The Massei/Mignini Conspiracy Theory

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

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]

Originally Posted by stilicho

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]

Originally Posted by christianahannah

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:

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]

Originally Posted by stilicho

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?

Originally Posted by stilicho

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]

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

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

Quote:

"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]

Originally Posted by christianahannah

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]

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

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

How?

[babycondor]

Originally Posted by christianahannah

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:

Quote:

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>

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

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]

Originally Posted by babycondor

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]

Originally Posted by babycondor

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]

Originally Posted by Danceme

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]

Originally Posted by Danceme

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:

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Juror

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]

Originally Posted by Danceme

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]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

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]

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

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]

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

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]

Originally Posted by stilicho

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.

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by Kaosium

Then why did they press her to name him?

....

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.

This is all very interesting and speculative but it isn't evidence.

I can believe that the 06 AUG 2001 memo (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/t.../80601pdb.html) stating that bin Ladin was determined to strike the US demonstrates that the Bush Administration had foreknowledge of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. After all the memo is there and the attacks did happen. Those are facts.

The same thing goes for the text message and the ensuing arrest of Knox and Lumumba. It was not the text message in and of itself that caused Patrick's arrest. It was Amanda's accusation of murder. You can speculate that the text message caused the police to conspire to frame both Amanda and Patrick all you like but you have no evidence that this is the case.

Do you understand the distinction between worthless speculation and evidence?

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

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.

Why do you reject the possibility that the police statement was released for reasons other than those in your own narrow definition? I provided several possible reasons for such a generic and non-specific statement if you go back a couple of pages. I am sure you can come up with plenty more on your own.

[Katody Matrass]

I can't see how one can reasonably think that the police wiretapped a phone but didn't bother getting the phone records. That doesn't make sense at all.

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by Katody Matrass

I can't see how one can reasonably think that the police wiretapped a phone but didn't bother getting the phone records. That doesn't make sense at all.

LondonJohn thinks it's because they were incompetent. Isn't that pretty much the argument on the unending stomach contents thread?

This one is about the conspiracy to convict Amanda Knox. Can we conclude that there was no conspiracy and shut down both threads at the same time?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by bobc

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.

"Seems to be" is a marvellous construction. You can make the wildest claims you like, as long as you preface them with "seems to be", and nobody can call you a liar.

Do you acknowledge, at least, the mere possibility that someone in the world might reason the other way around? That is to say, they might reason from the fact that the forensic evidence and the computer evidence rule out the possibility that Amanda and Raffaele could have been there when Meredith died, to the conclusion that any "evidence" that seems to show they did it must have some other explanation?

If I may borrow your construction, it seems to me that pro-guilt speakers run a mile from the best version of the pro-innocence case because they have absolutely no answer to it, and they have absolutely no answer to it because it's based on hard, scientific facts. (There is of course no "best version" of the pro-guilt case because no pro-guilt speaker has any coherent narrative consistent with the facts as we know them which makes Knox and Sollecito guilty). Instead they have to attack the weakest versions of the pro-innocence case they can find, and pretend that those weakest versions are the real case for innocence.

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

"Seems to be" is a marvellous construction. You can make the wildest claims you like, as long as you preface them with "seems to be", and nobody can call you a liar.

Do you acknowledge, at least, the mere possibility that someone in the world might reason the other way around? That is to say, they might reason from the fact that the forensic evidence and the computer evidence rule out the possibility that Amanda and Raffaele could have been there when Meredith died, to the conclusion that any "evidence" that seems to show they did it must have some other explanation?

If I may borrow your construction, it seems to me that pro-guilt speakers run a mile from the best version of the pro-innocence case because they have absolutely no answer to it, and they have absolutely no answer to it because it's based on hard, scientific facts. (There is of course no "best version" of the pro-guilt case because no pro-guilt speaker has any coherent narrative consistent with the facts as we know them which makes Knox and Sollecito guilty). Instead they have to attack the weakest versions of the pro-innocence case they can find, and pretend that those weakest versions are the real case for innocence.

Welcome to the conspiracy theories forum of the JREF. Do you have any evidence to support the claims of a police conspiracy to frame Amanda Knox?

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by stilicho

Why do you reject the possibility that the police statement was released for reasons other than those in your own narrow definition? I provided several possible reasons for such a generic and non-specific statement if you go back a couple of pages. I am sure you can come up with plenty more on your own.

Not a chance. He was bragging. They had a theory of a black man and evidence that Amanda and her boss exchanged a text message and they stretched the meaning of that message to include Patrick closing his bar up then meeting Amanda and going with her to Meredith's place.

Have you read the Matteini report (I have a Google translation, BTW)? Matteini gives the police theory quite clearly that this is what the message meant. He never intended to "reopen" his bar after he closed it to go meet Amanda. Only after the murder did he rush back, clean up, reopen, and got his first till receipt of the evening at around 10:30PM (which would put the TOD at around 9:30PM at the latest, btw, consistant with Dr. Lali's report as Matteini points out). According to Matteini he opened back up to give himself an alibi, that he was running the bar that night. The fact that he just happened to change SIM cards that very day was done to try to throw the cops off. Matteini's reasoning is amazing.

[el buscador]

Originally Posted by stilicho

This is all very interesting and speculative but it isn't evidence.

I can believe that the 06 AUG 2001 memo (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/t.../80601pdb.html) stating that bin Ladin was determined to strike the US demonstrates that the Bush Administration had foreknowledge of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. After all the memo is there and the attacks did happen. Those are facts.

The same thing goes for the text message and the ensuing arrest of Knox and Lumumba. It was not the text message in and of itself that caused Patrick's arrest. It was Amanda's accusation of murder. You can speculate that the text message caused the police to conspire to frame both Amanda and Patrick all you like but you have no evidence that this is the case.

Do you understand the distinction between worthless speculation and evidence?

Amanda sent a "see you later message" which she knew and we know meant that she would be seeing Patrick sometime, whenever. Why would she ever say that the "see you later" message actually meant she was meeting Patrick later that night? Who made her say that this is what she meant? You know, I know, what she meant. And everyone knows she did not meet Patrick that night. Who made Amanda tell the stupid story about meeting Patrick?

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by el buscador

Amanda sent a "see you later message" which she knew and we know meant that she would be seeing Patrick sometime, whenever. Why would she ever say that the "see you later" message actually meant she was meeting Patrick later that night? Who made her say that this is what she meant? You know, I know, what she meant. And everyone knows she did not meet Patrick that night. Who made Amanda tell the stupid story about meeting Patrick?

Apparently Amanda did and she felt strongly enough about it to repeat it at 05:45 with embellishments not found in the original version. Have you read them? Somebody posted them in their entirety a couple of pages back.

Do you have any evidence that the police conspired to frame Amanda Knox for the murder of Meredith Kercher? We've had several swings and misses.

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

They had a theory of a black man...

Evidence?

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by stilicho

LondonJohn thinks it's because they were incompetent. Isn't that pretty much the argument on the unending stomach contents thread?

This one is about the conspiracy to convict Amanda Knox. Can we conclude that there was no conspiracy and shut down both threads at the same time?

Thanks for presuming to tell people what you believe I think on this matter. Unfortunately, you're wrong. What I think is that the police/prosecutors did have the phone records by the time they placed the taps on Knox's and Sollecito's phones (I wonder whether proper authorisation exists for those taps, BTW - Mignini has "previous" in this area...).

I think they therefore knew that Knox had exchanged text messages with Lumumba on the evening of the murder, and also that she'd not had any other significant unexplained telephone activity on the 1st or 2nd November (or "01 NOV 2007 and 02 NOV 2007" if you prefer). I think they therefore made a tentative connection between this telephone activity and the murder - a connection which immediately crystallised into a deep suspicion when they read (and misinterpreted) the actual contents of Knox's text message to Lumumba.

And, for the last time, this proposition does not imply a conspiracy by the Perugia police and prosecutors - it implies that the police leapt upon the misinterpretation of the Knox-Lumumba text message to rush to judgement and to confirm their prior suspicions. The "version of events that they knew to be correct", and all that......

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by stilicho

Evidence?

From the Massei report:

Quote:

Quote:

The inspection of the corpse was postponed, and was finally performed at around 0:30 am on November 3, 2007. At this point, it was possible to uncover the body completely and note that it was indeed "a female subject aged around 21, height 164cm, weight around 50 kilos; naked except for a shirt that she was wearing but that was pulled up over her breasts and was heavily soaked with blood". Also, her hands were bloodstained and were protected with plastic bags in order to allow sample collection, as some hairlike fibres could be seen.

The early reports were that it appeared to be the hair of a black man.

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

From the Massei report:

....

The early reports were that it appeared to be the hair of a black man.

So the police did not have any theory about a black man being responsible before Amanda Knox accused Patrick. Apology accepted.

[RoseMontague]

The extent of the testing on this hair was that it was examined under a microscope and thought to be wool filaments. One of the appeals is asking for further testing. Wool is made from sheep hair if I am not mistaken.

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by stilicho

So the police did not have any theory about a black man being responsible before Amanda Knox accused Patrick. Apology accepted.

Where do you think the press was getting the information from? 12 foot lizards, maybe?

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Katody Matrass

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.

The handsets themselves keep records of voice calls (which can be deleted). They store incoming text messages, but most people delete most messages after reading them (IIRC, this is what Knox did, which is why the Lumumba-Knox message wasn't stored on her phone). In regard to sent text messages, most handsets have the factory default setup to save all sent messages - one has to go into the menu options to disable that function. Angain, IIRC, this is why Knox's outgoing text to Lumumba was still stored on her handset.

Outside the realms of the handsets themselves, the mobile network operators and service providers will keep billing and transport records of all voice calls and text messages, but not the contents. In other words, the mobile operators would have been able to tell the police that Knox's phone received a text from Lumumba's number at around 8.20pm on the 1st November*, and that it sent a text message to Lumumba's number at around 8.45pm; but it will not be able to reveal what the contents of those text messages was. The only way to reveal the contents is if they are stored on a handset.


* This doesn't, incidentally, mean that Knox necessarily opened and read this text message at around 8.20pm - it merely means that it was delivered to her handset at that time.

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

...

What I think is that the police/prosecutors did have the phone records by the time they placed the taps on Knox's and Sollecito's phones...

I think they therefore knew that Knox had exchanged text messages with Lumumba...

Now all you need is a shred of evidence. What you "think" or believe is not in question. When did the police have the phone records? When did they know about Patrick?

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

And, for the last time, this proposition does not imply a conspiracy by the Perugia police and prosecutors - it implies that the police leapt upon the misinterpretation of the Knox-Lumumba text message to rush to judgement and to confirm their prior suspicions. The "version of events that they knew to be correct", and all that......

"To confirm their prior suspicions" sounds awfully close to foreknowledge. You're certain "for the last time" that you both are and are not implying a conspiracy.

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by RoseMontague

Where do you think the press was getting the information from? 12 foot lizards, maybe?

When did the media quote de Felice (or anyone else) prior to Amanda's accusation of murder that they were looking for a black man? You might be getting your timelines mixed up because there was plenty of speculation after the arrests that a black man must have been involved.

Here's a BBC news article from 04 NOV 2007:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7077424.stm

No mention of a black man.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by stilicho

Now all you need is a shred of evidence. What you "think" or believe is not in question. When did the police have the phone records? When did they know about Patrick?

I suspect the only way to get proper evidence in this matter would be from the police/prosecutors themselves, and possibly also from the phone companies. I would strongly suspect that the police knew by 03 NOV 2007 - 04 NOV 2007 that Knox had traded text messages with Lumumba on the evening of the murder. But it may well be that they only discovered the contents of Knox's message to Lumumba during their interrogation of her on 05/06 NOV 2007.

But you're absolutely correct - I have no cast iron proof, so none of my thinking in this area has any validity whatsoever. My posting it was a total waste of my time and that of anyone unfortunate enough to read it

Quote:

"To confirm their prior suspicions" sounds awfully close to foreknowledge. You're certain "for the last time" that you both are and are not implying a conspiracy.

How the heck are you equating "foreknowledge" with "conspiracy"?

How do you define "conspiracy"?

I don't define the following as a "conspiracy": the police/prosecutors deciding collectively that Knox was a credible suspect, and then convincing themselves that she was culpable when they misinterpreted her text message to Lumumba.

But maybe you would define this as a "conspiracy". Do you?

[RoseMontague]

Originally Posted by stilicho

When did the media quote de Felice (or anyone else) prior to Amanda's accusation of murder that they were looking for a black man? You might be getting your timelines mixed up because there was plenty of speculation after the arrests that a black man must have been involved.

Here's a BBC news article from 04 NOV 2007:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7077424.stm

No mention of a black man.

You are correct. There is no mention of a black man in that article. Looking at some of the local articles before Amanda's arrest there appears to be a focus on North Africans, mentioned in both of these articles. The details that they were provided is astounding. I wonder why the focus on North Africans. Did the police think a North African man was involved?

http://translate.google.com/translat...71104164.shtml

http://translate.google.com/translat...71105084.shtml