I'm just the opposite.
I cannot figure out an acceptable scenario--without employing torture--where a completely innocent person goes from standing by her original story, making love, discussing lesbianism, having a shower, cooking fish, noticing blood on Raffaele's hands, etc, etc, etc, to an entirely different one where she is standing in the cottage, covering her ears to avoid hearing Meredith's screams, while Patrick is sexually assaulting and ultimately knifing her.
The problem isn't just having her shrug off the suggestion that RS wasn't backing up her alibi. She doesn't just answer: Who cares what Raffaele said? He's lying. She makes up another elaborate scenario that has absolutely no resemblance to the original one. She doesn't 'crumble' and confess. She creates a completely different story.
Do you have any examples of that happening in your false confession library? I have read most of those presented here and there's nothing quite like it.
By-the-by, I see the usual shenanigans have been going on since I was last here......
Your point is a re-presentation of something that you and others have said before. You say that, in this case, that you can't conceive of a situation where an "innocent" AK would go from talking in a somewhat carefree and scattergun fashion (as you imply) about her alibi one moment, to breaking down and confessing the next moment.
This implies two things: firstly, that AK's change of story was more-or-less instantaneous; and secondly that it was entirely voluntary and of her own free will. I'd argue that neither of these things are correct.
You state that any rational (and innocent) person would have responded to the news that RS no longer supported her alibi with a simple cross-accusation of RS ("he's lying"). But I contend that the situation is infinitely more complicated than that. She had been confronted with an unexpected and emotionally devastating u-turn from someone whom she'd always assumed was unequivocally "on her side" (and I don't mean that in an "accomplice" way, merely in an emotional way). She was also most likely simultaneously informed that the police were certain she was lying about any meeting with Lumumba, and could well also have been informed that other evidence pointed firmly to her guilt.
In those circumstances, when you add in a dose of fear of being feeling increasingly in the police spotlight, even rational and innocent people CAN and DO react in unusual and often self-incriminating ways. And AK not only "makes up another elaborate scenario that has absolutely no resemblance to the original one". She in fact makes up (or confirms under suggestion...) another elaborate scenario which not only implicates her, but which implicates another person who had nothing to do with the crime.
My "library" of false confessions is currently closed for a re-indexing of all the titles. But I can tell you without fear of contradiction that I could find you all sorts of examples where people who were subsequently proven totally innocent went, during the course of a police interrogation, from denying involvement to a full or partial confession.
And I re-iterate, just for the avoidance of any doubt: I'm not asserting that AK's dramatic change of position during this interrogation was DEFINITELY down to coercion, and that it (and all insinuations arising from it) MUST therefore be completely disregarded. What I'm arguing is that many of the factors present in historical false confessions appear to be present in this particular situation. That - together with the indisputable fact that many parts of AK's "confession" are demonstrably false in themselves - leads me to believe that, on balance, there's a lot more to this "confession" that meets the eye. We shall see.
