This is like having an argument with someone who doesn't know the meaning of most of the words they are using, but won't admit that their lack of language skills is a problem.
Again with the contentless snark. Is it possible for you to reply to a post from someone with whom you disagree without doing this?
Improbable claims require proportionately strong evidence, okay? However proportionately strong evidence is not impossible to find, or even that hard in some cases. If there is only a one in a thousand chance of seeing an orange-headed duck at my local pond, but I get clear video footage of an orange-headed duck, boom, claim supported. The p=0.001 chance of me having seen a duck (knowing nothing at all except that I went to the pond) is now a p=0.99 or similar chance, depending on how likely you think I am to have gone to extraordinary lengths to have faked the footage.
No, this is not proper skeptical enquiry. If the video is of, let us say, a white-headed duck which is observed at a rate of 30% or 50% within a given population, then a simple video of said duck would suffice as evidence for a rational observer to conclude that you more than likely did see a white-headed duck. However, at your rate of one-in-a-thousand for orange-headed ducks, if you produce a video which purports to show one, a rational observer is going to demand more information before concluding that an orange-headed duck is actually what you saw. Was there possibly a lens artifact? Was there some peculiar lighting at the time? Is it fact orange paint, not plumage, which is observed? Has the video been altered in any way? And so on.
So saying "Well, internalised false confessions aren't that common, therefore you can't be a skeptic and think this is an internalised false confession" is manifestly foolish. If I knew absolutely nothing about the case except that Knox confessed, and I knew no details about the confession, yes it would be an unsupported belief. If I know a lot about it, then it can be (and is) a thoroughly supported belief.
That is not what I am saying. I am saying that: 1) internalized false confessions are rare, 2) her statements do not even satisfy all the criteria which scientists observe in actual internalized confessions.
Moreover, I also know quite a bit about the case and base my judgments of whether her statements are genuine internalized confessions upon that knowledge as well. I disagree with you about most of your interpretations of the facts of this case, but I will at least recognize that you are knowledgable about the case. I would appreciate the same consideration.
Further you are trying to compare apples to oranges. Internalised false confessions are rare but there are no shortage of documented examples. That makes them orders of magnitude more likely than Mignini's theory which is, as you say, unprecedented.
"No shortage of documented examples?"
from
Leo:
"... only a small number of alleged false confessions contain the independent case evidence or circumstances that allow the confessor to prove his innocence beyond dispute. Nevertheless, researchers have documented approximately 300 proven false confessions in recent decades."
300 cases out of a universe of how many interrogations? Hundreds of thousands? Millions?
And I did
not assert that Mignini's theory was "unprecedented". I have previously noted on more than one occasion that this is a ridiculous, unfounded claim.
Lastly, you need to bear in mind that this is a court case where the prosecution has the burden of providing proof beyond reasonable doubt. If the best you can say about the prosecution case is that it's possible but wildly unlikely, it can't support a justified conviction. You need at least p>0.9, even if your standards for a conviction are Lionking low.
This is nonsense. There is no court in the world that would instruct its jury members to formulate a guilt probability beyond an arbitrary numerical percentage.
We already said this - the police told her that the trauma of the event gave her amnesia. It's a common pop psychological idea that this can happen, hence quite likely to be satisfactory to Amanda in the relevant sense if delivered by an authority figure. What's the problem?
Yes - they told her it was the trauma of the event. And she did not contradict them or offer any other explanation for her selective amnesia.
