Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Fuji]

My challenge was for anyone to show a precedent where a woman and her new boyfriend conspire to kill a new housemate in her room/house with the help of a new accomplice for reasons not involving theft, insurance money or inheritance, then I would like to hear it.

I can give you the case of the Craig's List killer which is a 'lone wolf' case similar to the fundamental case against Guede.

The precedent that I give of the Perugia murder is of the Craigslist Killer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Markoff

The case of the Craig's List killer is a lone wolf case that I think is an accurate precedent to the Guede murder. There are a lot of precedents similar to the Guede - as lone wolf - murder.

If you have a precedent where a woman and her new boyfriend conspire to kill a new housemate in her room/house with the help of a new accomplice for reasons not involving theft, insurance money or inheritance, then I would like to hear it.

My response to your post in this instance was to correct your manifest errors with regard to crime scene staging.

As indicated in my subsequent reply to lane99, my lack of knowledge of "a precedent where a woman and her new boyfriend conspire to kill a new housemate in her room/house with the help of a new accomplice for reasons not involving theft, insurance money or inheritance" can in no logical way be considered to support your apparent implied consequent that Knox and Sollecito are not guilty of Meredith Kercher's murder.

 

[Fuji]

Thanks for the warning. But your argument appears to be fallacious in more than just two aspects. Throughout, when it's not arguing against assertions I never made, it unwittingly supports the implications of what I actually had written.

This is a dense tangle of sophistic nonsense.

1) I did not make an argument. I was examining the validity or cogency* of your own argument, which you did indeed advance:

"That true believers in Knox's guilt can not come up with a single example of an uncontroversially proven case that would parallel the conspiracy that Knox and her boyfriend were supposedly part of, should give any sensible person reason to question their guilt."

*It is unclear from your statement whether "should" is being used in a strict determinative sense (in which case, validity would be the appropriate test), or it is being used in a more probabilistic sense (in this case, cogency is the appropriate test).

2) Though, as previously stated, I did not actually put forth a counter-argument, your statement "your argument appears to be fallacious in more than just two aspects," appears to assert that I have made multiple errors in my construction. What would those be?

3) What do you see as the implied argument that you advanced? I was quite explicit in my description of your implied argument, and directed my analysis at it. In what way was I "arguing against assertions [lane99] never made"?

4) I am most curious to know how my analysis "unwittingly supports the implications of what [lane99] actually had written," given that I believe I clearly demonstrated the opposite.

 

[Fuji]

Now there is an excellent use of an analogy, platonov.

1) I am Fuji, not platonov.

2) Your apparent sarcasm implies that my example does not adequately support my analysis - how so?

 

[Fuji]

Good point. Perhaps I should present this argument in terms of Occams Razor. A lone wolf precedent like the Craigslist killer fits better. In a case with no bloody fingerprint (other than that of Guede) and no eye witnesses, the simplest and most plausible answer is the most likely. This case is about probabilities NOT possibilities.

Your own link contains the following sentence in the third paragraph:

"In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result."

I do certainly agree with your final sentence, though probably not in that way that you intend it.

 

[Fuji]

There is evidence of planes hitting Sky scrapers before though.

I am not aware of any precedent (ante 11 September 2001) of two 110-story skyscrapers being deliberately struck by two passenger jet airliners and subsequently burning and collapsing upon themselves.

 

[treehorn]

It sounds more like you have been reading the tabloid quacks.

Look up the actual criteria for Antisocial personality disorder^WP in DSM-IV^WP, the definition used by real psychologists. You will find that Knox doesn't meet the criteria.

How so?

I've seen that page on Wiki, and I've got my old text book from Abnormal Psych (don't get the wrong idea - I'm not fool enough to think that a few undergrad psych courses qualify me to diagnose people - I know my limits.)

I'm not a psychologist or a psychiatrist (see, it's easy KL!), but I think the (well-regarded) psychologists I'm referring to were on the right track. I, too, think Knox fits.

Can you specify where you think they've gone wrong?

In respect of which criterion?

 

[Matthew Best]

I am not aware of any precedent (ante 11 September 2001) of two 110-story skyscrapers being deliberately struck by two passenger jet airliners and subsequently burning and collapsing upon themselves.

There's a whole sub-forum for you to explore this topic. I suggest you do so there.

 

[Dan O.]

So apparently the reason that Lumumba's bar remained closed for months was that he was still a suspect, and since he and Knox worked there and Meredith had visited there, it was a "potential crime scene" and therefore had to be sealed.

The bar was a cesspool of co-conspirators that were undermining the police authority and manufacturing an alibi for the prime suspect. Did the police take a single witness statement from any of the patrons of the bar that night?

 

[Matthew Best]

Knox's friends and family see the same behavior the psychologists are noting, but they write it off to "eccentricity"/ "immaturity"/ "child-like innocence"/ "Amanda just being Amanda."

I'm leaning more toward the psychologists.

Which psychologists? Is there a reason you haven't said who they are or quoted their actual words?

 

[loverofzion]

How so?

I've seen that page on Wiki, and I've got my old text book from Abnormal Psych (don't get the wrong idea - I'm not fool enough to think that a few undergrad psych courses qualify me to diagnose people - I know my limits.)

I'm not a psychologist or a psychiatrist (see, it's easy KL!), but I think the (well-regarded) psychologists I'm referring to were on the right track. I, too, think Knox fits.

Can you specify where you think they've gone wrong?

In respect of which criterion?

http://data.psych.udel.edu/abelcher...hopathology (27)/Hare, Hart, Harpur, 1991.pdf

 

[treehorn]

Yeah, the homeowner or the person on the lease. They're responsible for noise coming from a party on their property.

Amanda was the ONLY one leasing the house?

I've read otherwise.

Do tell.

would someone from Seattle care overmuch about what a tabloid in Britain wrote? Especially the Mail? What could they do about it anyway?

That article in the British newspaper was used as part of the prosecution's case, was it not?

 

[Kestrel]

How so?

I've seen that page on Wiki, and I've got my old text book from Abnormal Psych (don't get the wrong idea - I'm not fool enough to think that a few undergrad psych courses qualify me to diagnose people - I know my limits.)

I'm not a psychologist or a psychiatrist (see, it's easy KL!), but I think the (well-regarded) psychologists I'm referring to were on the right track. I, too, think Knox fits.

Can you specify where you think they've gone wrong?

In respect of which criterion?

Here is the list of criteria from DSM-IV:

A. There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

Note that the diagnosis requires meeting three or more of the criteria.

(1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.

The criteria specifies repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest. Do you really think that posing with a machine gun in a museum meets this standard?

(2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure.

Where is the evidence for Knox repeatedly lying?

(3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead.

Where is your evidence that Knox failed to plan ahead?

(4) irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults.


Do you have any evidence that Knox repeatedly assaulted others or got into physical fights?

(5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others.

Where is your evidence that Knox disregarded safety?

(6) consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain
consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations

May I remind you that Knox was an honor student who earned her own money to study abroad?

(7) lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

Evidence?

Note that you claimed she showed these signs before the murder.

 

[treehorn]

Which psychologists? Is there a reason you haven't said who they are or quoted their actual words?

Here's ONE example:

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/57043...on-the-signs-that-amanda-knox-is-a-psychopath

Dr Coline Covington is a highly experienced psychotherapist who has studied at Princeton University, Cambridge University and the London School of Economics. She was the former Editor of the Journal of Analytical Psychology as well as the former Chair of the British Psychoanalytic Council. She has also worked for the Metropolitan Police.

“Knox’s narcissistic pleasure at catching the eye of the media and her apparent nonchalant attitude during most of the proceedings show the signs of a psychopathic personality. Her behaviour is hauntingly reminiscent of Eichmann’s arrogance during his trial for war crimes in Jerusalem in 1961 and most recently of Karadzic’s preening before the International Criminal Court at the Hague.

The psychopath is someone who has no concern or empathy for others, no awareness of right and wrong, and who takes extreme pleasure in having power over others. The psychopath has no moral conscience and therefore does not experience guilt or remorse.

Most psychopaths are highly skilled at fooling those around them that they are normal by imitating the emotions that are expected of them in different circumstances. They are consummate at charming people and convincing them they are in the right. It is only when they reveal a discrepancy in their emotional response that they let slip that something may be wrong with them.

The psychopath is the conman, or in the case of Amanda Knox, the con-woman par excellence. Her nickname ‘Foxy Knoxy’, given to her as a young girl for her skills at football, takes on a new meaning.

Whether or not Knox, who is appealing her verdict, is ultimately found guilty, her chilling performance remains an indictment against her. Her family’s disbelief in the outcome of the trial can only be double-edged”

 

[Matthew Best]

So, not a psychologist, then?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

undergraduate creative writing; wrong war

Interesting find, CW

And what, pray tell, do you make of Knox's penchant for authoring and posting short stories about rape/ stalking/ violence against young women?

Or the infamous 'German machine gun pose', the self-described "inner Nazi", and the taunting of a Jewish coworker?

Drawings in a locker. Stories on a MySpace page.

Treehorn,

I spoke with a friend who teaches creative writing, and he told me that date-rape stories are not uncommon, because both talented and less talented students "seem to think that art is about shock value." Ms. Knox's teacher might have exacerbated his or her students' tendencies in this regard by asking for shocking effects, IIRC.

The veracity of the story about Ms. Knox and her coworker has been debated upthread, but even if it were true, describing it as taunting is dubious (bad joke is more like it). The article that reported this had several factual errors and quoted an anonymous coworker. The “inner-Nazi” remark originated with Ms. Knox’s sister, if I understand who captioned the photo correctly. Whoever did add the caption apparently did not take the time to examine the machine gun carefully, which probably originates from WWI (see upthread).

Time to find my icepack.

 

[treehorn]

Here is the list of criteria from DSM-IV:

A. There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

Note that the diagnosis requires meeting three or more of the criteria.

(1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.

The criteria specifies repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest. Do you really think that posing with a machine gun (not illegal, but it was a German gun and, taken with her infamous (alleged) taunting of a Jewish coworker, and her "inner Nazi" comment, it may be indicative of a lack of empathy for others, a lack of respect for social norms/ "tendency to violate boundaries and rights of others, "poor behavioral control", "disregard for right and wrong/ immorality, "aggressive" behavior, etc.) in a museum meets this standard?

1. Police-issued citation/conviction in court for "Residential Disturbance" in connection with Drug/Alcohol-Fueled Rock-Throwing incident at drug-fueled 'going away party';
2. Under Age Drinking (lame, yes, but nevertheless unlawful);
3. Buying(?)/ Using illicit Narcotics (to the point of memory loss);
4. Bearing False Witness Against an Innocent Man/ Friend/Employer/ Neighbor;
5. Defamation of Police/ Perjury (to be determined)
6. Homicide (under appeal)

(2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure.

Where is the evidence for Knox repeatedly lying?


Obviously you do not believe she is factually guilty. Many do not agree, and from their perspective, Knox began lying the moment the postal police showed up with Meredith's cell phones almost 3 years ago, and hasn't stopped since.

It might be better to focus on the big ones, as I do not like to type:

1) Naming an innocent man, Lumumba, as her accomplice in the 'bit of fun' she intended to have with Meredith on Nov 1/07

2) Lying by omission = failing to retract her false accusation of Lumumba

3) Accusing the police of beating a confession from her (in dispute, yes, but why can she not provide a name/ basic description/ artist sketch of the officer in question? My guess: lies have no details)


(3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead.
Where is your evidence that Knox failed to plan ahead?


1) blows off internship arranged by German uncle on a whim = impulsivity
2) 3 to 6 sex partners in her 6 weeks in Perugia (including unprotected sex) = impulsivity
3) (correct me if I am wrong here) underfunded in Perugia/ not enough cash saved, and not enough coming in, to last the academic year = failed to plan ahead

(4) irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults.


Do you have any evidence that Knox repeatedly assaulted others or got into physical fights?


1) attack on Meredith Kercher
2) rock-throwing incident (criminal mischief to assault, depending on what was hit with the rocks)
3) if true, UW "rape prank" = unconsented, therefore assault/ battery
4) false accusation of Lumumba may be considered a form of (very) aggressive behavior
5) false accusation of police (in dispute, yes, but, again, if true is also aggressive/ malicious behavior)

(5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others.

Where is your evidence that Knox disregarded safety?

1) instigating/ participating in the rape/ murder of Meredith Kercher
2) false accusation of Lumumba
3) bringing, inter alia, a knife collector/ rape fetishist (?)/ cocaine addict she'd only known for 6 days into a shared residence for 4 females
4) if true, the Seattle "rape prank"
5) rock-throwing incident in Seattle
6) not consider her own safety (or her partners') when having sex with 3 to 6 Italinan strangers in 6 weeks (including unprotected sex)





(6) consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain
consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations


May I remind you that Knox was an honor student who earned her own money to study abroad?


1) on a whim, Knox blew off internship arranged by German uncle

2) there is reason to suspect that Knox may have taken Meredith's rent money to finance a drug habit she was developing under the tutelage of Sollecito - there is no definitive proof, but I'm sure you're aware of some of the facts that provide support for this supposition

3) Was Knox on the "Dean's List" or was she just in an "honors program"? I've listened to her testify. I've read her short stories and statements to police. I've even read excerpts of her "prison diary." In the result, I have come to suspect that her verbal skills are not what one would expect of an engineering student, much less a languages major. What was her course load? Dabbling in 'creative writing courses' and German 101 - when you were raised in a family of Germanophones - isn't exactly setting the academic world on fire. Alas, even if she were a bona fide 'Dean's Lister', that hardly counts for much in her favor - surely you're familiar with the names of a least a few homicidal sociopaths with good grades.


(7) lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

Evidence?

Note that you claimed she showed these signs before the murder.

I do think she was showing some of the 'signs' before Nov 1/07, but it is important to remember that this PD (as well as some of the other PD's Knox may be afflicted with) tend to emerge in the late teens/ early 20's (i.e., about the age Knox was on Nov 1/07). Ergo you wouldn't expect to see a long standing pattern in respect of some of the criteria.

Alas, if Knox, herself, is the source of these poor excuses for the conviction for "Residential Disturbance", perhaps there IS pre-murder evidence of indifference/ rationalizing/ lack of remorse.

The police do not, and cannot, write up a citation and ask for 'volunteers' to face the music in court. That's complete and utter BS.

Knox, and only Knox, was charged by the Seattle police for "Residential Disturbance" in connection with rock-throwing.

Based on the stories her family doles out, Knox appears to have told her parents that it was "just a noise ticket", that she was "the only one mature enough to accept responsibility for it," etc.. (Then again, it might just be the PR firm tying to put lipstick on a pig.)

None of this sounds to me like a young woman acknowledging that she was a full participant in highly antisocial conduct (driven by the abuse of alcohol and street drugs) that literally frightened people into calling the police.

 

[LondonJohn]

Here's ONE example:

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/57043...on-the-signs-that-amanda-knox-is-a-psychopath

Dr Coline Covington is a highly experienced psychotherapist who has studied at Princeton University, Cambridge University and the London School of Economics. She was the former Editor of the Journal of Analytical Psychology as well as the former Chair of the British Psychoanalytic Council. She has also worked for the Metropolitan Police.

“Knox’s narcissistic pleasure at catching the eye of the media and her apparent nonchalant attitude during most of the proceedings show the signs of a psychopathic personality. Her behaviour is hauntingly reminiscent of Eichmann’s arrogance during his trial for war crimes in Jerusalem in 1961 and most recently of Karadzic’s preening before the International Criminal Court at the Hague.

The psychopath is someone who has no concern or empathy for others, no awareness of right and wrong, and who takes extreme pleasure in having power over others. The psychopath has no moral conscience and therefore does not experience guilt or remorse.

Most psychopaths are highly skilled at fooling those around them that they are normal by imitating the emotions that are expected of them in different circumstances. They are consummate at charming people and convincing them they are in the right. It is only when they reveal a discrepancy in their emotional response that they let slip that something may be wrong with them.

The psychopath is the conman, or in the case of Amanda Knox, the con-woman par excellence. Her nickname ‘Foxy Knoxy’, given to her as a young girl for her skills at football, takes on a new meaning.

Whether or not Knox, who is appealing her verdict, is ultimately found guilty, her chilling performance remains an indictment against her. Her family’s disbelief in the outcome of the trial can only be double-edged”

This is exceptionally unprofessional behaviour by someone calling themselves a professional psychologist/psychoanalyst. Incidentally though, neither of these two terms gives Covington the proper qualifications to diagnose personality disorders. Only a psychiatrist has the proper means to be able to do that.

Regardless of that, though, Covington would surely be very well aware that diagnoses of this sort are extremely difficult (if not impossible) from a mere browse through second-hand (or worse) testimony - much of which may have been distorted. In fact, no psychiatrist worth their salt would ever dream of making a positive diagnosis of a personality disorder without personally meeting the subject over many more than one session. It seems to me like Covington is more interested in getting her "opinions" published than in making considered medical diagnoses.

And lastly, even if Knox does have a diagnosable personality disorder, this would do very little indeed to indicate that she was also a murderer. Being (e.g.) a sociopath does not make one a murderer, in the eyes of the law. Only overwhelming evidence of participation in a murder - to the exclusion of reasonable doubt - makes one a murderer.

 

[Justinian2]

My response to your post in this instance was to correct your manifest errors with regard to crime scene staging.

As indicated in my subsequent reply to lane99, my lack of knowledge of "a precedent where a woman and her new boyfriend conspire to kill a new housemate in her room/house with the help of a new accomplice for reasons not involving theft, insurance money or inheritance" can in no logical way be considered to support your apparent implied consequent that Knox and Sollecito are not guilty of Meredith Kercher's murder.

What is third in the sequence 2, 4? There is more than one answer. Possible answers are 6 and 8.

Likewise with the staging or break-in, the double LCN DNA knife (or was it contamination), and the motivation (sex, profit, anger, or elimination of the witness to the break-in). They all have more than one answer.

Mathematically speaking, you have far more unknowns than equations; the problem cannot be solved. When trying to solve a mathematics problem, the first thing I decide is if it can be solved from the given data. My decision here is that the equation cannot be solved. AK and RS cannot be proven to be guilty OR innocent.

So we get into things like precedents to find the most likely solution. That answer, again and again is Guede acting as lone wolf.

We look into Amanda's history and find no precedent of intended or actual murder or great bodily harm.

We look to motives. Those given by the prosecution are fictitious at best.

We look at the evidence. Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

The finger of blame for this confusion does NOT point to AK and RS, but in the opposite direction. The other needed equations and variables lie with the prosecution, the forensics lab, the police, and Guede.

 

[LondonJohn]

I am not aware of any precedent (ante 11 September 2001) of two 110-story skyscrapers being deliberately struck by two passenger jet airliners and subsequently burning and collapsing upon themselves.

I am not aware of any precedent (ante 1970) of a man named Bundy abducting, raping and killing young girls in the Washington State, Idaho, Colorado and Utah areas.

I am, however, aware of precedents where a white well-educated male in his 30s abducted, raped and killed young girls in the vicinity of where he happened to be living at the time.

 

[treehorn]

Only a psychiatrist has the proper means to be able to do that.

Oh?

My Prof for Abnormal Psych was just a PhD in Psych, not a MD/ psychiatrist, yet he appears to have been involved with the diagnosis of patients of this kind, he certainly was involved in their study/ analysis/ treatment (to the extent such a thing is even possible)...

Mmmmmm.