Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[lane99]

..."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."
...

Though my comment above reflects nothing more than common sense and a rational approach to the investigation of causes, one can also gather I was aware that wouldn't prevent some people from disagreeing with it.

The record will show that you are one such person, and you're welcome to your opinion.

Incidentally, unless you're suggesting that you believe the conspiracy theories about the US govt orchestrating or deliberately allowing the 911 attacks to occur, your reference to "planes and tall buildings" is a thoroughly muddled non sequitur. Simply that a plane might conceivably fly into the World Trade Center had always been taken for granted as a realistic possibility. There were even attempts to account for it in the original building design.

 

[treehorn]

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?

You seem to want to gloss right over the very reason the Seattle conviction is raised viz., that it stands as a public record of an instance in which Knox exhibited antisocial behavior - worthy of police action and the expenditure of court resources - in Seattle, and before the murder.


You can malign the Daily Mail, the "guilters" and me until you're blue in the face, but it's not a trivial matter in terms of its medical implications or its legal consequences.

When was the last time the police showed up on your doorstep, John?

Have you ever seen your name appear in the public records of your local courthouse under the column labeled "Defendant"?

Knox had one hell of a tear in 2007: Bicontinental brushes with police, Bicontinental convictions in courts of law and memory loss due the abuse of controlled substances.

Such things are simply not the purview of the healthy, well-adjusted, college girl next door.

They are, however, what one might expect to see in a 19/20 year old just beginning to exhibit the signs and symptoms of antisocial PD (to name but one possibility).

 

[LondonJohn]

You seem to want to gloss right over the very reason the Seattle conviction is raised viz., that it stands as a public record of an instance in which Knox exhibited antisocial behavior - worthy of police action and the expenditure of court resources - in Seattle, and before the murder.


You can malign the Daily Mail, the "guilters" and me until you're blue in the face, but it's not a trivial matter in terms of its medical implications or its legal consequences.

When was the last time the police showed up on your doorstep, John?

Have you ever seen your name appear in the public records of your local courthouse under the column labeled "Defendant"?

Knox had one hell of a tear in 2007: Bicontinental brushes with police, Bicontinental convictions in courts of law and memory loss due the abuse of controlled substances.

Such things are simply not the purview of the healthy, well-adjusted, college girl next door.

They are, however, what one might expect to see in a 19/20 year old just beginning to exhibit the signs and symptoms of antisocial PD (to name but one possibility).

No. Knox was identified as the person responsible for hosting the party where antisocial behaviour was reported. There's quite a difference.

And I remember being at a house party when I was at uni when the police were called because of noise and a bonfire in the back garden - and I'm pretty sure that neither the people who hosted the party nor the people making the noise or lighting the bonfire were either sociopaths or went on to murder anyone.

And what's all this about a conviction in a court of law in Seattle??? Knox was issued with a civil disturbance ticket.

And it's interesting to see your parenthetical hedging of bets with regard to Knox's mental health condition.

 

[treehorn]

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.

I'm not heavily invested in any point.

I know nothing about the rules and regulations governing psychologists in the UK. Feel free to enlighten me.

I'm not entirely certain of the restrictions American psychologists face (outside of the fact that prescriptions are, for obvious reasons, the sole domain of MD's), but am aware of the fact that psychologists play a key role in the diagnosis of patients.

I was unaware that the FBI's Behavioral Sciences Unit is "on the verge," as you put it, although after witnessing the Steve Moore debacle, I have serious doubts about the FBI as a whole.

 

[Kestrel]

You can malign the Daily Mail, the "guilters" and me until you're blue in the face, but it's not a trivial matter in terms of its medical implications or its legal consequences.

We pointed out the Daily Mail article you posted was simply wrong. But you persist in using it as a source. Perhaps because it conforms to your prejudices in this case. That doesn't say good things about your ability to use logic and evidence in a rational way.

 

[treehorn]

I'm pretty sure that neither the people who hosted the party nor the people making the noise or lighting the bonfire were either sociopaths or went on to murder anyone.

I think you know that I am saying this:

cops/citation = antisocial behavior = possible indicator of PD

not this:

cops/ citation = antisocial behavior = guaranteed homicidal maniac

what's all this about a conviction in a court of law in Seattle??? Knox was issued with a civil disturbance ticket.

Seattle Municipal Court

the record is easy to find and free to view online during business hours (Seattle time, of course)

the court found Knox to have committed the offense and imposed a penalty by way of fine rather than imprisonment

it's interesting to see your parenthetical hedging of bets with regard to Knox's mental health condition

I'm serious when I say I have no desire to "win" an argument a bet or anything else.

I just want the whole truth to come out - whatever it may be.

 

[treehorn]

We pointed out the Daily Mail article you posted was simply wrong. But you persist in using it as a source. Perhaps because it conforms to your prejudices in this case. That doesn't say good things about your ability to use logic and evidence in a rational way.

Oh?

How so?

I though you merely stated that the DM cannot be trusted.

I could explain to you why I feel this way about, say, Dempsey.

Can you explain to me WHY the Daily Mail is in error &/or cannot be trusted? (I am not a regular reader and do not live in the UK.)

 

[Kaosium]

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

No idea, but if it was, what does that tell you?

 

[Justinian2]

Suppose Guede, RS, and AK were in collusion as the prosecutor theorizes, then why would a break-in be staged that would throw suspicion on Guede. He wouldn't have liked that - especially with his fingerprints and DNA all around. Guede wouldn't have helped the staging. However, AK and RS would have known the staging would cause Guede to be found and he would rat on them.

Ron Hendry did a great analysis of the staging.

Killers either stage something or hide/bury/dismember the body or leave the body outside their home if it was killed outside. They don't call the police or leave the body in the home.

Yes, women have poisoned their mates for insurance or inheritance and left the bodies lying around or in the hospital. A case where three people who barely knew each other killed a house mate for no profit and left the body in their flat has not yet been revealed.

 

[Machiavelli]

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:


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.​

These things are not at all in my sphere of interest.
The innatural thing appers to me being that Amanda doesn't remember at all of the call, and doesn't give weight to her calling her mother, nor puts weight (neither memory) to the reason of it.
This is why Amanda's answer is not natural and not credible, when crossed with the objective data of the timing of this call.

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.

But my paraphrase is not of this particular Amanda's answer. It is a way to summarize Amanda's position on this topic expressed by Amanda's whole testimony.

You want to focus you attention on one answer, in a restrict relation to a line of dialogue with Comodi. I don't.
My summary/paraphrase is intended to consider the implication of the other Amanda's statements through the process, like this:

Judge Masei: So, the question asked by the defense of the civil plaintiff was: How could you not remember that phone call, even though it was made at a very, very special time for the person who received the call?

AK: Ah, okay. I do remember one call afterwards, the one that I made after they sent us out of the house. But, I don't know if it's because I was thinking about so many things, but somehow I forgot, I don't know...

You want to interpret what Amanda says by using Comodi's wording. I interpret what Amanda says using the rest of Amanda's tesimony. Do you understand why I use summary conclusions an paraphrases now?

The points "a" and "c" are "your" points - those that you attribute to me - not my points. Amanda is not placing the call "when she is getting worried" because of the timing, but because Amanda has no better memory of the 12:47 call, and here she is simply not putting weight on - nor matching with a mamory - any different reason at all: she doesn't thinky to any reason and circumstance different from the one she already claimed to have forgotten. "d" is simply the consequence of the rest of Amanda's testimonies: she doesn't remember the 12:47 call.
And her total forgetting of the 12:47 call is in fact the point, together with her light-hearted attitude towards the reasons for it: i find this not very credible .

 

[katy_did]

The innatural thing appers to me being that Amanda doesn't remember at all of the call, and doesn't give weight to her calling her mother, nor puts weight (neither memory) to the reason of it.
This is why Amanda's answer is not natural and not credible, when crossed with the objective data of the timing of this call.

See, this a perspective I just can't comprehend. How can you possibly know what it would be "natural" for someone to remember or not remember in exceptional circumstances (or even in completely normal circumstances)? How can you have such rigid criteria for what another individual should recollect of a particular situation that you're able to describe the forgetting of a particular (minor) fact as "unnatural" and "not credible"?

It's this position that I don't find credible, because it appears to be based on nothing more than your own arbitrary criteria as to what another person should remember in that situation, which is something you can't possibly know. Not everything can be neatly fitted into a system. If she doesn't remember it, she simply doesn't remember it.

Judge Masei: So, the question asked by the defense of the civil plaintiff was: How could you not remember that phone call, even though it was made at a very, very special time for the person who received the call?

AK: Ah, okay. I do remember one call afterwards, the one that I made after they sent us out of the house. But, I don't know if it's because I was thinking about so many things, but somehow I forgot, I don't know...

You want to interpret what Amanda says by using Comodi's wording. I interpret what Amanda says using the rest of Amanda's tesimony. Do you understand why I use summary conclusions an paraphrases now?

I'm confused. This says nothing about the timing of the first phone call; it only suggests that Amanda remembers the second one, and when it took place ("the one that I made after they sent us out of the house"). How do you get from this that she thinks the first phone call took place after she'd phoned Meredith?

It seems to me that you're just over-complicating things here, or not wanting to admit you were wrong with your initial quote of what Amanda said. Why not just admit you were loosely paraphrasing and got it a bit wrong? It's not exactly a big deal.

Heck, we all forget things on occasion.

 

[Mary_H]

1) I am Fuji, not platonov.

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

Sorry for the misunderstanding, Fuji. I was addressing platonov. Your example very much supports your analysis. platonov and I had an exchange earlier this week about analogies. Search for the term "hyperbole" to see what we were talking about.

 

[Brooktrout]

I think you know that I am saying this:

cops/citation = antisocial behavior = possible indicator of PD

not this:

cops/ citation = antisocial behavior = guaranteed homicidal maniac

I trust that this point won't be taken personally or reported, because I make it with serious intent.

Treehorn's point about the Seattle incident as suggestion a personality disorder is barely worth addressing. Young people engage in behaviour that tests the boundaries of authority and society. It's what they do best. Posting on these forums obsessively is, imho, behaviour that suggests a person has difficulty interacting with other humans. The tone of some of these sites drives it home.

It strikes me that a handful of the outspoken "guilters" may be out of touch with the kinds of things people in their 20s get into today, the kinds of relationships they have with their parents, and their exposure to pressures that are very different than those young people faced 20 years ago.

Ms Knox strikes me as a somewhat normal 22 year old middleclass American girl at the time of the murder of Ms Kercher. The kids I saw at university had very intense relationships with their parents. Their parents had trouble letting go, and the children called "in the middle of the night" for advice on cooking a cheese sandwich. In the age of easy communications, a young woman would think nothing of calling her mother at an early hour when she sensed trouble.

 

[Mary_H]

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”

Every time you post this somewhere, treehorn, I show you why Covington's analysis is invalid, yet you persist. And you always leave out these parts:

But do her unexpected responses in various situations belie what may be a more profound psychological disturbance?

Much has been made of the fact that Knox was caught giggling and seen performing a cartwheel during her first visit to the police station following the discovery of her housemate's brutal murder.

When she was arrested, her manner was described as cold and detached.....

However, it was Knox's behaviour in court that was most bizarre. At no point - until the verdict - did we see Knox protesting her innocence or fraught with anxiety. Instead she seemed disconcertedly dissociated from the gravity of what was going on. During the initial period of the trial, she appeared relaxed and cheerful, light-heartedly talking to her lawyers and guards while gesticulating, Italian-style, with her hands.

Which does not even begin to correlate with this:

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.

Whom did Amanda con?

 

[Mary_H]

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.

<snip>

That's why I asked him to cite everything. No offense, but you guys should have waited until he did, or more precisely, didn't.

 

[Mary_H]

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

I'm with Kaosium. All that tells you is that the prosecution was seeking to use something irrelevant to defame Amanda, the same way you are using it.

 

[RWVBWL]

Greeting JREF members,
I was re-reading some postings on Frank Sfarzo's Perugia Shock, and found this that I would like to bring up:
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/06/voice-of-amanda-knox.html

"Today the stupid liar admitted without any problem to usually keep her cellphone on, but that evening she didn't, she turned it off, simply because she was happy to stay at home with Raffaele and she didn't want Patrick to maybe change his mind and call her back with another task. That evening we went to Raffaele's place to watch The wonderful World of Amelie, really a beautiful movie. We were watching the movie, and when Patrick messaged me I was so happy not to have to go to work that I was jumping in the house, she revealed.
And what has she done then? Simple: We finished the movie, we eat, we tried to fix a pipe that broke, we smoked a joint, we made love and we slept.
Next day she went home, where she found the open door and all strange things we know. Then she went back to Raffaele's place, where, following his suggestion, she called Meredith and Filomena to tell them the situation.
When she went back to the house together with Raffaele she found out also the broken window and the mess in Filomena's room. They tried to kick Meredith's door, she tried to climb to Meredith's window. Raffaele called her sister, and then, the Carabinieri. Right after they went to see the broken window from outside and that's when the postal police arrived to deliver the cellphones. She didn't just accept the cellphones and goodbye. She explained them the whole situation (which they didn't find grave at all). When Filomena and the others arrived they started to talk dense and she couldn't follow them, that's why she moved aside with Raffaele while the others broke the door."

for something odd stuck out at me that I would LUV to have any of the colpevolisti answer.

When the Postal Police Officers Battistelli and Marzi arrived to return the cell phone to the residence of Filomena Romanelli,
and Amanda Knox apparently was going to recieve custody of them -(she being the only resident home at the time),
how come she then -(if she is indeed guilty of having any part in Miss Meredith Kercher's murder),
informed these postal police of the strange happenings that she noticed that morning?

Why didn't she just take the phones and say "Grazie, sono un ufficiale bel giorno."
Thank you, have a nice day officer, head back inside the apartment and finish the "cleanup"?

Her bathroom still had a little blood on the mat, as did her sink, the staged break-in doesn't seem complete, to me at least,
and there were still clothes in the washer!
Heck, speaking of washing clothes, why didn't she throw the bloody towels that Rudy Guede had used to try to "save" Miss Kercher
into the washer before she "must have" locked Meredith's bedroom door?

Being a SKEPTIC of the Italian courts decision and posting on a website forum for well, skepticism, I'll say this:
Miss Amanda Knox did not murder Miss Meredith Kercher!

Anyways, back to the beach...
Have a nice full moon weekend, folks!
RWVBWL

 

[Mary_H]

Seattle Municipal Court

the record is easy to find and free to view online during business hours (Seattle time, of course)

the court found Knox to have committed the offense and imposed a penalty by way of fine rather than imprisonment

I'm serious when I say I have no desire to "win" an argument a bet or anything else.

I just want the whole truth to come out - whatever it may be.

In the interest of truth, I suggest you clarify that the record cannot be found where you say it is located, which is why you have repeatedly failed to provide the link.

 

[Jungle Jim]

Suppose Guede, RS, and AK were in collusion as the prosecutor theorizes, then why would a break-in be staged that would throw suspicion on Guede. He wouldn't have liked that - especially with his fingerprints and DNA all around. Guede wouldn't have helped the staging. However, AK and RS would have known the staging would cause Guede to be found and he would rat on them.
Ron Hendry did a great analysis of the staging.

How would RS & AK know the staging of the crime would implicate Guede? How would they of had any knowledge of Guede's past brushes with the law? The reasoning for staging a break-in would be to make it appear that the murder was committed by someone who did not live in the residence. Obviously Guede did not live in the residence, but the same could be said about all males in Perugia.

 

[Justinian2]

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”

I have had DSM III R in my bedside bookcase for years. I have dabbled in this nomenclature for decades.

I have debated whether presidents and presidential contenders are Narcissistic. The agreement of most debates was that they are; high politicians have the majority of Narcissistic traits.

Dr Coline Covington's definition of psychopath finds no fault with me.

However, in finding that Amanda had those traits, I believe that Dr Coline Covington suffered - in this one instance - from the fallacy of circular reasoning; she assumed that Amanda was guilty and then amplified characteristics to make her fit the definition. One has to look no further than the Milgram experiment to find a plausible reason for her lapse.

The court intimidates. She was probably paid by the prosecution/persecution.