• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The Massei/Mignini Conspiracy Theory

Amazer said:
Nice try Kevin... but (sticking with the analogy) the burden to prove that the blue feathered bird you found is actually a rare blue parrot falls squarely on your shoulders.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I called it. You make a bold claim, and then you shift the burden of proof when called on it. No surprise.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Yeah, I called it. You make a bold claim, and then you shift the burden of proof when called on it. No surprise.
Click to expand...

Lmao... sorry for not bowing to your superiour intellect. I shall from now onward not question whatever claims you make and just accept them as gospel truth.

All blue feathered birds on Guilter Island are now rare blue parrots... understood.:rolleyes:
 
Amazer said:
Lmao... sorry for not bowing to your superiour intellect. I shall from now onward not question whatever claims you make and just accept them as gospel truth.
Click to expand...

Passive-aggression is not an argument.

All blue feathered birds on Guilter Island are now rare blue parrots... understood.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I think you should think upon the fact that from a legal and indeed a moral perspective, we don't owe it to you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Amanda's statement was an internalised false statement. The boot is on the other foot - to sustain a rational belief that Amanda's conviction was not a miscarriage of justice, you have to have a high degree of confidence based on proper evidence that it was not an internalised false statement.

People who are ignorant of the existence of internalised false statements can easily be forgiven for thinking that Amanda's statement is strong evidence of her guilt, just as people similarly ignorant of induced memories can be forgiven for thinking that the McMartin pre-school panic had a sensible basis.

However you are no longer in that position. You know they exist.

So now the question for you should not be "Can you guys prove it to me that it was an internalised false statement?", but "Can I prove to you guys it wasn't one?".

That's going to be really tricky given that it looks exactly like one, and you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that "normal" confessions can even look like an internalised false confession in the first place.

If you can't rise to that challenge, you've got no basis at all for thinking her statement is evidence of her guilt. You're just denying that it's an internalised false statement because you don't want it to be one, making up on the spot the entirely unsupported theory that it could be some other kind of confession that just happens to look exactly like an internalised false statement, and demanding that other people disprove the wacky idea you just made up.
 
I like analogies.

There are three types of parrots on Innocenter Island. The common Red Parrot, the less common Orange Parrot and the very rare Blue Parrot.

This island was ruled by a powerful monarch - King Leo. King Leo was very fond of Blue Parrots and would offer a prize bounty for every one brought to him. All the villagers of Innocenter Island knew this and would trap Blue Parrots whenever they could to bring to King Leo for the bounty. However, Blue Parrots were very rare and most villagers went their entire lives without seeing one.

Innocenter Island was a very isolated place, a tiny speck of land in the middle of the great ocean. One day, a shipwrecked sailor washed up on Innocenter Island. The friendly villagers rescued him and nursed him back to health. However, after some time, the sailor wished to return to his homeland. He was told by the villagers that the only way off the island was to pay for passage on one of the ocean-going ships that stopped by the island every 6 months. Unfortunately, the only person on the island who had any money was King Leo, and the only way to get some of his money would be to present him with one of the prized Blue Parrots.

The sailor resolved to catch a Blue Parrot by the time the next ship arrived in 3 months' time. He spent day after day, in rain and shine, in cold and heat, searching all over the island and setting up traps for the Blue Parrots. Most days, his traps were empty. On the rare occasions that he did actually succeed in trapping a parrot, it would inevitably turn out to be a Red Parrot, or less frequently, an Orange one. With the ocean-going ship due to arrive the following day, the sailor was in deep despair.

In desperation, the sailor took one of the Red Parrots he had trapped, and painted it blue. He climbed the long mountain path to King Leo's palace, trembling with fear and hoping that his deception would not be noticed by the powerful king, who was known to have a nasty disposition. He was at last led into the Royal Hall, and duly prostrated himself, presenting his Red-Parrot-Which-He-Had-Painted-Blue to King Leo. The mighty king was duly impressed, and exclaimed loudly for all his subjects to hear, "This is an exceptionally fine Blue Parrot! I am an expert on Blue Parrots and this is the finest specimen which I have ever seen!" The sailor received his payment from King Leo, along with a bonus, and quickly ran to the docks just in time to make passage on the ocean-going ship, and went back to his homeland, living happily ever after.

This scene did not go unnoticed by King Leo's courtiers, who in turn told all the villagers about King Leo's expertise concerning Blue Parrots.

King Leo went bankrupt within three weeks.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Passive-aggression is not an argument.



I think you should think upon the fact that from a legal and indeed a moral perspective, we don't owe it to you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Amanda's statement was an internalised false statement. The boot is on the other foot - to sustain a rational belief that Amanda's conviction was not a miscarriage of justice, you have to have a high degree of confidence based on proper evidence that it was not an internalised false statement.

People who are ignorant of the existence of internalised false statements can easily be forgiven for thinking that Amanda's statement is strong evidence of her guilt, just as people similarly ignorant of induced memories can be forgiven for thinking that the McMartin pre-school panic had a sensible basis.

However you are no longer in that position. You know they exist.

So now the question for you should not be "Can you guys prove it to me that it was an internalised false statement?", but "Can I prove to you guys it wasn't one?".

That's going to be really tricky given that it looks exactly like one, and you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that "normal" confessions can even look like an internalised false confession in the first place.

If you can't rise to that challenge, you've got no basis at all for thinking her statement is evidence of her guilt. You're just denying that it's an internalised false statement because you don't want it to be one, making up on the spot the entirely unsupported theory that it could be some other kind of confession that just happens to look exactly like an internalised false statement, and demanding that other people disprove the wacky idea you just made up.
Click to expand...

And we know it's an internalised false statement because you keep saying it's an internalised false statement.
 
Too many parrots!:D

Look. Enduced memories, false memories, internalised false confessions are obviously rare. But they are phenomena recognised and documented by academia. So we can't deny they happen. Can we? Is anyone disagreeing with that?

I'm going to assume no-one is denying this. To engage with anyone denying (without considerable justification that's peer-reviewed) phenomena documented by science is pointless.

So we can then compare the documented cases with the alleged case.

How about this documented case: '"I'll help you boys as much as I can": How eagerness to please can result in a false confession' by Gisli Gudjonsson
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a789208315~frm=titlelink


Vulnerabilities identified as high risk for false confession:

1) eagerness to please the investigating officers
2) firm trust in the police and great respect for them
Evidence for 1 & 2:
"I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received." (Amanda Knox, handwritten note of 6th November)
"I have been told there is hard evidence saying that I was at the place of the murder of my friend when it happened. This, I want to confirm, is something that to me, if asked a few days ago, would be impossible." (Amanda Knox, handwritten note of 6th November)
"I'm doing the best I can, just like you are." (Amanda Knox, handwritten note of 6th November)

3) lack of confidence in his memory of events
This was undermined before and during the interrogation by both the interpreter and the police:
'what made me try to imagine something was someone saying to me "Maybe you're confused, maybe you're confused and you should try to remember something different. Try to find these memories that obviously you have somehow lost. You have to try to remember them. So I was there thinking, but what could I have forgotten? And I was thinking, what have I forgotten? what have I forgotten? and they were shouting "Come on, come on, come on, remember, remember, remember," (Amanda Knox, trial testimony, June 2009) http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?356199-Amanda-Knox-Testimony
4) high suggestibility
Not sure whether this is true of Amanda, or what would consist of evidence for this.
5) the individual's role changes from that of a witness in an informal interview to that of a suspect.
Asked whether "the fact that you were being called every day to the Questura, didn't that worry you and your family?"
"I really never, never thought that they suspected me. Never." (Amanda Knox, trial testimony)
 
Tall tales on the high seas

All this talk of being shipwrecked on remote islands brings to mind the story of Long John Silver.
His constant companion was a parrot also - we shall claim, without fear of contradiction, that it was a rare blue parrot.

If only King Leo & Long John had ever met who knows what tall tales about parrots etc would have been produced. But that, children, is a story for another day.
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
And we know it's an internalised false statement because you keep saying it's an internalised false statement.
Click to expand...

Hey... don't knock Kevin. He knows what he's talking about
 
Last edited:
Amazer said:
Hey... don't knock Kevin. He knows what he's talking about
Click to expand...

Hey Amazer,

since you don't seem to be adding anything to this conversation other than sniping, prehaps you can answer the questions that Stilleto seems to have failed to see...

1) What is your strongest evidence that she (Ammanda) is guilty?

2) Do you believe that a conviction always means the person truly is guilty?
 
tsig said:
And we know it's an internalised false statement because you keep saying it's an internalised false statement.
Click to expand...

Do you believe that internalised false statements can occur?

How would you identify one?
 
Fuji said:
I like analogies.
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure I follow.

Are you claiming that we are passing off something which is not an internalised false statement as an internalised false statement? If so I think you might want to present some evidence for that claim.

Or are you claiming some shyster is pulling this trick on us? If so, who? In that case you also might want to present some evidence for that claim.

It seems to me that this is the stomach contents evidence all over again: The guilter community desperately wants a claim to be false, they have not the slightest skerrick of evidence that it is false and frankly they are probably well out of their depth even trying to find such evidence, and so they cast around for any talking point to salve the wound.

Now as then you've settled on argumentum ad hominem as your fallacy of choice, and you're attacking me in lieu of making a rational argument.

Now as then, you're deluding yourself if you think this gets you anywhere. Just as the stomach contents argument rested on the scientific literature and not on any personal expertise of my own, the argument that Amanda's statement was an internalised false confession rests on the scientific literature and not on any personal expertise of my own. Attacking me doesn't solve your problem.
 
bri1 said:
Vulnerabilities identified as high risk for false confession:

1) eagerness to please the investigating officers
2) firm trust in the police and great respect for them
Evidence for 1 & 2:
"I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received." (Amanda Knox, handwritten note of 6th November)
"I have been told there is hard evidence saying that I was at the place of the murder of my friend when it happened. This, I want to confirm, is something that to me, if asked a few days ago, would be impossible." (Amanda Knox, handwritten note of 6th November)
"I'm doing the best I can, just like you are." (Amanda Knox, handwritten note of 6th November)

3) lack of confidence in his memory of events
This was undermined before and during the interrogation by both the interpreter and the police:
'what made me try to imagine something was someone saying to me "Maybe you're confused, maybe you're confused and you should try to remember something different. Try to find these memories that obviously you have somehow lost. You have to try to remember them. So I was there thinking, but what could I have forgotten? And I was thinking, what have I forgotten? what have I forgotten? and they were shouting "Come on, come on, come on, remember, remember, remember," (Amanda Knox, trial testimony, June 2009) http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?356199-Amanda-Knox-Testimony
4) high suggestibility
Not sure whether this is true of Amanda, or what would consist of evidence for this.
5) the individual's role changes from that of a witness in an informal interview to that of a suspect.
Asked whether "the fact that you were being called every day to the Questura, didn't that worry you and your family?"
"I really never, never thought that they suspected me. Never." (Amanda Knox, trial testimony)
Click to expand...

Other papers have identified tiredness, long interviews, and the confession being along the lines of what the police believed happened, but being false too.

These things also fit the circumstances of her confessions.

It appears to be a classic case of an internalised false statement, either that or Amanda knows the literature so well that she managed to hit nearly every, if not every marker that would warn of one.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Hey Amazer,

since you don't seem to be adding anything to this conversation other than sniping, prehaps you can answer the questions that Stilleto seems to have failed to see...
Click to expand...
Perhaps everything is not what it seems?

1) What is your strongest evidence that she (Ammanda) is guilty?
Click to expand...
The fact that she was convicted... other then that, the lack of an alibi and Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife.

2) Do you believe that a conviction always means the person truly is guilty?
Click to expand...
No, I don't believe that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom