The Massei/Mignini Conspiracy Theory

[LondonJohn]

Was Patrick's lawyer present during his questioning?

That's a good question, to which I think the answer is, for the most part, "no".

Just for the record, here again is what is written in the Mail article of 25th November 2007, in direct quotation marks for the most part (my bolding):

"They (the arresting police) were wearing normal clothes and carrying guns," he says. "I thought it must be some sort of armed gang about to kill me. I was terrified.

"They hit me over the head and yelled 'dirty black'. Then they put handcuffs on me and shoved me out of the door, as Aleksandra pulled Davide away, screaming."

He was greeted outside by a convoy of seven police cars, sirens blazing, and driven to Perugia's police station, where he was subjected to a ten-hour interrogation.

"I was questioned by five men and women, some of whom punched and kicked me," he claims. "They forced me on my knees against the wall and said I should be in America where I would be given the electric chair for my crime. All they kept saying was, 'You did it, you did it.'

"I didn't know what I'd 'done'. I was scared and humiliated. Then, after a couple of hours one of them suggested they show me a picture of 'the dead girl' to get me to confess.

"It might sound naive, but it was only then that I made the connection between Meredith's death and my arrest. Stunned, I said, 'You think I killed Meredith?'

"They said, 'Oh, so now you've remembered' and told me that if I confessed I'd only get half the 30-year sentence." It wasn't until 5.30pm that - still handcuffed and unfed - he was shown the evidence against him, a statement from Amanda saying that on the night of November 1 he had persuaded her to take him back to the house she shared with Meredith and two others.

 

[platonov]

Death can sneak up on one

Well, if I had said that I'd cracked your obsession-case, then you might have a point. However,all said was that I understood what the meaning of the pathology evidence actually was.

As a pathologist myself, I appreciated it when the penny finally dropped.

Rolfe.

You snipped (without indicating that you did do so) the germane part of my post and instead accuse me of an obsession.

So are we to take it that in your eseemed opinion as a pathologist that ToD was between 21.00 & 21.30 without the need for further research.

& Furthermore that I am obsessed with something or other

As I am not yet deceased (at time of writing at any rate) surely the latter diagnosis is outside of your area of competence.

But feel free to explain if you wish to do so, although taking my advice regarding further research might be more fruitful.

ps I am supposed to be socializing & so will withdraw for the moment.

 

[LondonJohn]

So you snipped (without indicating that you did do so) the germane part of my post and instead accuse me of an obsession.

So are we to take it that in your eseemed opinion as a pathologist that ToD was between 21.00 & 21.30 without the need for further research.

& Furthermore that I am obsessed with something or other

As I am not yet deceased (at time of writing at any rate) surely the latter diagnosis is outside of your area of competence.

But feel free to explain if you wish to do so, although taking my advice regarding further research might be more fruitful.

ps I am supposed to be socializing & so will withdraw for the moment.

Oh, the sweet irony of that p.s.

So platonov, what time do YOU think Meredith Kercher died, with reference to stomach/duodenum contents found at autopsy?

 

[platonov]

Some wishes the Easter bunny can't grant.

Oh, the sweet irony of that p.s.

So platonov, what time do YOU think Meredith Kercher died, with reference to stomach/duodenum contents found at autopsy?

You think that engaging me while I have a glass at hand* will increase you chances of finally dealing with of one my arguments in the same manner that I usually dispose of yours

Well it is the season of miracles and all that but there's not enough wine in this town for that to happen

* In the interests of full disclosure this mightn't even be the first time.

 

[LondonJohn]

You think that engaging me while I have a glass at hand* will increase you chances of finally dealing with of one my arguments in the same manner that I usually dispose of yours


Well it is the season of miracles and all that but there's not enough wine in this town for that to happen

* In the interests of full disclosure this mightn't even be the first time.

Ummm... aren't you supposed to be "socialising", rather than running back and forth to the computer? Reminds me of a well-known Calvin Klein fragrance....

What time on 1st November 2007 do you think Meredith died? Say hi to all your "guests" from me, won't you?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Richard Ofshe

That may be so, but it's not an easy thing to get one's head round. It's hard for me, for example, to imagine myself making the sort of statements Amanda made, even if you assure me that sufficient police brutality could do it just fine. It's a lot easier to understand when one factors the pot into the equation.

Rolfe.

Rolfe,

Richard Ofshe is another expert in the area of false confessions. The main Knox threads have some links and comments.

 

[LondonJohn]

It's come to my attention that Filomena's account of the state of her window shutters in the Micheli report has been disputed: someone has stated that when Filomena testified she was not "100% sure" about closing certain shutters, she was referring to the inner (white) shutters rather than the outer (green) shutters.

I'm afraid, however, that the person who made this claim is incorrect. I believe that Filomena is indeed referring to the outer green shutters when she says she was not 100% sure about closing them. Here is the relevant passage in the original Italian of the Micheli report:

Quanto alla finestra, ricordava di averne certamente chiusi i vetri, lasciando invece probabilmente gli scuri aperti: delle persiane, pur non essendone sicura al cento per cento, riteneva di averle chiuse senza tuttavia ancorarle entrambe, dal momento che l’imposta di sinistra incontrava resistenza sul davanzale a causa di un rigonfiamento del legno. Il suo ricordo non era più preciso, in quanto reputava di avere sicuramente aperto le imposte la mattina avendo bisogno di luce per cambiarsi ....., ma si era poi allontanata di fretta perché si trovava già in ritardo

And here is what I consider to be a decent translation of it (derived from my reasonable conversational knowledge of Italian, cross-checked with google translate):

Regarding the window, she remembered that she certainly closed the windows, but probably left the inner shutters open; regarding the outer shutters, whilst not being one hundred percent sure, she thought she had pulled them in without closing them both, since the base of the left shutter encountered resistance on the sill due to a swelling of the wood. Her memory was not precise, because she was sure that she had opened the shutters in the morning because she needed light to change clothing...., but she then left in a hurry because she was already late.

So, it's pretty clear to me that the "not 100% sure" part in Micheli is referring to the outer green shutters - these are, after all, the shutters which are immediately referred to as the ones which chafed against the sill due to wood swelling. The outer shutters chafed, the inner ones didn't.

The word "scuri" indeed refers to the inner shutters (which, incidentally, Filomena testifies in Micheli that she probably left open). The word "persiane", however, refers to the outer shutters, and it's these which Filomena is not "100% sure" about having closed.

 

[tsig]

That's a good question, to which I think the answer is, for the most part, "no".

Just for the record, here again is what is written in the Mail article of 25th November 2007, in direct quotation marks for the most part (my bolding):
Quote:
"They (the arresting police) were wearing normal clothes and carrying guns," he says. "I thought it must be some sort of armed gang about to kill me. I was terrified.

"They hit me over the head and yelled 'dirty black'. Then they put handcuffs on me and shoved me out of the door, as Aleksandra pulled Davide away, screaming."

He was greeted outside by a convoy of seven police cars, sirens blazing, and driven to Perugia's police station, where he was subjected to a ten-hour interrogation.

"I was questioned by five men and women, some of whom punched and kicked me," he claims. "They forced me on my knees against the wall and said I should be in America where I would be given the electric chair for my crime. All they kept saying was, 'You did it, you did it.'

"I didn't know what I'd 'done'. I was scared and humiliated. Then, after a couple of hours one of them suggested they show me a picture of 'the dead girl' to get me to confess.

"It might sound naive, but it was only then that I made the connection between Meredith's death and my arrest. Stunned, I said, 'You think I killed Meredith?'

"They said, 'Oh, so now you've remembered' and told me that if I confessed I'd only get half the 30-year sentence." It wasn't until 5.30pm that - still handcuffed and unfed - he was shown the evidence against him, a statement from Amanda saying that on the night of November 1 he had persuaded her to take him back to the house she shared with Meredith and two others.

All that and he still didn't break down and internalize a false memory. The Perugia police must have lost their touch.

 

[tsig]

Perhaps because he wasn't a college student who'd just had her only friend in a foreign country where she didn't speak the language well raped and murdered yards away from she slept, thus not sleeping well and who'd been talking to police for something like 53 hours in four days and then had the rug yanked out from under her by being told her new boyfriend had just 'lied' about her?

Instead he was an older business owner, probably more familiar with local police and their methods, and knew all he had to do was wait it out until he was allowed to have a lawyer present as was his legal right?

You made me think of something, though. I vaguely recall reading somewhere that Patrick was illegally interrogated. I wonder what the 'fallout' from that was, if that source (might have been the 'soulless' Daily Mail article he disavowed after being paid 70k for it) was accurate and my memory not playing tricks?

Perhaps he probably was.



Quote:
"They (the arresting police) were wearing normal clothes and carrying guns," he says. "I thought it must be some sort of armed gang about to kill me. I was terrified.

"They hit me over the head and yelled 'dirty black'. Then they put handcuffs on me and shoved me out of the door, as Aleksandra pulled Davide away, screaming."

He was greeted outside by a convoy of seven police cars, sirens blazing, and driven to Perugia's police station, where he was subjected to a ten-hour interrogation.

"I was questioned by five men and women, some of whom punched and kicked me," he claims. "They forced me on my knees against the wall and said I should be in America where I would be given the electric chair for my crime. All they kept saying was, 'You did it, you did it.'

"I didn't know what I'd 'done'. I was scared and humiliated. Then, after a couple of hours one of them suggested they show me a picture of 'the dead girl' to get me to confess.

"It might sound naive, but it was only then that I made the connection between Meredith's death and my arrest. Stunned, I said, 'You think I killed Meredith?'

"They said, 'Oh, so now you've remembered' and told me that if I confessed I'd only get half the 30-year sentence." It wasn't until 5.30pm that - still handcuffed and unfed - he was shown the evidence against him, a statement from Amanda saying that on the night of November 1 he had persuaded her to take him back to the house she shared with Meredith and two others.


Perhaps not.

 

[LondonJohn]

[/I]

All that and he still didn't break down and internalize a false memory. The Perugia police must have lost their touch.

Where do you get the idea that everyone subjected to police coercion (whether or not it includes physical abuse) will succumb to coerced-internalised false confession (or confession/accusation)?

Using your logic, we could say that if I play the lottery next week, I should win it, since someone won the lottery last week and they only won it because they played it: if they hadn't played it, they wouldn't have won it

Not everyone who plays the lottery wins the jackpot. But some people do win the jackpot. And all of those who win the jackpot only do so because they have played the lottery.

Not everyone who's subject to police coercion succumbs to internalised false confessions. But some people do succumb to internalised false confessions. And all of those who do succumb to internalised false confessions only do so because they have been subjected to police coercion.

Any clearer now?

 

[tsig]

Where do you get the idea that everyone subjected to police coercion (whether or not it includes physical abuse) will succumb to coerced-internalised false confession (or confession/accusation)?

Using your logic, we could say that if I play the lottery next week, I should win it, since someone won the lottery last week and they only won it because they played it: if they hadn't played it, they wouldn't have won it

Not everyone who plays the lottery wins the jackpot. But some people do win the jackpot. And all of those who win the jackpot only do so because they have played the lottery.

Not everyone who's subject to police coercion succumbs to internalised false confessions. But some people do succumb to internalised false confessions. And all of those who do succumb to internalised false confessions only do so because they have been subjected to police coercion.

Any clearer now?

Please do not use my logic without my permission.

 

[Matthew Best]

Please do not use my logic without my permission.

 

[Antony]

Where do you get the idea that everyone subjected to police coercion (whether or not it includes physical abuse) will succumb to coerced-internalised false confession (or confession/accusation)?

Using your logic, we could say that if I play the lottery next week, I should win it, since someone won the lottery last week and they only won it because they played it: if they hadn't played it, they wouldn't have won it

Not everyone who plays the lottery wins the jackpot. But some people do win the jackpot. And all of those who win the jackpot only do so because they have played the lottery.

Not everyone who's subject to police coercion succumbs to internalised false confessions. But some people do succumb to internalised false confessions. And all of those who do succumb to internalised false confessions only do so because they have been subjected to police coercion.

Any clearer now?

That, and the police did not use the same tactics against Patrick that they used against Amanda. There is no reason to expect that someone simply being subjected to brutality would internalise anything. Tsig's point is just vacuous.

The tragedy is that Patrick apparently didn't make the connection from his own experience with the police, and recognise that Amanda's statement would likely have been coerced. But he was clearly given to understand that he should back off from his allegations in the Daily Mail, and perhaps he concluded that taking the side of Amanda would be a bad idea.

 

[LondonJohn]

That, and the police did not use the same tactics against Patrick that they used against Amanda. There is no reason to expect that someone simply being subjected to brutality would internalise anything. Tsig's point is just vacuous.

The tragedy is that Patrick apparently didn't make the connection from his own experience with the police, and recognise that Amanda's statement would likely have been coerced. But he was clearly given to understand that he should back off from his allegations in the Daily Mail, and perhaps he concluded that taking the side of Amanda would be a bad idea.

Very true of course. I was only seeking to illustrate the underlying logical flaw that suggested that Lumumba should have succumbed to an internalised false confession simply because Knox had.

Boy, I'd love to have been a fly on the wall if/when Lumumba had a cosy chat with senior police or prosecutors, after which he chose to "disavow" the extensive, detailed and directly-attributed remarks which had appeared in the Mail regarding his treatment at the hands of the "crack" Perugia police. It still makes me smile to myself when I remember some people trying to defend the police keeping Lumumba's bar (his own business) closed for months into 2008 on the ludicrous grounds that it was a "crime scene"

PS Happy Easter all!

 

[tsig]

That, and the police did not use the same tactics against Patrick that they used against Amanda. There is no reason to expect that someone simply being subjected to brutality would internalise anything. Tsig's point is just vacuous.

The tragedy is that Patrick apparently didn't make the connection from his own experience with the police, and recognise that Amanda's statement would likely have been coerced. But he was clearly given to understand that he should back off from his allegations in the Daily Mail, and perhaps he concluded that taking the side of Amanda would be a bad idea.

What tactics did the police use on Amanda that they didn't use on Patrick?

 

[tsig]

Very true of course. I was only seeking to illustrate the underlying logical flaw that suggested that Lumumba should have succumbed to an internalised false confession simply because Knox had.

Boy, I'd love to have been a fly on the wall if/when Lumumba had a cosy chat with senior police or prosecutors, after which he chose to "disavow" the extensive, detailed and directly-attributed remarks which had appeared in the Mail regarding his treatment at the hands of the "crack" Perugia police. It still makes me smile to myself when I remember some people trying to defend the police keeping Lumumba's bar (his own business) closed for months into 2008 on the ludicrous grounds that it was a "crime scene"

PS Happy Easter all!

I see, Patrick didn't succumb to the police the first time when accused of murder, threatened and physically assaulted but "disavowed" his extensive, detailed and directly-attributed remarks after "a cosy chat with senior police or prosecutors".

Were these senior police or prosecutors also in on the conspiracy against Amanda?

 

[Dan O.]

What tactics did the police use on Amanda that they didn't use on Patrick?

Are you actually trying to understand this case or do you just like asking stupid questions? The first hand account for both interrogations have been posted here, what parts can't you understand?

 

[tsig]

That, and the police did not use the same tactics against Patrick that they used against Amanda. There is no reason to expect that someone simply being subjected to brutality would internalise anything. Tsig's point is just vacuous.

The tragedy is that Patrick apparently didn't make the connection from his own experience with the police, and recognise that Amanda's statement would likely have been coerced. But he was clearly given to understand that he should back off from his allegations in the Daily Mail, and perhaps he concluded that taking the side of Amanda would be a bad idea.

Are you actually trying to understand this case or do you just like asking stupid questions? The first hand account for both interrogations have been posted here, what parts can't you understand?

See hilited. What tactics did the police use to break Amanda that they did not use on Patrick?

Your generous attitude and friendly manner are appreciated.

 

[spartacus]

I have been reading through the Massei report and the first pathologist says that the time of death was two or 2.5 hours after the meal (which I remember as 6 or 6:30) then another 'scientist' comes and obfuscates and there is hand waving about things that could affect speed of transit. But to me it seems clear that the case of the prosecution crumbles around this point since it simply isnt possible for a normal person to have NO transit to the duodenum FIVE HOURS after the meal (11:30) which they need to place them at scene of crime. Also persiane are outside shutters. Those couldn't be closed because of swelling in the wood, so it doesnt matter if she pulled them to or not, RG could have climbed up and pulled them open, then gotten down, thrown the rock, wait to see if he is in the clear, then enter. Scuri are inner shutters (from the word scuro which means dark, so literally they would be "shades").

 

[Rolfe]

If she had 500ml ingesta in the stomach, and nothing in the duodenum, I can't see how you can push the time of death (or beginning of torture, if someone wants to maintain that she went into some sort of traumatic paralytic ileus but died later) more than about three hours after the meal.

All I'm seeing here is handwaving and obfuscation about gastric emptying times, which are simply not relevant to this situation. The point at issue is not how long a stomach would take to empty completely (which can be quite a long time), but how long would it take for the stomach of a healthy young woman to begin to pass some ingesta into the duodenum.

It seems like a slam-dunk to me unless someone has some extraordinary explanation I haven't heard yet.

Rolfe.