Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Dan O.]

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..

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.

It looks like you are the one throwing rocks at the accused.

Here is the text of the narrative, written by Seattle police officer Jason Bender (From SeattlePI):

In the city of Seattle

I was on uniformed patrol in the marked unit as 3U5. At approximately 0028 hours, I responded to the report of a loud party in the listed location. The complainant relayed to dispatch that participants from the party were throwing rocks at his house and at passing cars. The complainant requested officer not contact him. Upon arrival, I noted loud amplified music coming from the listed address. The music could be heard from a distance greater than 75 ft from the source. I also noted several rocks in the street. I did not locate any damage at that time. I contacted a party participant and had them retrieve a resident.

S1/Knox contacted me (in front of the house). She stated that she was one of the current residents. She stated that she was the one who was hosting the party (as she was moving out). She stated that she was not aware of any rock throwers at the gathering.

I issued S1/Knox this infraction for the noise violation and a warning for the rock throwing. I explained how dangerous and juvenile that action was.

See Cad event 264012 for further.

No further action taken at this time.
​

Looks to me like it was "just a noise ticket".
No citation of alcohol abuse.
No citation for drugs.
No report of damage.



ETA:

Is the medieval practice of throwing rocks at the accused as they are paraded through the streets or todays practice of throwing smears against the accused on internet blogs considered a social norm? Is anyone that fails to follow these practices therefore abnormal?

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

"Professor for Abnormal Psychology"? And "yours"?

In the UK (where Covington qualified and practises), only psychiatrists are qualified to diagnose personality disorders. Psychologist and psychotherapists are not even classified as medical doctors.

Mmmmmm.

 

[LondonJohn]

It looks like you are the one throwing rocks at the accused.

Here is the text of the narrative, written by Seattle police officer Jason Bender (From SeattlePI):

In the city of Seattle

I was on uniformed patrol in the marked unit as 3U5. At approximately 0028 hours, I responded to the report of a loud party in the listed location. The complainant relayed to dispatch that participants from the party were throwing rocks at his house and at passing cars. The complainant requested officer not contact him. Upon arrival, I noted loud amplified music coming from the listed address. The music could be heard from a distance greater than 75 ft from the source. I also noted several rocks in the street. I did not locate any damage at that time. I contacted a party participant and had them retrieve a resident.

S1/Knox contacted me (in front of the house). She stated that she was one of the current residents. She stated that she was the one who was hosting the party (as she was moving out). She stated that she was not aware of any rock throwers at the gathering.

I issued S1/Knox this infraction for the noise violation and a warning for the rock throwing. I explained how dangerous and juvenile that action was.

See Cad event 264012 for further.

No further action taken at this time.
​

Looks to me like it was "just a noise ticket".
No citation of alcohol abuse.
No citation for drugs.
No report of damage.

No no no no! According to some, Knox was the orchestrator of an orgy of violence aimed at the neighbours and their property. After all, this is just the sort of thing that leads to murder.......

 

[treehorn]

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.

I take it you think FBI "profilers" and the bureau's "behavioral sciences" unit are of no value then, correct?

I mean they often don't even get to look at "second-hand testimony" (distorted or otherwise).

 

[LondonJohn]

I take it you think FBI "profilers" and the bureau's "behavioral sciences" unit are of no value then, correct?

I mean they often don't even get to look at "second-hand testimony" (distorted or otherwise).

They don't make diagnoses of personality disorders. What is it that you're not understanding?

 

[treehorn]

No no no no! According to some, Knox was the orchestrator of an orgy of violence aimed at the neighbours and their property. After all, this is just the sort of thing that leads to murder.......

almost 3 years old and STILL not retracted:


The officer suspected "some kids" were just playing their music too loud, but what he found was no run-of-the-mill summer student party: he later told colleagues it was like a scene from Baghdad.
Gangs of students, high on drink and drugs, were hurling rocks into the road. Cars were swerving to avoid them. Debris littered the road. It was mayhem.
Fearing reprisals, neighbours who had called the police refused to give their names. The police officer called for back-up as the youths began throwing rocks at the windows of houses on the neat, tree-lined streets.
Eventually, after reinforcements had arrived, the students calmed down. Police made only one arrest: the person they held responsible for the party and the disorder.
Her name? Amanda Knox, or, as she prefers to be known, Foxy Knoxy.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-498853/The-wild-raunchy-past-Foxy-Knoxy.html#ixzz136VHqjqJ

 

[Justinian2]

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.

Thanks for getting me back on track. That's a good precident. An FBI agent (a tenant) once told me that there were usually six active serial murderers in the USA at one time. Our chance of bumping into one (a serial murderer) are slim unless there are lots of unsolved murders around and we happen to fit the profile of the victims. Most of the time the serial murderers are men. If they do murder in their home, they hide or bury the body - they don't call the police.

 

[Kestrel]

I note that treehorn is assuming that every accusation by the prosecution or press agains't Amanda is true, then using those accusations to prove that Knox showed signs of being a sociopath before the murder.

For criteria (1), treehorn's examples are all rather lame. He assumes that Amanda is guilty and uses the prosecutions claims against her as evidence that she was a sociopath before the murder. Drinking is rather normal for American college students, as is occasionally smoking marijuana. He also exaggerates the noise citation as he has done repeatedly in this thread. But even if we accept that Amanda meets this criteria because she drank and smoked the occasional joint, we need to find two more criteria.

For criteria (2), treehorn uses three events that happened after the murder.

For criteria (3), he uses false information about the number of sex partners Knox had in Italy. (The Amanda is a slut gambit was long ago proven false). He calls making a decision not do an internship in Germany impulsive rather than simply a choice. And he is simply wrong about Amanda being underfunded for her stay in Italy.

For criteria (4), he makes the assumption that Amanda was throwing rocks. There is no evidence of that. He calls a reputed prank a physical assault. The rest of his examples assume Amanda's guilt in the murder. And since when is a verbal accusation a "physical assault"?

For criteria (5), he falsely calls Sollicito a cocaine addict, uses the Amanda is a slut gambit once more, and exaggerates the so called rape prank. And uses the claims of the prosecutor once more to prove that Amanda was a sociopath before the murder.

Treehorn, isn't it time you stopped exaggerating the nature of the noise ticket? Amanda's offense was not grounds for arrest, she was not arrested. She was issued a ticket for noise and paid a fine. Your persistence on this issue isn't helping your case, it's simply showing your inability to comprehend reality.

 

[LondonJohn]

almost 3 years old and STILL unretracted:


The officer suspected "some kids" were just playing their music too loud, but what he found was no run-of-the-mill summer student party: he later told colleagues it was like a scene from Baghdad.
Gangs of students, high on drink and drugs, were hurling rocks into the road. Cars were swerving to avoid them. Debris littered the road. It was mayhem.
Fearing reprisals, neighbours who had called the police refused to give their names. The police officer called for back-up as the youths began throwing rocks at the windows of houses on the neat, tree-lined streets.
Eventually, after reinforcements had arrived, the students calmed down. Police made only one arrest: the person they held responsible for the party and the disorder.
Her name? Amanda Knox, or, as she prefers to be known, Foxy Knoxy.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-498853/The-wild-raunchy-past-Foxy-Knoxy.html#ixzz136VHqjqJ

Ironically, the part you highlighted in red is the most salient part. Knox was deemed to be the "person responsible for the party". There's no evidence (or even suggestion) that she was even involved in the alleged rock-throwing - I would strongly suspect that if rocks were thrown, they were thrown by young males at the party.

And I also very, very strongly suspect that if students were "high on drink and drugs", there would have been multiple arrests there and then, and the whole house would have been searched for illegal substances. But then that didn't happen, did it. And nor were any criminal charges whatsoever ever levelled at either Knox or any of the other partygoers.

This officer's "recollection" of events sounds like a classic ex-post rationalisation, following Knox's arrest for murder in Perugia. But again, even if it's exactly as he described, quite how one jumps from this to involvement in a murder is more than a bit hard to figure out. I wonder what the ratio of "people at student parties that got out of control" to "people from those parties who go on to commit murder" might be........

 

[treehorn]

"Professor for Abnormal Psychology"? And "yours"?

In the UK (where Covington qualified and practises), only psychiatrists are qualified to diagnose personality disorders. Psychologist and psychotherapists are not even classified as medical doctors.

Mmmmmm.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting.

I took a course in undergrad entitled, "Abnormal Psychology."

My professor for this course was an American psychologist (not a psychiatrist), yet he was actively involved in the diagnosis, treatment and study of patients with antisocial PD.

I've never been made aware that only a MD could make such a diagnosis - it may well be true, I've just never heard such a claim before.

In America it's clear that only MD's can PRESCRIBE medications, but psychologists are often called upon in the diagnosis stage...

Just never thought of it.

What is the rationale for such a requirement?

 

[Amazer]

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

Matthew,

Why don't you stick to reporting posts that you feel are OT instead of trying to play moderator. That's what real moderators are for.

The upside would also be that you can start contributing something meaningful to the thread for a change.

 

[Kestrel]

almost 3 years old and STILL not retracted:


The officer suspected "some kids" were just playing their music too loud, but what he found was no run-of-the-mill summer student party: he later told colleagues it was like a scene from Baghdad.
Gangs of students, high on drink and drugs, were hurling rocks into the road. Cars were swerving to avoid them. Debris littered the road. It was mayhem.
Fearing reprisals, neighbours who had called the police refused to give their names. The police officer called for back-up as the youths began throwing rocks at the windows of houses on the neat, tree-lined streets.
Eventually, after reinforcements had arrived, the students calmed down. Police made only one arrest: the person they held responsible for the party and the disorder.
Her name? Amanda Knox, or, as she prefers to be known, Foxy Knoxy.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-498853/The-wild-raunchy-past-Foxy-Knoxy.html#ixzz136VHqjqJ

A skeptic should know that the wild reportings of a tabloid such as the Daily Mail are not considered reliable source. It does however appeal to people who want to read the latest celebrity gossip and stories about Bigfoot, alien abductions and the moon landing hoax.

ETA: Just for a reality check, look a few posts back at the actual text of Knox's citation and you will find that she wasn't arrested. She simply paid a fine.

 

[treehorn]

Ironically, the part you highlighted in red is the most salient part. Knox was deemed to be the "person responsible for the party". There's no evidence (or even suggestion) that she was even involved in the alleged rock-throwing - I would strongly suspect that if rocks were thrown, they were thrown by young males at the party.

And I also very, very strongly suspect that if students were "high on drink and drugs", there would have been multiple arrests there and then, and the whole house would have been searched for illegal substances. But then that didn't happen, did it. And nor were any criminal charges whatsoever ever levelled at either Knox or any of the other partygoers.

This officer's "recollection" of events sounds like a classic ex-post rationalisation, following Knox's arrest for murder in Perugia. But again, even if it's exactly as he described, quite how one jumps from this to involvement in a murder is more than a bit hard to figure out. I wonder what the ratio of "people at student parties that got out of control" to "people from those parties who go on to commit murder" might be........

FWIW the provision Knox was convicted under allows for a penalty of up to 180 days in jail.

If the police had been forced to return to the scene a second time, Knox would have been looking at that possibility.

I suspect that the police were going out of their way to go easy on Knox (probably precisely because they were faced with a nice-looking, female college kid).

Based on the Daily Mail's description, the police well could have charged Knox with any number of criminal offenses (mischief in respect of private property at a minimum).


Tell me, John, if your daughter had started to smoke dope in her 2nd year, and then came home with a police-issued citation on a promise to appear in court, would you turn a blind eye and send her overseas, unsupervised, or would you sit her down for a chat and maybe send her to a doctor/ rehab?

 

[treehorn]

A skeptic should know that the wild reportings of a tabloid such as the Daily Mail are not considered reliable source.

Is Candace Dempsey a "reliable source" in your book?

 

[Kestrel]

FWIW the provision Knox was convicted under allows for a penalty of up to 180 days in jail.

If the police had been forced to return to the scene a second time, Knox would have been looking at that possibility.

Those of us with a clue have noticed that Knox didn't violate that provision of the law.

 

[Kestrel]

Based on the Daily Mail's description, the police well could have charged Knox with any number of criminal offenses (mischief in respect of private property at a minimum).

What you don't seem to comprehend is that the Daily Mail article isn't reality based. The false claim in the article that Knox was arrested should have given you a clue.

 

[LondonJohn]

FWIW the provision Knox was convicted under allows for a penalty of up to 180 days in jail.

If the police had been forced to return to the scene a second time, Knox would have been looking at that possibility.

I suspect that the police were going out of their way to go easy on Knox (probably precisely because they were faced with a nice-looking, female college kid).

Based on the Daily Mail's description, the police well could have charged Knox with any number of criminal offenses (mischief in respect of private property at a minimum).


Tell me, John, if your daughter had started to smoke dope in her 2nd year, and then came home with a police-issued citation on a promise to appear in court, would you turn a blind eye and send her overseas, unsupervised, or would you sit her down for a chat and maybe send her to a doctor/ rehab?

Oh here we go again.....

The whole point about the structure of that legislation is that the police show up and give you a warning and a fine for civil disturbance. And they warn you of the consequences of continued disturbance. If you continue to cause a disturbance, the police have the right to arrest you, and a court has the right (if the case is proven) to send you to prison for up to 180 days.

But Knox and her fellow partygoers seemingly took the police's words on board, since they were not re-summoned to the party, and no further action was taken. So your point about the 180 days' prison is not only moot, it's misleading (probably intentionally so).

And regarding your completely unsubstantiated suggestion that the police "could have charged Knox" with all sorts of criminal offences, I'm somewhat speechless to be honest! You seem to be suggesting that Knox's appearance and gender prevented the police from doing their jobs. You might want to think carefully about what that implies about the law enforcement community in Seattle. Is it not infinitely more likely that Knox had not ostensibly committed any criminal offences whatsoever? And neither had anyone else at that party?

Lastly, you seem to be applying the morals of the Victorian age to the 21st century. I realise that some people have invented some sort of "moral outrage" towards Knox's parents for allowing their "seriously derailed" daughter to go "unsupervised" to Perugia, and that things were bound to end in tragedy. I would like to say that this point of view is not only wrong, it's disgustingly wrong. Prior to going to Italy, Knox was - by all accounts - a mild user of cannabis, and a moderate drinker of alcohol at worst. And she'd hosted a party which got too rowdy.

But if you're seriously suggesting that this was sufficient cause for her parents to "maybe send her to a doctor/rehab", then there's nothing I can say to that, other than that if everyone whose child has dabbled in weed and drink when in their late teens took this course of action, half the western world would consist of doctors' surgeries and rehab centres. It's arrant nonsense.

As for having a word with her, I'd be surprised if Knox's parents didn't talk with her before leaving her on her own about looking after herself, staying out of trouble, and calling them if she felt like things were in any way out of control. The misleading idea (again, propagated by those with a certain agenda) that Knox was just simply "cast out" into the wide world by her family is, I suspect, both incorrect and grossly unfair.

 

[treehorn]

They don't make diagnoses of personality disorders. What is it that you're not understanding?

Oh, I think it's not so clear cut. Profilers aim to determine, as precisely as possible, a suspect's 'personality' based on their behavior.

Recognizing the signs of a disordered personality, therefore, go with the territory.

Consider this quote from an FBI 'profiler':

"The basic premise is that behavior reflects personality," explains retired FBI agent Gregg McCrary. In a homicide case, for example, FBI agents glean insight into personality through questions about the murderer's behavior..."

see: http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/criminal.aspx

A profiler ignorant of/ blind to the signs and symptoms of a disordered personality wouldn't stand much of a chance in the analysis of a suspect's behavior, now would s/he?

What is it that you're not grasping?

 

[Katody Matrass]

Boring and OT

Hi, Machiavelli
Just a short update about your paraphrase, as the topic is not that interesting to most people. You used it in this argument:

But in fact, all this things you mention is exactly what makes Amanda's explanation not so credible. Especially her panic and banging on Meredith's door. In this situation, she doesn't remember of having done a phone call to her mum wakng her up in the middle of the night. Because Amanda - bear in mind - doesn't remember at all of any phone call by this time and never mentions it. She doesn't reply to Comodi: "No, wait a minute: it was when I started to panic and Meredith wasn't answering, it is then that I called my mother". And in fact, in such a situation of anxiety and adrenaline, how could she forget about the first thing she decided to do, calling her mother? Calling her mothr for the first time, wking her up in the middle of the night?
Instead, she doesn't even care about the imprecise timing, she doesn't mention any call at all, but answers: "well I don't remember, if I did a call (that woke up my mother) it was probably because I found an open door and Meredith didn't answer the phone". This answer is inantural, and moreover by this answer Amanda herself is placing this "forgotten" call in the place where she was getting worried, and Edda is placing the same content decribed by Amanda in the 12:47 call, exactlt the content Amanda guesses but doesn't remember.

As we see, from your paraphrase you derived a conclusion that

a) Amanda doesn't care about the imprecise timing
b) This answer is innatural
c) Amanda is placing this "forgotten" call in the place where she was getting worried
d) Amanda hypothesizes the same content of the call as Edda described.​

You also reiterated that argument later:

Amanda gave a description of a situation and of a phone conversation which is identical to Edda's descritpion of the 12:47 call, implying she didn't mistake Comodi's question for a qustion about a call from Sollecito's apartment

The problem with your argument is you are basing it on a paraphrase that is

1) missing important elements of what Amanda really said
2) including made up elements that Amanda didn't say​

i.e. your paraphrase is mostly bogus.

Let's take a look at what Amanda really said, it's not long and we don't have to paraphrase it at all:

AK: Yes. Well, since I don't remember this phone call, because I remember the one I made later, but obviously I made that phone call. If I did that, it's because I thought that I had something I had to tell her. Maybe I thought right then that there was something strange, because at that moment, when I went to Raffaele's place, I did think there was something strange, but I didn't know what to think. But I really don't remember this phone call, so I can't say for sure why. But I guess it was because I came home and the door was open, and then -- (here Comodi cuts off her answer)​

As you see your paraphrase is missing the part about timing:

because at that moment, when I went to Raffaele's place, I did think there was something strange, but I didn't know what to think.​

when we include it your points a) and c) are no longer valid. Additionally we immediately see that Amanda hypothesizes about the call like it took place at 12:00, exactly what Comodi implied.

As you also see, your paraphrase includes a part "and Meredith didn't answer the phone" which you made up and is not what Amanda said. If we take it out, your point d) is no longer valid.

Additionally when we look at direct quote compared to your paraphrase we see that your point b) is not valid too.
But this is of course subjective, as are some estimations of probability. Some people find it more probable that you can simply forget one of three calls to your mother, one of twelve other calls on a day you found your friend murdered, and that you may still not remember it more than a year after. Some people think more probable explanation is a drug fueled ritual group sex orgy gone wrong killing with a kitchen knife carried casually for protection.

Thanks and have a great weekend

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh, I think it's not so clear cut. Profilers aim to determine, as precisely as possible, a suspect's 'personality' based on their behavior.

Recognizing the signs of a disordered personality, therefore, go with the territory.

Consider this quote from an FBI 'profiler':

"The basic premise is that behavior reflects personality," explains retired FBI agent Gregg McCrary. In a homicide case, for example, FBI agents glean insight into personality through questions about the murderer's behavior..."

see: http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/criminal.aspx

A profiler ignorant of/ blind to the signs and symptoms of a disordered personality wouldn't stand much of a chance in the analysis of a suspect's behavior, now would s/he?

What is it that you're not grasping?

It is clear-cut. Criminal profilers do not (and nor are they qualified to) make diagnoses of personality disorders in given individuals.

And, by the way, the whole area of criminal profiling is on the verge of being re-classified as a pseudo-science, after so many of its central tenets have been shown to be unreliable. As you probably know, the Washington Sniper case was particularly embarrassing for the Quantico crew.

However, you do seem very heavily invested in defending your original point, so if it makes it easier I'll stop talking about it now.