarre.
It is common knowledge.

No, it's not, it's barely discussed, and when it does come up what we hear is the PMF theory of the interrogation, not what the police told in court. I want you to regale us with the official story, the one the police told. Let's start with an example: What time did Monica Napoleoni testify to as to the time she had her second 'talk' with Amanda Knox as recorded by both Frank Sfarzo and Barbara Nadeau who were in court?

You have written this post 500 times at this stage.
As I pointed out to you many months ago "its not a Watergate movie - research the list" i.e. the rest of the case.
But given you attempt to deal with A this would probably only add to your mystification at the conviction.

Oh, I'm not mystified Platonov, I know what they did and why it succeeded. I do suspect you're in for a huge surprise though, aren't you wondering why the things that have been contested such as Curatolo, the bra-clasp and the 'murder knife'--the three most 'damning' pieces of 'evidence'--are all being subjected to scrutiny by Hellmann and not faring well? That wasn't supposed to happen, was it? Wasn't the answer we were all deluded/being paid/lusting after tender young sex-killer flesh?

Finally with ref to the last 5 or 6 paras try responding to my Buridans Ass post here. If you can do so, I note nobody has managed yet, it may save the necessity for another wall of text, # 502

Note - that wasn't an analogy.

If you're asking why they fought to have the 'confessions' withheld by the Supreme Court, it's probably so they wouldn't have to contest the idea that a 'confession' occurred. It does seem in retrospect to have been a mistake, notably due to the way the prosecution managed to get most of it in anyway on their own terms. Just because the defense may have made a mistake and underestimated the sneakiness of Mignini doesn't mean their 'in on' any 'conspiracies.'

 

[Kaosium]

They both had internalized false confession syndrome then?

No, Raffaele just got run over, he had 'stoned college kid syndrome.' They managed to confuse him, it appears, which has been known to happen to those who indulge in smoking the funny-smelling plants.

In a very real sense I suspect the whole tragic tale of the arrest of Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick was initiated by the adverse affects of mixing hashish and angry policemen. Don't try that at home!

 

[platonov]

Please to remember the ..... .....could ever be forgot

So, what do you think happened in those twenty-five minutes

<snip>

Another wall of text fixated on Nov 5th.

OK This reply will be a lot shorter - The last effort of mine was obviously wasted.

..........

Have another go at Buridan's Ass for starters.

ps #502 and counting.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

rolling stoned

It seems to me twenty-five minutes is plenty time for a stoned college student to get confused and agree with what the cops tell him, but it doesn't quite fit with basically breaking down and 'dropping' Amanda's alibi and putting suspicion on both of them if they were both actually murderers. All he had to remember was they were together all that night, it's not like his alibi was all that complicated.

Kaosium,

It is very jarring to read such clearly expressed ideas in such close juxtaposition to platonov's comments. Please desist.

 

[platonov]

What's the collective noun for crickets ? .......



a Foak of crickets perhaps

 

[Kaosium]

Another wall of text fixated on Nov 5th.

I figured you had enough of having to 'wade' through my posts, now I'm teaching you how to swim! (or climb!)

'Remember, remember, the Fifth of November,
Cartwheels, 'confessions' and pot
Untaped sessions & internalized 'confessions'
Should never be forgot!'

OK This reply will be a lot shorter - The last effort of mine was obviously wasted.

..........

Have another go at Buridan's Ass for starters.

ps #502 and counting.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but after another dozen posts of cryptic hinting I'm sure it will come to me. In the meantime, let me tell you a story!

There's a movie, 'V for Vendetta,' that incorporates that old ditty I bastardized above, a very good movie, one that I make a habit of re-watching every November Fifth, much as I do 'Gettysburg' or the source novel 'The Killer Angels' every Fourth of July weekend. Anyway, I don't know if you know it, but there's a scene in it where the policeman investigating the case he's on all of a sudden starts seeing a sequence of events, going back and then forward, until he's figured out just about what the Bad Guys have done and are going to do.

I think of that sometimes, as I experienced a few of them in this case, it's a bit of an 'epiphany' where all of a sudden all that I'd read about the case comes rushing to me, but sorted out in a 'clear path' starting with the interrogation on that fateful November night, and culminating in the conviction in the first instance of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

I had another one, prompted by you of all people, when you thought you were scoring points by me not understanding what Massei was getting at with those funny windows, and all of a sudden what I'd read and just seen from you, Juror, Sherlock Holmes, and others in posts long past came rushing to me and I understood just what Massei was hiding and how he did it. I understood the case better as a result, which is why I thanked you. I got the feeling you thought you were denied your prize though. You musta wished for rationalizations and humiliations galore, and you got thanked instead, it must have been a bad day for Platonov!

I want to return the favor. If you start right here at 10:15 PM November 5th 2007 and just for once give Raffaele and Amanda the benefit of the doubt and go through it, all of a sudden it might come to you too. If they really arrested Amanda and Raffaele for bogus reasons--and they did--what do you suppose the odds are this unlikely pair of 'murderers' was actually guilty of committing the crime under another set of circumstances with wholly different 'evidence?'

'Evidence' that had been collected after they'd been arrested, evidence that doesn't past the smell check or is irrelevant, 'evidence' those who passionately believe them guilty won't argue publicly as it's all 'own goals?' Witnesses so embarrassing it boggles the mind how such marginal characters and stories ever found their way into court? Including a 'staged' break-in when the guy arrested (after the arrests of Raffaele and Amanda) who left all the real evidence at the scene is break-in artist for crissakes?

There's an illusion cast over this case with the 'mountain of embarrassing and irrelevant evidence,' and all the tabloid trash which so distorted the truth of these events for so long, but if you can sift through that you can note just how it occurred and why. What police force could make so many errors in relating the 'facts' of the case to the press? One seeding it with 'suspicion' as they knew they didn't have much of a case but they did have the ear of the tabloids and the paparazzi. That created what they wanted, an environment of absolution about their guilt that they were able to maintain through the trial. This isn't 'conspiracy,' this is strategy in places where there are no such things as sequestered juries or jury selection. I think they kinda got more than they bargained for though, this much attention has basically ensured they'll never get away with it, the fat lady is singing already.

This makes #503 I suppose, and the first time you take me up on going through the interrogation will be #1 for you. Doesn't it bother you that you couldn't just respond to that one easy question about Monica Napoleoni off the top of your head? That's the official story! Yet you don't even seem to know it. I think I know why you don't know it, mainly because I spent a long time reading the archives of PMF. Try again, just this simple question: what time did Monica Napoleoni say she started in on Amanda for the second time?

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium,

It is very jarring to read such clearly expressed ideas in such close juxtaposition to platonov's comments. Please desist.

LOL! If you put them together you get abstract art!

 

[Matthew Best]

Kaosium,

It is very jarring to read such clearly expressed ideas in such close juxtaposition to platonov's comments. Please continue.

 

[platonov]

'Broken window' perplexity is upgraded - now a conspiracy

<snip>

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but after another dozen posts of cryptic hinting I'm sure it will come to me. In the meantime, let me tell you a story!

<snip>

Here's the LINK (again) - click on it and try to answer the Q posed.
If you can do so, it should resolve your Nov 5th fixation.

Nothing very cryptic about it.

<snip>
........understood just what Massei was hiding and how he did it...........
...... I got the feeling you thought you were denied your prize though. You musta wished for rationalizations and humiliations galore, and you got thanked instead, it must have been a bad day for Platonov!

<snip>

Thats not how I remember it

I recall you first posting walls of text (galore) over several posts where you sought to rationalize your mistake and blamed me, Mignini, The Easter bunny, Europeans in general, the dropping of the gold standard...etc
It was then somebody else's fault and now its a conspiracy . Is that progress or further rationalization.

ps Nice ditty.

 

[Matthew Best]

Here's the LINK (again) - click on it and try to answer the Q posed.
If you can do so, it should resolve your Nov 5th fixation.

Nothing very cryptic about it.

Riiiiiiight.

"Buridans Ass seems more appropriate than Morton's Fork" is as clear as day.

 

[Dan O.]

Is Platonov saying that his own reading of the statements prepaired in the early hours of November 6th by the prosecution has convinced him that Amanda had expressed an internalized false confession and therefore he believes the defense should seek to present this to the jury/court?

Somehow I am not convinced that he is actually being honest.

 

[platonov]

Crickets 'foaking' over CT thread

3 and counting.

I think you need 4 before its actually a 'Foak'

ps The Buridan's Ass Q was orginally posed to Dan O but no reply recd' yet or expected.

 

[babycondor]

3 and counting.

I think you need 4 before its actually a 'Foak'

ps The Buridan's Ass Q was orginally posed to Dan O but no reply recd' yet or expected.

My reading of your question to Dan O. is that you presented a false dichotomy and demanded that he choose.

If an ass is starving and he is presented with a pile of manure and a bowl of acid, the ass will walk away in search of more nourishing fare.

I give Dan O a great deal more credit than Buridan's (or your own) hypothetical ass.