The Massei/Mignini Conspiracy Theory

[CoulsdonUK]

Is this like when Migi presents some Masonic ritualistic murder as fact? < snip >

Okay and what Italian law did he break when he allegedly stated the above?

 

[RoseMontague]

Okay and what Italian law did he break when he allegedly stated the above?

Abuse of office.

John Kercher in one of his articles even talks about Migi's claims along these lines.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Abuse of office.

John Kercher in one of his articles even talks about Migi's claims along these lines.

According to the link below posted on PMF.org Mignini he has been promoted.

http://www.umbrialeft.it/notizie/perugia-magistrato-giuliano-mignini-passa-alla-procura-generaleperugia

 

[Bill Williams]

According to the link below posted on PMF.org Mignini he has been promoted.

http://www.umbrialeft.it/notizie/perugia-magistrato-giuliano-mignini-passa-alla-procura-generaleperugia

It's true. What bearing on the case do you think this has, CoulsdonUK?

 

[RoseMontague]

According to the link below posted on PMF.org Mignini he has been promoted.

http://www.umbrialeft.it/notizie/perugia-magistrato-giuliano-mignini-passa-alla-procura-generaleperugia

Less likely to cause problems and further embarrassment, hopefully. I wonder if this is a way to ensure he doesn't open that big mouth of his again on this case.

 

[platonov]

New thread title

So it now appears the Supreme Court is in on the conspiracy – man how big is this going to get?

It was previously pointed out that the thread title was too restrictive in its scope.
Perhaps it should be changed

 

[Bill Williams]

So it now appears the Supreme Court is in on the conspiracy – man how big is this going to get?

It was previously pointed out that the thread title was too restrictive in its scope.
Perhaps it should be changed

Not really. The SC did not express an opinion about the facts, in fact sent it back for more fact-finding. The SC had the right to simply reverse Hellmann's verdict and convict right there.... and they did not do that. They sent it back for what is essentially a better review - and legal in Italian terms - of the facts found at trial and perhaps more.

It would be the height of skepticism to suggest anything conspiratorial about what the SC did. It's tragic - it extends the suffering of two innocents; and in my opinion it delays the Kerchers actually getting the answer they are seeking about what happened to their kin.

But this is now the course it's on.

 

[Kaosium]

So it now appears the Supreme Court is in on the conspiracy – man how big is this going to get?

It was previously pointed out that the thread title was too restrictive in its scope.
Perhaps it should be changed

Hi Plantonov!

( I just found out about this BTW, I've hardly even been logging on lately)

No, conspiracies are usually interesting, corruption and incompetence is just banal, looks to me like that's what we have here.

Poor Amanda, poor Raffaele, poor Kerchers--all of them to have to go through more of this.

 

[platonov]

Conspiracy widens further

But wait it gets worse.
I now see that Franks S the fearless reporter has been in the wars – it seems that his family and the cops in Canada, Seattle and Hawaii are all part of the conspiracy.

This is huge – perhaps I was remiss earlier to scoff at the time travel and mind control theories invoked by Dan O, Katody Matrass etc. The only outfits with this kind of power are the giant lizards or aliens – would this explain the breadth and reach of the conspiracy.

The Q then is why these aliens (assuming it is them) would have it in for St Amanda.

Perhaps she really is so beautiful and full of goodness (this would also explain the fanatical groupies) that she is a threat to their plans for complete domination - as she would be a Joan of Arc figure who might rally the ‘freedom lovers’ in a last ditch battle for the planet.

Have I cracked it – man, this CT stuff is exciting.



Disclaimer - Of course there may be a more mundane explanation.

 

[Kaosium]

But wait it gets worse.
I now see that Franks S the fearless reporter has been in the wars – it seems that his family and the cops in Canada, Seattle and Hawaii are all part of the conspiracy.

LOL! Do you remember (what was probably) the first thing I said regarding Frank? It was something akin to (the Pink Floyd reference from the Comfortably Numb scene in "The Wall" i.e. 'He's an artist.'

