You may mock the coerced statement information, but the research was written by Saul Kassin a leading authority on false confessions. He included Amanda Knox in the research paper I posted.
Saul Kassin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://madon.public.iastate.edu/595E/WEEKLY READINGS/Week4/2.Kassin 2012.pdf
But do you not think that if his original premise is false, then the conclusions drawn from that premise will be false?
It is clear that his premise is that Amanda is innocent.
This is the
first sentence of his paper:
"As illustrated by the story of Amanda Knox and
many
others wrongfully convicted,........"
He is starting with the premise that she was wrongfully convicted.
He goes on to say, basically, that all of the witnesses were not credible, and that the DNA was not credible.
He uses her actions to support his thesis, but he is viewing her actions from an innocent-perspective.
Such as, he says she stayed willingly to answer questions, and that is because she was innocent. However, I think that a guilty person close to the victim and "on the radar" from the beginning due to this closeness to the victim, would not just run away or refuse to answer questions, as that would draw
more attention to them. So he is viewing her actions through the prism of her being innocent, however, her actions would also make sense through the prism of her being guilty.
He also appears to add falsehoods, such as this:
"Two weeks later, the rapist whose DNA
was found in sperm and other biological matter at the crime
scene was apprehended."
So he is actually adding false information to make his original premise more credible.
I would also like to say there is not just one piece of evidence against Amanda. For example, it is not just her false accusation. There is a whole load of other evidence - circumstantial as well as forensic. Even without her false accusation, there would still be overwhelming proof of her guilt. It is not that the false accusation is a make or break in this case, IMO.
Just look at RS as an example - he made no false accusation or false confession or whatever we want to call it, and he is still thought to be guilty.
And lastly, I would like to say that, necessarily, one side of this is correct and one is incorrect. Either they are guilty, or they are innocent. Therefore, one side of "experts" is
also incorrect, regarding this particular case, necessarily. So just because an expert says something, does not mean that expert is corrrect
regarding this case. Like I said, by necessity, one side or another of the experts is going to be incorrect,
concerning this case. It can't be that they're all right. It can't be that Amanda and RS are innocent, but guilty also.
It could be that they are right in general terms of their theories, but wrong in how they connect Amanda's case to their general theory. For example, a scientis can be right about DNA in general terms, but incorrect in how they connect it to Amanda's case. Or, as in this paper, the author can be right about false confessions, but incorrect in connecting Amanda's case to false confession, because he is going on the incorrect premise that she is innocent.
I think that what he says about false confessions is probably right, but he falls into the same trap he accuses the prosecutors and detectives of, except he does it coming from the other side. He believes from the beginning that Amanda is innocent, and he draws the rest of his conclusions from there. Meaning, he interprets all the evidence in a way which supports his original premise of innocence. That was very obvious to me, from his first sentence and onwards. He is doing the same thing that he accuses others of doing.
JMO.