The Massei/Mignini Conspiracy Theory

[Matthew Best]

So, platonov, what time do you think Kercher died? 11:30pm?

 

[bri1]

Platonov's original question:-

why the fight to keep it out of the trial seeing as its proof of the IFS\Wb

Either ..

A IFS\Wb is, in this case, CT nonsense which is of no relevance whatsoever, anywhere in the real world.

OR

B The lawyers for AK are in on the conspiracy

I'll have a go at answering!
This is, indeed, a false dichotomy. There is also:

C AK's lawyers are incompetent

or (my favourite)

D AK's lawyers had a complex judgement call to make. On the one hand they could challenge the admissability of the statements and try and get them excluded on the basis that Amanda's right to counsel was infringed to some extent. There was an obvious problem with this tactic, and that was the amount of leakage from the police and the extent to which this might compromise the jury. Which brings us to their other choice- to allow the statements and then challenge them fully in court, using false confession experts. This is also a risky strategy. Some people just can't understand false confession as a psychological phenomenon.
Of course, the issue of the civil trial clouds the issue further- at the time of the appearance at the Supreme Court, did AK's lawyers know that the civil trial would run concurrently, and that the statement would be brought before the jurors anyway because of this?
If they did know this, I'd suggest they made the wrong call- they would have been better off hoping to educate the jurors properly on FCS, and the fact that they can be a central feature of miscarriages of justice.
I'm hoping that you might consider this a reasonable reply to your question, Platonov

 

[bri1]

Also, I think AK's lawyers' strategy also had to be informed by the lack of recording of the interrogation. The trouble is, is that the best they could've done without the recording is to have a psychologist examine Amanda's account of the interrogation and compare the events and techniques and AK's state of mind to the known cases of IFCS. The reason this is troublesome is that the police would be sticking to their version of the interrogation, and the prosecution would argue that any expert opinion given under these circumstances was built on a shaky foundation (Amanda's 'lies' about the nature of the interrogation).
If they'd had the recording, then it would've been much better to allow the statements, and the expert opinion would be based on an objective account. Then at least the prosecution would've been forced to produce their own 'expert' to contest the findings, as opposed to the (much easier) 'Amanda's a liar' mantra.

 

[platonov]

This just in - Italians are stoopid'

False dichotomy eh - I wondered who would bring it up.
(props to babycondor who also completed the Flange Foak)


So the other option is you guys are smarter than the lawyers and the 'jury'.

That's even less believable than B - the conspiracy theory.
I had anticipated this response but as I said earlier - stuff that might fly in Cartwheel world won't do here. Even in Conspiracy Land we have some standards; Try the DDW thread, Humber might buy it.


Indeed bri1's argument [as with the last time] seems to founder on an ignorance of basic details of the case - due to a fixation with the 'watergate issue' no doubt - Namely the existence of the Gift from the 6th, Prison memo from the 7th, Silence before the judge on the 8th, Bugged conversation of the 10th, Terminated Judicial appearance on Dec 17 etc etc etc.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

one honest man before the gate

Indeed bri1's argument [as with the last time] seems to founder on an ignorance of basic details of the case - due to a fixation with the 'watergate issue' no doubt - Namely the existence of the Gift from the 6th, Prison memo from the 7th, Silence before the judge on the 8th, Bugged conversation of the 10th, Terminated Judicial appearance on Dec 17 etc etc etc.

platonov,
How much more confused can a person sound than Amanda did on the 6th?
How smart would it have been for Amanda to open her mouth on November 8th, given that she had not had previous contact with her lawyer?
How many times are we going to have to say that "I was there," which was said on the 10th, is at best ambiguous, and more likely refers to Raffaele's flat than the girls' flat?
How many hours did Amanda spend being interrogated on December 17th?

I sometimes think that the police did a "modified limited hangout" with respect to the forensics of this case.

 

[platonov]

platonov,
How much more confused can a person sound than Amanda did on the 6th?
How smart would it have been for Amanda to open her mouth on November 8th, given that she had not had previous contact with her lawyer?
How many times are we going to have to say that "I was there," which was said on the 10th, is at best ambiguous, and more likely refers to Raffaele's flat than the girls' flat?
How many hours did Amanda spend being interrogated on December 17th?

I sometimes think that the police did a "modified limited hangout" with respect to the forensics of this case.

