The Massei/Mignini Conspiracy Theory

The long reach of the Friends of Amanda Knox

Nini Burleigh wrote, "Before his conviction, the magistrate had begun to see the deviant [Masonic?] cult’s conspiracy in many nooks—maybe even as far away as Seattle, U.S.A. ‘What I am looking for now,’ he said in 2009 during the Knox trial, in one of many hours he spent explaining the complexities of the Narducci conspiracy to me, ‘are the people who know the answer about Narducci. And they might even be someone from the Friends of Amanda Knox…In both cases, there are desperate people, and I can see them doing stupid things.’” (The Fatal Gift of Beauty, p. 165)
 
halides1 said:
Nini Burleigh wrote, "Before his conviction, the magistrate had begun to see the deviant [Masonic?] cult’s conspiracy in many nooks—maybe even as far away as Seattle, U.S.A. ‘What I am looking for now,’ he said in 2009 during the Knox trial, in one of many hours he spent explaining the complexities of the Narducci conspiracy to me, ‘are the people who know the answer about Narducci. And they might even be someone from the Friends of Amanda Knox…In both cases, there are desperate people, and I can see them doing stupid things.’” (The Fatal Gift of Beauty, p. 165)
Click to expand...

That's not an isolated comment. He said something else about his 'enemies' from the Narducci case being behind the resistance to his prosecuting Raffaele and Amanda and stretched all the way to Seattle. It was in Frank Sfarzo's The Master of Suspicion post of 2/4/09 which was one of the older posts thus not restored when Mignini had it taken down by court order, but it can still be viewed online at that link at page 254:

Frank Sfarzo 2/4/09 excerpt of "The Master of Suspicion" said:
International Connections

Mignini has an explanation for the American criticism. The masterminds of this are in Italy he said, referring to the intervention from Douglas Preston and then Judge Heavey. He may seem to imply that a Masonic lodge, a satanic group of powerful people (or a deviant rotary club--a degenerated Texas Hold'em table) or a similar organization is striking back and orchestrating a campaign against him

(emphasis retained)
Click to expand...
 
Kaosium said:
That's not an isolated comment. He said something else about his 'enemies' from the Narducci case being behind the resistance to his prosecuting Raffaele and Amanda and stretched all the way to Seattle. It was in Frank Sfarzo's The Master of Suspicion post of 2/4/09 which was one of the older posts thus not restored when Mignini had it taken down by court order, but it can still be viewed online at that link at page 254:
Click to expand...

This would certainly match the kind of rhetoric these days from the "guilt" side of the fence. It is a full bore defence of Mignini, not anything to do with "remembering Meredith".

Sadly, the chief vehicle of this defence is to continue to vilify innocents, right now that includes Frank Sfarzo, who has troubles to be sure - but what, really, do they have to do with Mignini's persecution of A and R in 2007? It's as if things like the Italian auditors going after Mignini and Comodi for the 186,000 Euros for the courtroom cartoon of the murder scene had something to do with the "bad press" generated by minor league bloggers.

But make no mistake, even the vilifying of innocents and the non sequitor of going after Spezi, Preston, or Sfarzo betrays what the folks who are left on that side of the fence fear.

My hope is that once the SC rules in March that Mignini finds himself in the legal battle of his life where his own liberty is at stake.

But follow the various narratives. This fetish with Sfarzo implies that somehow a minor league Perugiun blogger had something to do with creating an impression about Mignini; an impression that somehow influenced the likes of Hellmann.

Really!?

But note how far that side of the fence has wandered from "it's all for Meredith". Right now, it's all about saving Mignini's considerable skin.
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
This would certainly match the kind of rhetoric these days from the "guilt" side of the fence. It is a full bore defence of Mignini, not anything to do with "remembering Meredith".

Sadly, the chief vehicle of this defence is to continue to vilify innocents, right now that includes Frank Sfarzo, who has troubles to be sure - but what, really, do they have to do with Mignini's persecution of A and R in 2007? It's as if things like the Italian auditors going after Mignini and Comodi for the 186,000 Euros for the courtroom cartoon of the murder scene had something to do with the "bad press" generated by minor league bloggers.

But make no mistake, even the vilifying of innocents and the non sequitor of going after Spezi, Preston, or Sfarzo betrays what the folks who are left on that side of the fence fear.

My hope is that once the SC rules in March that Mignini finds himself in the legal battle of his life where his own liberty is at stake.

But follow the various narratives. This fetish with Sfarzo implies that somehow a minor league Perugiun blogger had something to do with creating an impression about Mignini; an impression that somehow influenced the likes of Hellmann.

Really!?

But note how far that side of the fence has wandered from "it's all for Meredith". Right now, it's all about saving Mignini's considerable skin.
Click to expand...

It is a good question, Bill. I have been thinking about this one. Frankly, I know I have relied on Franks account of what took place in court on many occasions. How accurate is this account is the question? Looking at the transcripts I do have I can see a few examples of where Frank got it right. The request to void the trial is one of those. I relied on Frank's account of that day in court quite often and when I got the transcript, I found his account to be spot on.

Yet the transcript of the fingerprint expert's testimony that I posted on the Rudy thread compared to Frank's account finds a very important point missing. The transcript indicates that Rudy was already a suspect and they pulled his card for comparison. In Frank's account , he makes it seem they just searched a database to find this print. This is a big miss on Frank's part.

Then we get to perhaps Frank's most important quote (my opinion) from the trial testimony.

“I was in a room together with the prosecutor Mignini”. –Giobbi adds– We were watching the interrogation, so to study her reactions”."
Click to expand...

The importance of this cannot be understated, in my opinion. I don't have this transcript and the response I got when I asked for it was basically that Frank reported it so I don't need it to prove this point on the interrogation taping.

So, Is there an independent verification of this quote somewheres elsers? Or not?
 
[QUOTE=RoseMontague

snip...

Then we get to perhaps Frank's most important quote (my opinion) from the trial testimony.

Quote:
“I was in a room together with the prosecutor Mignini”. –Giobbi adds– We were watching the interrogation, so to study her reactions”."
The importance of this cannot be understated, in my opinion. I don't have this transcript and the response I got when I asked for it was basically that Frank reported it so I don't need it to prove this point on the interrogation taping.

So, Is there an independent verification of this quote somewheres elsers? Or not?
__________________




Don't hold your breath.

Although Giobbi's testimony should be in some public record somewhere. Its probably right next to the page where he says he could hear AK scream even though he was in another office. Or his mathematically certainty page...

Giobbi as lead clown certainly presented many key acts of the circus. Starting with oppla and devolving from there to the "no evidence was necessary" thing which was documented in his first interview with CBS IIRC.

As for Frank...he was a reporter of the daily trial events. I think he got most of those things correct even while he completely missed the bigger picture.

For example Frank considered Mignini and Stefanoni to be outside the corruption almost to the very end of the appeal trial. Frank had a particular one minded hatred of the police and blamed the wrongful conviction almost entirely on them. Only very late in the case was he finally convinced that it was impossible for Mignini to not be the leader and impossible for Stefanoni to not be implicated up to the top of her lying teeth.

And for Bill...

I don't think Franks troubles have anything to do with AK and RS persecution by Mignini. Franks troubles OTOH may not include Mignini at all. That issue seems to be clearly in Franks hands alone. Also there is Franks trust of Mignini long after the evidence showed Mignini to be the puppet master. Reporter? Maybe. Criminologist? No...House guest? I don't think so......
 
RoseMontague said:
The importance of this cannot be understated, in my opinion. I don't have this transcript and the response I got when I asked for it was basically that Frank reported it so I don't need it to prove this point on the interrogation taping.

So, Is there an independent verification of this quote somewheres elsers? Or not?
Click to expand...

I am not sure ANY of the reporters who covered the case, esp. those who were at multiple trial sessions, are what one would call trained forensic journalists, Frank probably especially so. Another thread chronicles Andrea Vogt's shortcomings for first reporting on things as if certainties, but then not correcting herself (or those who continue to quote her) when the mistruths are quoted endlessly.

All this notwithstanding, even trained, long in the tooth trial journalists would be the first to admit that they are only writing the first draft of what they would hope would be cross-checked, triple-checked, and double-verified later on.

So I do not know if there are independent verifications for those things in question which are of note to you.

But I would judge ANY journalist on their own willingness to be held to scrutiny, and any one of them who claimed that they had the last word on something, so, "Don't bother reading about it later on," should be regarded with suspicion.
 
Last edited:
Bill Williams said:
I am not sure ANY of the reporters who covered the case, esp. those who were at multiple trial sessions, are what one would call trained forensic journalists, Frank probably especially so. Another thread chronicles Andrea Vogt's shortcomings for first reporting on things as if certainties, but then not correcting herself (or those who continue to quote her) when the mistruths are quoted endlessly.

All this notwithstanding, even trained, long in the tooth trial journalists would be the first to admit that they are only writing the first draft of what they would hope would be cross-checked, triple-checked, and double-verified later on.

So I do not know if there are independent verifications for those things in question which are of note to you.

But I would judge ANY journalist on their own willingness to be held to scrutiny, and any one of them who claimed that they had the last word on something, so, "Don't bother reading about it later on," should be regarded with suspicion.
Click to expand...

The thing about this is that in Frank's initial post on Giobbi's testimony he doesn't even mention this quote, instead he has Giobbi in the director's room with somebody else (not Mignini) and hears Amanda's scream. Three years later we get a quote that seems to contradict that initial report.
 
RoseMontague said:
It is a good question, Bill. I have been thinking about this one. Frankly, I know I have relied on Franks account of what took place in court on many occasions. How accurate is this account is the question? Looking at the transcripts I do have I can see a few examples of where Frank got it right. The request to void the trial is one of those. I relied on Frank's account of that day in court quite often and when I got the transcript, I found his account to be spot on.

Yet the transcript of the fingerprint expert's testimony that I posted on the Rudy thread compared to Frank's account finds a very important point missing. The transcript indicates that Rudy was already a suspect and they pulled his card for comparison. In Frank's account , he makes it seem they just searched a database to find this print. This is a big miss on Frank's part.

Then we get to perhaps Frank's most important quote (my opinion) from the trial testimony
Click to expand...

“I was in a room together with the prosecutor Mignini”. –Giobbi adds– We were watching the interrogation, so to study her reactions”
Click to expand...

Wait a minute, where does this one come from? I'm not familiar with a quote from Giobbi of that nature, and certainly not from three years after that trial testimony, that would have been spring of '12 or so. Was that on Perugiashock later (circa spring '12) and I might have missed it as after the verdict I didn't read it as voraciously?

RoseMontague said:
The importance of this cannot be understated, in my opinion. I don't have this transcript and the response I got when I asked for it was basically that Frank reported it so I don't need it to prove this point on the interrogation taping.

So, Is there an independent verification of this quote somewheres elsers? Or not?
Click to expand...

I'd be dubious of it for the simple reason that Mignini's involvement in (the beginning of at least) Amanda's interrogation was always a point of contention as I recall. It wasn't until he said so in the CNN interview, that he'd been in the building or whatever it was and was called into it, that it was actually confirmed as far as I know.

RoseMontague said:
The thing about this is that in Frank's initial post on Giobbi's testimony he doesn't even mention this quote, instead he has Giobbi in the director's room with somebody else (not Mignini) and hears Amanda's scream. Three years later we get a quote that seems to contradict that initial report.
Click to expand...

I'd have to go with what he reported at the time, and wasn't even aware of the latter quote. I wasn't even aware that was an issue, though perhaps after that CNN interview someone conflated it all together. Actually, that's tingling another memory, what exactly did Mignini say about that in the CNN interview? Was it that he was somewhere with someone--maybe Giobbi?
 
RandyN said:
As for Frank...he was a reporter of the daily trial events. I think he got most of those things correct even while he completely missed the bigger picture.

For example Frank considered Mignini and Stefanoni to be outside the corruption almost to the very end of the appeal trial. Frank had a particular one minded hatred of the police and blamed the wrongful conviction almost entirely on them. Only very late in the case was he finally convinced that it was impossible for Mignini to not be the leader and impossible for Stefanoni to not be implicated up to the top of her lying teeth.

And for Bill...

I don't think Franks troubles have anything to do with AK and RS persecution by Mignini. Franks troubles OTOH may not include Mignini at all. That issue seems to be clearly in Franks hands alone. Also there is Franks trust of Mignini long after the evidence showed Mignini to be the puppet master. Reporter? Maybe. Criminologist? No...House guest? I don't think so......
Click to expand...

I do not think it impossible that both Stefanoni and Mignini were following his blog, in fact I recall something he posted about Stefanoni that seemed to suggest that he'd communicated with her, around the time of the appeal that is. There's also the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' concept, and even if he just thought it possible she was reading, and my inference was incorrect, it may not be untoward (and quite likely wise!) to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she was just doing her job, albeit in Italy where the courtroom standards are apparently quite different.

As for Mignini, I think he lays out in 'The Master of Suspicion' just what kind of guy Mignini is, and if he is a trifle circumspect it may be that's the best way to play it in Perugia, Italy. If you've noticed there's an undercurrent of 'Brutus (Mignini) is an honorable man' in that piece, and if you've read "Julius Caesar" you might recall that Marc Antony is being a trifle sardonic when he keeps repeating that... ;)
 
Kaosium said:
Wait a minute, where does this one come from? I'm not familiar with a quote from Giobbi of that nature, and certainly not from three years after that trial testimony, that would have been spring of '12 or so. Was that on Perugiashock later (circa spring '12) and I might have missed it as after the verdict I didn't read it as voraciously?



I'd be dubious of it for the simple reason that Mignini's involvement in (the beginning of at least) Amanda's interrogation was always a point of contention as I recall. It wasn't until he said so in the CNN interview, that he'd been in the building or whatever it was and was called into it, that it was actually confirmed as far as I know.



I'd have to go with what he reported at the time, and wasn't even aware of the latter quote. I wasn't even aware that was an issue, though perhaps after that CNN interview someone conflated it all together. Actually, that's tingling another memory, what exactly did Mignini say about that in the CNN interview? Was it that he was somewhere with someone--maybe Giobbi?
Click to expand...

