Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Kevin_Lowe]

No it is not enough. One thing is "unusual", one other thing is "murdered". The time of death does not depend on whether anything strange occurred before or not. I bet something "strange" was going on at around 21:00 in the cottage, independently from the 20:56 call, but I don't think this something strange was a murder. You are thinking at the murder of Meredith Kercher as a quick attack, as would be from an external intruder. You are not thinking the murder scenario as a situation which can well start since before Meredith's arrival or around 21:00, and could go on for hours.

If the "situation" started at 21:05 then Amanda and Raffaele weren't there, and in addition the Massei narrative is false and hence Amanda and Raffaele should not have been convicted.

You are just unfolding your list again, I already know it, and I disagree. I don't want to enter a discussion on this system of points, since I have a few other topics to talk about before. I need to finish explain my ideas on Nara Capezzali and why the autopsy report and findings is a circumstantial evidence of a multiple aggresion. Peripheral topics, but worht to be defined.

The Titanic is still sinking under you. Rearranging those deck chairs isn't going to make any difference to the hole in the side. If Amanda and Raffaele weren't there and Meredith died around 21:10 you can have all the talk about Nara's magic ears and evidence of multiple aggression you like but it's vacuous. Nara didn't hear a scream at 21:10, and even if you somehow proved that sixty people attacked Meredith, if Amanda and Raffaele were somewhere else when it happened they cannot be amongst those sixty.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The argument used to attack the TOD using stomach contents appears now to be one that if your argument is correct and you do the math it seems to place the time of death even before 9pm when Meredith got home.

Damn it! He's using the Chewbacca Defence!

 

[Machiavelli]

Seeing as professional psychologists wouldn't do that, it seems highly likely that anyone doing so has an overinflated sense of their own competence or is not being completely honest.

You are picking up any desperate excuse to try to discredit the author in a very slanted manner, and this is not being completely honest towrds the argument. Since you feel uneasy with an opinion you feel the necessity to respond calling the author overinflated.
But narcissism is not "diagnosed" because it is not an illness. The narcissism in Amanda's personality style is simply overt and obvious, not to me but to thousands of observers including specialists, but this is an obvious quality in her relational performance and doesn't correspond to a precise clinical diagnosis. However the clinical diagnosis of narcissistic disorder is defined based on the perception of others regading the empathic capabilities of the individual, to his/her capability to adjust and mitigate the perception of his self importance to what perceived by others and to his/her ability to satisfy others needs. I never met somebody ho felt Amanda's writings as humanly satisfactory, so probably she would have a negative relational score among the average population. Your ideas that specialists should avoid expressing opinions on cases they don't deal with should instead be extended to specialists who write about DNA and forensics of a case without deling with the case itself.

 

[Justinian2]

No it is not enough. One thing is "unusual", one other thing is "murdered". The time of death does not depend on whether anything strange occurred before or not. I bet something "strange" was going on at around 21:00 in the cottage, independently from the 20:56 call, but I don't think this something strange was a murder. You are thinking at the murder of Meredith Kercher as a quick attack, as would be from an external intruder. You are not thinking the murder scenario as a situation which can well start since before Meredith's arrival or around 21:00, and could go on for hours.

Occam's Razor isn't big with you, I deduce.

Why would I believe that this started before 21:00 and went on for hours, especially since AK and RS weren't even there at 9:00 and the cell phones of MK were at another location at 10:00?

Furthermore, where did it go on for hours? Not in MK's room, unless Raffaele Sollecito, is the winged angel of healing that he was named after and floated all around MK's room.

The angel Raphael, as well as many other prominent angels appear in John Milton's Paradise Lost, in which he is assigned by God to re-warn Adam concerning the sin of eating of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He also expounds to Adam the war in heaven in which the Archangel Lucifer fell and became Satan, and the creation of the Earth.

I've always thought the tree of the knowledge of good and evil referred to the law. So...

The end times are here.

Aw geez, I forgot Occam's Razor too.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You are picking up any desperate excuse to try to discredit the author in a very slanted manner, and this is not being completely honest towrds the argument. Since you feel uneasy with an opinion you feel the necessity to respond calling the author overinflated.
But narcissism is not "diagnosed" because it is not an illness. The narcissism in Amanda's personality style is simply overt and obvious, not to me but to thousands of observers including specialists, but this is an obvious quality in her relational performance and doesn't correspond to a precise clinical diagnosis. However the clinical diagnosis of narcissistic disorder is defined based on the perception of others regading the empathic capabilities of the individual, to his/her capability to adjust and mitigate the perception of his self importance to what perceived by others and to his/her ability to satisfy others needs. I never met somebody ho felt Amanda's writings as humanly satisfactory, so probably she would have a negative relational score among the average population.

Yeah, well you can achieve that effect by cherry-picking or outright falsifying individual actions or passages of text.

None of us know the real Amanda Knox. If you think you do because you browse PMF or read the Daily Mail then I submit that you are mistaken. Do any of the people who know her well support any of the defamatory nonsense about her that guilters spew, that's she's a narcissistic, hard-drug abusing, violent psychopath? Or is this purely the invention of guilters embroidering on their fantasy hate object?

Your ideas that specialists should avoid expressing opinions on cases they don't deal with should instead be extended to specialists who write about DNA and forensics of a case without deling with the case itself.

No. This is just wrong. You cannot diagnose a mental disorder like NPD second-hand based on cherry-picked anecdotes or passages selected to create a specific effect on the reader. No real professional would even try to do so, whatever loverofzion would like to imply.

Whereas we can make relevant inferences about DNA or forensics without needing to sit face-to-face with a human subject.

 

[Machiavelli]

No. This is just wrong. You cannot diagnose a mental disorder like NPD second-hand based on cherry-picked anecdotes or passages selected to create a specific effect on the reader.

And in fact I did not do. As I quite clearly said. By using the technical term narcissistic personality style comprehensive of a broader category.
And I respond that you should address a request for the same care and precaution from those specialists who wrote conclusions about forensic evidence, without having ever dealt with the same evidence nor with the case.

 

[Machiavelli]

Why would I believe that this started before 21:00 and went on for hours, especially since AK and RS weren't even there at 9:00 and the cell phones of MK were at another location at 10:00?

You state they were not even there.
Can you proove where Amanda Knox was at 21:00?

 

[Mary_H]

You are picking up any desperate excuse to try to discredit the author in a very slanted manner, and this is not being completely honest towrds the argument. Since you feel uneasy with an opinion you feel the necessity to respond calling the author overinflated.
But narcissism is not "diagnosed" because it is not an illness.

Narcissistic personality disorder is diagnosed, by qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists. Obviously, it is a subjective diagnosis, but at least an agreed-upon checklist of symptoms is used; the diagnosticians don't get to just "have a feeling" about it, based on what they've read in the news.

The narcissism in Amanda's personality style is simply overt and obvious, not to me but to thousands of observers including specialists, but this is an obvious quality in her relational performance and doesn't correspond to a precise clinical diagnosis. However the clinical diagnosis of narcissistic disorder is defined based on the perception of others regading the empathic capabilities of the individual, to his/her capability to adjust and mitigate the perception of his self importance to what perceived by others and to his/her ability to satisfy others needs. I never met somebody ho felt Amanda's writings as humanly satisfactory, so probably she would have a negative relational score among the average population.

Are you saying that since clinical diagnosis is based on the perceptions of others, Amanda might as well have been diagnosed because a lot of people have been thinking about her?

Your ideas that specialists should avoid expressing opinions on cases they don't deal with should instead be extended to specialists who write about DNA and forensics of a case without deling with the case itself.

Many areas of psychiatry and psychology are subjective. Until recently, homosexuality was right there in DSM-IV along with narcissistic personality disorder.

DNA science is based on empirical research and is not useful if it is subjective in any way.

 

[Mary_H]

No I am not saying the chain of custody was violated (and not "on evidence", I am talking of copies of files), I am saying there was no chain of custody on the content of Amanda's diary. I recall again, in addition, that the content of her diary was not secret.

I still want to know why the contents of Amanda's diary were not secret, and whether she was informed that it would not be kept secret. I would like to know what your thoughts are on the question I asked you earlier:

If the police are allowed to seize a prisoner's writings without her permission, then what is to stop them from taking her bedding without her permission, or even from raping her? There must be some regulations. Amanda's testimony suggests she was not aware of the regulations about written material, hence, she is not responsible for making the information about her HIV test public.

The kind of thinking that holds that Amanda is responsible for her diary being released is the same kind of thinking that holds she is responsible for Patrick's unconventional arrest, and her mother was responsible for Patrick's prolonged stay in jail. Yesterday on Perugia Shock, someone even blamed Raffaele for his sister's dismissal from the police force.

Why are the defendants responsible for so much and the authorities responsible for so little?

 

[Machiavelli]

If Amanda and Raffaele weren't there and Meredith died around 21:10 you can have all the talk about Nara's magic ears and evidence of multiple aggression you like but it's vacuous

If. Mabye if.
But you are putting this statement under "if" before others.
" If anybody is able to proof for certain that Meredith died at 21:10.. "

But nobody up to now is able to proof for certain such a thing. Only you claim you have a proof, and I disagree from the roots even from asserting the remote possibility that anyone could formulate this assertion. Even in normal conditions I would consider foolish the attempt to state a ToD with an error of less than 1 hour based on the sole quantity of the stomach content. I simply reject entirely all your conclusion based on "literature", in fact I would even reject the very faesability of such a research. You will never be remotely able to state a time of death at 21:10, even less with your concept odìf certainity. In this case Your order of logic bond to this "if" is useless to me.

 

[LondonJohn]

You state they were not even there.
Can you proove where Amanda Knox was at 21:00?

Nobody who believes Knox to be non-culpable in the murder has to prove where she was at 21.00. In contrast, it's up to the prosecution to prove that she was participating in a pre-amble to murder at that time.

 

[LondonJohn]

If. Mabye if.
But you are putting this statement under "if" before others.
" If anybody is able to proof for certain that Meredith died at 21:10.. "

But nobody up to now is able to proof for certain such a thing. Only you claim you have a proof, and I disagree from the roots even from asserting the remote possibility that anyone could formulate this assertion. Even in normal conditions I would consider foolish the attempt to state a ToD with an error of less than 1 hour based on the sole quantity of the stomach content. I simply reject entirely all your conclusion based on "literature", in fact I would even reject the very faesability of such a research. You will never be remotely able to state a time of death at 21:10, even less with your concept odìf certainity. In this case Your order of logic bond to this "if" is useless to me.

"I simply reject entirely all your conclusion based on "literature"".

You're not Giancarlo Massei in disguise, are you?!

 

[Solange305]

I spoke with several physicians about the HIV testing incident. One who was familiar with Italy’s medical system pointed out that there were likely to be differences between the United States and Italy. However, the consensus was that it would be quite unusual to inform a patient about a positive ELISA test and that if this were done, the patient would be counseled about it and told that there was a chance that it was a false positive. The reason that the results of the ELISA are generally not disclosed is that it only takes about a week or two to obtain the follow-up results. No one at this board or any other has documented (as opposed to asserted without proof) that Amanda was counseled.
.

In her own diary, Amanda says "told me that they had to make further tests because I might have AIDS". It doesn't sound like they told her she had aids, it seems like they were honest, that it was a possibility so they wanted to do further testing.

Edit: Machiavelli beat me to it, damn

 

[Mary_H]

In her own diary, Amanda says "told me that they had to make further tests because I might have AIDS". It doesn't sound like they told her she had aids, it seems like they were honest, that it was a possibility so they wanted to do further testing.

Edit: Machiavelli beat me to it, damn

I don't think they tested her for it at first. Medical professionals are not allowed to test patients for HIV without their consent, and Amanda doesn't mention having given her consent. I think they used it as a form of torture to elicit a confession (maybe it's a ruse that is used routinely). Getting the list of intimate partners may not have been what they were after at first, but turned out to a bonus for them.

By telling her she had already been tested and needed to be tested again, they were able to get her permission for an actual initial test.

There was probably a disconnect in the line of people who communicated with her about it. A non-medical staff member may have told her she needed an HIV test, and then a medical professional conducted the test, after being told by the non-medical staff member that Amanda had requested it.

 

[LondonJohn]

In her own diary, Amanda says "told me that they had to make further tests because I might have AIDS". It doesn't sound like they told her she had aids, it seems like they were honest, that it was a possibility so they wanted to do further testing.

Edit: Machiavelli beat me to it, damn

But she also wrote:

“They told me it was positive and they said I had AIDS. I was left shocked. I didn’t know how that could be possible.”

 

[Solange305]

This isn't very interesting. Are you going to talk about the actual evidence for Amanda and Raffaele's guilt at some point?

He has been, and doing a good job of it. That is one comment he made in regards to a bunch of comments regarding how some other Italian agency abused poor Amanda. He has talked about other evidence as well.

 

[Solange305]

But she also wrote:

“They told me it was positive and they said I had AIDS. I was left shocked. I didn’t know how that could be possible.”

That's weird, so she contradicts herself. Which is true? Why would she say they told her she might have aids and needed another test, and then say this? Am I missing something?

 

[LondonJohn]

In relation to this whole HIV issue, I'd argue that the best possible interpretation of the situation - as far as the medical professionals are concerned - is as follows:

1) They properly obtained Knox's permission to perform an HIV test;
2) They conducted ELISA and Western Blot tests;
3) The ELISA test somehow came back with a false positive;
4) They informed Knox expeditiously of her positive ELISA result, but counselled her that if the ELISA test comes back positive for someone in a low-risk group, it's very often a false positive, and that therefore she should wait for the result of the Western Blot test before becoming concerned that she was in fact HIV positive;
5) Knox misinterpreted what she had been told, and erroneously believed that she'd been told that she was HIV positive;
6) The Western Blot test came back negative, and Knox was informed expeditiously of the false positive nature of the ELISA test and that she was not HIV positive.

From Knox's writings and testimony, it doesn't seem that this is what actually happened (although of course "she's a liar" - so we can't believe anything she says......). But even if this is exactly what happened, there is still the issue of how incredibly unlikely it would have been for Knox's ELISA test to come back as a false positive, given her lack of risk factors. Given that she had less than a 1 in 200 chance of getting a false positive result, it makes the whole thing look extremely strange and hard to explain......

 

[LondonJohn]

That's weird, so she contradicts herself. Which is true? Why would she say they told her she might have aids and needed another test, and then say this? Am I missing something?

What makes you think that the passage you quoted was written before the passage I quoted?

 

[Solange305]

In relation to this whole HIV issue, I'd argue that the best possible interpretation of the situation - as far as the medical professionals are concerned - is as follows:

1) They properly obtained Knox's permission to perform an HIV test;
2) They conducted ELISA and Western Blot tests;
3) The ELISA test somehow came back with a false positive;
4) They informed Knox expeditiously of her positive ELISA result, but counselled her that if the ELISA test comes back positive for someone in a low-risk group, it's very often a false positive, and that therefore she should wait for the result of the Western Blot test before becoming concerned that she was in fact HIV positive;
5) Knox misinterpreted what she had been told, and erroneously believed that she'd been told that she was HIV positive;
6) The Western Blot test came back negative, and Knox was informed expeditiously of the false positive nature of the ELISA test and that she was not HIV positive.

From Knox's writings and testimony, it doesn't seem that this is what actually happened (although of course "she's a liar" - so we can't believe anything she says......). But even if this is exactly what happened, there is still the issue of how incredibly unlikely it would have been for Knox's ELISA test to come back as a false positive, given her lack of risk factors. Given that she had less than a 1 in 200 chance of getting a false positive result, it makes the whole thing look extremely strange and hard to explain......

Thanks for the explanation. So what would cause someone to come back with a false positive, if they are HIV negative?