Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Prometheus]

It is anti-social, not sociopathic.

Main Entry: so·cio·path·ic
Pronunciation: \ˌsō-sē-ə-ˈpa-thik, ˌsō-sh(ē-)ə-\
Function: adjective
Date: 1930

: of, relating to, or characterized by asocial or antisocial behavior or exhibiting antisocial personality disorder

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sociopathic

They are synonyms, both in psychiatric terms, and in common usage. Either term may refer to the mental disorder or to criminal behaviour. Pedantry aside, however, any and all criminal behaviour may be taken as evidence of being a sociopath in the clinical sense; it's just not conclusive proof.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Prosecutor's discretion

I
On the subject of prosecutor discretion and control over investigations, since argument by anecdote seems to be so attractive to some here, I would be interested to know if you think that D.A. Mike Nifong restricted himself to the "independent" investigations of the police, and did not exercise any control over the evidence gathering and investigation of the Duke lacrosse team.

Do you really think that D.A.s in the U.S. normally merely sit back and wait for the police to present them with a completed investigation, and exercise no control over its direction? Somehow I suspect that you don't, but if you really do that is touchingly naive.

Quadraginta,

The definitive book on the Duke lacrosse case is Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson. On page 63, they state, “Also on March 24, Nifong’s extraordinary role as head of the police investigation was formalized when Captain Jeff Lamb ordered all Durham police ‘to go through Mr. Nifong for any directions as to how to conduct matters in this case.’” On page 154 they describe how on March 31, 2006 District Attorney Nifong instructed the police to conduct a third photo lineup in a way that flagrantly violated the principles by which lineups are supposed to be conducted. A chapter in the book Race to Injustice, edited by Michael Siegel, has a discussion of these principles.

Based on these descriptions I would say that Mr. Nifong’s early involvement was quite unusual and that without his direction the seriously flawed lineup of April 4 and subsequent indictments would not have happened. I am not saying that prosecutors sit back exactly, but they do not usually exercise the degree of control that Mr. Nifong did, to the best of my knowledge.

Chris

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Preston

Far from 'not liking' him I have stated before that I enjoy Preston's novels. I do not see the sense of offering his ability as a suspense writer as credentials for comment in the Knox case, and I do not concede the relevance much less the accuracy of his book about "The Monster of Florence" as significant to this case.

Quadraginta,

I never said that you did not like him; however, it seems that you do not think highly of Mr. Preston’s work on the Monster of Florence case. Preston writes for the New Yorker and the Smithsonian magazines, as well as writing mystery novels. However, I have not offered his credentials as a mystery writer, only his direct experience with the Italian justice system and with Mr. Mignini in particular. Perhaps you can tell me whether you think that The Monster of Florence is accurate or not, and if not, which parts are inaccurate.

Chris

 

[Chris_Halkides]

three questions

Quadraginta,

In message #4088 I wrote, No comments of mine, nor I suspect other Knox/Sollecito supporters, should be construed to mean that we think that one nation does forensics in a uniformly better or worse way than another. The same holds true for criminal justice systems. Let’s put all the implication that some commenters have exhibited Chauvinism or anti-European bias away, once and for all.

In message 4092 you asked, “Is it your intent here to suggest that no Knox supporters have meant to impugn the Italian legal system or suggest that it is inferior in comparison to the U.S., or that the Knox conviction was influenced by such systemic failures?”

In message #4118 you wrote, “I have to think you are being purposely obtuse. Again. I asked you a very simple and direct question concerning a very straightforward statement you made. Your answer was quite obviously a deliberate evasion. Nothing in your posts here suggests that you are ignorant, illiterate, or dealing with English as a second language, so your transparent effort to avoid a simple answer is quite disingenuous. Yes or no would have sufficed. You managed to escape the topic entirely by a segue into somewhat related personal viewpoints, specifically not what I asked you after you made a claim about other people's comments.”

A simple yes or no would not have sufficed to answer what are three questions, not one. To the first, I resist using the word “impugn;” I have been critical of limited aspects of the Italian legal system. To the second, I would emphatically say no for reasons I have given in message #4094. To the third, I have argued that Knox was hurt by the latitude given to prosecutors to make a closing statement that would not be allowed in American or British (IIRC) courts.

If I have not answered your questions, perhaps you could rephrase them for me.

Chris

 

[Kestrel]

Apart from the obvious reason that only a moron (or someone so desperate not to care if they get caught) would try to convert tracable property from a burglary where someone was murdered, Rudy also likely didn't steal the laptop because he'd already been caught- just a few days before- with the laptop stolen from the lawyer's office. So he'd already cashed in his get-out-of-jail free "I bought the laptop from a mysterious stranger" card.

Being caught breaking and entering only a week after the incident in Milan would have raised the stakes for Rudy.

When he was first arrested, Rudy told a story about fighting Meredith's murderer in the kitchen and living room. As if explaining evidence of a fight he expected the police to find. Some of the details of his story may be true, but Rudy was fighting Meredith instead of a bushy haired stranger.

What Rudy didn't know is that physical evidence of this fight would have been trampled by all the people in the living room and kitchen of the cottage before it was secured as a crime scene.

As for the argument that Rudy perhaps not flushing the toilet is evidence that he had nothing to hide, perhaps those who believe that would think differently if they adopted more civilized sanitary habits. Most people I know flush the toilet after use whether they're otherwise trying to cover-up a crime or not.

So an unflushed toilet normally suggests oversight, not a proud proclamation of forthrightness and innocence.

To me it suggests his normal toilet routine was interrupted.

 

[stilicho]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sociopathic

They are synonyms, both in psychiatric terms, and in common usage. Either term may refer to the mental disorder or to criminal behaviour. Pedantry aside, however, any and all criminal behaviour may be taken as evidence of being a sociopath in the clinical sense; it's just not conclusive proof.

I understand this explanation but isn't that a little different than what you originally suggested? I had thought you explained that all criminal acts are, by definition, sociopathic because they are a negative net benefit to society.

People toss around psychiatric terms a lot--especially when murder is involved. I could paraphrase Karl Menninger, though, in asking: "Yes, but what do you mean by 'sociopath'?"

 

[Prometheus]

I understand this explanation but isn't that a little different than what you originally suggested? I had thought you explained that all criminal acts are, by definition, sociopathic because they are a negative net benefit to society....

Actually, that comment in my first post was just an off-hand attempt to suggest a possible implication of the notion that breaking and entering was not evidence of sociopathic tendency, not a claim per se. However, I don't see any contradiction at all between my two posts. Initially, I had only the non-clinical usage of "sociopathic" in mind. The second merely adds that even assuming a clinical definition, it is still incorrect to suggest that B&E is not evidence of sociopathy.

 

[lionking]

Edit

 

[stilicho]

[It] is still incorrect to suggest that B&E is not evidence of sociopathy.

OK, so now we're back to the beginning. Is the reverse correct then? Or am I missing something?

Behaviour that is judged criminal (eg breaking and entering) overlaps with behaviour that is sociopathic (eg also breaking and entering?) but they aren't necessarily the same.

I had thought the general distinction between criminal and sociopathic behaviour is that we tend to punish the former and treat the latter. Not only that, but it would seem that a lot of people who are 'clinical' sociopaths might live out their whole lives without ever committing a crime.

Your perspective (hopefully one I'm not misstating) is a little more sophisticated than some I've seen, especially regarding this case, but I'm still not convinced that any of the three accused are sociopaths or psychopaths or any of the other terms occasionally slung at them. It could be argued that AK herself is anything but asocial or antisocial.

I've seen various posters (not here) talk about signs of this or that type of psychopathic or sociopathic behaviour in their past: the partying, the manga, the fascination with knives, the promiscuity, and so forth. But is that actually a precursor to committing brutal murder or any other thing of which they were convicted? Are any of them indicative of a mental condition that may be treated? If so, I think the hospitals are going to be packed full of patients in their age range.

 

[piktor]

Are any of them indicative of a mental condition that may be treated? If so, I think the hospitals are going to be packed full of patients in their age range.

General Patton is regarded as a classic sociopath.

I wonder how many dentists smirk at the pain they inflict on their patients.

A lion tamer is playing with his life day after day.

The Aussie crocodile guy was killed by a startled stingray he was hovering over in the open ocean.

Bernie Madoff is now considered a "sociopath", only after he was caught.

I know a person that was sent to prison on banking fraud charges, etc.

Are the people above crazy, sociopathic, crooked?

On the other hand you have people convicted of crimes they did not commit, sent to prison and, if they are lucky, released after the real culprit is found or when a new investigation exonerates them.

Guede can be considered a sociopathic personality because he does what sociopaths do.

The other two are in this jam because their violent prank ended in murder.

Then they staged a murder scene.

Then Knox pointed to an innocent man and did nothing to right this wrong.

The three are where they are because something went terribly wrong on Nov. 1, 2007 at Pergola 7.

I would like to think it is a lone culprit and the other two are being framed. There is comfort in simplicity.

One accused decided to give phony versions of the night in question and then decided to say no more and "remembers nothing" about that night.

The other accused is trying to outdo the Menendez brothers and having snowed 50% of the World, not just America, she is gunning to snow the Whole Wide World. The ingenue act, the innocent abroad schitck wear thin and nothing is working for Seattle's Amelie.

Knox's coutroom behavior, innappropriate choice of clothing, her odd nonchalance when speaking before the judges, her testimony that invites disbelief- all have helped secure the tight place she has put herself in.

If the three ain't guilty, they sure do make a mighty fine impression. The mask Knox does not want on her, only she can remove.

 

[Matthew Best]

The mask Knox does not want on her, only she can remove.

How?

 

[JihadJane]

The mask Knox does not want on her, only she can remove.

Wasn't "mask" a mistranslation?

 

[piktor]

How?

She should start saying things I can believe. The three defendants have no credibility.

With clients like these, the defence has no defence.

 

[piktor]

Wasn't "mask" a mistranslation?

She says "forzatto maschera [mask] di assesina"@ 0:52

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCeYfwYMAlM&feature=related

 

[Dan O.]

She should start saying things I can believe. The three defendants have no credibility.

You believe Amanda and Raffaele are guilty because they returned to the cottage to clean up evidence of their involvement in the crime. But where is your proof of the cleanup? Where are the empty bleach bottles? where are the receipts for the bleach? Where is this magic mop that can erase Amanda's and Raffaele's fingerprints without disturbing Rudy's bloody footprints all the way down the hall and through the living room?

There was no cleanup. And without a cleanup there is no reason for Raffaele and Amanda to be at the cottage the next morning. If instead of trying to help the police, they had stayed out or the picture until Rudy was identified, this case would have been just another one flash news story that was quickly forgotten.

 

[Matthew Best]

She should start saying things I can believe. The three defendants have no credibility.

What could she say that you would believe that would simultaneously have the effect of removing from her the label of a murderer?

 

[Kestrel]

The window was opened when broken. They open inward, not outward.

The photographic evidence indicates the window was closed when it was broken. Note the glass shards on the both the outside and inside sill and the lack of broken glass where it would have been covered by the closed window.

 

[piktor]

there was no cleanup. And without a cleanup there is no reason for raffaele and amanda to be at the cottage the next morning. If instead of trying to help the police, they had stayed out or the picture until rudy was identified, this case would have been just another one flash news story that was quickly forgotten.

exactly !!!

 

[piktor]

What could she say that you would believe that would simultaneously have the effect of removing from her the label of a murderer?

The problem is Knox would have to say the truth to be believed. Then we could all go home and she would go back to prison.

Strange but her lies put her in prison. Her truthful account would keep her there.

This murder was not planned. She could have gotten a reduced sentence, a fast track trial and her family would not have gone bankrupt.

 

[Prometheus]

OK, so now we're back to the beginning. Is the reverse correct then? Or am I missing something?

Behaviour that is judged criminal (eg breaking and entering) overlaps with behaviour that is sociopathic (eg also breaking and entering?) but they aren't necessarily the same.

I had thought the general distinction between criminal and sociopathic behaviour is that we tend to punish the former and treat the latter. Not only that, but it would seem that a lot of people who are 'clinical' sociopaths might live out their whole lives without ever committing a crime.

Your perspective (hopefully one I'm not misstating) is a little more sophisticated than some I've seen, especially regarding this case, but I'm still not convinced that any of the three accused are sociopaths or psychopaths or any of the other terms occasionally slung at them. It could be argued that AK herself is anything but asocial or antisocial.

I've seen various posters (not here) talk about signs of this or that type of psychopathic or sociopathic behaviour in their past: the partying, the manga, the fascination with knives, the promiscuity, and so forth. But is that actually a precursor to committing brutal murder or any other thing of which they were convicted? Are any of them indicative of a mental condition that may be treated? If so, I think the hospitals are going to be packed full of patients in their age range.

I don't disagree with any of this. I think that with each of these three defendants, there appears to be incomplete evidence that they may or may not be sociopathic. However, I also don't see that or not they are sociopaths has any real bearing on the likelihood that they did the crime. Perhaps it's just a red herring.