The Massei/Mignini Conspiracy Theory

Actually, I've been here for coming up to 5 years now, since before you were even a member here, when I first came here to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theorists so there's really no need to "welcome" me to a sub-forum I've been at for years, but thanks just the same.

Welcome regardless.

Rather, I think that the police in this case made the same mistakes that other police forces before and since have made...This kind of scenario (although usually absent the bit about having a prosecutor with a vivid imagination also being convicted of charges of his own and still prosecuting) has played out many times in the past and continues to play out in various cities and towns across the globe far more often than it should, but does not a "police conspiracy to frame" make.

The "it's all just a big mistake" thread is the other way and not here in the Conspiracy Theories sub-forum. I understand there's well over 20,000 posts attesting to the "it's all just a big mistake" hypothesis. Knox stated it was all just a big mistake at her rambling and semi-coherent speech last DEC at her initial appeal hearing.

Here, however, we're discussing the hypothesis that it wasn't all some horrible mistake and that Amanda Knox is in prison solely due to specific and deliberate actions.

Are you ready to discuss these actions and provide the required evidence to back up your claims?

Do you dispute that Ms. Knox was further interviewed/interrogated after 1:45 a.m. and that the later interview/interrogation resulted in the 5:45 "statement" being written?

Is this relevant to our examination of the conspiracy to frame the accused?
 
Welcome regardless.



The "it's all just a big mistake" thread is the other way and not here in the Conspiracy Theories sub-forum. I understand there's well over 20,000 posts attesting to the "it's all just a big mistake" hypothesis. Knox stated it was all just a big mistake at her rambling and semi-coherent speech last DEC at her initial appeal hearing.

Here, however, we're discussing the hypothesis that it wasn't all some horrible mistake and that Amanda Knox is in prison solely due to specific and deliberate actions.

Are you ready to discuss these actions and provide the required evidence to back up your claims?



Is this relevant to our examination of the conspiracy to frame the accused?


No, the conspracy that's actually under discussion here is the conspiracy alleged by Mignini (and seemingly accepted by the first court), which involved Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba Guede conspiring together in a murderous group. Maybe you should read the OP again...
 
I do wish, as Komponisto has wished in the past, that there was a pro-guilt speaker who was a competent rationalist with a joined-up theory about the case. Maybe I'm wishing for a contradiction in terms.

I used your arithmetic and I'm 95% certain that Sophie Purton was the killer.

Next.
 
No, the conspracy that's actually under discussion here is the conspiracy alleged by Mignini (and seemingly accepted by the first court), which involved Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba Guede conspiring together in a murderous group. Maybe you should read the OP again...

So, we're agreed, the whole discussion of this topic belongs here in the Conspiracy Theories forum and not clogging up the Social Issues forum.

Thanks for your help.
 
I used your arithmetic and I'm 95% certain that Sophie Purton was the killer.

Next.


Your argument here is devoid of the correct application of probability distribution curves (t(lag) times) in the knowledge of certain conditional parameters (ToD must have been later than t(lag)=2.5 hours). But you seem insistent upon arguing that the statistics that Kevin and I (and others) have used to illustrate why Meredith couldn't possibly have died any later than 10.30pm (and most likely died between 9pm and 9.30pm) also show (to you) that she must have died at 8pm (the statistical median).

I can only suppose that you either don't understand the underlying maths, or that you choose to misrepresent the maths. And since you seem pretty numerate, I'm edging towards the latter proposition.
 
Last edited:
So, we're agreed, the whole discussion of this topic belongs here in the Conspiracy Theories forum and not clogging up the Social Issues forum.

Thanks for your help.


No, we're not agreed on that at all. The topic under discussion in this sub-forum is why Mignini decided there was a conspiracy between three people, when it's in fact highly likely that the murder was the work of just one person. This thread is not alleging that there was a conspiracy among the police/proscutors to frame Knox and Sollecito - do you see the difference?

Although I realise that placing the entire discussion in this sub-forum is what you would like to see. Why is that? Why does it matter to you that this whole case is placed into the "conspiracy theories" section?
 
No, we're not agreed on that at all. The topic under discussion in this sub-forum is why Mignini decided there was a conspiracy between three people, when it's in fact highly likely that the murder was the work of just one person. This thread is not alleging that there was a conspiracy among the police/proscutors to frame Knox and Sollecito - do you see the difference?
Not a fact at all.

I can still see no difference between a "Mignini conspiracy theory that Knox, Sollicito and Guede jointly murdered Meredith Kercher" and a "prosecution theory that Knox, Sollicito and Guede jointly murdered Meredith Kercher", apart from Mignini being incorrectly highlighted as the sole prosecutor and the word "conspiracy".

I've no idea why Massei is brought into this "CT".

The word "conspiracy" is obviously inserted in an attempt to discredit the prosecution theory, but otherwise there is no reason this thread should not be merged with the main Amanda Knox thread.
 
Here, however, we're discussing the hypothesis that it wasn't all some horrible mistake and that Amanda Knox is in prison solely due to specific and deliberate actions.

Are you ready to discuss these actions and provide the required evidence to back up your claims?

Is this relevant to our examination of the conspiracy to frame the accused?

No, I think you've misread Kaosium's excellent first post, stilicho. Here's his argument in a nutshell: "Thus my contention is the prosecution theory is a conspiracy theory given the way it is constructed and who formulated it, while the idea that Amanda Knox being innocent belongs in the realm of conspiracy theorists is an idea advanced only by a couple websites and has taken hold at JREF for bizarre reasons which should be dispelled."

The prosecution's theory of the murder - endorsed and set out in detail by Massei - is a conspiracy theory, relying on absurd over-interpretation of tiny insignificant details (e.g. the supposedly suspicious fact that Knox and Sollecito were standing in the kitchen when the bedroom door was broken down). Evidence of guilt could be found in anyone's behaviour if we were to over-analyze it in the same way Massei does.

No one is saying the police and prosecution conspired to frame Amanda Knox. If you think that's the case you'll probably have to start a new thread.
 
Last edited:
The prosecution's theory of the murder - endorsed and set out in detail by Massei - is a conspiracy theory, relying on absurd over-interpretation of tiny insignificant details (e.g. the supposedly suspicious fact that Knox and Sollecito were standing in the kitchen when the bedroom door was broken down). Evidence of guilt could be found in anyone's behaviour if we were to over-analyze it in the same way Massei does.

Yours is good nutshell as well.

As is the below quote.

******AN OBSERVATION******
A pair of train guards.
A pair of grave diggers.
When it comes down to it, one of them called the shots.
The other did what he was told.
The question is, what if the other is a lot more than one?
 
Last edited:
The prosecution's theory of the murder - endorsed and set out in detail by Massei - is a conspiracy theory, relying on absurd over-interpretation of tiny insignificant details (e.g. the supposedly suspicious fact that Knox and Sollecito were standing in the kitchen when the bedroom door was broken down). Evidence of guilt could be found in anyone's behaviour if we were to over-analyze it in the same way Massei does.
Right, so it is just a regular prosecutorial theory of a crime, but it's a conspiracy theory because it is a bad theory.

Of course, relying on absurd over-interpretation of tiny insignificant details (like the "confirms what we knew" comment) and ignoring the mountain of inconvenient evidence, is also a hallmark of the innocentisti.

I don't get why Massei is singled out for this, he just wrote one of the reports. There are plenty of other prosecutors and judges involved in this "theory of the murder".

And we have yet to hear any actual evidence of this alleged bizarre conspiracy.
 
Right, so it is just a regular prosecutorial theory of a crime, but it's a conspiracy theory because it is a bad theory.

Of course, relying on absurd over-interpretation of tiny insignificant details (like the "confirms what we knew" comment) and ignoring the mountain of inconvenient evidence, is also a hallmark of the innocentisti.

I don't get why Massei is singled out for this, he just wrote one of the reports. There are plenty of other prosecutors and judges involved in this "theory of the murder".

And we have yet to hear any actual evidence of this alleged bizarre conspiracy.


No, it's a conspiracy theory because it involves a conspiracy between three people to commit the murder and to lie about it afterwards. Simple as that.

You also appear to be getting confused between 1) allegations that Mignini proposed a conspiracy theory of the murder, and 2) allegations that Mignini (and others in ILE) were themselves involved in a conspiracy theory in their prosecution of Knox and Sollecito. There's a very big difference. And it's the first point that the OP in this thread was all about, not the second.
 
No, it's a conspiracy theory because it involves a conspiracy between three people to commit the murder and to lie about it afterwards. Simple as that.

You should ask CT forum ingenue LashL about this approach. This echoes precisely the 'truther' mantra that the US government has been deliberately promoting a CT about a bunch of cave-dwelling Arabs to conceal its own complicity in the terrorist attacks of 9/11:

When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on the FBI's web page, Rex Tomb, the FBI's Chief of Investigative Publicity, is reported to have said, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."

(Source: http://www.twf.org/News/Y2006/0608-BinLaden.html )

UBL and Amanda Knox are presented as unfortunate dupes who were simply convenient scapegoats to disguise (paraphrasing LashL) the incompetence of the authorities. A charred passport from one of the hijackers that fluttered to the ground to be collected "suspiciously" is replaced by the bra clasp collected 47 days after the murder. Non-experts (a vertical gardener, a retired accident reconstructionist, Donald Trump, a guy armed with a library card, and a food blogger who cannot speak fluent Italian) flock to the cause and establish a failing cottage industry peddling untested hypotheses eagerly lapped up by adoring Knox fanatics and Amandamaniacs.

In the real world, meanwhile, the admittedly snail-paced Italian judicial process continues unmolested and Amanda's prospects of release before she is deep into middle age sink farther and farther from realisation.

Where's the letter-writing campaign to get the US State Department to declare a no-fly zone over Perugia? Where are the trutheresque freeway overpass banners exhorting the unwashed to Free Amanda on the anniversary of her incarceration? How about a real defence fund to get her an expert lawyer with LashL's acute sense of justice instead of the sham "fund" that pays Amanda's step-father to nosh on fine Umbrian cuisine?

Bueller? Bueller?
 
While I am reading the fores and the true guillty people, I think that we should go back to SQ 1
What proof did they have of Amanda doing this crime on the 1st of november, zero.
the confesion on the the 5th November was not recorded which it should have been.
The SCOI gashed that confison.
So here we have a young lady and a young man in court for nothing they have done wrong.
If there was No recording then there was no Crime.
It will not matter if the police woman forgot to turn on the recorder.
No recording.
No case.
It,s simple as that.
Sorry to those that cannot spell think I am a dumbo.
I can read , wright, do the maths, but spelling is just a no no for me.
 
In the real world, meanwhile, the admittedly snail-paced Italian judicial process continues unmolested and Amanda's prospects of release before she is deep into middle age sink farther and farther from realisation.


What do you know of the real world and the real evidence in this case?
 
The prosecution's theory of the murder - endorsed and set out in detail by Massei - is a conspiracy theory, relying on absurd over-interpretation of tiny insignificant details (e.g. the supposedly suspicious fact that Knox and Sollecito were standing in the kitchen when the bedroom door was broken down). Evidence of guilt could be found in anyone's behaviour if we were to over-analyze it in the same way Massei does.

Also, the Massei report twists the truth to arrive at their conclusions. Another aspect of conspiracy theories. For example, in trying to justify the idea that Rudy Guede didn't get in by the window, Massei says "Rudy Guede was acquainted with the inhabitants of via della Pergola, and that he had a good relationship of friendship and fun with them (with all of the boys from downstairs; with Amanda, in whom he had actually shown some interest; and with Meredith). It thus seems unlikely that Rudy decided to enter this house in the illicit and violent manner shown by the smashing of the window."
This is really bizarre! Rudy Guede had been introduced to Amanda, he asked someone else if she had a boyfriend. He played basketball with the guys downstairs and perhaps he'd been in the downstairs apartment. I'm not sure what contact he had with Meredith. That's not a "good relationship of friendship and fun"! Just playing basketball with someone is very casual; they might meet some guys hanging out at the basketball court and start playing. It wouldn't mean they knew each other.
The alternative makes a lot of sense: that the guys downstairs got acquainted with a predator; he knew the upstairs had only women, rather foxy women. Maybe he would have known, from being around the guys downstairs, when the women were going to be out of the house. So, partly to get cash and partly with a sexual motivation, he breaks in.
Dismissing this obvious theory in favor of a baroque, sensational and very rare kind of murder would require very strong evidence to support it. The prosecution didn't have strong evidence. And, Mignini is known to come up with bizarre conspiracy theories. The idea that he would just happen to investigate a murder that REALLY WAS baroque, sensational and a very rare sort of murder - would involve the coincidence of two unusual things: the conspiracy-obsessed prosecutor AND a rare kind of murder. It's VERY unlikely.

No one is saying the police and prosecution conspired to frame Amanda Knox. If you think that's the case you'll probably have to start a new thread.

There are a lot of "conspiring to frame" theories around. The defense apparently thought that Rudy Guede was a police informer. The conspiracy theory would be that the powers that be in Perugia wanted to hide this fact. And a lot of ideas that information that would exculpate Amanda and Raffaele was deliberately erased, that the police messed up his computer for this reason. Mark Waterbury wrote a book about the framing of Amanda Knox.
Talking about this involves a lot of speculation that can't ever be proved, so to me it's not interesting. But it's at least interesting to know where such conspiracy might have happened.
 
Not a fact at all.

I can still see no difference between a "Mignini conspiracy theory that Knox, Sollicito and Guede jointly murdered Meredith Kercher" and a "prosecution theory that Knox, Sollicito and Guede jointly murdered Meredith Kercher", apart from Mignini being incorrectly highlighted as the sole prosecutor and the word "conspiracy".

Mignini is the one who came up with the theory and in Italy the prosecutor directs the investigation. Thus he led this 'investigation' into trying to find proof of a bizarre conspiracy instead of what was suggested by the actual evidence.

I've no idea why Massei is brought into this "CT".

He was the presiding judge who made so many dubious decisions in favor of the prosecution he left himself with the the unenviable task of having to write up a motivations report without the evidence to support the bizarre theory that had been represented. Thus his tenuous leaps in logic and fast and loose hand-waving resemble that of conspiracy theorists. Two notable examples that haven't been brought up: how he hand-waves away the fact the glass pattern didn't correspond to his theory of the 'staged break-in,' and how he tries to hide the fact the prosecution's own experts testified the latest possible time of death was around 10:30.


The word "conspiracy" is obviously inserted in an attempt to discredit the prosecution theory,

The reason the word 'conspiracy' is inserted is probably because that's what the crime as prosecuted actually is. The spontaneous conspiracy of three people who barely knew each other to rape and murder a girl for no discernible reason. Considering that two of those are college students with no history of violence that makes it an event nearly unprecedented in the annals of crime. There's no extenuating circumstances like you might find in anything remotely similar, no gang affiliations, cults, profit motive or anything else outside the mundane to think they all three conspired together and upon pain of life imprisonment won't give each other up.

Raffaele and Amanda had been together a week, Rudy Guede's only connection to either is that he met Amanda at a party once, and went to her bar once. The idea that these three could have joined up to rape and murder Meredith is so far outside known human behavior it becomes nearly unique. That's in part why FBI legend John Douglas flew to Italy to aid the defense.

but otherwise there is no reason this thread should not be merged with the main Amanda Knox thread.

That's almost funny Bob! :p

Right, so it is just a regular prosecutorial theory of a crime, but it's a conspiracy theory because it is a bad theory.

More along the lines it's a bad theory because it involves an unlikely conspiracy amongst three people, which is definitely 'multiplying entities beyond necessity.' The crime is easily explained as one man, known for breaking into second-story windows, breaks in and surprises Meredith and assaults and kills her. Adding two people without the evidence to support their presence is a laughable leap of logic.

Of course, relying on absurd over-interpretation of tiny insignificant details (like the "confirms what we knew" comment) and ignoring the mountain of inconvenient evidence, is also a hallmark of the innocentisti.

That 'tiny insignificant detail' happens to be in part their explanation why they arrested Patrick, Amanda and Raffaele, which was an extremely dubious decision as everyone should agree in hindsight.

The only 'mountain of evidence' is not inconvenient, but irrelevant. Forget the bra clasp and 'murder knife' for a moment, what else of the physical 'evidence' is something you wouldn't expect to find were Amanda and Raffaele not murderers? Amanda's DNA in her own bathroom? That's a no-brainer, impossible to avoid. Luminol splotches? You'd find those just like they did at Raffaele's, which no one thinks had anything to do with the murder, much like the footprints in Amanda's bedroom. Amanda's DNA mixed with others? They lived there, of course at some points their DNA would mix.

The fact they'd include 'evidence' that they would expect to find anyway is an indication of how weak their case is, it's not strengthened by a 'mountain' of irrelevant 'evidence.'

I don't get why Massei is singled out for this, he just wrote one of the reports. There are plenty of other prosecutors and judges involved in this "theory of the murder".

Then perhaps you need to become more familiar with it. This report contains the evidence and reasoning that Amanda and Raffaele committed the crime, as 'proven' in the court Massei presided over. You'll find the facts in there generally accurate, however how those facts are strung together to try to 'prove' that dubious thesis is entertaining to behold.

And we have yet to hear any actual evidence of this alleged bizarre conspiracy.

A refrain common to those who've read the Massei Report! :)
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom