The Massei/Mignini Conspiracy Theory

[bri1]

Depends... is the suspect a pretty American girl?


I'd wait for the signal of KL... he knows.

Why do you guys bother coming here to write comments insinuating, or flat out saying, that anyone who believes in AK (and RS') innocence is attracted to her?

I'm also an attractive(ish) young(ish) woman, who is straight. I'm not swayed by the level of attractiveness of either of the defendants. I'm just someone who believes that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. I am also an academic, and more than capable of weighing the arguments and evidence objectively. If I'd never clapped eyes on Amanda Knox I'd believe exactly the same as I do now!

These insinuations are looking more and more desperate as the appeal begins to expose the ridiculousness of the case.

Do you guys understand that when we point out that Amanda's background makes it intrinsically unlikely that she'd commit a crime, it's because:
1. It's statistically unlikely.
2. It's statistically unlikely because poverty, undereducation, unstable family life are likely to lead to crime (or more likely than affluence, education, and stable family life) -they are risk factors.
It's also unlikely given Amanda's gender that she'd be involved in a sexual assault or sexually-motivated murder. I've seen lists of 5-20 such cases, but such lists are absolutely laughable, given the scale of sexual crimes on women by males. The fact that guilters advance these lists is not only laughable in terms of this case, but also almost willfully ignorant about the level of abuse visited upon women by men.

 

[Amazer]

Why do you guys bother coming here to write comments insinuating, or flat out saying, that anyone who believes in AK (and RS') innocence is attracted to her?

Correction... i was here already. If anything, you came here.

I'm also an attractive(ish) young(ish) woman, who is straight. I'm not swayed by the level of attractiveness of either of the defendants. I'm just someone who believes that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. I am also an academic, and more than capable of weighing the arguments and evidence objectively. If I'd never clapped eyes on Amanda Knox I'd believe exactly the same as I do now!

Perfect, i'm happy to hear it.

These insinuations are looking more and more desperate as the appeal begins to expose the ridiculousness of the case.

Your opinion is duly noted.

Do you guys understand that when we point out that Amanda's background makes it intrinsically unlikely that she'd commit a crime, it's because:
1. It's statistically unlikely.
2. It's statistically unlikely because poverty, undereducation, unstable family life are likely to lead to crime (or more likely than affluence, education, and stable family life) -they are risk factors.
It's also unlikely given Amanda's gender that she'd be involved in a sexual assault or sexually-motivated murder. I've seen lists of 5-20 such cases, but such lists are absolutely laughable, given the scale of sexual crimes on women by males. The fact that guilters advance these lists is not only laughable in terms of this case, but also almost willfully ignorant about the level of abuse visited upon women by men.

And you make the common mistake to assume that simply because is is statistically unlikely that it's impossible for Amanda to have participated in this crime.

 

[Katody Matrass]

And you make the common mistake to assume that simply because is is statistically unlikely that it's impossible for Amanda to have participated in this crime.

You're making a mistake of assuming that she must be guilty because it's not completely impossible.

 

[tsig]

Other papers have identified tiredness, long interviews, and the confession being along the lines of what the police believed happened, but being false too.

These things also fit the circumstances of her confessions.

It appears to be a classic case of an internalised false statement, either that or Amanda knows the literature so well that she managed to hit nearly every, if not every marker that would warn of one.

Or she lied.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The fact that she was convicted...

I guess you missed the two previous threads and the entirety of this thread? Funny, I'd swear you were there. We talked about whether or not the evidence available at the time justified a conviction. Surely you remember?

At this stage it almost seems deliberately obtuse to be running the argument that she's guilty because they convicted her, and they convicted her because... um... er... well... Maybe you figure they had super secret evidence that proved she was guilty? Evidence that even the police and prosecution lawyers don't know about, and that Massei forgot to mention?

other then that, the lack of an alibi

They have an alibi - they were at home with their computers, as borne out by their computer records. The only "evidence" contesting that alibi was that of Curatolo, who is in no way remotely credible at this stage.

and Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife.

One itsy bitsy problem: That unreplicated result came from an unaccredited laboratory totally lacking in the safeguards necessary to conduct LCN DNA analysis with anything resembling scientific rigour, which had lots of other samples with Meredith's DNA on them which could have served as sources of contamination. That's assuming you have 100% faith in Stefanoni's impartiality and honesty, which would be a foolish faith at this point given her documented history of making false claims and hiding exculpatory evidence.

It also makes no scientific sense, since the sample Stefanoni claimed to have found contained no blood (according to her own highly sensitive test), so what the heck was it supposed to have been?

The charitable guess would be that it was just a speck of grot on the blade, and a trace of DNA from some other sample contaminated it. The less charitable guess is that Stefanoni tampered with the sample.

 

[tsig]

I guess you missed the two previous threads and the entirety of this thread? Funny, I'd swear you were there. We talked about whether or not the evidence available at the time justified a conviction. Surely you remember?

At this stage it almost seems deliberately obtuse to be running the argument that she's guilty because they convicted her, and they convicted her because... um... er... well... Maybe you figure they had super secret evidence that proved she was guilty? Evidence that even the police and prosecution lawyers don't know about, and that Massei forgot to mention?



They have an alibi - they were at home with their computers, as borne out by their computer records. The only "evidence" contesting that alibi was that of Curatolo, who is in no way remotely credible at this stage.



One itsy bitsy problem: That unreplicated result came from an unaccredited laboratory totally lacking in the safeguards necessary to conduct LCN DNA analysis with anything resembling scientific rigour, which had lots of other samples with Meredith's DNA on them which could have served as sources of contamination. That's assuming you have 100% faith in Stefanoni's impartiality and honesty, which would be a foolish faith at this point given her documented history of making false claims and hiding exculpatory evidence.

It also makes no scientific sense, since the sample Stefanoni claimed to have found contained no blood (according to her own highly sensitive test), so what the heck was it supposed to have been?

The charitable guess would be that it was just a speck of grot on the blade, and a trace of DNA from some other sample contaminated it. The less charitable guess is that Stefanoni tampered with the sample.

You seriously think that Stefanoni would jeopardize her career to conspire to convict one American student?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Do you believe that deliberate lies from suspects can occur?

How would you identify one?

Congratulations on avoiding the questions, how about answering them instead?

 

[PhantomWolf]

The fact that she was convicted...

No, I don't believe that.

You don't find a little bit of conflict between these statements?

You greatest evidence is the conviction, but you admit that convictions are not infallible. Sticking with the Parrots, wouldn't that be a little like saying, I know that not all birds can fly, but since an Kakapo is a bird, it can fly.

other then that, the lack of an alibi

As Kevin pointed out, she does have an alibi. It might be debatable as to the strength of the alibi, but to say that she doesn't have one is flat out wrong.

and Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife.

Given that this result came from a single result and an unaccredited laboratory using methods that from my reading are more than a little controversial, and hasn't been able to be repeated (note here that repeatability is a very significant requirement in science,) do you really think that this is a safe piece of evidence to be counted on as your strongest piece? Will your belief in the matter change if the knife is discredited as is rumoured will be the result of the new investigation?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

faulty forensics

You seriously think that Stefanoni would jeopardize her career to conspire to convict one American student?

tsig,

Forensic fraud is hardly uncommon. Same is true about forensic misadventures. Happy reading!

 

[PhantomWolf]

Or she lied.

Do you not consider it to be remarkable that if she was just lying without knowledge of internalised false statement that she would have hit at least eight of the nine well published markers for internalised false statement by pure chance?

 

[PhantomWolf]

You seriously think that Stefanoni would jeopardize her career to conspire to convict one American student?

Do you think that an entire US prosecution team would jeopardize their careers by hiding a blood sample and witness descriptions proving that their suspect was not the one involved in the crime, just to convict and put a man on death row?

Spoiler

 

[Chris_Halkides]

vague terminology

I like this one because it gives you a lot of information from which to draw your own conclusions, including transcripts and testimony.

http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/librarysite/garrett_falseconfess.htm

RoseMontague,

This is an interesting link, which led to another. It is the appendix of a book, "Convicting the Innocent." The authors wrote, "Vague testimony, as explained in Chapter 4 of Convicting the Innocent, refers to the use of vague and potentially highly misleading terminology such as “associated with” “consistent with” “similar” or “match.” The NAS Report also explained in some detail the lack of standardization and clarity concerning such terminology, noting, for example, “the problem with using imprecise reporting terminology such as ‘associated with,’ which is not clearly defined and which can be misunderstood to imply individualization.” See Comm. On Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Science Comty., Nat’l Research Counsel of the Nat’l Acads., Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward 5-25 (2009)."

EDT
I wonder what the National Academy of Science would think of the term "compatible."

 

[PhantomWolf]

from my reading are more than a little controversial

Yes I'm quoting myself here. Since I'm new to this, this probably isn't a surprise to most here, but.....

LCN is only used in a handful of countries and the technician doing the testing has to be highly trained to do it right. Italy isn't one of those countires and Stefanoni doesn't have that training, this in itself is a major issue as LCN done wrong has a high risk of inaccurate results.

Next, for proper LCN results, the sample has to be run though many more replication cycles, meaning that the rubbish can be replicated as well, and without a good control, it can be hard to determine the good from the bad. Stefanoni failed to do a control.

Finally, even if she had been following the correct procedures, the testing to standard levels failed to show anything, and so she amplified the signals beyond what the machine was supposed to be used for, and then picked and choose the peaks she wanted from the resulting backgropund noise.

From a scientific point of view, this is absolutely shocking practice and should never be used to keep someone behind bars for 26 years.

 

[Kaosium]

Yes I'm quoting myself here. Since I'm new to this, this probably isn't a surprise to most here, but.....

LCN is only used in a handful of countries and the technician doing the testing has to be highly trained to do it right. Italy isn't one of those countires and Stefanoni doesn't have that training, this in itself is a major issue as LCN done wrong has a high risk of inaccurate results.

Next, for proper LCN results, the sample has to be run though many more replication cycles, meaning that the rubbish can be replicated as well, and without a good control, it can be hard to determine the good from the bad. Stefanoni failed to do a control.

Finally, even if she had been following the correct procedures, the testing to standard levels failed to show anything, and so she amplified the signals beyond what the machine was supposed to be used for, and then picked and choose the peaks she wanted from the resulting backgropund noise.
From a scientific point of view, this is absolutely shocking practice and should never be used to keep someone behind bars for 26 years.

What's sadder is even if that contamination/secondary transfer/imagination/fabrication was perfectly legitimate, that knife still couldn't have been involved in the murder! It didn't match the wounds, nor the outline on the bed. It tested negative for blood, begging the question of how it could have had both Amanda and Meredith's DNA on it when it had been scrubbed clean of all blood traces. There's nothing else whatsoever to corroborate Amanda's presence at the scene, thus suggesting the least likely way it could have adhered itself to the knife blade is through Amanda using it in a violent death-struggle. They also found it in the drawer which implies they put it back and ate with it the rest of the week, but they disposed of whatever clothes they must have been wearing and the other knife that really caused the wounds. Yeah, right.

 

[bri1]

Correction... i was here already. If anything, you came here.


Perfect, i'm happy to hear it.


Your opinion is duly noted.


And you make the common mistake to assume that simply because is is statistically unlikely that it's impossible for Amanda to have participated in this crime.

Fine. Why do you guys still bother coming here to write comments insinuating, or flat out saying, that anyone who believes in AK (and RS') innocence is attracted to her?
I began coming here in January, because I thought I could maybe contribute something of value.

 

[bri1]

You're making a mistake of assuming that she must be guilty because it's not completely impossible.

Exactly
I can't completely rule out AK and RS being involved. Just like I can't completely rule out that the moon landings were hoaxed. But this is an extremely weak sense of 'can't completely rule out'.

 

[Fuji]

Congratulations on avoiding the questions,

What questions? You haven't asked me any.

how about answering them instead?

You first.

 

[Amazer]

You don't find a little bit of conflict between these statements?

No

You greatest evidence is the conviction, but you admit that convictions are not infallible. Sticking with the Parrots, wouldn't that be a little like saying, I know that not all birds can fly, but since an Kakapo is a bird, it can fly.

No, not even close.

As Kevin pointed out, she does have an alibi. It might be debatable as to the strength of the alibi, but to say that she doesn't have one is flat out wrong.

Kevin says a lot... doesn't mean it's all valid. As far as I know the alibis of Amanda and Raffaele differ on almost all details except for having spent the night together in his flat.

Given that this result came from a single result and an unaccredited laboratory using methods that from my reading are more than a little controversial, and hasn't been able to be repeated (note here that repeatability is a very significant requirement in science,) do you really think that this is a safe piece of evidence to be counted on as your strongest piece? Will your belief in the matter change if the knife is discredited as is rumoured will be the result of the new investigation?

If the knife (for Amanda) is discredited AND if the bra clasp (for Raffaele) is also discredited, then I will change my belief. If either or both pieces of evidence are allowed to stand, then I think both of them are still guilty.

Having said that... i'd obviously would have preferred if the results could be replicated rather then the single result we have now. I do believe that Halides has raised some good points but it's still not well enough defined to really point to a serious error on the part of the crime lab.

 

[PhantomWolf]

What questions? You haven't asked me any.

Sorry, confused you with tsig, since you responded to questions aimed at him.

You first.

Yes suspects can lie, and how would you determine that? If they say things that you know aren't true is usually the best way. Getting them to tell you things that you believe are true is generally not the best way, especially when you then learn after the fact, that they aren't true.

This is the issue in this case. By the police's own admissions, Amanda told them what they already believed was true with these confessions. If you are going to lie to the police, why would you make up a lie that agrees with what they already think happened, especially one that puts you at the scene of the crime? Why not stick to the alibi she already had?

 

[Kaosium]

Or she lied.

Doncha suppose the twelve trained cops were aware that a subject might lie and try to place blame elsewhere? So...how did the twenty year-old girl manage to fool those twelve cops so completely with her accusation 'out of the blue' that they went and arrested him posthaste...yet still arrested her for 'confessing' to being a traumatized girl cowering in the corner and instead gave her a lead role in the murder? There's a piece of the puzzle missing, isn't there?