Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[LondonJohn]

halides1 - Thank you for the thoughtful reply.

As for the comparison between the writings of Spader and LondonJohn & Kevin_Lowe, I agree that it is of no greater significance to a discussion of the Meredith Kercher case. I was not the one who originally made such a comparison; however, by highlighting selected excerpts of each, I had hoped to demonstrate how I could understand Stilicho might have made such an argument in the first place.
.

Yes, I can't really see the similarity to "LooneyJohn" much myself either. Maybe you could ask stilicho to come back onto JREF to let us all know why it's fine for him to be posting personal insults on another forum referring to people on this forum? I'd be interested to hear his explanation of how it advances the debate, or enhances his personal credibility.....

 

[RoseMontague]

I believe a lot of the early rumors were due to this article including Daniel. Reading the quote it does appear to be nothing more than hearsay:

Among them was student Daniel de Luna, 21, from Rome, who had a onenight stand with Amanda last month after meeting her on a weekend in Perugia. He told The Mail on Sunday: 'Yes, I know Amanda, I met her a couple of times but I'm not saying anything to you.'

But his friend Stefano Bonassi, who lives in the flat below the murder scene, told police in a statement that de Luna had 'a sexual rapport with Amanda'. Amanda was also dating one of the two men accused in the case, Raffaelle Sollecito, 24.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492893/Foxy-Knoxy-girl-compete-mother-men.html

 

[LondonJohn]

I believe a lot of the early rumors were due to this article including Daniel. Reading the quote it does appear to be nothing more than hearsay:



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492893/Foxy-Knoxy-girl-compete-mother-men.html

But remember, if you're predisposed to think of Knox as some sort of voracious sexual predator, you'll set your filter to allow through all the stories (however far-fetched or inaccurate) which support that predisposition, and to reject all those stories (however accurate) which tend not to support the predisposition.

And that's what's happening here.

 

[LondonJohn]

Do you have special qualifications in analysing footprints? If you don't, then can we please stop this constant scenario where you tell people they don't know what they're talking about when it comes to footprints.

Machiavelli knows more than all of us about law, Italian law, forensic podiatry, philosophy, jurisprudence and pretty much all the evidence in this case. I thought that was well-known and understood.

 

[RoseMontague]

Machiavelli knows more than all of us about law, Italian law, forensic podiatry, philosophy, jurisprudence and pretty much all the evidence in this case. I thought that was well-known and understood.

Yes, I am sure treehorn will be all over this asking for his credentials......any minute now, I am certain.

 

[Machiavelli]

Do you have special qualifications in analysing footprints? If you don't, then can we please stop this constant scenario where you tell people they don't know what they're talking about when it comes to footprints.

And if I had special qualification - like Lorenzo Rinaldi - would you buy my conclusions?
Did I tell people they don't know what they are talking about when it comes to footprints?

(they may not know when it comes to full detail of my reasoning, but that's not a problem, I may ignore something of yours either).

 

[treehorn]

Amanda Knox has no symptoms of antisocial personality disorder. Even if she did, you are not qualified to provide that diagnosis.

How, on earth, do you have ANY idea what my qualifications are?

I don't have a clue WHO you are, much less what your qualifications are, yet you claim there's an 'information asymmetry' in this regard?! Do tell.

PS When you attempt to "counter" (and I'm using the term in it's loosest possible sense here) my use of the phrase "illicit narcotic" with something along the lines of, "Correction: Marijuana", do you really expect me to take you seriously?!

PPS I hope you won't take offense, but I'm done with repeatedly typing out easy to find information on antisocial PD, knox's Seattle court record, or Nadeau's book for your convenience and/or amusement.

 

[quadraginta]

That is only fair. However, I do expect that quad will jump all over this analogy just as he does the ones on the innocent side..........any minute now, I am certain.

Do you think you need my help?

The fact is that I did not offer any objections to "analogy". In the case of wrongful conviction and false confession there was no one who was taking the position that such things could not or did not happen. Quite the contrary. What was at issue was whether a succession of cases where it had or may have happened constituted actual evidence that it had happened in the Knox case in particular.

If I have been following this latest tangent properly (I'm uncertain how much of it is going on in other venues) someone has pointed out that Steve Moore made the claim that no one could commit a crime as gory as the Kercher murder without transfer of physical evidence, and they offered a contradictory example which suggested that such a thing was indeed possible.