A or B halides1 ??? - or are you claiming membership of the smart set

This is the CT forum ... the Cartwheel thread is thataway --------------->

ps Lots it would seem, if you keep confusing AK's admission on the 10th that she knew PL was innocent with the "I was there," which was at a later date

 

[Matthew Best]

So, platonov, what time do you think Kercher died? 11:30pm?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

7 days in November, may-be

A or B halides1 ??? - or are you claiming membership of the smart set

This is the CT forum ... the Cartwheel thread is thataway --------------->

ps Lots it would seem, if you keep confusing AK's admission on the 10th that she knew PL was innocent with the "I was there," which was at a later date

The "I was there" was more like the 17th, now that you remind me. However, that does not change anything substantial in my argument. It would have been unwise to talk to ILE without a lawyer on the 10th (once you are arrested, you should stop talking, guilty or innocent). Of course, ILE listened in, and knew what she said, and they still did not act upon it. What I find so interesting in this conversation is that you want to talk about Amanda's behavior and the supposed romantic ardor of her supporters, but not Meredith's time of death. Are you part of a conspiracy?

 

[Kaosium]

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.

I thought I answered it already? At any rate, are those truly the only possibilities you can envision?

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.

LOL! All I 'denied' you was the explicit outright 'confession' that I was confused, and that was just for fun, thus I will rectify that error now: Platonov, I was 'conused!'


However, didn't you notice what he did? You rubbed my nose in it but didn't realize what it implied? That's what actually interested me! That's not a 'conspiracy' Platonov, it's a 'hand-wave.' Just like he did with ToD, Massei deliberately tried to hide the implications of the testimony of the experts due to the fact it didn't match his theories, very much like how the arcane logic of the Italian Courts forced him to make up that ridiculous notion of Amanda carrying around the knife in her bag. This is something he likely would have preferred not to do, but the absurdity of the case he allowed through his court forced him to.

I think something has finally dawned on me, something I should have realized long ago. You really believe that all the people who point out the logical, scientific and other errors in the Massei report are inherently dishonest, delusional or gullible, don't you? It isn't even possible in your mental universe that in fact they are correct on these points and the judges who contributed to the Massei Report are in fact wrong, does that more or less sum up your position?

 

[tsig]

The "I was there" was more like the 17th, now that you remind me. However, that does not change anything substantial in my argument. It would have been unwise to talk to ILE without a lawyer on the 10th (once you are arrested, you should stop talking, guilty or innocent). Of course, ILE listened in, and knew what she said, and they still did not act upon it. What I find so interesting in this conversation is that you want to talk about Amanda's behavior and the supposed romantic ardor of her supporters, but not Meredith's time of death. Are you part of a conspiracy?

Of course he is. We all are. We registered at JREF long before the murder took place just so we could be positioned to argue the case.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

time travel

Of course he is. We all are. We registered at JREF long before the murder took place just so we could be positioned to argue the case.

What did your handlers say about Meredith's TOD?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Of course he is. We all are. We registered at JREF long before the murder took place just so we could be positioned to argue the case.

You argue the case?

 

[bri1]

False dichotomy eh - I wondered who would bring it up.
(props to babycondor who also completed the Flange Foak)


So the other option is you guys are smarter than the lawyers and the 'jury'.

That's even less believable than B - the conspiracy theory.
I had anticipated this response but as I said earlier - stuff that might fly in Cartwheel world won't do here. Even in Conspiracy Land we have some standards; Try the DDW thread, Humber might buy it.


Indeed bri1's argument [as with the last time] seems to founder on an ignorance of basic details of the case - due to a fixation with the 'watergate issue' no doubt - Namely the existence of the Gift from the 6th, Prison memo from the 7th, Silence before the judge on the 8th, Bugged conversation of the 10th, Terminated Judicial appearance on Dec 17 etc etc etc.

OK, if you're not interested in responding properly, why bother responding at all?
1. Saying that you anticipated an argument (without adding any reasons why that argument is erroneous or weak) is not actually resonding to it.
2. Am I smarter than the judge / jury? Well, you might find this unbelievable, but I just might be. I am just about to submit my PhD at a Brown Group University, I'm published by one of the best publishing houses in the US. I've spoken at international conferences, I've taught logic and ethics to undergrads at a Brown Group University, as well as at a second division university, with a total of 8 years experience. I'm not saying I'm definitely smarter than them, but it's certainly possible.
3. If your argument is that this list "Namely the existence of the Gift from the 6th, Prison memo from the 7th, Silence before the judge on the 8th, Bugged conversation of the 10th, Terminated Judicial appearance on Dec 17 etc etc etc" negates my argument, then say how you think it does.
Make the argument or don't bother responding. Crowing that the other person is stupid is not an argument. I took the time to honestly try and answer your question, if you were going to respond at all it should be to actually address my argument. Making your opponent extrapolate your argument is an intellectually dishonest move, because it allows you to then shift the goalposts and say that your opponent misunderstood in some way.

I guess that you're saying that as there were other, subsequent statements of Amanda's that support the statements made on the night of the 5th, this disproves IFC. If you are arguing that, then you're misreading the statements.
If you're saying that Amanda's lawyers should've have made the strategy decisions they made regarding getting the statement from 5th Nov disallowed (and therefore not producing IFC experts), because the judge jury would be aware of it from these subsequent declarations from Amanda, I agree. There’s a bunch of connected statements, and it’s not really any good getting some disallowed and not others, and cutting off a couple of good avenues of argument (IFC experts and questioning of police conduct in not recording the interview), when this connectedness means that the tainting of the judge / ‘jury’ will happen anyway.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

I am always amazed at the ability for those who believe in Amanda's guilt, go to such great lengths to defend Rudy Guede. Stilicho doesn't defend him but he makes the same misguided comparisons that Guede's defenders do.

The only prints in the cottage, related to the murder, that can be attributed to anyone, belong to Guede. He left shoe prints, in Meredith's blood, in the murder room and the hall.

His hand print was made in Meredith's blood under her body.

We can discuss the DNA tests on the purse and Meredith's body if you like. Even if you throw out that evidence, the prints set in blood, are more than enough to convict Guede.

He also had a history of break-ins and confronted a man with a knife. Stilicho and his group do everything in their power to sugar coat Guede's past.

Lets not forget that Guede fled the country.

It is not necessary to prove Guede's guilt in order to show that Amanda and Raffaele were wrongfully convicted. It is not the wrongfully accused job to find the actual killer. With that said, it is clear that Guede is guilty.

A quick note on the 2 knife theory. The court suggested that 2 knives were used when it was determined that the large kitchen knife was not compatible with the wounds. They determined that Raffaele's knife was the second knife. Problem is neither one of these knives match the imprint on the bed. So if you believe the court, then you have to believe that 3 knives were used.

So we are supposed to believe that Amanda and Raffaele were being intimate in Amanda's room, heard the attack, grabbed 3 knives and decided to join a virtual stranger attack Meredith.

The court's theory sounds so much more reasonable than a male attacking a female doesn't it?

Just a note Stilicho, sarcasm doesn't make a statement sound any more believable.

Funny how those who believe the crime was one that happens all to often in this world are being labeled conspiracy theorists by those who believe the courts illogical take on the murder.

Stilicho and his group are continuously coming up with new improved theories. They all point to guilt of course but their thinking is continuously changing. Those who believe that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent have had a consistent theory based on the actual facts. When you base your theory on actual facts, it will change very little over time. Keep this in mind when listening to both sides of this debate.

 

[LondonJohn]

Where oh where have Stilicho and Platonov gone? How I miss their carefully-reasoned and logically-compelling arguments about the case!

I wonder what time of the evening of 1st November (or "01 NOV 2007", if you have a penchant for writing dates in a specifically strange way) they think Meredith Kercher died? I wonder if they realise that their arguments are on the wrong side of the fence yet?

 

[LondonJohn]

I am always amazed at the ability for those who believe in Amanda's guilt, go to such great lengths to defend Rudy Guede. Stilicho doesn't defend him but he makes the same misguided comparisons that Guede's defenders do.

The only prints in the cottage, related to the murder, that can be attributed to anyone, belong to Guede. He left shoe prints, in Meredith's blood, in the murder room and the hall.

His hand print was made in Meredith's blood under her body.

We can discuss the DNA tests on the purse and Meredith's body if you like. Even if you throw out that evidence, the prints set in blood, are more than enough to convict Guede.

He also had a history of break-ins and confronted a man with a knife. Stilicho and his group do everything in their power to sugar coat Guede's past.

Lets not forget that Guede fled the country.

It is not necessary to prove Guede's guilt in order to show that Amanda and Raffaele were wrongfully convicted. It is not the wrongfully accused job to find the actual killer. With that said, it is clear that Guede is guilty.

A quick note on the 2 knife theory. The court suggested that 2 knives were used when it was determined that the large kitchen knife was not compatible with the wounds. They determined that Raffaele's knife was the second knife. Problem is neither one of these knives match the imprint on the bed. So if you believe the court, then you have to believe that 3 knives were used.

So we are supposed to believe that Amanda and Raffaele were being intimate in Amanda's room, heard the attack, grabbed 3 knives and decided to join a virtual stranger attack Meredith.

The court's theory sounds so much more reasonable than a male attacking a female doesn't it?

Just a note Stilicho, sarcasm doesn't make a statement sound any more believable.

