I do not believe they were framed. I certainly don't believe they were framed from day one. I think that the police thought she behaved oddly and didn't convince them about the alibi. They watched her and thought the connection with Patrick and his phone texts were suspicious.
I think that the ILE went to work to prove their guilt and found evidence where it didn't exist.
One must understand the incompetence of these people and their strange way of thinking. They really believe if spaghetti sticks to the wall it means something no matter how many pieces were thrown. They believe that enough compatibles and you have a match.
Rather than worry about the probables in the Massei report, people should be more concerned about the compatibles. Well over 40, doing a quick count.
The biggest evidence for many is the "accusation" of Patrick which seems clearly to have been a result of badgering by the police.
Ok, that's an answer, and it has a ring of truth to it. I am open to buying this scenario, but I have concerns.
Here's my problem: they concluded immediately that the break-in was staged,
on day one, before Mignini arrived. That was their story at least, looking back on it. Doesn't mean its true so far as I know, could be a 'back-dated' claim, but that's what they claim - that they immediately suspected a 'staged break-in'.
Look at the claims they made to support that allegation of a staged break-in. As I explained in my first post on page 114 in this thread, their reasons (or lies, imo) are what I would call, "directional", that is 180 degrees from what is actually true, and specifically pointing away from the truth. That to me suggests an intent to deceive.
'The window was a poor choice' - it was exactly the MO Guede had used in the lawyer's office in Perugia.
'Covering the victim with the duvet is a feminine act' - Guede was male, and it is well recognized among law enforcement pros as an act common to novice murders, almost always male.
'The glass was on top of the clothing' - it wasn't, according to Nina Burleigh's account of the trial just before the verdict when the photo was finally shown in court, and also see Hendry.
'The glass was broken from the inside out' - a fact susceptible to testing which the prosecution and judge refused to allow. Plus, there was a pitted mark inside the shutter where the rock landed, etc, etc, see Hendry on InjInPerug.
'There were multiple attackers' - there was only immediately visible evidence of one person (footprints of Guede), in the murder room.
One of the biggest concerns I have is TOD, with respect to the police
assertion that it occurred so much later in the night. Guede went out dancing to give himself a fake alibi. Why are the police so committed to a later TOD, at that early point, if not to cover for Guede's fake alibi. What reason do they have then for supporting any TOD, other than perhaps to undermine AK and Raf's alibis (so maybe that's it?). I mentioned an article that a commeter had mentioned on Nov 4 or 5 in a brit tabloid describing police belief in a the much later TOD than we now know.
Do the police already know on Nov 4 or 5, that Guede is responsible, and they are actively covering for his false alibi? (I'm starting to feel shaky on this example. Undermining AK and RS alibi may explain it).
Guede was released from Milan police after having been caught in a break-in to a nursery (in possession of the stolen computer and cell phone from the Perugian law office theft),
after a phone call with the Perugian police. Why was Guede released by Milan police and put on a train back to Perugia, if not as a favor to the Perugian authorities? Why didn't the Perugian police prosecute him for the burglaries in Perugia?
Were the Perugian Police protecting Guede from prosecution? If so, why?
If the Perugian police were protecting Guede from arrest, for whatever reason, are they not responsible as a practical matter, for his crime against Ms Kercher? And, isn't that a motive to create a theory of conspiracy, intentionally and necessarily involving one or more innocent people, so as at a minimum, to lessen Guede's responsibility, hence their own in Kercher's murder?
Lastly, the interrogation program by the police. It's textbook to plan it out over a 5 day period, allowing minimal sleep - not no sleep
because that can kill a person. (See the book, the Forgotten Suspect, by Steve Moore and John Douglas, among others, where the CIA text book process for breaking witnesses is discussed. The program of sleep deprivation and constant questioning was in place from day one, not just the last day. It was planned, deliberately, in advance from day one - or at least it looks like it, as it was factually in place.
All the judicial opinions are consistent with each other, only in their support for the position that Guede did not act alone, and that the police are not responsible for the outcome of the illegal interrogations - i.e., that Knox is responsible for lying.
Confirmation bias doesn't explain a refusal to test evidence that would be exculpatory. It doesn't explain Stefanoni concealing DNA data, nor committing perjury on the witness stand.
Confirmation bias in unconscious. These acts were preconceived, premeditated, and designed to convict.
Could they have believed it was ok to play 'dirty pool', because the defendants were guilty (via confirmation bias), so as long as they were convicted, anything they do is ok?
I don't believe these people are competent or super smart. But it is very difficult to believe they are as crazy as they sound. They may be just that nuts. But this conspiracy theory sweeping in Amanda and Raf, solved a lot of problems for Mignini. He had done the same thing with 21 defendants in the MOF case, a case dismissed by the way, by Judge Micheli - rejecting Mignini's satanic conspiracy angle in both that case and this one.
Similarly, in the case of the MOF, the book by Spezi and Preston is quite clear that those convicted of the MOF crimes, almost certainly could not have been guilty. And the prosecutors achieving these false convictions, received promotions. Placing any bodies in jail, guilty or innocent, for high profile crimes in Italy, seems to be a proven method of career advancement. And by completely discrediting Mignini, by releasing Amanda and Raf, could throw unwanted attention in the very questionable MOF convictions.
So, I don't know, I'm asking. You say 'no framing job, just confirmation bias run amok'. I can't square it with the particularity of their reasons, so consistent with intentional deflection of responsibility away from themselves - the very actions they accused AK and RS in performing the 'staged break-in'. I think you can sometimes hear the truth in the lies, if you listen closely. But I suppose its possible I may be hearing something that isn't really there.
Did the Perugian police get Guede released from Milan? If yes, Why? If no, then why did Milan let Guede go, when he was caught dead to rights in a burglary - with a large stolen knife? Guede had the stolen goods with him in Milan from the Perugian theft when they called the Perugian police, why wasn't Guede prosecuted in Perugia? That's a good place to start.
Good one, cody.
