The Massei/Mignini Conspiracy Theory

I have question to the proponents of the guilt theory.

Amanda and Raffaele apart from removing their own traces from the scene put great effort into preserving Rudy Guede's numerous shoe prints and other traces. They pointed out those traces to the cops. It was part of a plan of sticking all of the blame on Guede, right?
What was the purpose of blaming Patrick? It would make more sense to stick to the initial story waiting for the cops to process the forensics and jail Guede.
 
Katody Matrass said:
I have question to the proponents of the guilt theory.

Amanda and Raffaele apart from removing their own traces from the scene put great effort into preserving Rudy Guede's numerous shoe prints and other traces. They pointed out those traces to the cops. It was part of a plan of sticking all of the blame on Guede, right?
What was the purpose of blaming Patrick? It would make more sense to stick to the initial story waiting for the cops to process the forensics and jail Guede.
Click to expand...


Oh, that's incredibly easy to explain! It was all part of a diabolically devious masterplan by Knox and Sollecito to send the police on a wild goose chase, er, before, er, the police processed the forensic evidence and found the traces of Guede that Knox/Sollecito had deliberately left in the apartment.

It's part of the same criminal masterplan whereby Knox and Sollecito deliberately left some visible blood in the bathroom so that they could, er, pretend to get concerned, so that they could, er, have a pretext to be in the cottage when the police arrived, so that they could, er, "manage the discovery" or, er, something like that. Cos just packing up and going to Gubbio for the day (as previously planned and communicated to others), or even just staying in Sollecito's apartment until someone else discovered the murder, would just be too OBVIOUS, wouldn't it.... :rolleyes:
 
stilicho said:
<snip>

There are clear embellishments in the 05:45 statement, including Amanda's newly-found abiding fear of her employer.
Click to expand...

She fears him because the police have convinced her that Patrick murdered Meredith.

Her own explanation for changing her story in signed and/or handwritten documentation over a roughly ten hour period was a combination of frustration, confusion, and imagination.
Click to expand...

True.

She remains the only source for any allegation of mistreatment (apart from her parents who are presently defending themselves against charges in that regard)
Click to expand...


Of course she is the only source of the allegation, how could it be otherwise? If mistreatment occurred, are the cops going to admit it? Obviously not. Deny, deny, deny, any lawyer will tell you. Make the accuser prove the allegation. Which of course she cannot do, because the police conveniently forgot to record the "interview."


and has never denied that she was supplied with plenty of opportunity for food, water, and rest.
Click to expand...

Wrong. She did testify that they only offered her these things AFTER she had made the admissions of "facts" they "knew to be correct."

The content of each of the statements (combined with the 04 NOV 2007 alibi email) demonstrate a woman in the throes of desperation at being unable to convince anyone that she was not a liar. Her court testimony reinforced this assessment.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Even Kafka couldn't have imagined such a nightmare.
 
LashL said:
??? Leaving aside the sheer fiction that Ms. Knox was not considered a "suspect" prior to 1:45 a.m., I don't think there is any dispute whatsoever that Ms. Knox was further interviewed/interrogated beginning around 3:00 - 3:30 a.m. and that the latter session resulted in the 5:45 a.m. 'statement' being written.
Click to expand...

Hello and welcome to the conspiracy theories section of the JREF. Here you will be able to articulate and provide evidence you have doubtlessly uncovered regarding the police conspiracy to frame Amanda Knox for aggravated murder.

How do you account for the three different versions of the story Amanda provided (four if you include the uncoerced alibi email of 04 NOV 2007 that was spammed to all and sundry)? Amanda claims it was because of confusion, frustration, and her own imagination. Have you any evidence that it was due to a police conspiracy to frame her for Meredith's brutal sex slaying?
 
babycondor said:
She fears him because the police have convinced her that Patrick murdered Meredith.
Click to expand...

When did they convince her of this? How did they accomplish this? Which individuals can you name among the officers present at her interviews who planned to convince her? Can you point to any testimony (police or Amanda) identifying anyone of doing what you are alleging them to have done?

babycondor said:
Of course she is the only source of the allegation, how could it be otherwise? If mistreatment occurred, are the cops going to admit it? Obviously not. Deny, deny, deny, any lawyer will tell you. Make the accuser prove the allegation. Which of course she cannot do, because the police conveniently forgot to record the "interview."
Click to expand...

What evidence do you have that the police were advised by the PM's office to "deny, deny, deny"? This is possibly a brand new facet of your conspiracy theory.

Names, times, evidence, would all be helpful here.

babycondor said:
Wrong. She did testify that they only offered her these things AFTER she had made the admissions of "facts" they "knew to be correct."
Click to expand...

That's certainly disputed. There was no evidence supplied by her lawyers to refute the police testimony that she was given water, brioche, and chamomile tea. Her "imaginations" written into each successive statement bore little resemblance to one another. There were important embellishments which Amanda herself attributed to "confusion" and "frustration" and not to being denied victuals.

We're still waiting, after more than three years, for any Knox apologist to put the two undisputedly uncoerced statements (alibi email and "memorial") side by side and explain why they are so utterly inconsistent. She was fed and rested for each one. She was not answering any questions directed at her. She wrote each one entirely of her own accord and each was introduced as evidence of her continued lying during a police investigation into a brutal sex slaying.

babycondor said:
Indeed. Even Kafka couldn't have imagined such a nightmare.
Click to expand...

Kafka didn't kill his roommate, stage a break-in, continuously lie to the police, implicate his boss in murder, and attract a mob of conspiracy theorists to support an unending series of unfounded allegations against the police, the prosecution, and anyone else standing in the way of their fantasies.
 
stilicho said:
Hello and welcome to the conspiracy theories section of the JREF. Here you will be able to articulate and provide evidence you have doubtlessly uncovered regarding the police conspiracy to frame Amanda Knox for aggravated murder.
Click to expand...

"Everyone knows" usually counts as evidence for CT believers.
 
Last edited:
LashL said:
??? Leaving aside the sheer fiction that Ms. Knox was not considered a "suspect" prior to 1:45 a.m., I don't think there is any dispute whatsoever that Ms. Knox was further interviewed/interrogated beginning around 3:00 - 3:30 a.m. and that the latter session resulted in the 5:45 a.m. 'statement' being written.
Click to expand...

So two separte 'interviews/interrogations'? Do we agree on that?
 
LondonJohn said:
Oh, that's incredibly easy to explain! It was all part of a diabolically devious masterplan by Knox and Sollecito to send the police on a wild goose chase, er, before, er, the police processed the forensic evidence and found the traces of Guede that Knox/Sollecito had deliberately left in the apartment.

It's part of the same criminal masterplan whereby Knox and Sollecito deliberately left some visible blood in the bathroom so that they could, er, pretend to get concerned, so that they could, er, have a pretext to be in the cottage when the police arrived, so that they could, er, "manage the discovery" or, er, something like that. Cos just packing up and going to Gubbio for the day (as previously planned and communicated to others), or even just staying in Sollecito's apartment until someone else discovered the murder, would just be too OBVIOUS, wouldn't it.... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Thanks LondonJohn! Although you're more of an impartial participant then full blown guilt theory proponent, I don't think any of them would disagree with your explanation. I notice however a minuscule issue that could render your answer uncanonical: not once you did use the term "double bluff".

:D
 
stilicho said:
We're still waiting, after more than three years, for any Knox apologist to put the two undisputedly uncoerced statements (alibi email and "memorial") side by side and explain why they are so utterly inconsistent. She was fed and rested for each one. She was not answering any questions directed at her. She wrote each one entirely of her own accord and each was introduced as evidence of her continued lying during a police investigation into a brutal sex slaying.
Click to expand...


Perhaps.......just perhaps....... because of the following:

1) The email was written on 4th November (04 NOV 2007)

2) The memoriale was written on 6th November (06 NOV 2007)

3) In between those two events, the police convinced Knox of five things:

a) that she had been present in the house at the time of the murder;
b) that the police had solid proof of the above;
c) that Lumumba had also been present (and the police also had proof);
d) that Knox had experienced trauma-related memory loss;
e) that Lumumba had killed Meredith, while Knox was present in the house

4) By the time Knox wrote the memoriale, she was struggling with an internal conflict: the police said they had solid evidence placing her in the cottage at the time of the murder, and that she'd forgotten all the horrific events due to trauma-related memory loss (as helpfully suggested and reinforced by the "interpreter", no less), yet she was still cognisant of having spent the night at Sollecito's apartment.


