The Massei/Mignini Conspiracy Theory

[stilicho]

Again, where was it reported that such calls were made. By whom was it reported, and with what attribution? Thanks in advance.

It was in an Italian newspaper. It's not terribly important to the conspiracy you've proposed but you have been advised that the police did not interview everyone identified in Amanda's phone records before and after Meredith was slain. The most prominent of these examples is, of course, Patrick. He was unknown to the police until Amanda told them he'd killed Meredith.

As you also know, Amanda and Raffaele each switched off their phones around 21:00 of 01 NOV 2007 and turned them on the next morning before the time they claimed to have arisen.

The issue of Amanda's contact with drug users isn't germane to your allegations of police misconduct but it is from a notebook page in the killer's own handwriting. It is cached on the PMF web site although, curiously, nowhere to be found on the apologists' sites that claim to contain all the information relevant to Amanda's guilt.

So we're back again to right where we started. All you're missing is any evidence that the police knew about Patrick before the interview began and conspired to force Amanda to accuse him of murder at 01:45, to coerce her into demanding pen and paper to accuse him again and to embellish the story at 05:45, to then again write about it around noon the next day (standing by her previous statements), and to stick to this story until the legal system finally freed Patrick with no help from Amanda.

 

[RoseMontague]

It was in an Italian newspaper. It's not terribly important to the conspiracy you've proposed but you have been advised that the police did not interview everyone identified in Amanda's phone records before and after Meredith was slain. The most prominent of these examples is, of course, Patrick. He was unknown to the police until Amanda told them he'd killed Meredith.

As you also know, Amanda and Raffaele each switched off their phones around 21:00 of 01 NOV 2007 and turned them on the next morning before the time they claimed to have arisen.

The issue of Amanda's contact with drug users isn't germane to your allegations of police misconduct but it is from a notebook page in the killer's own handwriting. It is cached on the PMF web site although, curiously, nowhere to be found on the apologists' sites that claim to contain all the information relevant to Amanda's guilt.

So we're back again to right where we started. All you're missing is any evidence that the police knew about Patrick before the interview began and conspired to force Amanda to accuse him of murder at 01:45, to coerce her into demanding pen and paper to accuse him again and to embellish the story at 05:45, to then again write about it around noon the next day (standing by her previous statements), and to stick to this story until the legal system finally freed Patrick with no help from Amanda.

So does this mean you have dropped your first argument?

 

[RoseMontague]

I am uncertain as to what records the police did have when questioning Amanda and Raffaele on the night of November 5/6, however, they had at least one set of phone records.

Quote:
I tabulati telefonici esaminati dalla polizia postale si sono rivelati fondamentali per ricostruire gli spostamenti dei ragazzi.

----

Verso le 23 mi ha chiamato sull'utenza fissa di casa mio padre.

http://www.corriere.it/cronache/07_n...arzanini.shtml



Is the second sentence above saying that Raffaele called his father at 23:00 or that his father called him?

Raffaele's father sent an SMS to Raffaele a bit after 23:00 but I do not think it was received on Raffaele's phone until the next morning. I do not think there was a talking phone call between the two at 23:00.

At some point they also had Amanda's cell phone because they ended up waving it in front of Amanda's face asking about the text message to Patrick. Does anyone know at what point they took the cell phone of this "witness"?

 

[Kaosium]

It was in an Italian newspaper. It's not terribly important to the conspiracy you've proposed but you have been advised that the police did not interview everyone identified in Amanda's phone records before and after Meredith was slain. The most prominent of these examples is, of course, Patrick. He was unknown to the police until Amanda told them he'd killed Meredith.

Then why did they press her to name him? More interestingly, how did Amanda ever get it into her head that Le Chic was closed that night? In the 1:45 AM statement it is written that Amanda said:

"Last Thursday 1st November, day on which I usually work, while I was in the apartment of my boyfriend Raffaele, at about 20.30 I received a message from Patrick on my mobile, telling me that that evening the pub would remain closed because there were no people, therefore I didn’t have to go to work."

Where did she ever get that idea? She exchanged a text with Patrick the night of the murder, she knows he was working. She'd worked in restaurants before, she'd know the till would reveal if someone was working. Her saying something demonstrably untrue--and it taking the cops two weeks to get to the bottom of it--doesn't fit at all with the idea Patrick was 'unknown to police.' Someone must have convinced her Patrick didn't work that night, this isn't something that would have come from Amanda: she knew better, she also had communicated with him that night and since, and she knew how easily it was checked.

It made it into a sparse statement, that suggests it was important to someone, it wasn't an off the cuff type speculation. It became an 'admission of facts we knew to be correct.' Except it wasn't, but why would it have been there if the cops didn't think it matched something? Such as Patrick's SIMS card being changed that day and them thinking it meant he was near the cottage the night of the murder, as they would reveal shortly after the arrests?

So we're back again to right where we started. All you're missing is any evidence that the police knew about Patrick before the interview began and conspired to force Amanda to accuse him of murder at 01:45, to coerce her into demanding pen and paper to accuse him again and to embellish the story at 05:45, to then again write about it around noon the next day (standing by her previous statements), and to stick to this story until the legal system finally freed Patrick with no help from Amanda.

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.

 

[christianahannah]

At some point they also had Amanda's cell phone because they ended up waving it in front of Amanda's face asking about the text message to Patrick. Does anyone know at what point they took the cell phone of this "witness"?

According to Amanda's testimony it was during her November 5/6 interrogation but before the 1:45 statement. The police asked for her phone and she gave it to them.

From PMF In Their Own Words - Amanda Knox Trial Testimony

"Why didn't you go to work?" Because my boss told me I didn't have to go to work. "Let's see your telephone to see if you have that message." Sure, take it. "All right." So one policeman took it, and started looking in it, while the others kept on yelling "We know you met someone, somehow, but why did you meet someone?" But I kept saying no, no, I didn't go out, I'm not pro-pro-pro---

 

[RoseMontague]

According to Amanda's testimony it was during her November 5/6 interrogation but before the 1:45 statement. The police asked for her phone and she gave it to them.

From PMF In Their Own Words - Amanda Knox Trial Testimony

Yes, it does sound like they already knew what they would find.

 

[bucketoftea]

Yes, it does sound like they already knew what they would find.

How?

 

[babycondor]

According to Amanda's testimony it was during her November 5/6 interrogation but before the 1:45 statement. The police asked for her phone and she gave it to them.

From PMF In Their Own Words - Amanda Knox Trial Testimony

I looked up Amanda's trial testimony on PMF and found this, which is a little different from what you posted above:

CP: How did you come to decide to delete Patrick's message?

AK: I had a limited amount of space in my phone, and whenever I received a
message that I didn't need to remember something for, I deleted them.

CP: Why didn't you delete your own when you answered him?

AK: Umm, I'm not used to deleting those. I just delete the ones that I receive,
I believe. [The interpreter does not translate the first part of this
answer.]

<snipped out some banter>

GCM? [addressing the interpreter] Tell her that if she wants to add something,
as it seemed she did, she can do it, and we will listen. [Interpreter puts
this into English]

AK: Yes. Um, the interrogation process was very long and difficult. Arriving
in the police office, I didn't expect to be interrogated at all. When I got
there, I was sitting on my own doing my homework, when a couple of police
officers came to sit with me. They began to ask me the same questions that
they had been asking me days...all these days ever since it happened. For
instance, who could I imagine could be the person who killed Meredith, and
I said I still didn't know, and so what they did is, they brought me into
another interrogation room. Once I was in there, they asked me to repeat
everything that I had said before, for instance what I did that night. They asked me to see my phone, which I gave to them, and they were looking through my phone, which is when they found the message. When they found the message, they asked me if I had sent a message back,which I didn't remember doing. That's when they
started being very hard with me. They called me a stupid
liar, and they said that I was trying to protect someone. [Sigh]....

First she testifies she deleted Patrick's incoming message, then a few minutes later she testifies the police found that message and asked her if she had sent a message back???

 

[Danceme]

In the 1:45 AM statement it is written that Amanda said:

"Last Thursday 1st November, day on which I usually work, while I was in the apartment of my boyfriend Raffaele, at about 20.30 I received a message from Patrick on my mobile, telling me that that evening the pub would remain closed because there were no people, therefore I didn’t have to go to work."

Someone must have convinced her Patrick didn't work that night, this isn't something that would have come from Amanda: she knew better, she also had communicated with him that night and since, and she knew how easily it was checked.

If someone convinced her Patrick didn't work that night why would she write that he told her in his text message the pub was closed? If it went down as you surmise she would more likely have written "I found out later the pub was closed" or "the police told me the pub was closed" and not that Patrick had told her himself in his text.

 

[Danceme]

First she testifies she deleted Patrick's incoming message, then a few minutes later she testifies the police found that message and asked her if she had sent a message back???

She did have a hard time keeping her stories straight.

 

[Juror]

I looked up Amanda's trial testimony on PMF and found this, which is a little different from what you posted above:



<snipped out some banter>



First she testifies she deleted Patrick's incoming message, then a few minutes later she testifies the police found that message and asked her if she had sent a message back???

I can see how you can see that apparant inconsistency but I read something completely different in that passage.

I took it to mean "the message" they found was the one Amanda had sent back that previously she did not recall doing. Basically, the situation I picture is Amanda had told them she had received a text saying she did need to go to work, was asked if she had sent a text to anyone that night and had said no, then when they looked through her phone they found this outgoing message and called her on it. Perhaps a poor choice of words by Amanda but such is what you get in a live interview.

Remember the context of this statement of hers is a description of an event that happened some 18 months previously. The embedded expectation in your argument that someone is going to give such a precise version so much time later that can be picked apart at this level needs support.

I think all you can gather absent a tape or transcript of the initial interrogation is AK's version of the general flow of events and line of questioning.

 

[Kaosium]

If someone convinced her Patrick didn't work that night why would she write that he told her in his text message the pub was closed? If it went down as you surmise she would more likely have written "I found out later the pub was closed" or "the police told me the pub was closed" and not that Patrick had told her himself in his text.

Amanda isn't writing this, she's signing something in a language she barely reads at this point, and how that came to be written in the 1:45 AM statement is interesting. It isn't in her note, which is something we can be sure she actually wrote, but it is in that first statement and not the other. I am extremely curious as to why that was added in that 1:45 statement. You ask a very good question, why would she have said the message claimed the pub was closed when she worked there, had seen Patrick since, and it was demonstrably untrue as a cursory glance at the receipts would indicate?

I think perhaps you're suffering under a misconception, that this is what Amanda wanted the statements to read like, that she is responsible for what went into these statements. That's not really how it works with an interrogation that changes a suspect's story and becomes a 'confession.' If you think on it, what a successful interrogation would produce is the 'changing' of the story to what the police want, in virtually all cases that is the truth. However in a case like this where we know the result wasn't the truth, it doesn't diminish the capacity the police have for 'changing a story.' As we both know the police are fully prepared to lie to the suspect in order to achieve that end.

Since at this point we know the police are lying about the whole interrogation, demonstrated by Monica Napoleoni's testimony and her forged 'notes,' and they claim not to have the video evidence that was required by common sense the whole night and the law after 1:45, they don't really deserve the benefit of the doubt regarding what happened in that interrogation. That Napoleoni wanted to pretend the 1:45 statement never even occurred is something that intrigues me, and I was just wondering what in there might have caused them to want to 'forget' that specific statement.

It could also be that there was a mis-communication because of the language difficulties, it might also be that Amanda forgot or was easily lead into saying that, as the cops might well have been adamant about it. After all, something like that would have to be true were Patrick involved in the murder, being as he couldn't be at both places at the same time. Now, where would the cops have gotten the idea that Patrick may have been somewhere else...

 

[Kaosium]

If someone convinced her Patrick didn't work that night why would she write that he told her in his text message the pub was closed? If it went down as you surmise she would more likely have written "I found out later the pub was closed" or "the police told me the pub was closed" and not that Patrick had told her himself in his text.

That's not what 'she' wrote. What she wrote was:

He told me in this message that it wasn't necessary for me to come into work for the evening because there was no one at my work.

It could be that the reason the first 'statement' included the other line is that she was unable to distinguish to the translator the difference between no customers being there meaning she didn't have to work, and that no one else was working because there were no customers. It didn't make it into the 5:45 statement, thus it seems at some point they must have realized the error.

 

[Kaosium]

I can see how you can see that apparant inconsistency but I read something completely different in that passage.

I took it to mean "the message" they found was the one Amanda had sent back that previously she did not recall doing. Basically, the situation I picture is Amanda had told them she had received a text saying she did need to go to work, was asked if she had sent a text to anyone that night and had said no, then when they looked through her phone they found this outgoing message and called her on it. Perhaps a poor choice of words by Amanda but such is what you get in a live interview.

Remember the context of this statement of hers is a description of an event that happened some 18 months previously. The embedded expectation in your argument that someone is going to give such a precise version so much time later that can be picked apart at this level needs support.

I think all you can gather absent a tape or transcript of the initial interrogation is AK's version of the general flow of events and line of questioning.

I don't 'text' over my phone, thus I'm unsure of how it works, but if I were to erase a text that came would it still be recorded in my phone that I'd received one and deleted it? Kinda like my 'call log' showing I received a call even if I didn't answer?

 

[Kaosium]

She did have a hard time keeping her stories straight.

She sure seemed to do a better job than the police involved in that interrogation! Just what is their version of the interrogation now? We have provable perjuries and missing tapes, but their only 'story' nowadays seems to be they didn't hit Amanda, which even Machiavelli admitted he believed they probably did. So does Barbie Nadeau for that matter.

What do you believe actually happened to Amanda in the middle of the night surrounded by all those cops that they'd perjure themselves and claim they 'forgot' to tape?

 

[Katody Matrass]

I don't 'text' over my phone, thus I'm unsure of how it works, but if I were to erase a text that came would it still be recorded in my phone that I'd received one and deleted it? Kinda like my 'call log' showing I received a call even if I didn't answer?

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.

 

[bobc]

So there is still no actual evidence to suggest a police conspiracy, in particular no evidence that the ILE were even aware of Lumumba before examining Knox's phone on Nov 5.

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.

 

[stilicho]

So does this mean you have dropped your first argument?

Which argument? I maintain there is no evidence of a conspiracy to convict Knox any more than there is evidence that the moon landings were faked or that the British royal family is comprised of 12-foot invisible shapeshifting lizards.

Do you have any evidence yet?

 

[Katody Matrass]

So does this mean you have dropped your first argument?

Definitely looks like it. About time, too, because it was quite a silly move to base an argument on completely false fabricated lies. It's very easy to check who Amanda called and with whom exchanged text messages right before the murder, just look to the Massei report - it was Patrick, not some imaginary "drug dealer".

 

[RoseMontague]

Which argument? I maintain there is no evidence of a conspiracy to convict Knox any more than there is evidence that the moon landings were faked or that the British royal family is comprised of 12-foot invisible shapeshifting lizards.

Do you have any evidence yet?

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.