I cant believe you missed that one.

http://perugiashock.com/2012/01/31/part-2-amanda-raffaele-in/

Please note in the comments I asked about this last year. It still does not make sense to me. From the CNN interview

11’06’’ Mignini: No, look, absolutely not. I can state this in the most positive way, and then, let’s say… I wasn’t there when she was being questioned by police, the rooms are quite far away… you don’t know but I was… it’s quite far, there’s a corridor, and I was with the director, Dr. Porfazio, and she was being questioned in a different place. I also remember that passing through, I also saw Sollecito who was alone in a different room; he was also being questioned, as I recall. I don’t exclude…well…it’s clear that I wasn’t there, but I don’t believe that anything whatsoever happened, and in my presence absolutely not.
Click to expand...

Glad you brought that up because I believe Giobbi said he was with Porfazio as well, no mention of Mignini. Perhaps they can be in two different places at the same time. Here is Franks initial report (web archive).

http://web.archive.org/web/20100806235915/http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.html
 
One more quote from the CNN interview>
Mignini: Oh, the police interrogated her. I was told about it. I wanted to explain this. I remember that I had gone to sleep and the director of the flying squad, Dr. Profazio, called me, because he tells me: “There are developments; Raffaele in fact has denied what he had said before”. So I went down and the head of the flying squad told me what had happened. At some point they tell us that Amanda has made this statement.
Click to expand...
 
RoseMontague said:
I cant believe you missed that one.

http://perugiashock.com/2012/01/31/part-2-amanda-raffaele-in/

Please note in the comments I asked about this last year. It still does not make sense to me. From the CNN interview



Glad you brought that up because I believe Giobbi said he was with Porfazio as well, no mention of Mignini. Perhaps they can be in two different places at the same time. Here is Franks initial report (web archive).

http://web.archive.org/web/20100806235915/http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009_05_01_archive.html
Click to expand...
According to Follain (source, probably Mignini himself) Mignini went to bed at 10.30 p.m. on 01 Nov and was woken by a telephone call half an hour later asking him to come into the questura which he did 'immediately'. Suppose he did that and that he was there from shortly after 11.00 p.m. (I haven't checked out where Mignini lives yet, but I am assuming it's not a four hour drive).

Why would they need him? Just to sit around in a room with Profazio a long way from the action playing no part? The 1.45 and 5.45 'confessions' show he played at least some part in the proceedings, tidying up the first confession and producing a more 'usable' one.

Find Giobbi's testimony by all means. I would love to read it, but if the goal is to find what role Mignini played there is already ample evidence of his presence and influence, both direct and indirect.
 
BTW, Frank appears to indicate he reported this initially in his reply to my question last year but I don't see it in his May report of Giobbi's testimony.

rosemontague says:
January 31, 2012 at 11:56 pm

Frank, are these quotes from Giobbi from the trial? Why has it taken so long for this to come out?
Log in to Reply
perugiashock says:
February 1, 2012 at 2:06 am

Exactly. I reported it after his testimony! He said these huge things, so revealing, but everyone else only wrote only about “la mossa” that he told… So…
Click to expand...
 
RoseMontague said:
One more quote from the CNN interview>
Mignini: Oh, the police interrogated her. I was told about it. I wanted to explain this. I remember that I had gone to sleep and the director of the flying squad, Dr. Profazio, called me, because he tells me: “There are developments; Raffaele in fact has denied what he had said before”. So I went down and the head of the flying squad told me what had happened. At some point they tell us that Amanda has made this statement.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Seems to agree with Follain's account.
 
anglolawyer said:
According to Follain (source, probably Mignini himself) Mignini went to bed at 10.30 p.m. on 01 Nov and was woken by a telephone call half an hour later asking him to come into the questura which he did 'immediately'. Suppose he did that and that he was there from shortly after 11.00 p.m. (I haven't checked out where Mignini lives yet, but I am assuming it's not a four hour drive).

Why would they need him? Just to sit around in a room with Profazio a long way from the action playing no part? The 1.45 and 5.45 'confessions' show he played at least some part in the proceedings, tidying up the first confession and producing a more 'usable' one.

Find Giobbi's testimony by all means. I would love to read it, but if the goal is to find what role Mignini played there is already ample evidence of his presence and influence, both direct and indirect.
Click to expand...

I think the goal (Frank's at least) is to show the interview was taped. That is the importance of that "quote".
 
RoseMontague said:
I think the goal (Frank's at least) is to show the interview was taped. That is the importance of that "quote".
Click to expand...

Well in that case the quote doesn't settle it:

“I was in a room together with the prosecutor Mignini”. –Giobbi adds– We were watching the interrogation, so to study her reactions”."
Click to expand...
The room could have been an observation room adjacent to the interrogation room from which she could be observed. It doesn't have to be the case that some kind of live feed was being played through.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom