The Massei/Mignini Conspiracy Theory

[Kevin_Lowe]

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.

Here's a funny coincidence. I was just reading a Cracked article on the exact topic of media sneakiness, which didn't really contain anything new to me but was amusingly written, and it strikes me that here you are using very similar terms that Cracked article used except not quite getting them right. I wonder if there's any connection. Is it just synchronicity, or are you copying whatever arguments you see lying around the internet in a monkey-see, monkey-do fashion?

It's simply a fact that when someone comes out with a statement which is false, and which they ought to know better than to say, we can't usually tell with certainty whether they are lying or incompetent. It boils down to those two possibilities, but barring mind reading we rarely get to know which.

It is not weasel wording or plausible deniability to state this. It's just being rational.

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.

After a certain point one gets tired of interlocutors taking it upon themselves to oversimplify one's points and then respond to the straw man version.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

After a certain point one gets tired of interlocutors taking it upon themselves to oversimplify one's points and then respond to the straw man version.

You only offered two alternatives, incompetence or criminal collision by the lab. That's pretty simple to start with, and hard to oversimplify.

Which of the two had you intended as a straw man? How would someone responding to your post discern the difference?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You only offered two alternatives, incompetence or criminal collision by the lab. That's pretty simple to start with, and hard to oversimplify.

Er, criminal collision? Did you mean collusion, and if so who did you think I said colluded with who, as opposed to fabricating evidence on their own initiative?

Which of the two had you intended as a straw man? How would someone responding to your post discern the difference?

A straw man is a misrepresentation of someone else's argument. I was not representing anyone else's argument, hence it cannot by even the wildest stretch of the imagination be a straw man. Are you just citing argumentative fallacies at random and hoping you get lucky? If so you'll be a long time trying.

 

[quadraginta]

Er, criminal collision? Did you mean collusion, and if so who did you think I said colluded with who, as opposed to fabricating evidence on their own initiative?

I see. My mistake. You believe Stefanoni fabricated evidence all on her own, without any involvement or communication with anyone else involved in the investigation. That scenario would seem to avoid the need for collusion.

A straw man is a misrepresentation of someone else's argument. I was not representing anyone else's argument, hence it cannot by even the wildest stretch of the imagination be a straw man. Are you just citing argumentative fallacies at random and hoping you get lucky? If so you'll be a long time trying.

You're the one who brought it up. I'm just trying to help you figure out why. Apparently you aren't too sure yourself.

 

[babycondor]

They sought it with thimbles, they sought it with care;

They pursued it with forks and hope;​

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I see. My mistake. You believe Stefanoni fabricated evidence all on her own, without any involvement or communication with anyone else involved in the investigation. That scenario would seem to avoid the need for collusion.

I think you really ought to consider giving up on trying to state my case for me. If past success is any guide to future success at all, you won't have any luck stating it accurately.

I think it's possible she's just incompetent, it's possible she's corrupt and colluded with others, it's possible she's corrupt and acted alone, and it's just barely conceivable although incredibly unlikely that despite her manifest lack of competence to carry out her duties she got lucky and all her results are legitimate.

I wouldn't try to argue that anything that comes out of her lab at this stage is proof beyond reasonable doubt of anything though.

You're the one who brought it up. I'm just trying to help you figure out why. Apparently you aren't too sure yourself.

If that's "helping" I'd hate to see what happens when you deliberately try to confuse yourself and/or others.

I said "either A or B is going on".

You responded by saying that one of the two options had to be a straw man and demanding to know which.

I pointed out that this was a stupid question because I was not stating anyone else's argument, hence it could not possibly be a straw man. You might as well have asked which of two marshmallows was the tractor.

You're the one who said it. I'm just trying to help you figure out why. Apparently you have no clue.

 

[LashL]

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.

Actually, your prior post was not clear at all and did not stand on its own, thus the request for clarification, and your subsequent post (which completely dodged the request for clarification, by the way) strikes me as just plain creepy.

 

[Kaosium]

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?

*crickets chirp*

 

[Branded]

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.

What on earth are you saying?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

legal guardian

What on earth are you saying?

Branded,

I am not a lawyer, and you are not paying me to write this, so take my comments with generous grains of salt. But are not parents the "legal guardians" of their children? If so, does this not mean that if the child is missing, that the parents are expected to give an account of what happened? That sort of relationship does not ordinarily exist between two adults, unless one is incapacitated. I am not very familiar with the Casey Anthony case, but I am under the impression that the infant was missing but not reported so until much later. Therefore, the lack of forensic evidence against Casey Anthony is less meaningful than it would be in a different situation. MOO.

 

[el buscador]

Frank has a powerful new post up!

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2011/03/media-embracing-amanda-knoxs-innocence.html#more

 

[PhantomWolf]

*crickets chirp*

I have to admit that I'd noticed that.

 

[quadraginta]

Branded,

I am not a lawyer, and you are not paying me to write this, so take my comments with generous grains of salt. But are not parents the "legal guardians" of their children? If so, does this not mean that if the child is missing, that the parents are expected to give an account of what happened? That sort of relationship does not ordinarily exist between two adults, unless one is incapacitated. I am not very familiar with the Casey Anthony case, but I am under the impression that the infant was missing but not reported so until much later. Therefore, the lack of forensic evidence against Casey Anthony is less meaningful than it would be in a different situation. MOO.

And it is not meaningful at all as a response to the post I made.

For one thing I didn't say anything about a lack of forensic evidence. I said, "unambiguous evidence, forensic or otherwise,".

For another thing there is forensic evidence. Just none of a 'smoking gun' nature.

In addition there is much hinging on the demeanor and statements made by Anthony once LE was finally involved. One of the most recent court motions in her pre-trial action was an attempt by her defense to have some of those statements suppressed. It was denied.

All of this misses the point completely, which is that many cases can be approached on the internet with strategies similar to those employed by Knox advocates, and it would be an interesting exercise to see the same thing done with the Anthony case. It is, in essence, what her defense team is doing anyway.

Unlike the Knox case there is a plethora of information available. In fact it is quite overwhelming.

 

[Branded]

Branded,

I am not a lawyer, and you are not paying me to write this, so take my comments with generous grains of salt. But are not parents the ...of their children? If so, does this not mean that if the child is missing, that the parents are expected to give an account of what happened? That sort of relationship does not ordinarily exist between two adults, unless one is incapacitated. I am not very familiar with the Casey Anthony case, but I am under the impression that the infant was missing but not reported so until much later. Therefore, the lack of forensic evidence against Casey Anthony is less meaningful than it would be in a different situation. MOO.

Lie A: My baby is with a Nanny.

Lie B: My boss killed my roommate.


Why is the importance of inculpatory "forensic" evidence diminished by Lie A but not by Lie B?

 

[Malkmus]

Lie A: My baby is with a Nanny.

Lie B: My boss killed my roommate.


Why is the importance of inculpatory "forensic" evidence diminished by Lie A but not by Lie B?

Because Lie B was a scenario perpetrated by the police based on their misinterpretation of a text message, and the witness being questioned was repeatedly told that she was present at the scene of the crime and to convince her of this insisted she'd been traumatized.
The police have never denied the text message misunderstanding, and we have the interpreter's personal story of a traumatic event as proof that she was told she'd been traumatized as a tactic to get her to go along with their scenario.

Lie A was created by the suspect of her own free will, not to mention that had a babysitter been caring for the child it makes no sense for a parent to not see their child for over a month. Even if the story were true, negligence was still being committed that is highly suspect.

 

[Branded]

Because Lie B was a scenario perpetrated by the police based on their misinterpretation of a text message, and the witness being questioned was repeatedly told that she was present at the scene of the crime and to convince her of this insisted she'd been traumatized.
The police have never denied the text message misunderstanding, and we have the interpreter's personal story of a traumatic event as proof that she was told she'd been traumatized as a tactic to get her to go along with their scenario.

Lie A was created by the suspect of her own free will, not to mention that had a babysitter been caring for the child it makes no sense for a parent to not see their child for over a month. Even if the story were true, negligence was still being committed that is highly suspect.

How, exactly, did the police "perpetrate" a "scenario" in which an extroverted and reasonably intelligent 3rd year university student accused an innocent man of murder?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

my plate is full

And it is not meaningful at all as a response to the post I made.

For one thing I didn't say anything about a lack of forensic evidence. I said, "unambiguous evidence, forensic or otherwise,".

For another thing there is forensic evidence. Just none of a 'smoking gun' nature.

In addition there is much hinging on the demeanor and statements made by Anthony once LE was finally involved. One of the most recent court motions in her pre-trial action was an attempt by her defense to have some of those statements suppressed. It was denied.

All of this misses the point completely, which is that many cases can be approached on the internet with strategies similar to those employed by Knox advocates, and it would be an interesting exercise to see the same thing done with the Anthony case. It is, in essence, what her defense team is doing anyway.

Unlike the Knox case there is a plethora of information available. In fact it is quite overwhelming.

Quadraginta,

My answer covered both forensic and nonforensic information. And your reply ignored the central point of my comment. I don't want to take on any more cases than the ones I already have, thank you very much. If you feel moved to help Ms. Anthony, I promise not to stand in your way or make derisive comments.

 

[Branded]

I have to admit that I'd noticed that.

Why aren't you going to at least try to read the translation of the Court's judgment?

I started a few weekends ago. (My spouse had me watch the Lifetime movie and now I'm looking deeper. A few more plane rides and I'll be done.)

It's an amazingly detailed document. A survey of the evidence and its analysis filled some 400 pages, which, I suppose, goes a long way toward explaining why no one is keen to either type it all out for you or reduce it all to one pithy post.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Welcome Branded! Or welcome back, as the case may be.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask a guilter like Stilicho, who has made their position amply clear any number of times what they think the strongest evidence for the defendants' guilt is.

Funny thing is, we've been asking him and the rest of the PMF community for months now for any coherent theory of the crime, or any scientific evidence at all that Meredith could possibly have died at 23:30 as that 400 page report purports to conclude, and we haven't gotten any sensible answer yet.

 

[Kaosium]

Lie A: My baby is with a Nanny.

Lie B: My boss killed my roommate.


Why is the importance of inculpatory "forensic" evidence diminished by Lie A but not by Lie B?

The latter was coerced and not intended to deceive.