The Massei/Mignini Conspiracy Theory

[Alt+F4]

My original response was explicitly intended to illustrate that not many people need to be actively involved in deliberate deception for a miscarriage of justice to occur.

Well then please explain how few were involved to carry out this miscarriage of justice. Names please, and agencies in which they worked and how specifically they were involved.

You totally sound like a 9/11 troofer....."well there were these guys with thermite, I don't know who they were or how they wired those buildings but I'm positive they did....".

 

[Rolfe]

YOU think the case was weak. The jury who saw and heard all the evidence didn't. You have not seen and heard all the evidence.

I said this already, but I'll say it again. Justice is supposed to be transparent. Guilty verdicts are not supposed to rest on evidence that is secret, or reasoning the public cannot follow or understand.

If the Italian court system can't explain clearly what the basis is for a conviction "beyond reasonable doubt", I'd say there might be a problem. Possibly.

Just declaring that the jury have some arcane knowledge not vouchsafed to the plebs doesn't cut it, in fact it goes against all the principles of justice.

Rolfe.

 

[Kaosium]

Originally Posted by Kaosium
No, hardly everyone was involved, most probably even believed it all the way through the trial, everyone did.

No evidence of this, you're just making it up.

Poetic license? I think the fact the good townspeople of Perugia got up at midnight to applaud the decision suggests at the end of the trial Amanda's guilt was still a given. I don't think most if not nearly all the cops would be different in that regard, perhaps even more adamant.

Originally Posted by Kaosium
That was a big part of the conviction in my view, the fact the jury went in there knowing Raffaele and Amanda were guilty.

No evidence of this, you're just making it up.

Which would be why I qualified it, "my view."
I came to this conclusion by a fair sampling of media articles on the atmosphere in Perugia before the trial. Here's one you may not have seen that imparts some interesting information.

"Most important, however, is the change in Italian public opinion. Unlike in the U.S., where jurors are carefully screened for bias and sequestered during the proceedings, in Italy they are known as "civilian judges," and are free to hold preconceived opinions and to drink deeply from the media well. Indeed, in Knox's first trial, the jury foreman was a criminal lawyer whose firm had briefly participated in the investigation."

No bleach receipt was presented as evidence at the trial.

Precisely, but it was still there! In the minds of the jurors who may very well include that in their inventory of information about the guilt of the accused. There was no 'bleach receipt zapper' that removed that (dis)information from the minds of the jury. Some of these guys are sleeping, no one is paying attention every minute and in a trial that goes on for about a year with a long summer recess just where memories came from about the murder can become confused.

That photo was not presented as evidence at the trial.

Same as above, but this time ingrained with two dimensions.

YOU think the case was weak. The jury who saw and heard all the evidence didn't. You have not seen and heard all the evidence.

Yeah I have, there wasn't much of it either. Not of murder. They didn't produce one iota of evidence of murder, and precious little peripheral evidence. They wouldn't have forgotten to leave that out of the 400+ page Massei Report.

Quote: Kaosium
The only ones who really had to 'know' were the ones who perjured themselves, Monica Napoleoni for one

Again, no evidence of this, you're just making it up.

I must assume that the ones who told provable lies might well know what they were doing, and Napoleoni is double-damned because she as Head of Homocide would know that neither the bra clasp or the 'murder knife' was even evidence of murder even if everything was entirely up to snuff with them.

You still have nothing but an elaborate conspiracy theory.

What is a conspiracy theory to you and how does it differ from a historical account or a magazine article for instance?

 

[LondonJohn]

These were both unsolved cases that the police were under pressure to solve. Doesn't apply at all to this case where there was clear evidence of RG's involvement. No need for anyone to frame AK and RS but the conspiracy theory said they did.....for no reason whatsoever.

You really don't see the reason? I'll give you a clue: you might want to read what was triumphantly announced at the Perugia police press conference on 6th November. Then you might want to read it again.

Then you might want to imagine how the prosecutor and the most senior police officer in Perugia could just possibly have wanted to avoid an embarrassing humiliation when all three of the people they'd just announced as the culprits (in a crime that they - and the public - were desperate for them to solve, particularly in the light of the failure to solve the a similar murder case from a year earlier) turned out to have nothing to do with it, and that the crime was actually committed by someone they hadn't yet caught when they made their triumphal announcement.

Does that make it a bit clearer as to what their motivation might have been?

 

[jhunter1163]

Be civil and polite, and refrain from personalizing your arguments.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[stilicho]

In the early days of the thread here many supporters of Knox and the other Italian dude were acting exactly like truthers that is why they were called CT fantasists. There are more rational posters now but this thread still has the same sneering style posting seen when I last read it.

That's the hallmark compelling most people to avoid it like a visit to the dentist (or maybe, considering this is the JREF, to the chiropractor).

Now if we could only get the burgeoning number of Knox threads merged into this one, in this section, we'd be able to get back to discussing actual social issues and current events in the social issues and current events forum.

 

[stilicho]

My original response was explicitly intended to illustrate that not many people need to be actively involved in deliberate deception for a miscarriage of justice to occur.

True. So who were they?

 

[LondonJohn]

True. So who were they?

I might have some ideas, but I'm not naming names on here. Nice try though!

 

[stilicho]

I said this already, but I'll say it again. Justice is supposed to be transparent. Guilty verdicts are not supposed to rest on evidence that is secret, or reasoning the public cannot follow or understand.

If the Italian court system can't explain clearly what the basis is for a conviction "beyond reasonable doubt", I'd say there might be a problem. Possibly.

Just declaring that the jury have some arcane knowledge not vouchsafed to the plebs doesn't cut it, in fact it goes against all the principles of justice.

Rolfe.

Over two dozen judges agreed unanimously, so far, that the two were guilty. The "lone wolf" theory was rejected, with reasons published, within weeks of the murder. The real challenge facing the prosecution was the mountain of evidence they had to sift through and present for consideration. There was no element of a successful murder case missing.

I agree with Kaosium that there would have had to have been a blindingly effective conspiracy for all of this to have happened and the pair being innocent. If they really are guilty, there's no conspiracy whatsoever and the evidence is what it appears to be.

The whole incident really was a garden variety homicide involving more than one assailant. No "arcane knowledge" required.

 

[stilicho]

I might have some ideas, but I'm not naming names on here. Nice try though!

This is the conspiracy theories forum. The idea of this forum category is to allow you to freely speculate about who conspired with whom and possibly produce some evidence to support it.

Rolfe mentioned above that we have little patience for "arcane knowledge".

 

[LondonJohn]

This is the conspiracy theories forum. The idea of this forum category is to allow you to freely speculate about who conspired with whom and possibly produce some evidence to support it.

Rolfe mentioned above that we have little patience for "arcane knowledge".

I might have some ideas, but I'm not naming names on here. Nice try though!

Also, I'm liking the use of the word "we" there! Lovely stuff!

 

[LondonJohn]

Over two dozen judges agreed unanimously, so far, that the two were guilty. The "lone wolf" theory was rejected, with reasons published, within weeks of the murder. The real challenge facing the prosecution was the mountain of evidence they had to sift through and present for consideration. There was no element of a successful murder case missing.

I agree with Kaosium that there would have had to have been a blindingly effective conspiracy for all of this to have happened and the pair being innocent. If they really are guilty, there's no conspiracy whatsoever and the evidence is what it appears to be.

The whole incident really was a garden variety homicide involving more than one assailant. No "arcane knowledge" required.

I seem to remember you having been fairly certain some weeks ago that Rolfe would comprehensively demolish the case for the unsafe nature of Knox's/Sollecito's convictions if she turned her attention to it, and that she'd denounce all those who believe the convictions to be unsafe as lunatic CTers. Without wanting to presume what other posters think, it doesn't seem to have turned out quite as you'd hoped, does it.....?


BTW: Are you possibly aware that your "over two dozen judges agreed...that the two were guilty" piece is arrant nonsense? Apart from the eight judges (which were actually two professional judges and six lay people with no requirement for anything more than basic secondary school education) who sat in the first trial, the rest of these "over two dozen" judges were passing judgement as to whether the case should go to trial, or whether Knox/Sollecito should remain in custody, or whether the charges were appplicable. All of these areas require no judgement on guilt: they merely require satisfaction that there is a case to answer. Hope that's cleared that one up - we wouldn't want to be passing out misleading information, would we?

 

[stilicho]

I might have some ideas, but I'm not naming names on here. Nice try though!

Also, I'm liking the use of the word "we" there! Lovely stuff!

Mignini? Giobbi? Stefanoni? Biondo? Napoleoni? Matteini? Comodi? Maresca?

Ghirga?

You can just say yes, yes, yes, no, yes, like that.

 

[stilicho]

I seem to remember you having been fairly certain some weeks ago that Rolfe would comprehensively demolish the case for the unsafe nature of Knox's/Sollecito's convictions if she turned her attention to it, and that she'd denounce all those who believe the convictions to be unsafe as lunatic CTers. Without wanting to presume what other posters think, it doesn't seem to have turned out quite as you'd hoped, does it.....?

Cite?

 

[LondonJohn]

Cite?

Nice try!

 

[LondonJohn]

Mignini? Giobbi? Stefanoni? Biondo? Napoleoni? Matteini? Comodi? Maresca?

Ghirga?

You can just say yes, yes, yes, no, yes, like that.

No thanks. But I do appreciate what you're trying to get me to do, and why.

 

[stilicho]

Nice try!

I know you don't like to cite. I'll do it for you then:

I had asked Rolfe (a longtime JREF member who has been a stalwart against homeopathy, acupuncture, naturopathy, and chiropracty) to weigh in on some of the medical considerations in JAN or FEB 2010 and he outright refused on the basis of tl;dr. When someone of that stature avoids the thread then I know something is terribly wrong.

That's not only not quite what you claimed that I said but it's actually entirely different. There's nothing in there about "comprehensively demolish" and nothing about "lunatic CTers". It's not even about the same topic but about the medical considerations.

I would ask you to retract what you claimed that I said because it's a lie. I'm not holding my breath, though.

 

[stilicho]

No thanks. But I do appreciate what you're trying to get me to do, and why.

I'm asking you to name the conspirators in the conspiracy. What do you think I'm trying to get you to do?

 

[LondonJohn]

I know you don't like to cite. I'll do it for you then:



That's not only not quite what you claimed that I said but it's actually entirely different. There's nothing in there about "comprehensively demolish" and nothing about "lunatic CTers". It's not even about the same topic but about the medical considerations.

I would ask you to retract what you claimed that I said because it's a lie. I'm not holding my breath, though.

You're right, and I misremembered. I apologise. You can breath out now.

But I'm assuming that you wouldn't have been asking Rolfe to comment on the matter unless you believed she was going to support your position that the argument for Knox's/Sollecito's non-guilt was little more than a conspiracy theory. Just a hunch, of course.......

Now, how about those over-two-dozen judges, eh?!

 

[stilicho]

You're right, and I misremembered. I apologise. You can breath out now.

But I'm assuming that you wouldn't have been asking Rolfe to comment on the matter unless you believed she was going to support your position that the argument for Knox's/Sollecito's non-guilt was little more than a conspiracy theory. Just a hunch, of course.......

Now, how about those over-two-dozen judges, eh?!

What is my position on the medical considerations? Do you know? Your apology is not accepted because you restate the lie in the second paragraph but using different words.

I don't ask people questions because I want them to accept any presumed position that I hold. I don't have any medical qualifications and I can't see any harm receiving intelligent information from someone who does.

There was nothing in my request to Rolfe, and nothing in my statement that I had contacted Rolfe, to suggest that she might think anything at all about the possibility of a conspiracy theory. I've only encountered her on medical, scientific, and general scepticism threads and never in the CT forum until just now.

Try apologising again and drop the explanation that simply restates your original position. Sometimes when you're wrong you're just plain wrong.

Now, about those conspirators. This is the CT sub-forum. If you can't even figure out who is in the conspiracy then how could you possibly believe there might have been one?