Funny how those who believe the crime was one that happens all to often in this world are being labeled conspiracy theorists by those who believe the courts illogical take on the murder.

Stilicho and his group are continuously coming up with new improved theories. They all point to guilt of course but their thinking is continuously changing. Those who believe that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent have had a consistent theory based on the actual facts. When you base your theory on actual facts, it will change very little over time. Keep this in mind when listening to both sides of this debate.

I agree. In addition, none of them has a clue about the impact (i.e. total lack of impact) of the Guede Supreme Court ruling on Knox's/Sollecito's case. I'd have thought that at least some of the "lawyers" on that side of the debate might be able to explain, but they've strangely remained silent on the issue.

It reminds me of the "mysterious lamp" nonsense, with one particular supersleuth convincing himself that the lamp was definitely brought into Meredith's room after her death by Knox and Sollecito, in order to "light up the crime scene" during the "clean-up" (which of course never happened). In reality, it's very clear that the most likely scenario is this: Meredith herself borrowed Knox's lamp to use as a desk lamp - her own lamp was placed next to her bed to be used as a night/reading light. During Meredith's struggle with Guede, the lamp was knocked off Meredith's desk, and it fell to the floor. As Guede left the room, the opening of the door pushed the lamp back towards the wall next to the desk, which is where it was found. No mystery. No clean-up. Just one girl borrowing another girl's lamp.

 

[platonov]

Who what ? .. where am I ?

I am always amazed at the ability for those who believe in Amanda's guilt, go to such great lengths to defend Rudy Guede. Stilicho doesn't defend him but he makes the same misguided comparisons that Guede's defenders do.

<snip>

Well that's that cleared up - make no mistake.

Well done.








Wait ..what ?

Are you sure you posted this in the right thread Forum Board.

This is CT forum on JREF - just so we are all on the same page

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh, on another matter: I see that our erstwhile colleague Mr Treeehorn has been arguing that the rusted/perished bra clasp might well be of no consequence to the case. He bases this on the "logic" that in certain US states, if evidence deteriorates between a conviction and a subsequent appeal, then this does not reflect negatively on the law enforcement bodies storing the evidence - unless it can be shown that the evidence was deliberately allowed to deteriorate.

Well, there are two very significant differences in this case. Firstly, in and of itself, the storage of a moist bra clasp in an airtight/watertight container is an egregiously incompetent act (see also the towels that the "crack" forensic team managed to make go mouldy and useless). This grossly negligent method of storage goes against all the protocols of evidence storage for an item such as this, so I think many court would have no problem ascribing positive blame to the magnificent "Dr" Stefanoni and her flying circus.

Secondly, of course, the forensic teams know full well that in a case like this in Italy, there's a reasonably high possibility that the forensic evidence will require re-examination during the mandatory appeal trial - which is essentially a whole new trial. In this respect, the situation is very different from most US cases (excluding death penalty cases), where any further judicial action is far less likely (and normally based on a very narrow set of appeal points). Therefore, I'd have thought that there's a significant onus upon law enforcement professionals* in Italy to safeguard all physical evidence, since there's a significant likelihood that it will need to be re-evaluated in the appeal phase.

* I use the term "professionals" with some hesitation in respect to this particular case....

 

[katy_did]

It reminds me of the "mysterious lamp" nonsense, with one particular supersleuth convincing himself that the lamp was definitely brought into Meredith's room after her death by Knox and Sollecito, in order to "light up the crime scene" during the "clean-up" (which of course never happened). In reality, it's very clear that the most likely scenario is this: Meredith herself borrowed Knox's lamp to use as a desk lamp - her own lamp was placed next to her bed to be used as a night/reading light. During Meredith's struggle with Guede, the lamp was knocked off Meredith's desk, and it fell to the floor. As Guede left the room, the opening of the door pushed the lamp back towards the wall next to the desk, which is where it was found. No mystery. No clean-up. Just one girl borrowing another girl's lamp.

The one problem with that scenario, LJ, is that she would need to have borrowed the lamp that evening after she arrived home (since otherwise Amanda would have probably noticed it missing, as she and Raffaele spent quite a bit of time in the cottage that day, including until the early evening). Possible, but somewhat unlikely I would have thought. I still think bungling Battistelli or one of his cohorts is the best bet, as Frank indicated at Perugia Shock (Meredith borrowing it being the next most likely scenario).

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Well that's that cleared up - make no mistake.

Well done.








Wait ..what ?

Are you sure you posted this in the right thread Forum Board.

This is CT forum on JREF - just so we are all on the same page

My comments are in reference to other posts made in this forum.