Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kevin_Lowe]

Surely you are aware of Mr Moore's oft repeated 2 at a time for 1 hour over 6 hours schedule...12?? on 1 ??

You then might also be unaware of Police testimony about breaks, snacks, and breakfast ??

Is the reasoning here something like "If the police testified that they treated her nicely, then it must be so?".

Maybe it is my personal *opinion* but certain forums and comment sections seem to call for 'citations' endlessly for each and every statement made.
Many of the statements are widely accepted and acknowledged by most people with more than superficial familiarity with the case.

We shoot for more than superficial familiarity.

Part of the reason is just that we're an evidence-oriented community, so you won't look far without seeing requests for relevant evidence. It isn't just an affectation we made up to annoy guilters in this thread, it's a fundamental part of the reasoning process used here. Check some other threads if you don't believe it.

Another part of the reason is that we've had a lot of recent immigrants from places like PMF and TMJK, which serve as echo chambers for outright error. Statements get widely accepted and acknowledged over there, and then people come over here and repeat them as if they were established fact rather than malignant nonsense. So there's more reason than usual to be on guard against errors slipping into the discussion.

In this case, the citation request sometimes seems unnecessarily disruptive rather than definitive.

I wish it were unnecessary. It is not.

 

[Mary_H]

Wrong. As we have said so many weary times before, to the point that many of us would rather be dead than say it again, unfortunately the verdict of the court is not an objectively proven fact but is the decision of a committee of fallible human beings who may or may not have been given fully scientifically correct, accurate, and truthful information as to the events of the night of Meredith's murder.

On the home page of the U.S. Supreme Court's website, there is a link for "opinions," but there is not one for "objectively proven facts."

http://www.supremecourt.gov/default.aspx

 

[pilot padron]

Thanks again, LJ.
You are so kind.

I guess that particular quote of understandable 'police jargon' used to describe a Police affair had about the same effect *on me* and the same miniscule relative significance to the overall case *IMHO* as Amanda's hip swivel an verbalization of something like 'Op La' to the Police Officer helping her to enter the crime scene

 

[colonelhall]

Antony, it's folks like you that keep me coming back to this site. Please keep it up.

First you ask "What P.R. firm?"

When you are told, you reply "So the "Knox P.R. machine" consists of a single hired consultant?"

No, not a single hired consultant. A company. A well oiled machine. A group of highly paid professionals skilled in keeping their clients in the public eye. A team of people who could blog 24 hours, spreading the fabrications that sow the seeds of doubt in people's minds.

As for the other stuff about verdicts just being opinions .... well, as I said "keep it up!"

 

[Machiavelli]

Massei's wooden-headed reasoning reflects the assumption (without explicitly stating the point) that the bathmat print was made by stepping in blood in Meredith's room, tracking it into the bathroom, and then cleaning all the footprints leading from the blood source to the mat. There are a number of problems with this premise.

I disagree. I don't see this assumption in Massei report. And I don't see the necessity of this assumption in reality.

 

[pilot padron]

Is the reasoning here something like "If the police testified that they treated her nicely, then it must be so?".

We shoot for more than superficial familiarity.

I wish it were unnecessary. It is not.

Your explanation of need for citations is fully understood and as an appreciative member here, I will make every effort to comply when same are necessary for crucial points in our discourse

As I said, I appreciate this opportunity to be part of your 'evidence based community'.

Having said that I guess I have not been here long enough to note your 'influx of immigrants', but may I most respectfully opine that many feel contributions from immigrants is one of the factors that made the USA the greatest power in the world for so long.

Your objective of 'shooting for more than superficial" is of course shared by everyone, but may I also respectfully opine certainly not fully achieved in each and every contribution here.(or really anywhere in cyberspace...always that 5 percent ??)

The way the "Police treated Amanda" will hopefully be resolved soon by powers much more qualified than myself.

Your *opinion* about and derivation of 'echo chambers' is definitely NOT shared by me but granted as your right since I am probably not as familiar with the rules here as is one of such... " long"... standing as yourself

 

[katy_did]

Your words above in bold are demonstrably false.

I quote again from Massei pp 178-9 (I'm always going to use the PMF English translation, so I'm not going to repeat that every time):

What I'm reading here is that Dr. Ronchi did say this.

Ronchi did not say, as you claim Katy, that the ligatures were not made, only that they were made imperfectly.

That is the plain meaning of the report.

If you have further documentation of Ronchi's exact words that contradict Massei here, please post the info.

Trigood, I said that Massei distorted what Ronchi said. Therefore, quoting Massei as evidence that Massei didn't distort what Ronchi said doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Point taken, however, that I didn't quote from a source in my post. It's mentioned in Raffaele's appeal:

Prof. Umani Ronchi, at the hearings of 19.04.2008 and 19.9.2009, never referred to “an imperfect apposition of the ligatures” at the level of the duodenum, but rather on the failure to ligate the duodenum on the part of Dr. Lalli during the autopsy...

Il Prof. Umani Ronchi, alle udienze del 19.04.2008 e del 19.9.2009, non ha mai riferito su “una non perfetta apposizione delle legature” a livello del duodeno, bensì sull’omessa legatura del duodeno da parte del dott. Lalli in sede autoptica...

It then goes on to quote Ronchi ("taking into account that ligatures were not put in place"/"tenuto conto che non sono state messe le legature") and then points out that the autopsy film showed that ligatures were made correctly:

The failure to ligate the duodenum, in fact, allowed Prof. Umani Ronchi to consider that the gastric contents, at least in part, could have slipped into the duodenum or that the gastric contents, already passed into the duodenum, could have slipped due to gravity up to the ileocal valve after having travelled 5 metres of the small intestine. From this, the Court deduced the unreliability of the finding effected during the autopsy relative to the objective fact of having found the duodenum empty.

On the basis of this assumption, endorsed by the decision, it could therefore be affirmed that, if the duodenum had been closed by means of ligature, the gastric contents would be [equal to] that faithfully described by Dr. Lalli, and that the duodenum described as empty would constitute completely reliable data.

However, the Court, during the hearing of 30.11.2009, was able to directly view the film of the autopsy carried out by Dr. Lalli, who correctly applied the ligatures to close the duodenum, so as to prevent any slippage of the gastric contents into the duodenum itself and from the duodenum downwards, stripping of credibility all the erroneous considerations put forward as to the possible slippage of food from the stomach into the duodenum.

But the contested decision completely failed to evaluate this data.

La mancata legatura del duodeno consentiva, infatti, di far ritenere al Prof. Umani Ronchi che il contenuto gastrico, almeno in parte, fosse scivolato nel duodeno ovvero che il contenuto gastrico, già passato nel duodeno, fosse scivolato per gravità fino alla valvola ileocecale dopo aver percorso 5 metri di intestino tenue. Da ciò, la Corte ha dedotto l’inattendibilità del riscontro effettuato in sede autoptica relativo al dato oggettivo di aver trovato il duodeno vuoto.
Sulla base di tale assunto, avallato dalla decisione, si potrebbe quindi affermare che, ove il duodeno fosse stato chiuso mediante legatura, il contenuto gastrico sia quello fedelmente annotato dal dott. Lalli e che il duodeno descritto come vuoto costituisca un dato pienamente attendibile.
Tuttavia, la Corte, durante l’udienza del 30.11.2009, ha potuto direttamente visionare il filmato dell’autopsia effettuata dal dott. Lalli, il quale ha correttamente apposto le legature per chiudere il duodeno, sì da impedire qualsivoglia scivolamento del contenuto gastrico nel duodeno stesso e dal duodeno in giù, svuotando di credibilità tutte le erronee considerazioni propugnate circa il possibile scivolamento di cibo dallo stomaco nel duodeno.
Ma la decisione impugnata ha del tutto omesso di valutare questo dato.

After you've finished with the Massei report, I'd recommend reading the appeals as well; parts are quite eye-opening.

 

[Mary_H]

Well, the authorities had to admit a mistake with Patrick and free him, even though they were sure he was in collusion with Raffaele and Amanda. And then Rudy comes along, with much evidence against him (forensic, his own words, etc.) and they could have dropped the charges against Amanda and Raffaele without incurring the wrath of the public because they now had the murderer of Meredith.

I just don't see what it would profit the authorities to convict Amanda and Raffaele if they believed them to be innocent of Meredith's murder.

My guess would be that it had to do with having their perspective impaired as a result of being deeply humiliated. They would not have incurred the wrath of the public, but they may have believed they would incur the ridicule of the public. As we have seen from some of his retaliatory reactions against critics, Mignini is a man with a fragile ego.

By perspective, I mean the ability to see the consequences of certain courses of action. Sometimes when people get scared, they can see only immediate consequences rather than long range results. Mignini did exactly what various churches have done in response to complaints of clergy sex abuse. He denied what happened, then blamed the victims and used extreme methods to cover it up, mistakenly believing he could keep it covered up forever.

In answer to your question, I think the profit or reward for authorities was simply avoiding admitting they were wrong.

 

[katy_did]

Katy_Did made a demonstrably false assertion about the Massei report; I refuted it, using that report.

Yes, experts use words like "hypothesize" and so forth in their testimony.

Yet what Dr. Ronchi "hypothesized" was the exact opposite of what Katy_Did said he "hypothesized."
(...)
If not, Katy needs to go back and read the Massei Report again, and stop misquoting it.

Once again, I think perhaps you need to go back and re-read my post, and stop misquoting it...

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkens
Massei's wooden-headed reasoning reflects the assumption (without explicitly stating the point) that the bathmat print was made by stepping in blood in Meredith's room, tracking it into the bathroom, and then cleaning all the footprints leading from the blood source to the mat. There are a number of problems with this premise.

I disagree. I don't see this assumption in Massei report. And I don't see the necessity of this assumption in reality.

You are correct. I gave Massei too much credit, because he does state the point explicitly, and therefore his reasoning is explicitly wooden-headed:

P. 279 [300]:
Furthermore, the sky-blue bathmat with the print of a bare foot in blood, blood which also was shown to be from the victim, indicates that whoever went into this bathroom was barefoot, and must therefore also have been barefoot in Meredith’s room where she had been repeatedly struck, a room which had great blotches of blood, and in one of these whoever transferred the blood to the bathroom and the sky-blue bathmat must have placed his or her foot, and thus must have been moving about that room with bare feet.

P. 384 [413]:
Further confirmation is constituted by the fact that, after Meredith’s murder, it is clear that some traces were definitely eliminated, a cleaning activity was certainly carried out. In fact, the bare foot which, stained with blood, left its footprint on the sky-blue mat in the bathroom, could only have reached that mat by taking steps which should have left other footprints on the floor, also marked out in blood just like (in fact, most likely, with even more [blood], since they were created before the footprint printed on the mat) the one found on the mat itself. Of such other very visible footprints of a bloody bare foot, on the contrary, there is no trace.

The emphasis is mine.

 

[Machiavelli]

[QUOTE="katy_did]You were quoting the defence team's argument there of course, who clearly do believe that Massei was arguing that as long as the majority of the loci are not disputed, this is good enough. I do agree with them, however, though I think I see the point you're trying to make. It seems to me that what Massei is saying is: the majority of loci were not disputed; the number which were not disputed is greater than the number which were disputed, and greater than the number of six loci, with which older versions of the test determined whether profiles matched or not;[/QUOTE]

To be clear, there are two charts, two arrays each with its "loci" and "alleles". One of them (the y-chromosome haplotype) has a match on 17 loci. Anothr on has a number (11? 13?) matching and 6 "disputed". All "disputed" loci are in fact disputed only by the defence experts, while Stefanomi matched the series entirely and completely with Sollecito's. Some of the disputed loci actually are loci from the Sollecito's profile sequence which the defence claims should be dismissed because their positivenss in terms of RFU is too low compared to the higher peak of the sequence. Some other disputed loci are external the sequence which the defence claims they should be considered as belonging to the sequenc, thus causing it to become different, because they are "not low enough" to be excluded in their view.
The logical arguments used by Stefanoni take in account not just the sheer number of loci, but also looks at what position they occupy and what allele they refer to. In fact a DNA chart is diffeent from a lottery ticket also in other respects: in that, for example, not all alleles configuration are equally frequent, moreover they are generally considered in pairs and groups. So if in one position you have a pair (12, 15) matching the same values in Sollecito's profile, and you want to consider the alternative in which you dismiss the value '15', the result could be at odds with probablities or complicate the interpretation of the chart to complete the pair.

The reasoning reported by Massei, in conclusion, is not that the majority of loci are not disputed. It is that, first of all there are (two) full matching sequences, and, secondly, that there are disputed loci only of one sequence, and third, that those disouted loci are very little information compared to the rest (the two matching seris, pluse the fact that an entire 17 series is undisputed, and the 10 or more undisputed on the other chart). The six objected loci don't have the power, in tems of probability, to overrule the weight of a finding of a match on a so large scale.

 

[katy_did]

____________________

Well, katy_did, here's how Massei concludes his examination of the DNA results for the bra clasp:


"Consequently, the match between Raffaele Sollecito’s Y-haplotype and the Y-haplotype found on trace 165B leads us to conclude that the biological trace found on the hooks of the bra that Meredith was wearing when she was killed, was left by Raffaele Sollecito. This conclusion becomes even more evident, strengthened and further confirmed by the recognized match between the genetic profile of Sollecito and that yielded from the trace, a match which, for a considerable number of loci and as we have seen, turns out to be uncontested." (MOTIVATIONS Report, English Translation, page 299, on PMF Site.)


You ask why Massei mentions the former test of using only six loci? (Page 297 of the English Translation.) Well, since ten loci in the present test were uncontested positive matches to Raffaele, I think he's saying that had the former test been used---and six of those ten loci had been used in performing the test---Raffaele would have been identified as a perfect match. Period.
So long as Massei doesn't recognize---and he never does---that there is a mis-match at any of the loci, his argument seems perfectly logical to me.

///

So you've now gone from arguing that Massei was stating (a propos of nothing in particular) that DNA tests these days are so much better than they used to be, since they now use 16 loci instead of 6, to claiming that Massei was in fact saying that if the test had been done with six loci and the six loci it detected had just happened to be six of those uncontested loci, then in that case Raffaele would have been a 'perfect match' (despite you earlier pointing out that Massei says 'uncontested' rather than 'matching', let alone 'perfect match').

I'm sorry, but your interpretation makes no sense. It really doesn't. It seems like you're going to great lengths in order to avoid the obvious interpretation of what Massei says, reading things into it that seem like quite a radical departure from his actual words. And what's more, you're once again shifting the argument rather than addressing anything I actually posted.

Massei says the number of uncontested loci is greater than the number of contested loci, and also greater than the number of six loci with which DNA matches were previously calculated. Why would he point out that more loci were uncontested than contested, and that the number of uncontested loci is greater than the total number previously used to carry out DNA testing, if not to imply that simple quantity is the issue here?

As to your interpretation, I have no idea how you arrived at it from Massei's words.

 

[LondonJohn]

Antony, it's folks like you that keep me coming back to this site. Please keep it up.

First you ask "What P.R. firm?"

When you are told, you reply "So the "Knox P.R. machine" consists of a single hired consultant?"

No, not a single hired consultant. A company. A well oiled machine. A group of highly paid professionals skilled in keeping their clients in the public eye. A team of people who could blog 24 hours, spreading the fabrications that sow the seeds of doubt in people's minds.

As for the other stuff about verdicts just being opinions .... well, as I said "keep it up!"

How much do you think that Marriott and his company (Gogerty Marriott) are getting paid by the Knox family to provide these extensive PR services? And where do you think that the money is coming from to pay them?

 

[Mary_H]

Your example is irrefutable, as are some of the interesting points you raise.

I agree that it is 'enlightening' when any reporters efforts mistakes or otherwise seem to be "in one direction".

Surely you would agree that the CBS piece that so captivated Ms Moore was, to be most charitable, .. "in one direction"

Also, Mr Marriott by strictly limiting and rewarding access to Family by Media has definitely tended to have many, many "in one direction" resultant productions.

There is a difference. As halides1 pointed out, "The dateline on Mr. Mudede’s article is February 6, 2008, which was before there was even a formal charge against Amanda and Raffaele, let alone a conviction." Now there is enough information available to allow reporters and advocates to support their arguments credibly.

 

[katy_did]

To be clear, there are two charts, two arrays each with its "loci" and "alleles". One of them (the y-chromosome haplotype) has a match on 17 loci. Anothr on has a number (11? 13?) matching and 6 "disputed". All "disputed" loci are in fact disputed only by the defence experts, while Stefanomi matched the series entirely and completely with Sollecito's. Some of the disputed loci actually are loci from the Sollecito's profile sequence which the defence claims should be dismissed because their positivenss in terms of RFU is too low compared to the higher peak of the sequence. Some other disputed loci are external the sequence which the defence claims they should be considered as belonging to the sequenc, thus causing it to become different, because they are "not low enough" to be excluded in their view.
The logical arguments used by Stefanoni take in account not just the sheer number of loci, but also looks at what position they occupy and what allele they refer to. In fact a DNA chart is diffeent from a lottery ticket also in other respects: in that, for example, not all alleles configuration are equally frequent, moreover they are generally considered in pairs and groups. So if in one position you have a pair (12, 15) matching the same values in Sollecito's profile, and you want to consider the alternative in which you dismiss the value '15', the result could be at odds with probablities or complicate the interpretation of the chart to complete the pair.

Thanks for that info. I'll have a proper look at what you're saying once I'm feeling a bit less dazed than at present (just arrived back from a four hour drive, so am feeling kinda unfocused!).

I think that the contamination (or secondary/tertiary transfer) aspect of the defence's argument on the bra clasp is stronger than their argument that it isn't Raffaele's DNA, but the latter is interesting nonetheless.

The reasoning reported by Massei, in conclusion, is not that the majority of loci are not disputed. It is that, first of all there are (two) full matching sequences, and, secondly, that there are disputed loci only of one sequence, and third, that those disouted loci are very little information compared to the rest (the two matching seris, pluse the fact that an entire 17 series is undisputed, and the 10 or more undisputed on the other chart). The six objected loci don't have the power, in tems of probability, to overrule the weight of a finding of a match on a so large scale.

I think that in that one particular section of the report, he does fall back on the quantity argument (i.e. more loci being uncontested than contested makes the result reliable) and I also think there's little reason to mention the earlier tests using 6 loci (and pointing out specifically that this is fewer than the number of uncontested loci in this case) unless he is saying this is positive evidence for the reliability of the result. This seems very clear evidence that he is making a comparison in terms of simple quantity. But I accept that that's not the full extent of his argument, just one (scientifically erroneous) part of it.

 

[Machiavelli]

In fact, the bare foot which, stained with blood, left its footprint on the sky-blue mat in the bathroom, could only have reached that mat by taking steps which should have left other footprints on the floor, also marked out in blood just like (in fact, most likely, with even more [blood], since they were created before the footprint printed on the mat) the one found on the mat itself

This is a very delicate point and a very probative point of Amanda and Raffaele's guilt in my opinion. In these pages my understanding is the report is talking of the floor in the bathroom. The place where there should be steps and tracks is not referred to as the corridoor, nor the areas where Rudy Guede's tracks are (in fact those are not exactly and not necessarily on the areas that are supposed to have been cleaned). But anyway the bathroom shows the obvious evidence of having been cleaned. I want to be clear that my understanding is not that the tracs of the murderers were made made "stepping on the pools of blood visible in Meredith's room", or not necessarily. A stepping on blood happened for sure, but could have happened on the soaked towels, that maybe were used to shuffle on the floor towards the bathroom as well as the bathmat, which could have served the same purpose maybe the way back.
The fact is that the evidence shows that an area was necessarily cleaned, and the luminol prints are probably not present yet at the moment of this first cleaning. The phenophtalene test indeed shows an area of smearing of a positive substence in the samll bathroom and luminol shows areas equally positive to a smeared substence, compatible with a cleaning prior to the footprints.
The evidence id probative of a cleanup mainly because the bathroom floor is clean and the carpet is full of stains, including a print with a missing heel. This is probative because shows a cleanup, but doesn't imply a trail of prints.
This conclusion of the report doesn't equate to say the blood was picked up in a pool in Meredith's room and then tracked by trail of steps to the bathroom, and later cleaned.

 

[pilot padron]

There is a difference. As halides1 pointed out, "The dateline on Mr. Mudede’s article is February 6, 2008, which was before there was even a formal charge against Amanda and Raffaele, let alone a conviction." Now there is enough information available to allow reporters and advocates to support their arguments credibly.

Mary, as often, you are absolutely correct.

Forgive me if I did not attach the importance to the date Halides cited that you now understandably consider significant.

As I know you are well familiar with, the long and thorough investigation of evidence that takes place under the Italian system *before formal charges are filed* was why I downplay the importance of that date.

I mean, Matthew's fellow employee is under sufficient suspicion of criminal actions that, ....*she is in jail*

Why should 'Matthew' have to wait until all 19 judges completed their long investigation of the evidence, and *unanimously* conclude evidence of Amanda's guilt is *overwhelming* and formal charges and trial is justified before 'Matthew' can relate his personal witness of Amanda's anti semitic slur to a reporter interviewing him about her ??

 

[pilot padron]

There is a difference. As halides1 pointed out, "The dateline on Mr. Mudede’s article is February 6, 2008, which was before there was even a formal charge against Amanda and Raffaele, let alone a conviction." Now there is enough information available to allow reporters and advocates to support their arguments credibly.

Mary, as often, you are absolutely correct.

Forgive me if I did not attach the importance to the date Halides cited that you now understandably consider significant.

As I know you are well familiar with, the long and thorough investigation of evidence that takes place under the Italian system *before formal charges are filed* was why I downplay the importance of that date.

I mean, Matthew's fellow employee is under sufficient suspicion of criminal actions that, ....*she is in jail*

Why should 'Matthew' have to wait until all 19 judges completed their long investigation of the evidence, and *unanimously* conclude evidence of Amanda's guilt is *overwhelming* and formal charges with subsequent trial is warranted before 'Matthew' can relate his personal witness of Amanda's anti semitic slur to a reporter interviewing him about her ??

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Your *opinion* about and derivation of 'echo chambers' is definitely NOT shared by me but granted as your right since I am probably not as familiar with the rules here as is one of such... " long"... standing as yourself

Well, let's look at an example.

An excellent one is the relative foot size of Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede.

We've had a number of posters, including Michael/Fulcanelli and loverofzion, come over here posting quite confidently that their feet were very different in size. Either they really believed this quite confidently or they were just plain lying, but let's be charitable and assume they were just wrong.

The fact is that the Massei report states very clearly that their feet differed in size by only 3mm. This has been an established fact for a very long time now, yet guilters are still getting that bit wrong, even (or perhaps especially) those considered experts by their peers.

Why do we keep getting posters in here repeating this same myth, over and over? I think it's because it's stated as fact often enough at places like TMJK and PMF that people hear it and assume it must be true... it must be one of those "accepted facts" that everyone agrees on, right? Yet its utter bollocks.

I could list others: the idea that DNA forensics somehow proves something about when DNA was deposited, the idea that there is positive evidence for a staged break-in, the idea that Amanda had been demoted or sacked by Lumumba, the idea that Amanda used hard drugs and many more I'm sure if I took the time to sift through multiple hundred pages of posts.

If you think a different mechanism is responsible for all these different posters believing all these incorrect claims as "accepted fact" I'd love to hear what it is.

Believe it or not this is perfectly normal for laypeople in a long-running discussion where citations aren't called for. It's not proof in and of itself that the PMF or TMJK communities are any dumber than any other community. In fact similar errors have (briefly) crept in the consensus JREF picture of what happened from time to time. This is why we demand citations. Because we check our facts and ask for evidence, when error does manage to creep in it gets smacked out again, and to the credit of the pro-innocence posters here they rarely if ever get the same thing wrong again once they have been shown the truth.

This is also why we find mole-whacking tiresome: We keep our own house in order, and we expect (in the moral sense, not the predictive sense) that the guiters will as well. Making a mistake once is perfectly forgivable. Popping a mole up again after we've already corrected it is simply a waste of everyone's time.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Why should 'Matthew' have to wait until all 19 judges completed their long investigation of the evidence, and *unanimously* conclude evidence of Amanda's guilt is *overwhelming*

Look, here's another one. Nineteen judges never did any such thing. The guilters pride themselves on an above-average knowledge of the Italian legal system, and will rapidly correct any misstatements by others about details of how the system works, yet strangely enough they keep getting this one vital detail wrong over and over again.

Two judges unanimously formed the opinion that Amanda and Raffaele were guilty. (One of them was Massei who is manifestly not a very clear thinker). Seventeen judges formed the opinion that there was a prima facie case to answer, which is not even remotely the same thing.

Now why do you think that guilters keep getting this wrong? I put it down to the echo chamber effect - they hear this talking point so often from so many "authoritative" sources that they never stop to think that it could be complete piffle.