(BTW, the term "Knox apologist" is insulting and demeaning. As would be, for example, referring to those who believe in the safety of the convictions as "irrational, entrenched hate-mongers cloaking themselves in a bogus self-righteous cause of seeking justice for the victim".....)
 
LondonJohn said:
Perhaps.......just perhaps....... because of the following:

1) The email was written on 4th November (04 NOV 2007)

2) The memoriale was written on 6th November (06 NOV 2007)

3) In between those two events, the police convinced Knox of five things:

a) that she had been present in the house at the time of the murder;
b) that the police had solid proof of the above;
c) that Lumumba had also been present (and the police also had proof);
d) that Knox had experienced trauma-related memory loss;
e) that Lumumba had killed Meredith, while Knox was present in the house

4) By the time Knox wrote the memoriale, she was struggling with an internal conflict: the police said they had solid evidence placing her in the cottage at the time of the murder, and that she'd forgotten all the horrific events due to trauma-related memory loss (as helpfully suggested and reinforced by the "interpreter", no less), yet she was still cognisant of having spent the night at Sollecito's apartment.


(BTW, the term "Knox apologist" is insulting and demeaning. As would be, for example, referring to those who believe in the safety of the convictions as "irrational, entrenched hate-mongers cloaking themselves in a bogus self-righteous cause of seeking justice for the victim".....)
Click to expand...

1) true
2) also true
3) unlikely... this convincing must have happened between 11:00 and 1:45 of the 5th and 6th night. (and actually less time then that). Seems awfully short to achieve such a feat. Not unheard of... but usually only achieved this quickly with people with some serious disabilities. Amanda doesn't seem to be suffering from such disabilities.
 
Amazer said:
1) true
2) also true
3) unlikely... this convincing must have happened between 11:00 and 1:45 of the 5th and 6th night. (and actually less time then that). Seems awfully short to achieve such a feat. Not unheard of... but usually only achieved this quickly with people with some serious disabilities. Amanda doesn't seem to be suffering from such disabilities.
Click to expand...

What scientific sources do you cite in support of the claim that only people with serious disabilities could be coerced into producing an internalised false confession in the space of two hours and forty-five minutes?
 
Amazer said:
I hope you understand that I do not put much stock in `evidence´ coming from a fan site. I wouldn´t accept it from PMF and likewise I don´t accept if from Perugia Shock.
Click to expand...

Frank Sfarzo is the only reporter who attended every court session and has produced voluminous amounts of first-hand information about the case. PMF is the reservoir of a megaton of documents and assembled sources. You need to be able to identify the difference between analysis and information provided of relevance to the case.

Everyone has a bias, that doesn't mean that all information produced is biased, or even if it is, that it is of no value. This is why corroboration is crucial, and I have found that much information from both of those sites can be trusted. I have also found that in some or even many cases I disagree with the analysis of that information from both places, but there is an important difference there you might want to try distinguishing. :)

Amazer said:
That leaves you with possible source of evidence, namely the ´The Times´ article. And there it´s also mentioned that the interrogation was halted. So even that article doesn´t do much to support your claim.
Click to expand...

You need to read it closer then, and at this point I'm not making any 'claim'--you are. I think all of us are taking notes to see how you manage to support the position that both the police did not lie and no interrogation took place after 1:45, especially now that you've chosen to eliminate from your potential canon the two single best sources of information about the case.
Amazer said:
Care to try again?
Click to expand...

No, at this point we're done. Your argument at this juncture brings to mind a vision of your avatar putting both hands over their ears and making rude noises. :p
 
Last edited:
stilicho said:
When did they convince her of this? How did they accomplish this? Which individuals can you name among the officers present at her interviews who planned to convince her? Can you point to any testimony (police or Amanda) identifying anyone of doing what you are alleging them to have done?
Click to expand...

I just linked a board with Amanda's testimony handy, in it Amanda says they they repeatedly tried to get her to say Patrick's name and that she was protecting him. Amanda obviously thought that they suspected Patrick of murdering Meredith, and she also testified that she resisted naming him, but if what she signed in the Italian she barely read at that point is correct, obviously they must have convinced her at least for a little while that Patrick was the killer.


stilicho said:
What evidence do you have that the police were advised by the PM's office to "deny, deny, deny"? This is possibly a brand new facet of your conspiracy theory.

Names, times, evidence, would all be helpful here.
Click to expand...

I don't know if there's anyone arguing how you characterized Babycondor's statement, but I suppose it's possible. However in defense of what BC actually said I'd like to know just what your opinion is of the verity of the testimony of Napoleoni, Ficarra and Zugarini or whatever her name is.

stilicho said:
That's certainly disputed. There was no evidence supplied by her lawyers to refute the police testimony that she was given water, brioche, and chamomile tea. Her "imaginations" written into each successive statement bore little resemblance to one another. There were important embellishments which Amanda herself attributed to "confusion" and "frustration" and not to being denied victuals.
Click to expand...

Amanda testified something to the effect she was not allowed most those things and wasn't treated 'like a person' until both statements were signed. Being as she also testified she'd eaten right before she and Raffaele went to the police station I don't believe she would have experienced anything more than mild hunger as a result of being denied food, that restriction would be simply have been used to intimidate her and give her just one of many minor reasons to accede to their demands. Being as they wanted her to talk, I would tend to doubt they denied her water for that entire overnight session and off the top of my head I don't recall her saying she was.

The perjuring police of Perugia claimed they gave her those things, but not specifically that she received them between the periods in question. It is perfectly possible she went to the bathroom and ate and drank those things after she signed that statement. That would tend to agree with the fact that the cafeteria was not open until the end of the overnight session.

stilicho said:
We're still waiting, after more than three years, for any Knox apologist to put the two undisputedly uncoerced statements (alibi email and "memorial") side by side and explain why they are so utterly inconsistent. She was fed and rested for each one. She was not answering any questions directed at her. She wrote each one entirely of her own accord and each was introduced as evidence of her continued lying during a police investigation into a brutal sex slaying.
Click to expand...

We have a very different idea of how police interrogations work, and what they are capable of producing in a subject. I bear in mind that they are by their very nature designed to 'change the story' of a suspect, and if they are capable of convincing a guilty person to incriminate themselves for something they will spend decades in jail for, it is also 'possible, indeed probable' ( :p ) they can certainly cause someone to change their mind on details they might not remember very well being as they were stoned at the time.

I also think they can convince someone of something that never occurred, to the point they actually believe it, a phenomena known as an 'internalized false confession.'



stilicho said:
Kafka didn't kill his roommate, stage a break-in, continuously lie to the police, implicate his boss in murder, and attract a mob of conspiracy theorists to support an unending series of unfounded allegations against the police, the prosecution, and anyone else standing in the way of their fantasies.
Click to expand...

Neither did Amanda Knox! :)
 
Ok, so let me see how this goes:

The police find some black "hairs/fibres" at the crime scene. Without waiting for forensic confirmation, they start looking for a black man, and also assume he must be dark skinned.
Starting with Meredith friends presumably, they don't find the black man they are looking for (skipping over Rudy?). So they move on to friends of friends, and for some reason latch on to Amanda.
They find Amanda works for a black man, and also exchanged text messages on the might in question. Bingo! So they check his alibi, right?
Apparently not.
But they call him for questioning don't they?
Nope.
So they call Knox for questioning?
No...they call in Sollecito for questioning.
Then they question Amanda, and for the first time find they discover the content of the text message she sent to Patrick. Amanda duly fingers Patrick.

Huh. A pretty round about way to finding the black man.
So then they release Knox and Sollecito and thank them for the cooperation?
No... they lump them in with the black man they were seeking all along.
Then later... after the first black guy has an alibi they swap in another black guy who matches the forensics....
And all this was planned before 4 Nov 2007, apparently, based on some black fibres and some text messages exchanged with an occupant of the cottage which they didn't know the content of. Remarkable.

This is whole "looking for a black man" theory appears to be a way of saying the Perugia police are simply racists and are willing to run rings to get a black guy, any black guy, to match the crime. I don't believe that for a second. It does seem to be part of the same campaign to smear the ILE as incompetent, corrupt or anti-American, which has been a theme of Knox supporters. Surely by now they realise this campaign is obviously untenable, and worse counter-productive, and leading Amanda's parents to face prosecution.
 
Last edited:
bobc said:
Ok, so let me see how this goes:

The police find some black "hairs/fibres" at the crime scene. Without waiting for forensic confirmation, they start looking for a black man, and also assume he must be dark skinned.
Starting with Meredith friends presumably, they don't find the black man they are looking for (skipping over Rudy?). So they move on to friends of friends, and for some reason latch on to Amanda.
They find Amanda works for a black man, and also exchanged text messages on the might in question. Bingo! So they check his alibi, right?
Apparently not.
But they call him for questioning don't they?
Nope.
So they call Knox for questioning?
No...they call in Sollecito for questioning.
Then they question Amanda, and for the first time find they discover the content of the text message she sent to Patrick. Amanda duly fingers Patrick.

Huh. A pretty round about way to finding the black man.
So then they release Knox and Sollecito and thank them for the cooperation?
No... they lump them in with the black man they were seeking all along.
Then later... after the first black guy has an alibi they swap in another black guy who matches the forensics....
And all this was planned before 4 Nov 2007, apparently, based on some black fibres and some text messages exchanged with an occupant of the cottage which they didn't know the content of. Remarkable.

This is whole "looking for a black man" theory appears to be a way of saying the Perugia police are simply racists and are willing to run rings to get a black guy, any black guy, to match the crime. I don't believe that for a second. It does seem to be part of the same campaign to smear the ILE as incompetent, corrupt or anti-American, which has been a theme of Knox supporters. Surely by now they realise this campaign is obviously untenable, and worse counter-productive, and leading Amanda's parents to face prosecution.
Click to expand...

How is it racist to be looking for a black man if you have evidence at the crime scene of a black man?

Amanda's parents are being prosecuted because Mignini is vindictive and corrupt. He continues to abuse his office even after being convicted of abuse of office.
 
Kaosium said:
Thank you Rose! :)

I wonder if they're the same as these hairs? They would have revealed results alright, just not of anyone they had in custody, as Rudy wouldn't be back for another week.

However what I was thinking about was something Frank posted about early in the investigation and later noted wasn't entered into evidence.
Click to expand...

Interesting article. Funny how certain things are quoted as being said by Sollecito that many here have argued are completely bogus, such as

Mr Sollecito said he had met Ms Kercher when Ms Knox returned to the cottage they shared to fetch clothes. He confirmed that the two women were on bad terms, and had argued over domestic matters. Ms Kercher had "shouted at Amanda" several times over her "bathroom habits", accusing Ms Knox of failing to flush the toilet.
Click to expand...
 
Danceme said:
Interesting article. Funny how certain things are quoted as being said by Sollecito that many here have argued are completely bogus, such as
Click to expand...

It is hard to tell fact from fiction in this case with so much false information being reported. Personally, I believe there was some disagreement between the flat-mates over the non flushing of the toilet.
 
RoseMontague said:
How is it racist to be looking for a black man if you have evidence at the crime scene of a black man?
Click to expand...
The "evidence" was some black fibres, not yet identified. Yet we are to believe that the police made a leap to this being a "dark skinned man" without evidence, and further conspired to frame Lumumba, because he had a tenuous connection with the victim, but yet had an alibi for the night of the murder? It is quite preposterous. The only reason I think to make such an inept attempt to frame the *wrong* black guy was racial prejudice.

In fact, I believe that the ILE were not after any black guy, they were following SOP, checking on Knox and Sollicito's alibi, and then trying to unpick their lies and evasions. There was no attempt made to coerce Knox to name Patrick, she volunteered that herself.

Amanda's parents are being prosecuted because Mignini is vindictive and corrupt. He continues to abuse his office even after being convicted of abuse of office.
Click to expand...
Amanda's parents are being prosecuted because of their persistent slander of the ILE, which has got them nowhere. I don't think Mignini is even involved in this prosecution. Continuing to slander Mignini without evidence of any abuse in the Knox case is pointless and stupid. People think Knox is a liar, now they think that her parents are liars. They are probably thinking it runs in the family. Whatever Mignini's behaviour in other cases, his behaviour in the Knox case has been by the book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom