Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Strozzi]

This is so funny! Somebody here is a narcissist, alright.

Here's a hint: It's not the college student. It's the dude watching her every expression in a courtroom and then going forth to proclaim his profound certainty about who she really is. Holy living mother of jeebus.

Knox lived through several horrible traumatic events. I question the motives and objectivity of any observer who can observe her and presume that what he is observing in her posture, facial expression, eye contact, speech, stress, emotional upset, and post-traumatic event mental health, is her normal behavior - and thus fair-game for remote psychological analysis.

 

[Dougm]

This is so funny! Somebody here is a narcissist, alright.

Here's a hint: It's not the college student. It's the dude watching her every expression in a courtroom and then going forth to proclaim his profound certainty about who she really is. Holy living mother of jeebus.

No kidding. I think there is plenty of evidence of who has the personality disorder, and who is not normal, and the answer to both is NOT Amanda Knox.

 

[kwill]

Knox lived through several horrible traumatic events. I question the motives and objectivity of any observer who can observe her and presume that what he is observing in her posture, facial expression, eye contact, speech, stress, emotional upset, and post-traumatic event mental health, is her normal behavior - and thus fair-game for remote psychological analysis.

Obviously remote psychological analysis is absurd.

In-person psychological analysis is difficult and takes a little time. Calling someone abnormal on the internet is easy and quick.

My remote psychological analysis of someone who would do that is that they must be a deeply abnormal and disturbed narcissist.

See how that works? Now Mach can call me crazy, too. And my point will be made: All of these flippant diagnoses are ridiculous.

 

[JREF2010]

Regarding the inhuman and degrading treatment that Amanda Knox was subjected to, the police themselves have in a fashion shown why she was not able to safely file any formal complaints, but only present her statement of police misconduct in court.

Here is an excerpt from Andrea Vogt's blog
http://thefreelancedesk.com/amanda-knox-trials-meredith-kercher-case/
23 March 2015:



These "continuous aggravated calunnia" charges against Knox will be significant to the ECHR case claiming violation of her rights by Italy for the calunnia conviction in the Hellmann court. It shows continuing retaliation against her for stating the truth, that she was hit in the interrogation. Thus, she could not safely file an official complaint, for that would likely have resulted in some other retaliation against her while she was imprisoned.

This is yet another example of the despotic behavior of the Italian judicial system.

It would do the Italian justice system well to deal with a idiot like Migninni whose throwing charges around like popcorn. I lost count on how many he tossed around in his attempt to intimidate anyone who speaks up.

The system would look good by removing people like Migninni, its obvious he has problems with people challenging anything.

The Monster of Florence case too would show a trend of a ego thats lost control.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is so funny! Somebody here is a narcissist, alright.

Here's a hint: It's not the college student. It's the dude watching her every expression in a courtroom and then going forth to proclaim his profound certainty about who she really is. Holy living mother of jeebus.

I recall few pages ago you were very quick calling Meredith's English friends "bitchy and catty", telling us who they "really" were....

 

[sept79]

Technically, you are absolutely correct. This situation is not called "double jeopardy" by the ECHR, but remains a violation of Convention Article 6 as an unfair trial, because the same evidence was used to convict as to acquit. That is unreasonable to the ECHR. The other concern that they raised about the fairness of such convictions after acquittal is that they may be based solely on reviews of the trial record, the witnesses and defendant not being called before the court, which may be a Supreme Court of Cassation. ECHR has stated that judges should directly evaluate evidence in finding guilt in a case where they are making a final ruling overturning a previous acquittal.

I've posted the cases here, I think in thread 12 or even 11. I will repost them after I find them again!

I'm not a lawyer, but 'because the same evidence was used to convict as to acquit' reeks of reasonable doubt . . .

 

[Bill Williams]

Here is an English translation of the phone intercepts of Amanda Knox, prior to her arrest.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Amanda-Knox-Phone-Intercepts-November-3-6.pdf

 

[Bill Williams]

I recall few pages ago you were very quick calling Meredith's English friends "bitchy and catty", telling us who they "really" were....

A few pages ago, you, Machiavelli, were summarizing the amateurish psychological assessments that PM Mignini was using in court to buttress his evidenceless assertions about Amanda Knox's psychological make-up. Mignini just made them up.

Do you want Mignini's remarks, written by you, copy and pasted here again! Mignini intended those remarks to cast a psychological rationale, a motive, for murder.

Judge Massei, a convicting judge, was so impressed by those remarks that he completely ignored them - and instead dreamt-up his own, evidenceless scenario. Judge Massei just made them up.

 

[kwill]

I recall few pages ago you were very quick calling Meredith's English friends "bitchy and catty", telling us who they "really" were....

Excuse me, but all I did was quote your helpful reminder of their testimony.

The three of them agreed that Meredith had mentioned certain complaints she had about Amanda. It was your contention that these complaints could be taken to mean that Amanda resented Meredith.

I'd still like to know who ever testified to that.

 

[Bill Williams]

On the eve of Italy, perhaps, digging itself in deeper, here is an analysis of "casino", rife in Italian life, from a blogger named Pitchfork.

http://www.allthingscrimeblog.com/2013/11/22/cooked-pasta-sticks-on-a-grimy-wall/

Amanda Knox’s description of how she responded to the police interrogations reeks of naïve compliance and submission. Her accusers took advantage of that. For any person familiar with the real Italy – not the one on tourist websites or in your sister-in-law’s vacation snap-shots – Knox’s account in her book, Waiting to Be Heard, of how she became a pawn in a game of point-scoring, face-saving, media hype and the public hunger for anything against which they could shout their outrage yet not be called on to act, is very believable. Her demeanour and obvious traumatic damage as a result of what she has endured appear to be genuine and sadly, permanent. No matter what the outcome of this second trial, she is scarred for life. Legal incompetence, cultural and linguistic corruption and the international media have made sure of that.​

Strangely, "Pitchfork" is: a child and adolescent development and mental health specialist based near Washington DC who writes about the American criminal justice system and its juxtaposition with the media, runs the website Pitchforks, and hosts the blogtalkradio show Routing Out.

http://babelbooth.com/

 

[Desert Fox]

Bill:
She managed to finish college and seems to be doing alright for herself. That is all us humans can really ever do. She seems to be a tough girl generally.

 

[codyjuneau]

I am really staggered that evidence planting is skirted in the discussion. The first murder conviction I took note of was evidence planting to keep the case alive, Arthur Thomas. The wikipedia article is unequivocal. The reasoning is noble cause corruption.

With the bra clasp, there was motive and opportunity in spades. Everyone is in a way according some respectabilty to these Italian thugs.

.
I agree Samson, the possibility of evidence tampering is still on the table.

Between the knife and the bra clasp, one would be hard pressed to find two more suspiciously selected, collected, tested, and destroyed pieces of evidence, IMO.

Cody
.

 

[MichaelB]

Italy doesn’t need new obscurantism from Courts

by Frank Sfarzo

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-the-science-says-innocent/

 

[Samson]

If Cassation upholds the conviction, they will then have to decide if they want to seek extradition. If they do, they will forward a request to the Italian Ministry of Justice, which is a gov't bureau as opposed to a function of the Italian court system. The Ministry of Justice would have to make the extradition request to the US State Dept.

Vogt is saying the right people are in place to make this happen.

hmm, thank you. Where is John le Carre when we need him.

(or Franz Kafka)

 

[Samson]

Italy doesn’t need new obscurantism from Courts

by Frank Sfarzo

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-the-science-says-innocent/

"People in the law are very good at the law, but we realized how difficult it is for them to have a real comprehension of scientific facts."

I just read that far.

I would like to remind Machiavelli at this point that he should work harder on furthering the debate when he denies an alibi after 8 40pm. I have no problem with that. Amelie turned off on its own, and Raffaele set Naruto to start up at 9 26pm.

Today a real scientist said this in New Zealand, in a retrial of a man who has spent a lazy 15 years in jail for a crime he did not commit.

"Also giving evidence today was Professor Michael Horowitz from Adelaide University's medical department who said Mrs Lundy and Amber would have eaten their last meal no longer than two hours before they were killed based on evidence that the top part of the small intestine being empty."

Please remind us when Meredith ate, 6, 6 30, or later.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Yes, something like that. They wouldn't actually call 'Fraud,' they'd use diplomatic niceties, but the end result would be to put the Italian judiciary in the hot seat.

As I understand the process, the State Dept. could refer an extradition request to a Federal court, which would then review the case to determine if the process was fair.

The defense would then submit briefs, detailing the many reasons why the process was grotesquely not fair.

Undoubtedly a key point would be that the police laboratory withheld data that is essential to evaluate DNA test results in the event of a controversy.

 

[NancyS]

I'd like to make a little correction to this.
I think the speculation about scenario, crime dynamics and motives (sexual context, feelings involved etc.), basically the explanatory theory of events, which involves a role of psychology personality, is dependant on an assumption of Knox's guilt.

But the assessment of Knox's personality as abnormal is not dependant on an assumtion of guilt. I think Knox is "abnormal", meaning she had some personality disorders, on grounds that are completely independent from the theories of the crime and also independent from any assumption on her guilt.

I would consider Knox psychologically abnormal even if I had the proof she was innocent. It's good to make this clear. I see the evidence she is abnormal, mostly as something separate an totally independent from the case evidence. I think the evidence - the visible symptoms of narcissistic pathology - were simply visible themselves, they indicate directly a health problem rather than guilt, and theoretically may even fit an innocent person, since there are thousands, actually millions of narcissists around who are not murderers. In the context they can shed a new light, give new more accurate meanings to facts, offer an explanatory key to how the murder has developed, but themselves would be just visible aspects of personality per se, mostly not evidence linked to any "guilt". On the other hand Knox could never fit the picture of a healthy or balanced personality, of a "normal" personality, certainly not when she was 20.

With this kind of very concrete and biased thinking, we can dismiss anything else that you have written as being voiced through a cloud of prejudice.

It is impossible to judge that someone has narcissistic personality disorder, by noticing that their eyes look a bit evil in photos or some other similar nonsense! Narcissistic personality disorder is very rare and incredibly hard to diagnose - and will usually be diagnosed after a prolonged period and usually by a panel of experts - and will definitely not to be based on some second hand accounts of someone's behaviour in the aftermath of a traumatic event.

Again this is all just mud slinging, slut-shaming nonsense - and says far more about your views on the lives and modern freedoms of young women, than it does about the character of AK

 

[LondonJohn]

Here is an English translation of the phone intercepts of Amanda Knox, prior to her arrest.

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Amanda-Knox-Phone-Intercepts-November-3-6.pdf

Thanks for that, and to those who did the translation/collation work.

One small detail interested me. In a call with her aunt, Knox says that she and Romanelli have tried to contact Kercher's father, and that they now know he's coming to Perugia that night, and that they want to meet with him and talk:

Doroty: Have you... have you spoken to the father?
Amanda: With whom?
Doroty:: With Meredith’s father.
Amanda: No, we... eh... Filomena talked to a policeman today to ask him for the father’s number. He’s coming... arriving tonight.
Doroty: Yes.
Amanda: ... and we want to meet him, kind of go eat out with him and talk to him and tell me all that we know, what happened and so on, because obviously he’s shocked, struck and so on because of what people are saying, and...

Now Knox might be totally lying to her aunt about this. But presumably Romanelli would be able to say whether she and Knox really did have these discussions. Though even if these things did occur, it could also be Knox trying to bluff to Romanelli and others.

But however you choose to interpret these words, it points to only three reasonable options: either 1) Knox is/was an absolute psychopath who was actively seeking to engage with her victim's grieving father; 2) Knox is/was a psychopath who was lying and feigning concern for Kercher's father; 3) Knox had genuine concern and a desire to communicate with Kercher's father, since she was as confused and upset about Kercher's death as everyone else and she was extending empathy and sympathy to Kercher's grieving father.

Obviously, most pro-guilt commentators will opt for (1) or (2), but I would argue that this is flawed ex post facto reasoning, and is not supported by any other pre- or post-murder character evidence about Knox. It speaks once again to the classic paradox of "Captain Amanda vs Hapless Amanda": how can someone who would have had to act in such a clinical, psychopathic manner in certain elements morph magically into a naive idiot who placed herself in harm's way at the same time?

 

[Kauffer]

As I understand the process, the State Dept. could refer an extradition request to a Federal court, which would then review the case to determine if the process was fair.

The defense would then submit briefs, detailing the many reasons why the process was grotesquely not fair.

Undoubtedly a key point would be that the police laboratory withheld data that is essential to evaluate DNA test results in the event of a controversy.

I think Burleigh and others have probably got this right and her sources are sound. An extradition request is most unlikely. Indeed, it would be of some surprise even without these sources, if the question of extradition has not already been discussed and probably resolved at senior diplomatic level. Allies seldom like to surprise each other.

The stark contrast between a country attempting to imprison a citizen of another whilst at the same time having to respond to the violation of that person's rights in a superior court - and the ECHR is superior to the Italian Supreme Court - would be a matter of huge embarrassment.

Remember, we already know that a finding of an Article 6 violation at the ECHR will mean that conviction and sentence are set aside. Anyone in prison when that judgement is handed down, will be released. That field has already been ploughed in Italy. No-one stays in jail after after the ECHR calls an unfair trial.

If Ms Knox is still in the US when the judgement is handed down, extradition will be off the table - permanently. If not, she would be released to fanfares and Italy would be humiliated.

 

[Kauffer]

Thanks for that, and to those who did the translation/collation work.

One small detail interested me. In a call with her aunt, Knox says that she and Romanelli have tried to contact Kercher's father, and that they now know he's coming to Perugia that night, and that they want to meet with him and talk:

Doroty: Have you... have you spoken to the father?
Amanda: With whom?
Doroty:: With Meredith’s father.
Amanda: No, we... eh... Filomena talked to a policeman today to ask him for the father’s number. He’s coming... arriving tonight.
Doroty: Yes.
Amanda: ... and we want to meet him, kind of go eat out with him and talk to him and tell me all that we know, what happened and so on, because obviously he’s shocked, struck and so on because of what people are saying, and...

Now Knox might be totally lying to her aunt about this. But presumably Romanelli would be able to say whether she and Knox really did have these discussions. Though even if these things did occur, it could also be Knox trying to bluff to Romanelli and others.

But however you choose to interpret these words, it points to only three reasonable options: either 1) Knox is/was an absolute psychopath who was actively seeking to engage with her victim's grieving father; 2) Knox is/was a psychopath who was lying and feigning concern for Kercher's father; 3) Knox had genuine concern and a desire to communicate with Kercher's father, since she was as confused and upset about Kercher's death as everyone else and she was extending empathy and sympathy to Kercher's grieving father.
Obviously, most pro-guilt commentators will opt for (1) or (2), but I would argue that this is flawed ex post facto reasoning, and is not supported by any other pre- or post-murder character evidence about Knox. It speaks once again to the classic paradox of "Captain Amanda vs Hapless Amanda": how can someone who would have had to act in such a clinical, psychopathic manner in certain elements morph magically into a naive idiot who placed herself in harm's way at the same time?

Your points as always are well made.

It is somewhat heartbreaking, amidst the cool analysis we try to do, to appreciate that a great deal of Ms Knox's post murder inclinations revolved around what she could do personally to help the Kercher family.

A further point I would make, is that from the many, many hours of surreptitious recording of Ms Knox's telephone (and Mr Sollecito), not one piece of incriminating evidence was ever uncovered - nothing she or he said revealed the slightest suspicion that she or he was involved in this terrible crime.

It is inconceivable that if they were involved, there would not have been some leakage.