The Massei/Mignini Conspiracy Theory

[Branded]

The latter was coerced and not intended to deceive.

a) If Knox's lie was "not intended to deceive," what, pray tell, was it intended to do?

b) What evidence has been offered to support the coercion claim?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

a) If Knox's lie was "not intended to deceive," what, pray tell, was it intended to do?

It is overwhelmingly likely that Knox's statement was what is referred to as an internalised false confession, a well-studied and known phenomenon where a vulnerable subject placed under intense pressure and told that they have amnesia, repressed memories or similar will fantasise a scenario consistent with what their interrogators are telling them "really happened".

Knox really believed at the time that she had somehow been in her home when Meredith was murdered, even though she also knew that was impossible. Given time to get her head together she realised that those memories could not be right and told the police that, but the police believed what they wanted to believe.

b) What evidence has been offered to support the coercion claim?

We have Amanda's word as to what happened (including being struck by interrogating police), the translator's confirmation that Amanda was told she had repressed memories of the murder, the fact that a dozen police officers took part in the middle of the night and the fact that the police can't produce any recording of the interrogation.

We also have Amanda's statements whose dreamlike quality, incompatibility with the evidence and compatibility with the police theory at the time fit perfectly with an internalised false confession. The immediate retraction and confusion also fit perfectly.

As I have remarked before, either Amanda Knox was the victim of an internalised false confession or she was such an expert in police psychology that she could fake one perfectly, and simultaneously was so stupid that she did so when anyone who knows about internalised false confessions knows that they all too often lead to convictions.

At this stage the only people arguing that it wasn't an internalised false confession are ignorant of the relevant science (browsing PMF and TJMK will do that to a person) or just clinging to the belief irrationally.

 

[Branded]

It is overwhelmingly likely that Knox's statement was what is referred to as an internalised false confession, a well-studied and known phenomenon where a vulnerable subject placed under intense pressure and told that they have amnesia, repressed memories or similar will fantasise a scenario consistent with what their interrogators are telling them "really happened".

Did Knox's lawyers lead evidence in support of this notion?

 

[lionking]

Did Knox's lawyers lead evidence in support of this notion?

Of course not. These breakthroughs are only discovered by Internet warriors with google skills.

 

[Kaosium]

How, exactly, did the police "perpetrate" a "scenario" in which an extroverted and reasonably intelligent 3rd year university student accused an innocent man of murder?

She spent over forty hours in that police station over the course of four days, fourteen of those hours in interviews and the final two days what can only be considered intensive interrogation. Starting at about 11 PM on the last night they went after her with twelve cops lying to her, threatening her, and insisting she must have been 'protecting' someone and/or had 'repressed the memory.'

Tired, scared, and alone she was told they had 'hard evidence' of her at the scene, that Raffaele had 'dropped' her alibi, and they'd already forced the admission she was stoned on hash that night, thus opening up the line of inquiry that she might not remember everything that occurred that night. Having no reason to suppose the cops were lying to her, no doubt never having heard of the Reid interrogation technique or those akin to it, nor any reason to suspect Raffaele would 'betray' her, she began to believe it for a little while.

The cops are fully responsible for evaluating the information generated by their interrogations. Any method capable of convincing hardened criminals, including mafioso, to confess and put themselves in prison perhaps for decades, is amenable to producing a false confession in an innocent subject and even convincing them they may have actually done it when they hadn't. They don't get to sluff off responsibility for that onto their victim.

I posted the statements Amanda, whose Italian was marginal at the time, signed in Italian legalese on page five if I recall correctly. If you'll note there are really no details to the 'confessions' outside Patrick Lumumba was involved, which means when the chief of the Polizia di Stato in Italy, Arturo di Felice, states:

"Initially the American gave a version of events we knew was not correct. She buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct and from that we were able to bring them all in. They all participated but had different roles."

The only thing he could really be referring to is that they 'knew' Patrick Lumumba was 'involved' and that Amanda had gone to the cottage with him instead of spending the night with Raffaele. This would follow, as trained interrogators are quite aware that guilty subjects may attempt to lie or place blame elsewhere, it is their duty to determine that and the idea that a girl barely out of her teens could manipulate a dozen policemen into arresting a man solely on the basis of her 'vaguely' or 'confusedly' 'remembering' that he committed the crime when they have her in the backroom of a police station in the middle of the night is ludicrous.

Amanda gave her account on the stand. Were it in error the police could have destroyed her credibility wholesale by producing the tapes of that interrogation, which they chose not to do. They have tapes of her phone conversations with Raffaele, they wiretapped Raffaele's father, they have tapes of all the rest of the interviews and the previous night's interrogation, they have tapes of all other interviews they conducted outside a couple, yet they claim to have 'forgotten' or 'been too busy' to turn on the cameras for their all-night dozen cop interrogation that produced their 'murderers.'

If twelve cops really put the screws to Amanda in the middle of the night in that interrogation chamber with the cameras off then perhaps it is a damn good thing she broke and saw the 'flashes' when they started cuffing her.

 

[Kaosium]

Of course not. These breakthroughs are only discovered by Internet warriors with google skills.

The interrogation and the two statements it produced were thrown out by the Italian Supreme Court as they were not conducted in compliance with the law. Perhaps your 'google-fu' skills need refresher training.

What do you think happened, Lionking? Give me a scenario which produces those two statements, the 'gift' note, and accounts for the arrest of all three of them culminating in Arturo di Felice's statement which actually makes a modicum of sense.

Perhaps in the process of attempting this you'll discover why this subject is taboo amongst your compatriots.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Did Knox's lawyers lead evidence in support of this notion?

You should meet Alt+F4, that's her stock answer to inconvenient scientific facts too. She seems to think that the world of science waits on the say-so of Perugian courts for some reason.

In this particular case her lawyers didn't need to lead anything whatsoever because her internalised false statement was thrown out of court before it came to that.

I noticed you dropped a legal term there... by any chance do you have some small amount of legal training? Since Jackie/Treehorn got banned we've been short a "lawyer".

Of course not. These breakthroughs are only discovered by Internet warriors with google skills.

Lionking and the like-minded souls at PMF have found that if you can't actually refute a scientific fact, you can always try ridiculing the people pointing the fact out. It doesn't change the scientific facts of course, but I guess it makes them feel better about not having the facts on their side.

I mean, they may be totally wrong, but at least they aren't Internet warriors relying on google skills...

...wait.

 

[Branded]

You should meet Alt+F4, that's her stock answer to inconvenient scientific facts too. She seems to think that the world of science waits on the say-so of Perugian courts for some reason.

In this particular case her lawyers didn't need to lead anything whatsoever because her internalised false statement was thrown out of court before it came to that...

Ah, yes, but then there's the matter of Lumumba's civil suit against Knox.

I've looked at the translation of Knox's testimony in respect of her false accusation of Lumumba (on the "Perugia Murder File" website), and I do not recall any mention of 'internalized false confessions'...

Is the translation incomplete?

Is there a report from a reliable source indicating that Knox's lawyers advanced an argument of this kind in her defense?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Ah, yes, but then there's the matter of Lumumba's civil suit against Knox.

I've looked at the translation of Knox's testimony in respect of her false accusation of Lumumba (on the "Perugia Murder File" website), and I do not recall any mention of 'internalized false confessions'...

Is the translation incomplete?

Ah, good catch! Actual evidence she didn't know what an internalised false confession was. Nice work.

Is there a report from a reliable source indicating that Knox's lawyers advanced an argument of this kind in her defense?

I guess you could ask Alt+F4, she too seems terribly concerned with what has been argued in court and strangely unconcerned with what is in the scientific literature.

Internalised false confessions are a scientific fact and her statement fits perfectly with what we know of them. I don't really see why you would care what Perugian lawyers make of it, but as I said, maybe you and Alt+F4 can team up and research the matter if it is important to you.

 

[Branded]

The interrogation and the two statements it produced were thrown out by the Italian Supreme Court as they were not conducted in compliance with the law. Perhaps your 'google-fu' skills need refresher training.

What do you think happened, Lionking? Give me a scenario which produces those two statements, the 'gift' note, and accounts for the arrest of all three of them culminating in Arturo di Felice's statement which actually makes a modicum of sense.

Perhaps in the process of attempting this you'll discover why this subject is taboo amongst your compatriots.

One rather obvious explanation for Knox's incriminating statements is that she's guilty.

 

[Kaosium]

One rather obvious explanation for Knox's incriminating statements is that she's guilty.

Guilty of cowering in the kitchen whilst Patrick raped and murdered Meredith? I doubt it.

Did you know they went from those statements to her gleefully hacking away at Meredith without any evidence whatsoever of her being in the murder room?

Yeah, that part is just 'theory.'

On the basis of that botched interrogation they arrested Amanda, Patrick and Raffaele of murder, they'd not even gotten the results of the forensics back. Once the Polizia Scientifica issued their report, they found not a single trace of any of the three at the scene, instead they found relative gobs of evidence of Rudy Guede.

They should have just admitted their mistake and released them all, not just Patrick, but in the meantime bogus information and confirmation bias had managed to convince them they still had evidence against Raffaele and Amanda.

 

[lionking]

Perhaps in the process of attempting this you'll discover why this subject is taboo amongst your compatriots.

My compatriots.

 

[Branded]

Ah, good catch! Actual evidence she didn't know what an internalised false confession was. Nice work.

Nice for Knox. Not so nice for her lawyers.

If as you claim, it is "overwhelmingly likely that Knox's statement was...an internalised false confession...," one would expect to see an expensive defense team lead evidence in this regard.

I've not yet seen anything to indicate that Knox's lawyers did this.

If they didn't, what does that tell us?

Are Knox's lawyers ignorant, incompetent and/or unwilling to spend money on scientific/ medical experts?

Or is it the case that the science in this area is not capable of satisfying the Italian equivalent of the Frye test (general acceptance)?

 

[lionking]

Or alternately, that innocentisti posting on forums like this are just so much smarter than highly paid solicitors.

 

[Branded]

...
They should have just admitted their mistake and released them all, not just Patrick, but in the meantime bogus information and confirmation bias had managed to convince them they still had evidence against Raffaele and Amanda.

But Lumumba's alibi checked out.

The (shifting and conflicting) alibis of Knox & Sollecito did not.

 

[Branded]

Or alternately, that innocentisti posting on forums like this are just so much smarter than highly paid solicitors.

Something tells me that this particular possibility isn't going to satisfy the "Overwhelmingly Likely" Test.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Nice for Knox. Not so nice for her lawyers.

If as you claim, it is "overwhelmingly likely that Knox's statement was...an internalised false confession...," one would expect to see an expensive defense team lead evidence in this regard.

I've not yet seen anything to indicate that Knox's lawyers did this.

If they didn't, what does that tell us?

I don't know. What do you conclude?

Are Knox's lawyers ignorant, incompetent and/or unwilling to spend money on scientific/ medical experts?

Possibly. I'd go as high as probably, given that the relevant science is well established, if not necessarily therefore well known to the Perugian legal community.

Or is it the case that the science in this area is not capable of satisfying the Italian equivalent of the Frye test (general acceptance)?

I think we can rule that out, assuming a fair trial.

 

[Branded]

I don't know. What do you conclude?



Possibly. I'd go as high as probably, given that the relevant science is well established, if not necessarily therefore well known to the Perugian legal community.



I think we can rule that out, assuming a fair trial.

Have you watched the video of Knox on the stand?

Did she seem dim-witted, meek or introverted to you?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Have you watched the video of Knox on the stand?

Did she seem dim-witted, meek or introverted to you?

Ah, I see you do have a limited amount of familiarity with the literature pertaining to internalised false confessions.

Not enough to remember that there is absolutely no necessity that a person have such traits to fall victim to such a confession, but a limited amount.

 

[Branded]

Ah, I see you do have a limited amount of familiarity with the literature pertaining to internalised false confessions.

Not enough to remember that there is absolutely no necessity that a person have such traits to fall victim to such a confession, but a limited amount.

Oh, so you are a psychologist? Enlighten me. Feel free to put up some links.

My (admittedly limited) knowledge of the subject entails an article that summarized the research in this area as indicating that subjects susceptible to the phenomenon tended to be either very young children; mentally retarded, or extremely introverted.

Knox fits none of those categories.