If the distinction between the two situations still leaves you in a quandary I'm not sure how else to describe it.

This was also not an "analogy" which was presented concerning the Cates case. It was an example which disproved a broadly made assertion.

If someone had made the claim that wrongful convictions were not possible and never happened, or a similar claim about eliciting false confessions then examples demonstrating that they had would certainly have been in order.

That's an analogy.

 

[treehorn]

Treehorn,

You are ignoring the book I mentioned.

Ms. Nadeau’s errors in Angel Face have been discussed here already. I suggest you search them out. They include her claims of the existence of blond hairs at the murder scene and the existence of seven areas on the kitchen knife that had biological material. In addition two bloggers have examined the quality of her work on this case, Mark Waterbury and myself, and we found a number of problems. Moreover, if you want the prestige of Newsweek to rub off on Ms. Nadeau, you are talking to the wrong person. Newsweek’s cover story of 1 May 2006 deserves a place in the media hall of shame, in the wing for crime coverage.

Who is Ms. Nadeau’s source for the information that Daniel and Amanda slept together during the week before the murder? At this point he or she is anonymous. Does Ms. Nadeau have access to Daniel’s witness statement? If Daniel were in Perugia that week, wouldn’t his friends downstairs have known about it?

When you are interested in having an intelligent debate, please let me know. Your discussion about this question and Mr. Sayagh’s manuscript are equally unserious.

1) What book? The physiology text?

2) Waterbury (of ?) versus Nadeau of Newseek: Isn't Waterbury the man who claims, without any eviudence to support his position, that Guede is an informant to the police of such value that knox and sollecito were charged and convicted at his behest?!

Do you expect me to take this man seriously? Do YOU?! If so, why?

3) There's nothing inherently wrong with your fondness for the musings of an obscure student of the common law from a 2nd tier school. However, my education precludes the possibility that I will share your interest at any point in the future - Unless, of course, the paper becomes published in a prestigious law review. (Do not hold your breath.)

 

[LondonJohn]

How, on earth, do you have ANY idea what my qualifications are?

I don't have a clue WHO you are, much less what your qualifications are, yet you claim there's an 'information asymmetry' in this regard?! Do tell.

PS When you attempt to "counter" (and I'm using the term in it's loosest possible sense here) my use of the phrase "illicit narcotic" with something along the lines of, "Correction: Marijuana", do you really expect me to take you seriously?!

PPS I hope you won't take offense, but I'm done with repeatedly typing out easy to find information on antisocial PD, knox's Seattle court record, or Nadeau's book for your convenience and/or amusement.

The amusingly ironic thing about what you've just written is this: if you were a psychiatrist, then you yourself would know that you were not qualified to make a remote judgement on whether or not Knox had any form of personality disorder. A qualified specialist in this field would fully recognise that in order to diagnose a personality disorder, one needs to have at least two or three fairly long one-on-one sessions face to face with the subject. No proper psychiatrist would ever attempt to make a diagnosis based on news reports, diaries, hearsay or trial evidence.

So whether you're an eminent psychiatrist or you're not (and I strongly suspect the latter), you couldn't make a proper diagnosis of Knox. And those in the media who have tried to do so are no more than charlatans or people who are vastly overextending their professional competencies for media space. QED.

 

[treehorn]

Yes, I am sure treehorn will be all over this asking for his credentials......any minute now, I am certain.

Who is the poster, "Machiavelli"?

 

[LondonJohn]

Do you think you need my help?

The fact is that I did not offer any objections to "analogy". In the case of wrongful conviction and false confession there was no one who was taking the position that such things could not or did not happen. Quite the contrary. What was at issue was whether a succession of cases where it had or may have happened constituted actual evidence that it had happened in the Knox case in particular.

If I have been following this latest tangent properly (I'm uncertain how much of it is going on in other venues) someone has pointed out that Steve Moore made the claim that no one could commit a crime as gory as the Kerchner murder without transfer of physical evidence, and they offered a contradictory example which suggested that such a thing was indeed possible.

If the distinction between the two situations still leaves you in a quandary I'm not sure how else to describe it.

This was also not an "analogy" which was presented concerning the Cates case. It was an example which disproved a broadly made assertion.

If someone had made the claim that wrongful convictions were not possible and never happened, or a similar claim about eliciting false confessions then examples demonstrating that they had would certainly have been in order.

That's an analogy.

I'm waiting for someone from PMF or TJMK to come down on you like a ton of bricks for spelling the victim's name incorrectly.........

 

[christianahannah]

Machiavelli knows more than all of us about law, Italian law, forensic podiatry, philosophy, jurisprudence and pretty much all the evidence in this case. I thought that was well-known and understood.

I have never had that impression from Machiavelli. I am glad that he/she shares their opinion and knowledge with this forum. I feel the same for other posters' contributions, too.

 

[treehorn]

The amusingly ironic thing about what you've just written is this: if you were a psychiatrist, then you yourself would know that you were not qualified to make a remote judgement on whether or not Knox had any form of personality disorder. A qualified specialist in this field would fully recognise that in order to diagnose a personality disorder, one needs to have at least two or three fairly long one-on-one sessions face to face with the subject. No proper psychiatrist would ever attempt to make a diagnosis based on news reports, diaries, hearsay or trial evidence.

So whether you're an eminent psychiatrist or you're not (and I strongly suspect the latter), you couldn't make a proper diagnosis of Knox. And those in the media who have tried to do so are no more than charlatans or people who are vastly overextending their professional competencies for media space. QED.

QED?

A tad overstated, no? You haven't exactly offered a mathematical proof.

Alas, I have already stated (bravely, compared to Lowe) that I am NOT a medical doctor. Further, I do not take exception to your assertion that a proper diagnosis cannot be made without a face-to-face assessment of the subject, preferably over many, many sessions. However, "forensic" psychologists and psychiatrists routinely make fairly accurate assessments of subjects in the absence of this opportunity.

You don't seem to be the sort to literally think that the opinions of medical professionals in respect of knox (or any other accused) are of no value...

 

[RoseMontague]

Do you think you need my help?

This was also not an "analogy" which was presented concerning the Cates case. It was an example which disproved a broadly made assertion.

Yes, I would appreciate your assistance.
I strive for understanding of your position as I have stated before. What was the broadly made assertion that the Cates case disproved?

 

[RoseMontague]

I have never had that impression from Machiavelli. I am glad that he/she shares their opinion and knowledge with this forum. I feel the same for other posters' contributions, too.

That is an excellent way of approaching a discussion. I think it is easier for you being in an undecided position to maintain such an approach but I would like to say that I appreciate the contributions from all posters as well, even the ones I don't always or even rarely if ever agree with, or those that I don't really understand.

 

[treehorn]

His name's Kevin Lowe, and your constant personal attacks on him are not only tiresome, they're also out of order. Change the way you post, please.

It is not my intention to "attack" Lowe.

Indeed, I am inclined to endorse his insistence on "evidence based argument" and I was intrigued by his theory re stomach contents/ the ligature issue.

You can imagine my surprise then when he suddenly dispensed with the evidence and advanced a series of unsupported suppositions about the displacement of alimentary matter.

Asking whether his suppositions can be elevated to a higher status on the basis of personal training/ experience is hardly an attack.

When I asked you whether you held a M.D., you simply answered in the negative. No fuss, no muss.

Lowe ought to take note of your candor lest he be dismissed unfairly.

 

[Kestrel]

Alas, I have already stated (bravely, compared to Lowe) that I am NOT a medical doctor. Further, I do not take exception to your assertion that a proper diagnosis cannot be made without a face-to-face assessment of the subject, preferably over many, many sessions. However, "forensic" psychologists and psychiatrists routinely make fairly accurate assessments of subjects in the absence of this opportunity.

Dr. J. Reid Meloy's remote diagnosis of Timothy Masters led to the conviction of an innocent man for murder.

 

[quadraginta]

Yes, I can't really see the similarity to "LooneyJohn" much myself either. Maybe you could ask stilicho to come back onto JREF to let us all know why it's fine for him to be posting personal insults on another forum referring to people on this forum? I'd be interested to hear his explanation of how it advances the debate, or enhances his personal credibility.....

I'd be more interested in hearing your explanation of how this request advances the debate about the Knox trial in this thread.

I don't believe soliciting third parties to encourage people to come here and engage you concerning your personal disputes with another message board will further that end.

 

[treehorn]

Dr. J. Reid Meloy's remote diagnosis of Timothy Masters led to the conviction of an innocent man for murder.

Why is it so many find it so appealing to advance arguments along these lines:

Rare event, X, has occurred in the past cases. Therefore, X has occurred in THIS case.

Many of you seem better than that.