Looks like having him for a houseguest is not unlike inviting over Ernest Hemmingway, or perhaps one of your favorites (I recall the bassoons!) Samuel Coleridge Taylor--or his companions.

This is huge – perhaps I was remiss earlier to scoff at the time travel and mind control theories invoked by Dan O, Katody Matrass etc. The only outfits with this kind of power are the giant lizards or aliens – would this explain the breadth and reach of the conspiracy.

The Q then is why these aliens (assuming it is them) would have it in for St Amanda.

Perhaps she really is so beautiful and full of goodness (this would also explain the fanatical groupies) that she is a threat to their plans for complete domination - as she would be a Joan of Arc figure who might rally the ‘freedom lovers’ in a last ditch battle for the planet.

Have I cracked it – man, this CT stuff is exciting.

I suspect it has more to do with important, powerful people not liking being 'dissed' and Hellmann's motivation must have been rather embarrassing for those who believe inherently in the integrity of the Italian judicial system (and police force) to read. Personally I think they had it coming, but it doesn't really surprise me that they decided to back PM Mignini.


It has nothing to do with any of the facts of the case, the Corte Suprema di Cassazione only rules on legal technicalities, and I've not seen just what they objected to, but having read about the Galati appeal my guess would be one of their main objections was to the appointment of the experts to determine the validity of the DNA results. For those unfamiliar with DNA evidence that was quite helpful in determining which of the experts were actually trying to 'make water run uphill'--which in this instance was Stefanoni and company. If you read the Conti-Vecchiotti report in addition to Massei you probably noticed (essentially) everything those appointed experts said was already stated by Gino and Tagliabracci in the Massei court, outside the 'retests' which came to nothing as Stefanoni had allowed the material on the clasp to degrade and there was never anything to re-test on the knife.

Considering that they may have decided that the experts view was extraneous and shouldn't have been allowed, but I imagine we'll find out what the objections were when their report is released.

Disclaimer - Of course there may be a more mundane explanation.

I wonder what Mignini's 'explanation' (for the annulled acquittal) is? I betcha it's less mundane than you might think!

 

[CoolSceptic]

I have to say that the Knox / Kercher thread on JREF is one of the worst threads on JREF; very little critical thinking on display, and a considerable amount of emotive / knee jerk / trolling responses (on both sides, I might add).

I don't think the "CTer" or "guilter" tags are helpful - they are just part of the sniping that goes on between one another. I assume the "CTer" tag is supposed to be a reference to those who, when things don't go their way, immediately blame the Italian police / justice system / etc., although suddenly about turn and praise the same system when something does go their way.

I see something along those lines just at the minute. Someone is complaining that a third party attorney can influence proceedings - shock! horror! the Italian justice system is at fault (as usual). This would never happen in <insert country of choice>.

As it happens, I'm following a separate / unrelated case (not one being discussed at JREF) where a third party has requested to be involved in a case and the judge has agreed to it. This case is happening... in the US. Hmm, not so different after all, and actually there is good reason to allow it. But the angry / emotive people on the thread can't see past the fact that in this particular case it might have influenced things in their favour, so obviously the whole Italian justice system is at fault (blah blah blah).

Of course, it is entirely possible that they are also being critical of the US system (and just about every other legal system in the world...) but it sure doesn't read that way.

Another wonderful comment recently was an explanation of why one eyewitness account was unreliable - the witness was homeless, therefore mentally ill, therefore unreliable. I kid you not.

But the CTer comments are unhelpful because they don't advance the debate. I agree that incompetence and error are better explanations - but not so much for the Italian police and legal system, but more incompetence and error on the part of contributors to that thread.

 

[JREF2010]

I prefer Edgardo Giobbi stays in the picture of this case for a few reasons, mainly he was very instrumental in "the Big Embarrassment".

Giobbi plays a much bigger role than people often give him credit, I think.
Because he represents the Rome connection. Add Stefonani / Rome Lab, and the small Perugia embarrassment is now "the Big Embarrassment".

Saving Face now includesPerugia & Rome!
The low level minions like Napoleoni having Hardrives ruined, HIV tests leaked, Diaries taken, DNA data lied about in court, Franks site taken down, charges filed, C&V threatened in court of charges, Maresca supporting Rudy and preventing the real Rapist/Murderer from causing more embarrassment, the interrogation recordings disappear, the interrogators promoted, the heroin dealer testimonys are called in for help....huge money spent on cartoon fictional movies...the big embarrassment is like a cancer.

Its not about finding Merediths truth , its about Saving Face.
Edgardo Giobbi is a high level Serious Squad from Rome, not Perugia.
He is from ROME SERIOUS SQUAD, from ROME. Stefonani from ROME LAB.

What would it mean if all these powerful people were wrong?
What would that say about the system?
It would be a big embarrassment in front of the global media.
There is much at stake.

Like the PGP say all the time, you have to look at the big picture, not just the individual pieces of Starch DNA evidence.

 

[Kaosium]

I have to say that the Knox / Kercher thread on JREF is one of the worst threads on JREF; very little critical thinking on display, and a considerable amount of emotive / knee jerk / trolling responses (on both sides, I might add).

I don't think the "CTer" or "guilter" tags are helpful - they are just part of the sniping that goes on between one another. I assume the "CTer" tag is supposed to be a reference to those who, when things don't go their way, immediately blame the Italian police / justice system / etc., although suddenly about turn and praise the same system when something does go their way.

Not quite, more along the lines of when this case first started to be discussed (on JREF) she'd been found guilty by the Massei court and those who thought that court was in error (and the Perugian police corrupt and/or incompetent) must be 'conspiracy theorists' for thinking so.

The oddity is that it was the prosecutor who's the actual conspiracy theorist, going on about Satanic rituals, Masonic sects, the 'conspiracy' to kill Kennedy etc, and constructed his case much in the same way conspiracy theorists make their claims with 'facts' that didn't stand examination and/or didn't lead to the conclusions he claimed.

I see something along those lines just at the minute. Someone is complaining that a third party attorney can influence proceedings - shock! horror! the Italian justice system is at fault (as usual). This would never happen in <insert country of choice>.

The Italian Court System allows for a 'victims lawyer' to be in court and participate in much of the proceedings, it's his job to get a longer sentence/more recompense for the victims. In this case that role was filled by a man named Maresca who demonstrated just why that can be a bad idea.

As it happens, I'm following a separate / unrelated case (not one being discussed at JREF) where a third party has requested to be involved in a case and the judge has agreed to it. This case is happening... in the US. Hmm, not so different after all, and actually there is good reason to allow it. But the angry / emotive people on the thread can't see past the fact that in this particular case it might have influenced things in their favour, so obviously the whole Italian justice system is at fault (blah blah blah).

The Italian Court System has an unenviable record of rights violations from the ECHR, so much so they are probably relieved Turkey and Russia are now subject to the ECHR as they don't stand out as much! It may have something to do with a structural flaw in the inquisitorial system as if you follow those links you'll note those systems dominate the worst violators, in part I suspect that is because they allow the prosecution too much latitude under the (formerly ecclesiastic) assumption that the prosecutors are 'incorruptible men' ('men of God' in days past) and thus are not subject to as much oversight. When one goes off the reservation like Mignini did there's little recourse...

Of course, it is entirely possible that they are also being critical of the US system (and just about every other legal system in the world...) but it sure doesn't read that way.

I am unconvinced whether the US has a better system or not, and am uninterested in that discussion. However there are very good reasons to think that Italy's legal system especially is more representative of countries such as those in Eastern Europe which appear more prone to corruption and rights violations than those in Western Europe.

Another wonderful comment recently was an explanation of why one eyewitness account was unreliable - the witness was homeless, therefore mentally ill, therefore unreliable. I kid you not.

Heh, I think you missed some of that story. Not only was Curatolo ('Toto') a homeless heroin addict and dealer, he was also under investigation for for dealing heroin during the time he testified in three murder trials, and he insisted he saw Raffaele and Amanda on Halloween, 'supported' by the presence of the 'disco buses' he saw on the street the night he claimed he saw them.

Meredith was killed November first. Nothing Curatolo said is relevant, though he was used as a primary witness in the first trial. It was not until the appeal trial that it was made perfectly clear that he was talking about Halloween and not November first, the night of the murder. He was called back in and laughed out of court.

But the CTer comments are unhelpful because they don't advance the debate. I agree that incompetence and error are better explanations - but not so much for the Italian police and legal system, but more incompetence and error on the part of contributors to that thread.

You're welcome to believe whatever you want to believe.

 

[anglolawyer]

snip
Heh, I think you missed some of that story. Not only was Curatolo ('Toto') a homeless heroin addict and dealer, he was also under investigation for for dealing heroin during the time he testified in three murder trials, and he insisted he saw Raffaele and Amanda on Halloween, 'supported' by the presence of the 'disco buses' he saw on the street the night he claimed he saw them.

Meredith was killed November first. Nothing Curatolo said is relevant, though he was used as a primary witness in the first trial. It was not until the appeal trial that it was made perfectly clear that he was talking about Halloween and not November first, the night of the murder. He was called back in and laughed out of court.

Despite which, the prosecution describes him as a witness of 'extraordinary accuracy' (no kidding) in which case, were he not now dead, be could be called as a witness for the defence when its seconds out for round four.

 

[CoolSceptic]

Not quite, more along the lines of when this case first started to be discussed (on JREF) she'd been found guilty by the Massei court and those who thought that court was in error (and the Perugian police corrupt and/or incompetent) must be 'conspiracy theorists' for thinking so.

You seem to have misunderstood my point.

A good thinker will reject flawed reasoning, but you seem to struggle with this. I gave a clear example; someone who used a logical fallacy to dismiss evidence (person is homeless; therefore mentally ill, therefore unreliable). Rather than doing the good critical thinking thing - acknowledge that such a line of argumentation is flawed - you ignore the (actually quite bigotted and offensive) line of argument and merely reassert the conclusion.

Threads in which good critical thinking is on display, it is useful to be able to work through points of common agreement / disagreement to narrow down areas of disagreement; but it isn't really possible when the style of debate is as above.

This is certainly common on emotive subjects / threads - the inability to call out people drawing the same conclusions as you are even when their claims are beyond the pale. It results in a very tribal thread. Hence my conclusion that the CTer comments are unsurprising but unhelpful; it just reinforces the tribal nature of the thread.

I can see the tribal response in every single part of your reply to me. I gave clear examples of where thoughtless arguments had been given (of which "CTer" is absolutely one). But rather than acknowledge these thoughtless arguments exist - which is highly relevant to this thread - you immediately defend the conclusions, which aren't the topic of this thread, pulling the topic of this thread way off course.

In fact I think your entire reply really highlights why the Knox thread is one of the worst examples of critical thinking on JREF.

(Although curiously despite the poor thinking on display in that thread, people have largely remained civil, which is a positive aspect to it - that is quite unusual in these types of discussion)

 

[anglolawyer]

You seem to have misunderstood my point.

A good thinker will reject flawed reasoning, but you seem to struggle with this. I gave a clear example; someone who used a logical fallacy to dismiss evidence (person is homeless; therefore mentally ill, therefore unreliable). Rather than doing the good critical thinking thing - acknowledge that such a line of argumentation is flawed - you ignore the (actually quite bigotted and offensive) line of argument and merely reassert the conclusion.

Threads in which good critical thinking is on display, it is useful to be able to work through points of common agreement / disagreement to narrow down areas of disagreement; but it isn't really possible when the style of debate is as above.

This is certainly common on emotive subjects / threads - the inability to call out people drawing the same conclusions as you are even when their claims are beyond the pale. It results in a very tribal thread. Hence my conclusion that the CTer comments are unsurprising but unhelpful; it just reinforces the tribal nature of the thread.

I can see the tribal response in every single part of your reply to me. I gave clear examples of where thoughtless arguments had been given (of which "CTer" is absolutely one). But rather than acknowledge these thoughtless arguments exist - which is highly relevant to this thread - you immediately defend the conclusions, which aren't the topic of this thread, pulling the topic of this thread way off course.

In fact I think your entire reply really highlights why the Knox thread is one of the worst examples of critical thinking on JREF.

(Although curiously despite the poor thinking on display in that thread, people have largely remained civil, which is a positive aspect to it - that is quite unusual in these types of discussion)

A good thinker will also read other folks' posts properly rather than erect and attack straw men. Kaosium explained quite clearly why Curatolo is considered unreliable. Please re-read.

 

[Kaosium]

You seem to have misunderstood my point.

A good thinker will reject flawed reasoning, but you seem to struggle with this. I gave a clear example; someone who used a logical fallacy to dismiss evidence (person is homeless; therefore mentally ill, therefore unreliable). Rather than doing the good critical thinking thing - acknowledge that such a line of argumentation is flawed - you ignore the (actually quite bigotted and offensive) line of argument and merely reassert the conclusion.

Perhaps you didn't realize when you posted (or it didn't sink in!) that thread is the fourth continuation of a discussion that has been onwards of three years in the making. If you didn't read it, you may have been unaware of the other damn good reasons that Curatolo is a particularly unreliable witness, and that describing him as 'mentally ill' is actually rather charitable, and in my view (and many others) accurate. So while the formulation homeless=mentally ill=unreliable is hardly a way to prove the point, (virtually) no one is going to correct anyone on it because most read enough of the thread and already know the additional information about Curatolo (Toto).

Here's the judges report of his appearance before the appeals court, note the caution the judge took of your observation (and others):

Now, it cannot be absolutely excluded that a person of his type, who has a tendency to cover himself in an idealistic choice of lifestyle (anarchic christian) while taking heroin and above all else selling drugs, and that is so confused that he does not even know whether he is in prison serving a definitive sentence [esecuzione di una condanna definitive] or not, can have nevertheless reported as a witness facts that really were perceived and can have recognized the two current defendants as the youngsters seen that evening in Piazza Grimana. But certainly, when evaluating the credibility or otherwise of the witness we must proceed with particular caution, considering the personal circumstances identified [attese le condizioni personali evidenziate].

Threads in which good critical thinking is on display, it is useful to be able to work through points of common agreement / disagreement to narrow down areas of disagreement; but it isn't really possible when the style of debate is as above.

Tell me about it!

This is certainly common on emotive subjects / threads - the inability to call out people drawing the same conclusions as you are even when their claims are beyond the pale. It results in a very tribal thread. Hence my conclusion that the CTer comments are unsurprising but unhelpful; it just reinforces the tribal nature of the thread.

I don't disagree here, 'tribal' is a good description of how this debate progressed.

I can see the tribal response in every single part of your reply to me. I gave clear examples of where thoughtless arguments had been given (of which "CTer" is absolutely one). But rather than acknowledge these thoughtless arguments exist - which is highly relevant to this thread - you immediately defend the conclusions, which aren't the topic of this thread, pulling the topic of this thread way off course.

I wrote the OP and deliberately made the parameters as broad as possible for reasons that don't concern this discussion but most definitely concern conspiracy theories and theorists, notably Mignini being a conspiracy theorist and constructing his case that way, that's very easy to support. Just google Giuliano Mignini and perhaps you'll see why.

As for why I (nor anyone else) didn't acknowledge that invalid argument, those aware of the facts of the case would know that while the brief post you objected to contained an invalid argument the conclusion itself was easily supportable by plenty of indications, thus they might just feel like a dork 'correcting' them.

In fact I think your entire reply really highlights why the Knox thread is one of the worst examples of critical thinking on JREF.

I disagree, though I admit to some noise being in the threads (at times a cacophony!) those threads represent some of the best critical thinking done at JREF. This was an event in which the likely answers were not easy to divine, where one had to actually examine the evidence for oneself.

(Although curiously despite the poor thinking on display in that thread, people have largely remained civil, which is a positive aspect to it - that is quite unusual in these types of discussion)

Err...take a look in AAH.

Actually on second thought, don't!

The (main) thread became more civil because many were banned, and those who weren't fled to a site dedicated to Amanda Knox's guilt where those who disagree are summarily banned. I've not checked the sites much in the last year so that policy may have changed, but if you're actually interested here's a little experiment you might want to try: go to here and look at what the prosecution claimed was Raffaele's (partial) bloody footprint on the bathmat. This is hardly the most shocking display by the prosecution, but it is the easiest to start with as at least it is what they say it is, that is a bloody partial footprint on a bathmat. One of those reference prints is Raffaele's and the other is Rudy Guede's. Guede is the burglar who was found in Germany (he fled the country) two weeks after they arrested Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick, as they found absolutely nothing of the three they had in custody in the murder room and used evidence to identify him. At that juncture they had Guede's evidence on Meredith's clothes, inside her body and on her purse and wall, with his shoeprints all over the murder room and hall outside, leading to the door. You should also know that Guede went out dancing shortly after the murder before fleeing the country, and definitely got blood on his shoes (from those prints) thus may have needed to wash off his feet before leaving the cottage. Thus there's plenty of corroborating support for it being Rudy Guede's.

On the other hand if this is Raffaele's it would be the only piece of evidence from the initial evidence sweep that could be attributed to Raffaele, they'd originally assigned the shoeprints to Raffaele (both Guede and Raffaele wore Nikes with slightly different patterns) and some forty days afterward when their mistake was revealed they went back out to the crime scene and 'found' the bra clasp which would reveal the partial profiles of four men, one of which may have been Raffaele's, but the 'Technical Consultant' for the prosecution, Patrizia Stefanoni, would try to hide that in court and pretend only Raffaele's was found: (outside Meredith's) as the likelihood of it being contamination as opposed to evidence of Raffaele being involved in the murder becomes dramatically increased if there's that many trace profiles (all of them outside Meredith's are LCN/LT DNA which is contamination-level DNA and generally disallowed as evidence in American and British courts) on the clasp. You can see what a retired FBI agent Steve Moore thought of the evidence (and its collection) here, what another retired FBI agent agent John Douglas who also became interested thought of the case here, what retired forensics engineer Ron Hendry thought here and here. Regarding the bra clasp specifically you can see what the court-appointed Italian independent experts thought of the science of the DNA analysis done by the prosecution here.

However despite all that, it is certainly still possible that is Raffaele's footprint on the bathmat regardless of the lack of corroborating evidence and the collection methods, you can look at the evidence yourself without knowing which is which and see if you can attribute one of them to Raffaele and exclude the other as a possibility. You don't have to rely on anyone else's expert opinion, just like a jury member you can make the determination for yourself. As I recall the prosecution expert was never given the profile of Guede to compare to the print as well, he just testified it was 'compatible' with Raffaele's, meaning in Italian legal parlance it was possible that Raffaele's foot left that stain on the bathmat. I agree it is possible that is Raffaele's footprint, as the nature of the stain being partial and the surface of the bathmat allow for the stain to be distorted somewhat in comparison to the reference prints.

However, just on the basis of the prints themselves which reference print do you think is more likely to have produced that stain, and just how certain are you that you can exclude the other?

That's why it's necessary to examine the evidence in this case. If someone says 'Raffaele's footprint in Meredith's blood was found on the bathmat' that sounds like damning evidence, but if it's just as likely (or more so) to be Guede's (for which there's plenty of other corroborating evidence suggesting so) then that's not quite as convincing, is it?

 

[RoseMontague]

I did some analysis of the bathmat print on my Facebook page recently using reference points that clearly match Rudy and just as clearly do not match Raffaele. Here is one example.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I did some analysis of the bathmat print on my Facebook page recently using reference points that clearly match Rudy and just as clearly do not match Raffaele. Here is one example.

Hope you don’t mind me asking, just for clarification is this an area of professional expertise for you.

 

[RoseMontague]

Hope you don’t mind me asking, just for clarification is this an area of professional expertise for you.

No, it's not. But Dr Vinci is, and he agreed with my analysis and even commented on it.