Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
That's pretty much it. When PGP have to resort to this kind of swill, it just goes to show they ain't got nuthin'.
The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 26
- Thread starter toto
- Start date
- Status
That's pretty much it. When PGP have to resort to this kind of swill, it just goes to show they ain't got nuthin'.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
Vixen will not be pleased.
From P. Quennell over on TJMK:
Perhaps it's a minor nitpick from someone who's not had a lot good to say about Mssr. Quennell for 6 years.....
But: he starts by saying he would prefer not to comment.... excuse me, "we" prefer not to comment......
Then he comments.
And what in the name of all that's green and grassie is "prime time"? And he implies there's a process to "peer-review" books on this subject matter?
Last edited:
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Perhaps it's a minor nitpick from someone who's not had a lot good to say about Mssr. Quennell for 6 years.....
But: he starts by saying he would prefer not to comment.... excuse me, "we" prefer not to comment......
Then he comments.
And what in the name of all that's green and grassie is "prime time"? And he implies there's a process to "peer-review" books on this subject matter?
Not sure why it is in a box header. Pete said he disagrees with the subtitle and because it takes a 'naive' view of the case.
IMV whilst there are factual errors (for example, there was only one trial, and only one guilty verdict) the authors know this but want to keep the word 'second'/'third' trial in the subtitle anyway. Perhaps in the same way some feminists want to reclaim the word 'slut' or gays, 'queer' , to reclaim the hegemony.
In FOXY KNOXY FIGHTS BACK it examines how Hellmann reached its verdict and analyses how the prosecution could have done better. It also seems to criticise the Kercher family for not being in court.
All this of course is to make an assumption the Hellman-Zanetti court was preordained to be above board and simply headed by an inexperienced-in-serious-crime but well-meaning Judge. In that context, the authors hold a fair opinion.
I tend to be closer to Pete's view that it was a prejudiced case. Pre-judged, as evidenced by its words, 'The only certainty in this case is the murder' and ominously, 'anything is possible', before the appeal hearing was even under way. Not good, when a court has a duty to stay its verdict until ALL evidence and submissions have been put in front of it and the judges have conferred together, before declaring a verdict.
Having said that, no Mafia involvement or court tampering has been yet shown - even though, those of us with a deep familiarity with the case can reach that inference - then I don't see why someone taking the Hellmann court at face value and examining the ins and outs of it, cannot express an opinion.
Debate is important, whether it be Brexit, Climate Change, Nuclear Weapons, Gun Law, whatever, as long as it is in good faith and an honest opinion. There is nothing more frustrating than opinions held in bad faith that come from a PR cribsheet or a toe-the-party-line catwhip. Then, it becomes mere dogma or proselytising. It is not realistic to expect someone to share your exact same view or get angry at someone who has arrived at a different view from oneself. The other party can still have arrived at their view from a position of integrity and authenticity.
I personally don't think Mez' boyfriend, Giacomo has much to do with the crime motive, as Amanda was never in a relationship with him anyway. However, the authors think this has a bearing from the fact that Mez mentioned in the same phone-call to sister, Stephanie, that she had a new boyfriend, that she had also quarrelled with Knox. It's fair enough for people to hold that opinion. They've explained why they hold it, and it's a rational one. Jealousy is responsible for many murders.
When I did my accountancy exams, we were told good exam technique when offering an opinion is to state your assumptions and to be expansive. Many accountants being happier playing with figures than writing essays, can find this difficult to do effectively in a business setting, so they are advised to imagine there is an invisible word after each short sentence, 'because' ...
Now, Nick is very expansive and writes in great detail how he comes to his opinions. He and Lisa fine-slice the court narrative, conversations and articles, and analyse the content minutely. Nick explains how a strong presence of the Pistorius friends and family in the Oscar Pistorius murder case did help to influence the outcome, in his view, as Reeva's family could only manage two on three each trial day. Thus, he comes to his opinion that the Kercher family's absence was disadvantagous, not in a nasty way, but a considered one. Obviously, as I consider the Hellmann court to have been corrupt from the outset, the presence of the Kerchers wouldn't have cut mustard anyway, IMV.
Thus I cannot see that Nick Van der Leek and Lisa Wilson are 'trying to appease the pro-Amanda Knox supporter half way', as Pete believes. I can see why he believes this, as TJMK has fought hard against the US/UK media's wilfully incorrect description of the appeal hearing being a 'second trial'.
Pete initially offered to post extracts of Nick's and Lisa's books but then said he couldn't because of the subtitle. End of. You would have thought, so not sure why the box header was placed on the front page of TJMK some time afterwards, as they were not arguing.
OK, so maybe Pete feels Nick & Lisa should have become 'more familiar' with the Mafia taint behind Hellmann and what drives the PR machine in Preston versus the FOA.
But hey, authors are entitled to their opinion, even if one is never going to agree 100% or even 51% of the time, as long as they've (1) explained their assumptions (b) expanded on why they hold the opinions they do, and (c) are not being didactic.
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Last edited:
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
That's quite the word salad, to explain away one nutcase aiming his guns at another nutcase, as they compete for the nutcase title.
Still, the highlighted bit above is about the only item of interest in the whole salad. It's proof that this whole guilt-PR project is Mignini centred. As Mignini's case was crumbling in 2011, all he could do was blame others - namely a second-tier US author who had stumbled into Mignini's crosshairs over the Narducci affair.
This is nothing less than Mignini's conspiracy theory of why he had lost the wrongful prosecution of Sollecito and Knox.
And here you are, 6 years later, merely parroting it. With a little work, one could go through your posts hilighting the way you're a Mignini surrogate.
Last edited:
Methos
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2012
- Messages
- 870
Well, there was one trial and one final acquittal...
1st highlight:
That part of the book is a great whining about how Dr. Mignini missed all the opportunities to bank in on the college girl gossip from the British girls and the British tabloids (apparently NvdL isn't even aware that the Daily Mail article he calls an "exposeè" was part of the case file from the beginning AND part of the "evidence" against the mitigating circumstances judge Massei granted...
2nd highlight:
It would be nice if you or someone else could be able to come up with judge Hellmann's CV, to prove that he was, as you say "an inexperienced-in-serious-crime but well-meaning Judge".
And please don't try the path via judge Matteini Chiari, he wasn't the head of the criminal section (as Dr Mignini lies about in the civil defamation case against Solleito's lawyer Maori and a weekly), judge Matteini Chiari was presiding the civil section of the perugian appeals courts. Someone on IA did the digging here. Just for the record: PQ over there on TJMK still propagates the myth, that judge Matteini "resigned in anger" because of this, I wonder why?
Based on what? PQ's fantasy, that every day now, the whole Sollecito family, labled by him a "crime family" (Art. 595 C.P., anyone?) is going to be arrested and forced to reveal how they bribed judges Bruno and Marasca...?
I agree, but vdL (and you btw...) simply fail on the highlighted part...
On the highlighted part:
Like the lie about Vecchiotti's lab being closed, repeated by NvdL in his books?
Well, it looks like PQ from TJMK is not happy with vdL's book(s?) exactly because vdL isn't toeing his party line, doesn't it?
Maybe, but British gutter media and anti-Knox webpages are hardly the sources to form a "view from a position of integrity and authenticity."
IIRC, the only source for this is Follain's book and it's
I wonder if "the authors" even bothered to read, what Meredith Kercher's father, mother and sister had to say in court?
[...]
Well, as I said above, that part of the book reads like "the prosecution could have won this (and winning is all that matters, not innocence or guilt), if they had played their part more dirty... and it's simply impossible for an innocent person to get arrested, police don't do that, they don't make mistakes."
Nick Van der Leek and Lisa Wilson are trying to make money, by trying to milk this case by dusting off long disproved factoids and feigning outrage about "the mighty and much feared Knox PR campaign"...
In other words: "Toe the party line, or get out!" Well, isn't that, what vdL blames the so called FOAK for?
Of course they are, but it's quite telling when an author shoots the messenger when he get's a review he doesn't like...
Nice finish, but not fitting. Having an opinion is OK, but trying to make opinion by lying, like you here, Nick and Lisa in their books and PQ and company on his anti Knox/pro Rudy website (inexplicably called True Justice for Meredith Kercher) not so much...
Last edited:
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
" in the same phone-call to sister, Stephanie, that she had a new boyfriend, that she had also quarrelled with Knox. "
I highly doubt that Meredith told Stephanie she had "quarreled" with Amanda. I think Stephanie embellished what Meredith actually said after Amanda had been arrested. This is what Follain wrote about that:
It makes no sense that Meredith would say she had quarreled with Amanda and for Stephanie not to ask what they had quarreled about. The normal reaction would be to ask why they had quarreled.
Also according to Follain, Meredith had spoken to Sophie Purton about talking to Amanda regarding the toilet problem:
With the description by Sophie of it being a conversation, not "row", and Stephanie not even bothering to ask what the alleged quarrel was about, it's far more logical that it was just a conversation. Add to that the fact that Stephanie never mentioned this "quarrel" in her court testimony. Rather odd that she wouldn't mention a fight between them, heh?
But will this stop you from claiming they had a quarrel over the bathroom? Nah.....
I highly doubt that Meredith told Stephanie she had "quarreled" with Amanda. I think Stephanie embellished what Meredith actually said after Amanda had been arrested. This is what Follain wrote about that:
It makes no sense that Meredith would say she had quarreled with Amanda and for Stephanie not to ask what they had quarreled about. The normal reaction would be to ask why they had quarreled.
Also according to Follain, Meredith had spoken to Sophie Purton about talking to Amanda regarding the toilet problem:
With the description by Sophie of it being a conversation, not "row", and Stephanie not even bothering to ask what the alleged quarrel was about, it's far more logical that it was just a conversation. Add to that the fact that Stephanie never mentioned this "quarrel" in her court testimony. Rather odd that she wouldn't mention a fight between them, heh?
But will this stop you from claiming they had a quarrel over the bathroom? Nah.....
Last edited:
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Good old Nickie van der Leek has solved the mystery of the Las Vegas killer's motive! Thank goodness for him since the police have yet to find one. What would we do without him to figure out the real truth in every sensational crime?
http://www.nickvanderleek.com/2017/10/bestselling-true-crime-author-provides.html
http://www.nickvanderleek.com/2017/10/bestselling-true-crime-author-provides.html
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
There's 7.5 minutes of my life I'll never get back.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
I wasn't going to say anything, but now that you mention it....
A recent ECHR judgment relevant to the Knox - Sollecito case:
Criminal conviction based on a single statement by a fugitive witness was in violation of the right to a fair trial
In today’s [12 Oct 2017] Chamber judgment in the case of Cafagna v. Italy (application no. 26073/13) the European Court of Human Rights held, by a majority, that there had been:
a violation of Article 6 §§1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time and right to examine witnesses) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case concerned the applicant’s conviction on the basis of a statement made by an individual who claimed to have been assaulted by him but who did not give evidence at the hearing.
The Court found that the domestic courts, despite conducting a rigorous examination, had been unable to conduct a fair and proper assessment of the reliability of the witness’s statements. It held that Mr Cafagna’s defence rights had been restricted in a manner incompatible with the requirements of a fair trial.
Decision of the Court
{Violation of} Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d)
The Court observed that C.C. {who alleged to police officer L.R. that the applicant had punched him in the course of a robbery} had been questioned by the carabinieri but had never appeared before the trial court {C.C. had been convicted in absentia in a separate matter, did not respond to requests to appear before the courts in the applicant's trials and could not be found by the authorities}. Therefore, neither the latter {trial court} nor the applicant had been able to observe him during questioning in order to assess his credibility and the reliability of his statements.
The Court also noted that the domestic courts had based their decisions not just on C.C.’s statements but also on the testimony of the carabiniere L.R. It observed that the Court of Appeal had examined C.C.’s credibility with care before concluding that his statements were sufficiently reliable.
Nevertheless, the Court considered that the examination by the domestic courts of the evidence of the applicant’s guilt had not been sufficient, by itself, to compensate for the fact that the witness had not been questioned by the defence. However thorough the examination conducted by the trial court, it was not capable of providing the information that could be gleaned from a confrontation at a public hearing between the accused and his or her accuser, and hence of testing the reliability of the evidence. The Court therefore concluded that Mr Cafagna’s defence rights had been restricted in a manner incompatible with the requirements of a fair trial, and found a violation of his right to a fair trial.
Source: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press#{%22itemid%22:[%22003-5881806-7499962%22]}
PDF - ECHR press release. Note that the judgment text is available in French only.
There are three points relevant to the Knox - Sollecito case:
1. PGP continually claim that the Italian courts are, essentially, infallible. That's obviously not true for the case summarized above. Italy's Constitution guarantees adversarial trials where the accused has the right to summon witnesses. Obviously, that guarantee was violated in this case, but the Italian courts did not recognize that there was a violation. Instead, they resorted to an inquisitional approach of reading the case file with regard to the witness C.C., who was the alleged victim.
2. The Nencini court attempted a similar inquisitorial approach in the trial of Knox and Sollecito using the result of Guede's fast-track trial. This was pointed out as a violation of Italian law by the Marasca CSC panel, and was one of their several reasons for quashing the Nencini verdict.
3. One or more guilters has posted previously on ISF/JREF that because a judge from Italy was currently president of the ECHR, there would be prejudice by the ECHR against Amanda Knox, and the judgment would be in favor of Italy, in the Knox v. Italy case. In this case of Cafagna v/ Italy, and another case published 12 Oct 2017, Tiziana Pennino v. Italy, the judgment found in favor of the applicant and against Italy even though the president of the ECHR is a judge from Italy. In fact, in accordance with the Rules of the ECHR, the judge from the respondent state, Italy, who is the president of the ECHR, was among the judges on both of these cases, and sided with the majority or the entire Chamber panel of judges, respectively. According to the Rules of the ECHR, the judges do not "represent" their countries and are required to deliver judgments without any prejudice or favoritism whatsoever, including to their countries.
Criminal conviction based on a single statement by a fugitive witness was in violation of the right to a fair trial
In today’s [12 Oct 2017] Chamber judgment in the case of Cafagna v. Italy (application no. 26073/13) the European Court of Human Rights held, by a majority, that there had been:
a violation of Article 6 §§1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time and right to examine witnesses) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case concerned the applicant’s conviction on the basis of a statement made by an individual who claimed to have been assaulted by him but who did not give evidence at the hearing.
The Court found that the domestic courts, despite conducting a rigorous examination, had been unable to conduct a fair and proper assessment of the reliability of the witness’s statements. It held that Mr Cafagna’s defence rights had been restricted in a manner incompatible with the requirements of a fair trial.
Decision of the Court
{Violation of} Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d)
The Court observed that C.C. {who alleged to police officer L.R. that the applicant had punched him in the course of a robbery} had been questioned by the carabinieri but had never appeared before the trial court {C.C. had been convicted in absentia in a separate matter, did not respond to requests to appear before the courts in the applicant's trials and could not be found by the authorities}. Therefore, neither the latter {trial court} nor the applicant had been able to observe him during questioning in order to assess his credibility and the reliability of his statements.
The Court also noted that the domestic courts had based their decisions not just on C.C.’s statements but also on the testimony of the carabiniere L.R. It observed that the Court of Appeal had examined C.C.’s credibility with care before concluding that his statements were sufficiently reliable.
Nevertheless, the Court considered that the examination by the domestic courts of the evidence of the applicant’s guilt had not been sufficient, by itself, to compensate for the fact that the witness had not been questioned by the defence. However thorough the examination conducted by the trial court, it was not capable of providing the information that could be gleaned from a confrontation at a public hearing between the accused and his or her accuser, and hence of testing the reliability of the evidence. The Court therefore concluded that Mr Cafagna’s defence rights had been restricted in a manner incompatible with the requirements of a fair trial, and found a violation of his right to a fair trial.
Source: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press#{%22itemid%22:[%22003-5881806-7499962%22]}
PDF - ECHR press release. Note that the judgment text is available in French only.
There are three points relevant to the Knox - Sollecito case:
1. PGP continually claim that the Italian courts are, essentially, infallible. That's obviously not true for the case summarized above. Italy's Constitution guarantees adversarial trials where the accused has the right to summon witnesses. Obviously, that guarantee was violated in this case, but the Italian courts did not recognize that there was a violation. Instead, they resorted to an inquisitional approach of reading the case file with regard to the witness C.C., who was the alleged victim.
2. The Nencini court attempted a similar inquisitorial approach in the trial of Knox and Sollecito using the result of Guede's fast-track trial. This was pointed out as a violation of Italian law by the Marasca CSC panel, and was one of their several reasons for quashing the Nencini verdict.
3. One or more guilters has posted previously on ISF/JREF that because a judge from Italy was currently president of the ECHR, there would be prejudice by the ECHR against Amanda Knox, and the judgment would be in favor of Italy, in the Knox v. Italy case. In this case of Cafagna v/ Italy, and another case published 12 Oct 2017, Tiziana Pennino v. Italy, the judgment found in favor of the applicant and against Italy even though the president of the ECHR is a judge from Italy. In fact, in accordance with the Rules of the ECHR, the judge from the respondent state, Italy, who is the president of the ECHR, was among the judges on both of these cases, and sided with the majority or the entire Chamber panel of judges, respectively. According to the Rules of the ECHR, the judges do not "represent" their countries and are required to deliver judgments without any prejudice or favoritism whatsoever, including to their countries.
Last edited:
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
Well, there was one trial and one final acquittal...
1st highlight:
That part of the book is a great whining about how Dr. Mignini missed all the opportunities to bank in on the college girl gossip from the British girls and the British tabloids (apparently NvdL isn't even aware that the Daily Mail article he calls an "exposeè" was part of the case file from the beginning AND part of the "evidence" against the mitigating circumstances judge Massei granted...
2nd highlight:
It would be nice if you or someone else could be able to come up with judge Hellmann's CV, to prove that he was, as you say "an inexperienced-in-serious-crime but well-meaning Judge".
And please don't try the path via judge Matteini Chiari, he wasn't the head of the criminal section (as Dr Mignini lies about in the civil defamation case against Solleito's lawyer Maori and a weekly), judge Matteini Chiari was presiding the civil section of the perugian appeals courts. Someone on IA did the digging here. Just for the record: PQ over there on TJMK still propagates the myth, that judge Matteini "resigned in anger" because of this, I wonder why?
Based on what? PQ's fantasy, that every day now, the whole Sollecito family, labled by him a "crime family" (Art. 595 C.P., anyone?) is going to be arrested and forced to reveal how they bribed judges Bruno and Marasca...?
I agree, but vdL (and you btw...) simply fail on the highlighted part...
On the highlighted part:
Like the lie about Vecchiotti's lab being closed, repeated by NvdL in his books?
Well, it looks like PQ from TJMK is not happy with vdL's book(s?) exactly because vdL isn't toeing his party line, doesn't it?
Maybe, but British gutter media and anti-Knox webpages are hardly the sources to form a "view from a position of integrity and authenticity."
IIRC, the only source for this is Follain's book and it's
I wonder if "the authors" even bothered to read, what Meredith Kercher's father, mother and sister had to say in court?
[...]
Well, as I said above, that part of the book reads like "the prosecution could have won this (and winning is all that matters, not innocence or guilt), if they had played their part more dirty... and it's simply impossible for an innocent person to get arrested, police don't do that, they don't make mistakes."
Nick Van der Leek and Lisa Wilson are trying to make money, by trying to milk this case by dusting off long disproved factoids and feigning outrage about "the mighty and much feared Knox PR campaign"...
In other words: "Toe the party line, or get out!" Well, isn't that, what vdL blames the so called FOAK for?
Of course they are, but it's quite telling when an author shoots the messenger when he get's a review he doesn't like...
Nice finish, but not fitting. Having an opinion is OK, but trying to make opinion by lying, like you here, Nick and Lisa in their books and PQ and company on his anti Knox/pro Rudy website (inexplicably called True Justice for Meredith Kercher) not so much...
As it is impossible to prove a negative, it will be much easier for you to cite any serious crime (not fraud or treason*) that Hellmann ever presided over as a Supreme Court judge (*like-for-like).
We are all sitting at our 'puters with bated breath, in anticipation of your citation/s.
Absolutely not. Pete isn't telling anyone to 'toe the party line'. This is a matter of priniciple. He has his principles (and it is his site, so he can do what he likes, anyway) and Nick has his. I have no problem with people standing by their principles.
It's the boxed header warning I didn't understand. Seems a little bit unkind, as Pete admits he hasn't even read Nick's book.
<shrug>
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
I never thought the bathroom/toilet was the cause of the murder, although it may have been a factor in building up Knox' rage. Knox was probably winding up Mez for sport and getting on her nerves for fun.
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
1. I don't know any PGP who says the Italian courts are infallible. Certainly, it bends over backwards for the defendant far more so than the UK/USA courts.
2. Nencini as a judge had wide-ranging powers to direct the court as he saw fit. It's his job, as a judge. The fact of multiple killers was a submission by various counsel in their summings up and rebuttals. Crini suggested it was a row about stolen rent money, which is Rudy's claim. I wouldn't be surprised if, like Knox blaming Patrick/Guede, to detract attention away from herself, he was simply shifting the blame away from himself, onto Knox. Marasca had poor reason to quash Nencini at all. It substituted its own verdict which is (a) improper, and (b) reinstated Hellmann's reasoning, which was estopped as already settled by the Chieffi Supreme Court, res judicata. It upheld Massei in that the investigation was not suspect-centric.
3. A judge takes an oath of objectivity. Your nationality has nothing to do with how you try a case in the ECHR. What a pathetic idea, that Italian judges would not rule against Italy. Hello? This is the EU court of Human Rights. Ethics is their basis.
Last edited:
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
I guess the recent row between your hater-mentors has put you off your game. Once again you have poor command of even the most elementary things.
Crini did **not** posit the rent money motive. Crini posited the pooh-in-the-toilet motive. The rent money motive was decided upon by judge Nencini out of the blue, since no one at the Florence trial in 2013 had even mentioned this.
No one but Nencini and Rudy Guede claimed it, and if you believe Rudy on this one then you're also going to buy his story that his assault on Meredith had been consensual.
For Pete's sake, Vixen, Peter Quennell just trashed Nick van der Leek. And you post the trash above as if nothing had happened?
When I get home I'm going to link to the PMF-wars thread, because it looks like it's happening again; the haters compete with each other for that title!
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
For Pete's sake, these are your hater-mentors!
NotEvenWrong
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2014
- Messages
- 910
Bill,
Honestly curious on this one. Speaking in the abstract, do you know anyone that is mentally healthy who would:
1) Attempt to get someone fired from their job for disagreeing with their opinion on a murder case by flooding their employer with complaint letters (e.g. Steve Moore when he spoke out about how Knox and Sollecito were innocent).
2) Spend 10 years arguing the case for someone's guilt that has been definitively proven innocent by the scientific evidence, and has now been officially declared innocent (the case is completely over) by the highest court in the country. All the while spreading lies and misinformation in an attempt to smear innocents' reputations and convince the public he/she is a murderer. And slut-shaming while simultaneously saying they don't care about her sex life. etc. etc. etc.
There are actually published papers by academic psychologists that show (2) is sociopathic behavior, using a different case as the case study. But the behavior of online vigilantism is the topic and the behavior is linked to antisocial personality disorder.
I personally do not know any "normal" people from a mental health perspective that engage in this activity. Do you? And do you think the studies published about online vigilantism are worthless? Isn't it important to understand sociopathic behavior so it can be identified, and its damage can be minimized? Shouldn't we be concerned when those who exhibit sociopathic traits target innocent victims and try to ruin their lives, even if it's just by online harassment and the spreading of lies and misinformation to ruin their reputation?
Bill Williams
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2011
- Messages
- 15,713
Here's the thing - in a clinical setting even after multi sessions with someone like this, reputable psychologists/psychiatrists would probably give only a provisional diagnosis.
JREF/ISF is not a clinical setting. None of us are reputable psychologists.
There are so many other explanations as well. True, it doesn't change the normal disgust one might feel when reading their stuff..... but that is a different animal.
- Status