The Massei/Mignini Conspiracy Theory

Kaosium said:
Then why did they press her to name him?

....

I read that sequence of events quite a bit differently. I also find it absurd that Amanda's 'help' could have changed the mind of law enforcement, especially as she wasn't admitting to the crime. They held Patrick for two weeks despite receiving Amanda's note that says she thought what happened 'unreal, like a dream' at the same time forensics are coming in telling them nothing of the three can be found at the site, and people are coming forward from everywhere to supply Patrick with an alibi. The only thing that pried Patrick out of their cold dead hands was the alibi they couldn't break and Rudy as a substitution.
Click to expand...

This is all very interesting and speculative but it isn't evidence.

I can believe that the 06 AUG 2001 memo (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/80601pdb.html) stating that bin Ladin was determined to strike the US demonstrates that the Bush Administration had foreknowledge of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. After all the memo is there and the attacks did happen. Those are facts.

The same thing goes for the text message and the ensuing arrest of Knox and Lumumba. It was not the text message in and of itself that caused Patrick's arrest. It was Amanda's accusation of murder. You can speculate that the text message caused the police to conspire to frame both Amanda and Patrick all you like but you have no evidence that this is the case.

Do you understand the distinction between worthless speculation and evidence?
 
RoseMontague said:
I hope you saw my post when you made the lizard statement, very well done and I got a real chuckle out of that one. The argument as I saw it centered around the discussion of De Felice's claim that Amanda had made a statement that confirmed a version of events that the cops knew to be true. I believe you were saying then that they must have had some evidence that she was telling the truth. Yet when we look very carefully at both her statements, the only part of her statement that the cops might have had evidence of at that time was Patrick's involvement through knowledge of Amanda's phone records and this would be prior to her naming Patrick in her statements.
Click to expand...

Why do you reject the possibility that the police statement was released for reasons other than those in your own narrow definition? I provided several possible reasons for such a generic and non-specific statement if you go back a couple of pages. I am sure you can come up with plenty more on your own.
 
I can't see how one can reasonably think that the police wiretapped a phone but didn't bother getting the phone records. That doesn't make sense at all.
 
Katody Matrass said:
I can't see how one can reasonably think that the police wiretapped a phone but didn't bother getting the phone records. That doesn't make sense at all.
Click to expand...

LondonJohn thinks it's because they were incompetent. Isn't that pretty much the argument on the unending stomach contents thread?

This one is about the conspiracy to convict Amanda Knox. Can we conclude that there was no conspiracy and shut down both threads at the same time?
 
bobc said:
The conspiracy theory seems to be entirely based on the assumption that because it is obvious that "Amanda is innocent", the only way to explain the evidence against her is that she must have been framed. This is classic CT reasoning of course.
Click to expand...

"Seems to be" is a marvellous construction. You can make the wildest claims you like, as long as you preface them with "seems to be", and nobody can call you a liar.

Do you acknowledge, at least, the mere possibility that someone in the world might reason the other way around? That is to say, they might reason from the fact that the forensic evidence and the computer evidence rule out the possibility that Amanda and Raffaele could have been there when Meredith died, to the conclusion that any "evidence" that seems to show they did it must have some other explanation?

If I may borrow your construction, it seems to me that pro-guilt speakers run a mile from the best version of the pro-innocence case because they have absolutely no answer to it, and they have absolutely no answer to it because it's based on hard, scientific facts. (There is of course no "best version" of the pro-guilt case because no pro-guilt speaker has any coherent narrative consistent with the facts as we know them which makes Knox and Sollecito guilty). Instead they have to attack the weakest versions of the pro-innocence case they can find, and pretend that those weakest versions are the real case for innocence.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
"Seems to be" is a marvellous construction. You can make the wildest claims you like, as long as you preface them with "seems to be", and nobody can call you a liar.

Do you acknowledge, at least, the mere possibility that someone in the world might reason the other way around? That is to say, they might reason from the fact that the forensic evidence and the computer evidence rule out the possibility that Amanda and Raffaele could have been there when Meredith died, to the conclusion that any "evidence" that seems to show they did it must have some other explanation?

If I may borrow your construction, it seems to me that pro-guilt speakers run a mile from the best version of the pro-innocence case because they have absolutely no answer to it, and they have absolutely no answer to it because it's based on hard, scientific facts. (There is of course no "best version" of the pro-guilt case because no pro-guilt speaker has any coherent narrative consistent with the facts as we know them which makes Knox and Sollecito guilty). Instead they have to attack the weakest versions of the pro-innocence case they can find, and pretend that those weakest versions are the real case for innocence.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the conspiracy theories forum of the JREF. Do you have any evidence to support the claims of a police conspiracy to frame Amanda Knox?
 
stilicho said:
Why do you reject the possibility that the police statement was released for reasons other than those in your own narrow definition? I provided several possible reasons for such a generic and non-specific statement if you go back a couple of pages. I am sure you can come up with plenty more on your own.
Click to expand...

Not a chance. He was bragging. They had a theory of a black man and evidence that Amanda and her boss exchanged a text message and they stretched the meaning of that message to include Patrick closing his bar up then meeting Amanda and going with her to Meredith's place.

Have you read the Matteini report (I have a Google translation, BTW)? Matteini gives the police theory quite clearly that this is what the message meant. He never intended to "reopen" his bar after he closed it to go meet Amanda. Only after the murder did he rush back, clean up, reopen, and got his first till receipt of the evening at around 10:30PM (which would put the TOD at around 9:30PM at the latest, btw, consistant with Dr. Lali's report as Matteini points out). According to Matteini he opened back up to give himself an alibi, that he was running the bar that night. The fact that he just happened to change SIM cards that very day was done to try to throw the cops off. Matteini's reasoning is amazing.
 
stilicho said:
This is all very interesting and speculative but it isn't evidence.

I can believe that the 06 AUG 2001 memo (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/80601pdb.html) stating that bin Ladin was determined to strike the US demonstrates that the Bush Administration had foreknowledge of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. After all the memo is there and the attacks did happen. Those are facts.

The same thing goes for the text message and the ensuing arrest of Knox and Lumumba. It was not the text message in and of itself that caused Patrick's arrest. It was Amanda's accusation of murder. You can speculate that the text message caused the police to conspire to frame both Amanda and Patrick all you like but you have no evidence that this is the case.

Do you understand the distinction between worthless speculation and evidence?
Click to expand...
Amanda sent a "see you later message" which she knew and we know meant that she would be seeing Patrick sometime, whenever. Why would she ever say that the "see you later" message actually meant she was meeting Patrick later that night? Who made her say that this is what she meant? You know, I know, what she meant. And everyone knows she did not meet Patrick that night. Who made Amanda tell the stupid story about meeting Patrick?
 
el buscador said:
Amanda sent a "see you later message" which she knew and we know meant that she would be seeing Patrick sometime, whenever. Why would she ever say that the "see you later" message actually meant she was meeting Patrick later that night? Who made her say that this is what she meant? You know, I know, what she meant. And everyone knows she did not meet Patrick that night. Who made Amanda tell the stupid story about meeting Patrick?
Click to expand...

Apparently Amanda did and she felt strongly enough about it to repeat it at 05:45 with embellishments not found in the original version. Have you read them? Somebody posted them in their entirety a couple of pages back.

Do you have any evidence that the police conspired to frame Amanda Knox for the murder of Meredith Kercher? We've had several swings and misses.
 
stilicho said:
LondonJohn thinks it's because they were incompetent. Isn't that pretty much the argument on the unending stomach contents thread?

This one is about the conspiracy to convict Amanda Knox. Can we conclude that there was no conspiracy and shut down both threads at the same time?
Click to expand...


Thanks for presuming to tell people what you believe I think on this matter. Unfortunately, you're wrong. What I think is that the police/prosecutors did have the phone records by the time they placed the taps on Knox's and Sollecito's phones (I wonder whether proper authorisation exists for those taps, BTW - Mignini has "previous" in this area...).

I think they therefore knew that Knox had exchanged text messages with Lumumba on the evening of the murder, and also that she'd not had any other significant unexplained telephone activity on the 1st or 2nd November (or "01 NOV 2007 and 02 NOV 2007" if you prefer). I think they therefore made a tentative connection between this telephone activity and the murder - a connection which immediately crystallised into a deep suspicion when they read (and misinterpreted) the actual contents of Knox's text message to Lumumba.

And, for the last time, this proposition does not imply a conspiracy by the Perugia police and prosecutors - it implies that the police leapt upon the misinterpretation of the Knox-Lumumba text message to rush to judgement and to confirm their prior suspicions. The "version of events that they knew to be correct", and all that......
 
stilicho said:
Evidence?
Click to expand...

From the Massei report:

The inspection of the corpse was postponed, and was finally performed at around 0:30 am on November 3, 2007. At this point, it was possible to uncover the body completely and note that it was indeed "a female subject aged around 21, height 164cm, weight around 50 kilos; naked except for a shirt that she was wearing but that was pulled up over her breasts and was heavily soaked with blood". Also, her hands were bloodstained and were protected with plastic bags in order to allow sample collection, as some hairlike fibres could be seen.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The early reports were that it appeared to be the hair of a black man.
 
RoseMontague said:
From the Massei report:

....

The early reports were that it appeared to be the hair of a black man.
Click to expand...

So the police did not have any theory about a black man being responsible before Amanda Knox accused Patrick. Apology accepted.
 
The extent of the testing on this hair was that it was examined under a microscope and thought to be wool filaments. One of the appeals is asking for further testing. Wool is made from sheep hair if I am not mistaken.
 
Katody Matrass said:
I'm not sure about Amanda's phone, but my phone (a Nokia) keeps track of all incoming and outgoing communication, SMS messages included. It can be reviewed at any moment.
Click to expand...


The handsets themselves keep records of voice calls (which can be deleted). They store incoming text messages, but most people delete most messages after reading them (IIRC, this is what Knox did, which is why the Lumumba-Knox message wasn't stored on her phone). In regard to sent text messages, most handsets have the factory default setup to save all sent messages - one has to go into the menu options to disable that function. Angain, IIRC, this is why Knox's outgoing text to Lumumba was still stored on her handset.

Outside the realms of the handsets themselves, the mobile network operators and service providers will keep billing and transport records of all voice calls and text messages, but not the contents. In other words, the mobile operators would have been able to tell the police that Knox's phone received a text from Lumumba's number at around 8.20pm on the 1st November*, and that it sent a text message to Lumumba's number at around 8.45pm; but it will not be able to reveal what the contents of those text messages was. The only way to reveal the contents is if they are stored on a handset.


* This doesn't, incidentally, mean that Knox necessarily opened and read this text message at around 8.20pm - it merely means that it was delivered to her handset at that time.
 
LondonJohn said:
...

What I think is that the police/prosecutors did have the phone records by the time they placed the taps on Knox's and Sollecito's phones...

I think they therefore knew that Knox had exchanged text messages with Lumumba...
Click to expand...

Now all you need is a shred of evidence. What you "think" or believe is not in question. When did the police have the phone records? When did they know about Patrick?

LondonJohn said:
And, for the last time, this proposition does not imply a conspiracy by the Perugia police and prosecutors - it implies that the police leapt upon the misinterpretation of the Knox-Lumumba text message to rush to judgement and to confirm their prior suspicions. The "version of events that they knew to be correct", and all that......
Click to expand...

"To confirm their prior suspicions" sounds awfully close to foreknowledge. You're certain "for the last time" that you both are and are not implying a conspiracy.
 
RoseMontague said:
Where do you think the press was getting the information from? 12 foot lizards, maybe?
Click to expand...

When did the media quote de Felice (or anyone else) prior to Amanda's accusation of murder that they were looking for a black man? You might be getting your timelines mixed up because there was plenty of speculation after the arrests that a black man must have been involved.

Here's a BBC news article from 04 NOV 2007:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7077424.stm

No mention of a black man.
 
stilicho said:
Now all you need is a shred of evidence. What you "think" or believe is not in question. When did the police have the phone records? When did they know about Patrick?
Click to expand...


I suspect the only way to get proper evidence in this matter would be from the police/prosecutors themselves, and possibly also from the phone companies. I would strongly suspect that the police knew by 03 NOV 2007 - 04 NOV 2007 that Knox had traded text messages with Lumumba on the evening of the murder. But it may well be that they only discovered the contents of Knox's message to Lumumba during their interrogation of her on 05/06 NOV 2007.

But you're absolutely correct - I have no cast iron proof, so none of my thinking in this area has any validity whatsoever. My posting it was a total waste of my time and that of anyone unfortunate enough to read it :D


"To confirm their prior suspicions" sounds awfully close to foreknowledge. You're certain "for the last time" that you both are and are not implying a conspiracy.
Click to expand...


How the heck are you equating "foreknowledge" with "conspiracy"?

How do you define "conspiracy"?

I don't define the following as a "conspiracy": the police/prosecutors deciding collectively that Knox was a credible suspect, and then convincing themselves that she was culpable when they misinterpreted her text message to Lumumba.

But maybe you would define this as a "conspiracy". Do you?
 
stilicho said:
When did the media quote de Felice (or anyone else) prior to Amanda's accusation of murder that they were looking for a black man? You might be getting your timelines mixed up because there was plenty of speculation after the arrests that a black man must have been involved.

Here's a BBC news article from 04 NOV 2007:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7077424.stm

No mention of a black man.
Click to expand...

You are correct. There is no mention of a black man in that article. Looking at some of the local articles before Amanda's arrest there appears to be a focus on North Africans, mentioned in both of these articles. The details that they were provided is astounding. I wonder why the focus on North Africans. Did the police think a North African man was involved?

http://translate.google.com/transla...va_suo_assassino_Trovate_co_9_071104164.shtml

http://translate.google.com/transla...unta_secondo_uomo_Tracce_co_9_071105084.shtml
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom