It has been stated numerous times that those who believe that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent are in fact conspiracy theorists. Those that have said that elsewhere complain that they are treated rudely when they make that claim, so I have created a place where that shouldn't happen. However, if you make that claim it would be nice if you could produce a cogent argument and supply some evidence, and I hope you don't mind being called one back, because that's what I believe is in fact the case. I think you've fallen for one if you believe that. The 'conspiracy theory' involved in this case is in fact the
Massei Report, and it's main impetus, prosecutor
Giuliano Mignini is a dyed in the wool
conpiracy theorist.
In fact, I think the idea that those who believe Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent are 'conspiracy theorists' is downright preposterous, which might explain why some are treated rudely when they bring it up elsewhere. It's not only silly and pejorative, in fact the opposite is true, and someone who knows better can jump to the conclusion that whoever says it is doing so simply to repeat a meme that's gotten far too much traction in the vast multitudes of JREF outside the Amanda Knox thread. You see, outside a website and a messageboard elsewhere, basically the only place you'll find that idea proposed is JREF oddly enough. The reasons for that are very curious, and in fact kinda funny if you have a twisted sense of humor like I do. I think you've been
played. 
Some have accused those who have followed that debate of not venturing outside that thread and into the rest of JREF, and that's probably true. However it's also true that it appears some here have not ventured much into the rest of the media regarding the Amanda Knox story and just don't realize how many outlets consider the innocence of Amanda Knox a rational proposition. Not all of them are
convinced of it, but they'd look at you awfully funny if you suggested that to believe so you must be a conspiracy theorist. If that were true, you'd have to include the most of the media of the United States, the British Guardian and Independent, and one of the most popular magazines in Italy, Oggi.
That's just a small sampling, in fact it's getting hard to find media outlets convinced of her guilt, indeed one of the fiercest proponents of her guilt, the tabloid that conducted perhaps the most disgusting smear campaign ever seen, the UK's
Daily Mail, published a piece by one of its
reporters who covered the trial and changed his mind, despite being one of the ones throwing trash at her for two years. It's not just media, two retired FBI agents, a forensics engineer, college professors, scientists, Pulitzer prize-winning columnists, top defense attorneys, one of the defense attorneys is an Italian member of their Parliament, another Parliamentarian from the top opposing party wrote a book and said he was convinced of her innocence after meeting Amanda Knox frequently in jail. Hell, even Donald Trump weighed in, wanting to encourage people to boycott Italy until she was released until talked out of it, including by Amanda herself saying it was a bad idea.
Thus what I have to ask is, where did you
ever get the idea that Amanda Knox being innocent was the realm of conspiracy theorists? Was it hearsay, or something a friend at JREF believes, or was it because you've stared so long into the abyss, the abyss now stares into you? In other words you've been beating down conspiracy theorists and woo-peddlers for years and now anything out of the ordinary must be the result of conspiratorial thinking? Is all institutional corruption inherently 'conspiracy theory' now to you? I ask because that's what happened here, that and other factors combined to cause Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to be found guilty in the first trial, but they aren't going to stay in prison very much longer as they get a new trial as their appeal and the conditions of the first one that unfairly convicted them can't be repeated. That's because there isn't actually any evidence against them that passes the smell check, which is of course what you'd find if they were innocent and the police went beyond their bounds to try and find some to convict them with.
Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Patrick Lumumba were all arrested after police interrogated Amanda and Raffaele all night and convinced her under intense interrogation by twelve police that she had 'repressed memories' of the murder of Meredith Kercher by Patrick Lumumba who they suspected because of a number of misunderstandings, confirmation bias and coincidence. They hadn't even gotten the forensics back from the crime scene when they arrested them, and when they did they found traces of only one man, Rudy Guede, who'd fled to Germany. Rudy left evidence in the form of shoeprints, DNA on the clothes, purse, toilet and inside the body of Meredith Kercher.
Nothing was found of either Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito until they realized that something they'd attributed to Raffaele was in fact Rudy's and they went back to the crime scene and 'found' his DNA on the bra clasp, very curious being as it had been filmed 46 days earlier when they initially swept down the site in one location, yet 'found' it in a different location and passed it around and put it back on the floor when 'collecting' it, a very strange way of handling DNA
'evidence.' A knife in Raffaele's drawer was found with Amanda's DNA on the handle from cooking, and a tiny amount of non-blood DNA of Meredith Kercher on the middle of the blade, but the odds of that actually being because of murder are so extreme it takes a conspiracy theory to pretend it could ever happen.
That's all the case against the two actually is: a series of events taken out of context and strung together by the most tenuous string of logic it comes off as absurd. Massei, the judge at the trial and the one who had to write the Motivations report linked above, has a favorite phrase he uses repeatedly: 'It is possible, indeed probable.' Then he goes on to say something silly which may be possible but by no means is probable in a rational universe. The idea that the three of them could ever have conspired to murder Meredith Kercher at all is ridiculous. There's no
evidence of it, just a theory. A conspiracy of three people who barely knew each other to rape and murder a girl for no reason at all or very strange ones. A conspiracy without evidence but a theory=conspiracy theory. Guess who decided to prosecute these three after Rudy was substituted for Patrick Lumumba? PM Mignini, who with no evidence to support it decided upon a theory where the three of them got together to murder Amanda's roommate, then stage a break-in, when the more rational proposition is that Rudy Guede broke in and raped and murdered Meredith and police just jumped to to the wrong conclusion from coincidence and error on their part along with a misunderstood text to arrest Amanda and Raffaele, who'd been the ones to discover the crime and called police.
On the other hand there
is hard evidence of police misconduct, starting with the interrogation, and provable perjuries on the stand, not of
minor things but very important things, like whether bloody footprints tested negative for blood, and how the interrogation was conducted. There's also the fact the police seized four computers and one by one erased exculpatory data from them saying it was just a mistake. That 'mistake' wiped their electronic alibi away for the first trial, though the defense says it has recovered the data for the appeal.
Thus my contention is the prosecution theory is a conspiracy theory given the way it is constructed and who formulated it, while the idea that Amanda Knox being innocent belongs in the realm of conspiracy theorists an idea advanced only by a couple websites and has taken hold at JREF for bizarre reasons which should be dispelled. I've evidence and good arguments to back up my claims and would like to have a friendly discussion with some who honestly believe that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito being innocent is a conspiracy theory. I think I understand how some might have gotten that impression, and perhaps a lower key environment such as this under the parameters set will be conducive to that occurring.
While obviously I cannot abridge the MA, I did set the tags to allow humor and banter, as if I can't make a joke sometimes I'm just not going to post. I am hoping that some good humored friendliness will keep this from deteriorating, as discussing this topic shouldn't devolve into open melee as has happened elsewhere. I believe that in fact the prosecution case is in fact a conspiracy theory, mainly developed by a man who has a history of advancing and believing in them, and the report issued contains the same tenuous logic of conspiracy theories. If you believe differently feel free to contest my claim, but be advised I have actual evidence and you'll find that 'evidence' of the opposite is in fact nebulous, which is generally what happens to conspiracy theories when exposed to scrutiny.
