The Massei/Mignini Conspiracy Theory

[babycondor]

Amanda's tale about standing in the kitchen was a lie.

Correct.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

An advocacy position is one in which a scientist approaches a problem with a jaundiced eye. In this particular case, you have never applied the same sense of awe towards the forensics that convicted Rudy Guede.

I don't know why you make these things up, but you really ought to stop. (Also "awe" doesn't mean what you think it means).

Rudy's DNA and fingerprint had no business whatsoever being in Meredith's room or for that matter anywhere in the cottage. His DNA was found on and in Meredith's corpse, his fingerprint was left in her blood in the murder room, he admits to being there in the vital 21:00-22:00 period in which she was actually murdered and he fled the city after the murder. All of the forensic evidence was collected before he was a suspect.

Taken together it's a completely consistent picture.

There really is no comparison with the forensics against Raffaele and Amanda that unjustifiably assume that Amanda's DNA should not be in her own home or on her boyfriend's kitchen knife, that hinges on two items (the clasp and the knife) whose handling was suspect at multiple steps of the evidentiary and analyical chain, and is totally inconsistent with the total lack of any other forensic evidence and the total lack of any other decent reason to believe they are guilty.

There is no consistent picture there, just two anomalous results from a substandard lab and a substandard or dishonest forensic technician working on samples which had been improperly handled, long after the police had already publicly committed themselves to the theory her results miraculously saved.

 

[stilicho]

I don't know why you make these things up, but you really ought to stop. (Also "awe" doesn't mean what you think it means).

Rudy's DNA and fingerprint had no business whatsoever being in Meredith's room or for that matter anywhere in the cottage. His DNA was found on and in Meredith's corpse, his fingerprint was left in her blood in the murder room, he admits to being there in the vital 21:00-22:00 period in which she was actually murdered and he fled the city after the murder. All of the forensic evidence was collected before he was a suspect.

Taken together it's a completely consistent picture.

There really is no comparison with the forensics against Raffaele and Amanda that unjustifiably assume that Amanda's DNA should not be in her own home or on her boyfriend's kitchen knife, that hinges on two items (the clasp and the knife) whose handling was suspect at multiple steps of the evidentiary and analyical chain, and is totally inconsistent with the total lack of any other forensic evidence and the total lack of any other decent reason to believe they are guilty.

There is no consistent picture there, just two anomalous results from a substandard lab and a substandard or dishonest forensic technician working on samples which had been improperly handled, long after the police had already publicly committed themselves to the theory her results miraculously saved.

Welcome to the Conspiracy Theories sub-forum of the JREF, Kevin_Lowe. Who engaged the "dishonest forensic technician" to falsify results? When did this exercise occur?

Evidence?

We await in awe for your response.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Welcome to the Conspiracy Theories sub-forum of the JREF, Kevin_Lowe. Who engaged the "dishonest forensic technician" to falsify results? When did this exercise occur?

Evidence?

I refer of course to Stefanoni, whose public statements about DNA forensics indicate either that she knows less about the topic than a well-informed JREF forum poster, or that she is willing to misrepresent her area of expertise to serve the ends of the prosecution. Note that I did not say she was dishonest - that was your cherry-picking - merely that she was substandard or dishonest.

Her lab is of course merely substandard, as it lacks contamination logs and pretends to have never had a contamination incident despite doing LCN DNA analysis with none of the correct safeguards against contamination.

 

[lionking]

I refer of course to Stefanoni, whose public statements about DNA forensics indicate either that she knows less about the topic than a well-informed JREF forum poster, or that she is willing to misrepresent her area of expertise to serve the ends of the prosecution. Note that I did not say she was dishonest - that was your cherry-picking - merely that she was substandard or dishonest.

Her lab is of course merely substandard, as it lacks contamination logs and pretends to have never had a contamination incident despite doing LCN DNA analysis with none of the correct safeguards against contamination.

You know more about DNA forensics than Stefanoni? Or perhaps you are referring to someone else. Evidence?

 

[stilicho]

I refer of course to Stefanoni, whose public statements about DNA forensics indicate either that she knows less about the topic than a well-informed JREF forum poster, or that she is willing to misrepresent her area of expertise to serve the ends of the prosecution. Note that I did not say she was dishonest - that was your cherry-picking - merely that she was substandard or dishonest.

Her lab is of course merely substandard, as it lacks contamination logs and pretends to have never had a contamination incident despite doing LCN DNA analysis with none of the correct safeguards against contamination.

Excuse me but wasn't Stefanoni also the one whose forensic analysis convicted Rudy Guede? Did she contaminate those too? Was she "substandard or dishonest" with those?

Let's be consistent here on the Conspiracy Theories sub-forum, Kevin_Lowe.

 

[stilicho]

Excuse me? Please be clear about what it is that you are suggesting or insinuating by this remark.

It's very clear and stands on its own. Millions applaud.

I can use a felt pen and write it out on your chest if you'd enjoy that at Mardi Gras.

 

[bri1]

It's very clear and stands on its own. Millions applaud.

I can use a felt pen and write it out on your chest if you'd enjoy that at Mardi Gras.

What's the Mardi Gras comment about, Stilicho?

 

[stilicho]

What's the Mardi Gras comment about, Stilicho?

What do you think it was about?

 

[Kaosium]

I am actually from the JREF, thank you very much. It was I who invited people from the PMF to come over here to debate the nutters.

Heh, I'd forgotten that. I recall from reading the thread there was a moment where you all swore fealty to the Holy Order of PMF, but for some reason I was thinking it was Fiona who initiated that. Incidentally, I knew you were a JREF original, and meant no disparagement by referring to you as a 'prominent PMFer,' I thought you'd think it a compliment.

If that's the case though, I'll ask you what I asked Skeptic Ginger: do you ever stop and bask in the radiance of all the chaos that decision caused? Did you watch the suspensions and bannings pile up, body parts flying everywhere, graveyards filled, and chortle in glee privately, thinking 'I made this?'

It's not plausible that the two knives were wielded only by Raffaele. They went for her throat directly. Raffaele tried to throttle her but, when she couldn't be stopped from screaming, both of them struck her in the throat with knives.

The only reason I can see for a 'two knife theory' is the fact they found that contamination on that kitchen knife, which of course wasn't especially 'compatible' with the wounds and outline. If that is thrown into the Tiber, then my bet is the 'two knife theory' goes too.

Incidentally, what makes you think it happened like that despite there being no evidence to support any of it?

Amanda's tale about standing in the kitchen was a lie.

I asked earlier in the thread but got no response. Perhaps with your voluminous knowledge of the case you could outline the police story of the interrogation and arrest of Amanda for us? Note, not the PMF theory, which is light-years better, but what the police actually told the world regarding what happened the night of November 5th and early on the 6th culminating with the famous 'case closed' announcement.

Gogerty-Marriott wouldn't pay you a red cent. The Knox family engaged them only to produce an image that might convince Americans that their daughter wasn't a sex killer. The inconvenient truth that's intervened was her conviction in DEC 2009. That kind of spoils the whole project.

My recommendation to you is to keep your wallet in your pocket. Don't hire a PR firm if you're arrested and charged after stabbing your roommate in the throat and leaving her to die.

Spend that money on a good lawyer. Make sure your defence experts don't contradict each other. Don't take the stand; you'll look like an idiot.

Have you ever wondered why OJ Simpson or someone like that didn't just hire the Magic Marriott Man to restore his image? Or why people like Brittany Spears, or Lindsey Lohan, accused of far lesser things, with access to even better PR talent than a backwater firm like Gogerty-Marriott, can't seem to get good press and are constantly being derided by all and sundry?

 

[RoseMontague]

Excuse me but wasn't Stefanoni also the one whose forensic analysis convicted Rudy Guede? Did she contaminate those too? Was she "substandard or dishonest" with those?

Let's be consistent here on the Conspiracy Theories sub-forum, Kevin_Lowe.

I don't recall Stefanoni having to crank that knob up a dozen times past the recommended settings to find evidence against Rudy nor did a team of aspiring actors venture out 46 days later to paw, drop, and collect a moved around on the floor bra clasp that just happened to have some evidence against him. My guess would be that Rudy's lawyers would have jumped all over such a thing.

 

[bri1]

What do you think it was about?

Your comment can be read in different ways depending on your gender, so I wasn't sure what to make of it. Also (I'm from the UK, don't know much about Mardi Gras) not sure if Mardi Gras is happening around now, making it a topical reference?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Excuse me but wasn't Stefanoni also the one whose forensic analysis convicted Rudy Guede?

Why yes.

Did she contaminate those too?

I know of no evidence that was the case.

Was she "substandard or dishonest" with those?

I know of no evidence that was the case.

Is this going somewhere? If your argument is going to be "Stefanoni must have mucked up every piece of evidence equally if she mucked up any piece of evidence, and everything she has ever said must be erroneous if one thing she said was erroneous", that would be incredibly stupid on the face of it. However I don't see where else you could plan to take this.

Let's be consistent here on the Conspiracy Theories sub-forum, Kevin_Lowe.

Quite so. We should consistently stick to the evidence, instead of making up stories we have no evidence for and presenting them as fact.

 

[Katody Matrass]

It's not plausible that the two knives were wielded only by Raffaele. They went for her throat directly. Raffaele tried to throttle her but, when she couldn't be stopped from screaming, both of them struck her in the throat with knives.

, I think you're on the proper sub-forum for such ideas, even more that the plausible bunch nest is down. Welcome, stilicho!

In the meantime you may enjoy expanding on your theories, I prepared some auxiliary questions not long ago.

I hope Dear Leader fixes up the lovely forum soon, but I also hope you won't leave us again when he does

 

[PhantomWolf]

The inconvenient truth that's intervened was her conviction in DEC 2009. That kind of spoils the whole project.

Not wanting to read through 3 threads of 300+ posts and not really knowing a lot about the case, can I ask you two questions.

1) What is your strongest evidence that she is guilty?

2) Do you believe that a conviction always means the person truly is guilty?

 

[babycondor]

Not wanting to read through 3 threads of 300+ posts and not really knowing a lot about the case, can I ask you two questions.

1) What is your strongest evidence that she is guilty?

2) Do you believe that a conviction always means the person truly is guilty?

Or better:

What is your strongest evidence that she is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the specific charges against her?

 

[quadraginta]

An advocacy position is one in which a scientist approaches a problem with a jaundiced eye. In this particular case, you have never applied the same sense of awe towards the forensics that convicted Rudy Guede.

There is only one Knox apologist who has ever applied their critique of the m.o. of the Italians "powers that be" to all equally and that's Harry Wilkens. Some of my correspondents at the PMF consider him mad but I object to that: he is nothing if not consistent.

Your anecdote in the conclusion reminds me of a joyous book I'd read when an adolescent. It is called Tom Eaton's Professor Otis T Firefly's Phantasmagoric Almanac.

(Source: http://wayoutjunk.blogspot.com/2008/01/otis-g-fireflys-phantasmagoric-almanac.html )

One of the pages has him explaining that extra-terrestrial coal-powered spaceships must have landed long ago in Pennsylvania to refuel. Why? Because there's a lot of coal in Pennsylvania and therefore it would be a logical place for coal-powered inter-galactic spaceships to land and refuel.

I recommend that book and you might even want to link to it on your blog.

Try something with your students. See if they can employ your methods to mount a campaign to free Rudy Guede.

I had suggested a similar exercise some time ago in the regular Cartwheel threads, using the Casey Anthony case as a subject. As far as the concept of "reasonable doubt" (as applied by Knox advocates) is concerned it would offer a much more fertile field for considering overzealous prosecution than the Guede case, since there is no unambiguous evidence, forensic or otherwise, demonstrating Anthony's guilt or even her direct involvement in the death of her daughter.

For some reason this suggestion was not met with a great deal of enthusiasm.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Guede and DNA

Excuse me but wasn't Stefanoni also the one whose forensic analysis convicted Rudy Guede? Did she contaminate those too? Was she "substandard or dishonest" with those?

Let's be consistent here on the Conspiracy Theories sub-forum, Kevin_Lowe.

Stilicho,

OK, let’s talk about Guede. I have not taken a public position on his exact role in this crime, partly because I have not seen the information concerning the DNA forensics (I assume that the electropherograms are not generally available). In the past I have said that I accept the DNA evidence against him provisionally, meaning on the condition that the work was done competently and the data are unambiguous.

Suppose however that the DNA profiling was not done competently. One might even argue that all of the DNA evidence in the case should be tossed on the basis of the errors we have seen and discussed (I take a different stance). If we did exclude all of the DNA profiling, we would still have Guede’s flight, his admission of being in the apartment (where he had absolutely no legitimate reason to be), his bloody handprint, and his bloody shoeprints. These elements put him at the flat during or shortly after the crime and might be enough to convict him. If you wish to exclude all of the DNA evidence, I would say OK, but I think it weakens the case against Knox and Sollecito more than it weakens the case against Guede.

 

[quadraginta]

I refer of course to Stefanoni, whose public statements about DNA forensics indicate either that she knows less about the topic than a well-informed JREF forum poster, or that she is willing to misrepresent her area of expertise to serve the ends of the prosecution. Note that I did not say she was dishonest - that was your cherry-picking - merely that she was substandard or dishonest.
<snip>

Pretty slippery there, Kevin. Plausible deniabilty. ("Well, I didn't exactly say that. I said 'this or that'.")

Faux News common-'taters like that tactic too. It gives them an opportunity to weasel out of their insinuations when someone calls them on the unsubtle character assassination. Just another of the deniability arsenal they employ.

Other people can use them too. From 2009

In a fast moving, developing story, shocking allegations have come to light that Glenn Beck is responsible for the rape and murder of a girl in 1990. Are these allegations true? Is Beck guilty? Various websites are offering conflicting points of view. Some claim it is a hoax. Many are suspicious because Beck has remained silent on the matter.

Discussing one of the only two alternatives you offered is not "cherry picking" by any reasonable application of the term, more so when you chose to offer no clear weight to either one but instead seemed to propose them as equally likely. It is not needful for someone to include every surmise you propose when responding to a comment of yours.

They might even agree with one of them.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

one case at a time

I had suggested a similar exercise some time ago in the regular Cartwheel threads, using the Casey Anthony case as a subject. As far as the concept of "reasonable doubt" (as applied by Knox advocates) is concerned it would offer a much more fertile field for considering overzealous prosecution than the Guede case, since there is no unambiguous evidence, forensic or otherwise, demonstrating Anthony's guilt or even her direct involvement in the death of her daughter.

For some reason this suggestion was not met with a great deal of enthusiasm.

Quadraginta,

One case at a time, thank you very much. Casey Anthony is the child's mother, and I would think that she is legally responsible in a way that does not apply to most other situations.