Last edited:
Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case
- Thread starter Kevin_Lowe
- Start date
- Status
Mary_H
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 5,253
Well, was she convicted or not? I think it is fair to assume that if you are claiming that Amanda was convicted, then you are also claiming she has a criminal record. You certainly seem to be implying as much in posts 12136, 12162, and 12557.
In post 12183, I used the phrase, "Young people with no criminal background committing murder"
In post 12353, you responded: "What is the basis for this (highly dubious) assertion?
"Additionally, RS had a criminal record for possession and AK had been convicted for "Residential Disturbance" pursuant to a police-issued citation in connection with a rock throwing incident."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6476632&postcount=12353
Reread all four of your posts carefully, and tell me you did not mean to convey that Amanda has a criminal record as a result of the citation.
And what's this about you giving me the link "again?" When did you give it to me before?
Mary_H
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 5,253
You have provided links, but we have effectively argued against the material contained in them. You have tried to establish that Amanda is a sociopath, but we have shown your arguments to be invalid.
This made me giggle. Have you been carrying this sharpened bit of information around in your cloth bag, waiting for the right time to use it against me?
No, not especially. The posts about Rudy locking Meredith's door kinda went down in history, though, I think.
1) Click on the Case Number. What do you see under the Heading that reads, "FINDING"? (Answer: "C" the code for a "FINDING" by the COURT that the VIOLATION was "COMMITTED" by the "DEFENDANT")
2) You reject the term, "conviction" but still have not provided me (and the rest of the legal world) with the term that should be used 'in the alternative'. What shall we replace the word, "conviction" with, Mary?
3) You STILL have not cited proof that I alleged that this [insert replacement word for "conviction" here] was, in point of fact, a "criminal conviction."
4) The point here is that the Seattle Court record PROVES that Amanda Knox:
a) DID have a brush with the law in Seattle, BEFORE leaving for Italy (a bona fide "prior bad act" and consistent with a Dx of sociopathy/BPD);
b) violated the civil and property rights of her neighbors (consistent with a Dx of sociopathy/BPD);
c) engaged in "unlawful" behavior (in addition to using street drugs, under-age drinking, and - possibly - a rape prank at UW/ battery) which is, again, consistent with a Dx sociopathy/BPD); &
d) in light of the warning for rock-throwing, engaged in reckless behavior that endangered others (Dx = u guessed it, sociopathy/BPD).
The girl had some problems BEFORE she left for Perugia. Admit it. (Or did every girl you went to university with smoke dope to the point of memory loss, post rape stories, and throw rocks at cars?)
Last edited:
Katody Matrass
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,119
Hi, Machiavelli! I see misunderstandings creep in from the start.
Did I say you put that blur there?
I just said you need to compensate for it, as every light spot in the photo is stretched into a 1,5 - 2 cm line by camera shake:
Well, you didn't do it, that's only your approximation. I don't think it can be honestly done.
One incident is hardly evidence of a personality disorder, particularly one as sparsely documented as this. If you already believe she's a killer, perhaps it's a step in that direction, but if she's innocent...?
Of course, if you believe she's guilty, then her involvement in a brutal murder and everything that happened after is much better evidence that she's wired wrong.
Of course, if you believe she's guilty, then her involvement in a brutal murder and everything that happened after is much better evidence that she's wired wrong.
Last edited:
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
Indeed. It is - as you say - circular reasoning to conclude that Amanda's guilt (and post-murder behaviour given a presumption of her guilt) is indicative of her being a sociopath, and that the Seattle party incident is "further" indication of a personality disorder.
Not only that, but as I and others have pointed out before, it's contrary to all professional psychiatric ethics to be making any kind of firm diagnosis of personality disorders simply from viewing selected writings (and maybe also video) of the subject. Every person who has appeared in print or on TV to claim to be able to diagnose Knox as a sufferer of NPD, sociopathy, or any other personality disorder, is grossly violating their professional code. No such diagnosis can hope to be made without personal access to the subject, including a number of carefully-constructed interviews/consultations designed to elicit specific markers for these sorts of disorders.
Note that I'm not suggesting that Knox does not have any sort of personality disorder - I'm specifically saying that it's impossible for anyone to make any form of educated diagnosis without direct access to Knox herself. And of course it's worth pointing out that even if Knox does have such a disorder, this is nothing more than extremely peripheral evidence of her involvement in the murder.
I wrote exactly what I meant: Knox was CONVICTED by the Municipal Court of Seattle for "Residential Disturbance" under the Seattle Municipal Code, prior to leaving for Italy.
It's not my problem that you appear to have conflated the controlling statutes in respect of Sollecito's record for possession, on the one hand, and Amanda's record for Residential Disturbance, on the other hand.
What would you prefer, in Knox's case, as an alternative to the word, "conviction"?
"Found to have committed a violation under a duly enacted statute that sets forth penalties for unlawful and amoral conduct on the ground that such conduct violates the civil and property rights of others."
A tad wordy, no?
Admit it: Knox's background, before the murder, included unlawful behavior ranging from the use of street drugs and under-age drinking to throwing rocks at cars. (It may also have included the staging of an "April Fool's Day Rape Prank" at UW, if you believe the comment section of the UW's student paper - a claim that is certainly NOT undermined by the fact of her having published "rape/ stalking stories.")
Ergo claims that Knox was an "innocent angel" before the murder are preposterous. Indeed, Knox's documented behavior in Perugia - before, during and after her arrest - are all the more indicative of a serious personality disorder in my (not necessarily "uneducated"/ lay) opinion, and in the (published) opinion of a number of noted professional psychologists.
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,573
reputational harm
treehorn,
I have demonstrated that there was only a single intimate encounter between Amanda and Daniel. That means that Amanda had two intimate partners during her time in Italy, not 3-6, as you have said. I have never said that Ms. Nadeau lied; I merely documented certain errors she has made (a fresh error of yours, if anyone is keeping tally). I have also quoted Daniel's witness statement, and repeated it for your benefit.
I have also implied (and will now say so outright) that Newsweek used poor judgment when it put the mug shots of two 19-20 year-old alleged rapists on its cover in 2006. Both were ultimately able to establish unimpeachable alibis, and (since grand jury testimony is not recorded in the state in question) no one even knows what the supposed evidence against them was, though it could not have been DNA. The American Journalism Review article I cited questioned Newsweek's editorial judgment for having done so. Based on the discussion in the book Race to Injustice, the reputational harm done by this magazine cover and the televised perp walks far outweighs their real or imagined benefit to society. If you lean on Ms. Nadeau's or Newsweek's prestige very hard, you may find yourself lying on the ground with bruises and scrapes.
To find every message I have written in response to yours, choose the "search this thread" button, then choose "advanced search" at the bottom of the dialog box. A screen will come up. In the right hand column you will find a box that says username, and in the left hand column it will say keyword. Choose halides1 as the username, and choose treehorn as the keyword. Do you work on the space shuttle by any chance? Don't worry if you do not; using this feature is not rocket science.
treehorn,
I have demonstrated that there was only a single intimate encounter between Amanda and Daniel. That means that Amanda had two intimate partners during her time in Italy, not 3-6, as you have said. I have never said that Ms. Nadeau lied; I merely documented certain errors she has made (a fresh error of yours, if anyone is keeping tally). I have also quoted Daniel's witness statement, and repeated it for your benefit.
I have also implied (and will now say so outright) that Newsweek used poor judgment when it put the mug shots of two 19-20 year-old alleged rapists on its cover in 2006. Both were ultimately able to establish unimpeachable alibis, and (since grand jury testimony is not recorded in the state in question) no one even knows what the supposed evidence against them was, though it could not have been DNA. The American Journalism Review article I cited questioned Newsweek's editorial judgment for having done so. Based on the discussion in the book Race to Injustice, the reputational harm done by this magazine cover and the televised perp walks far outweighs their real or imagined benefit to society. If you lean on Ms. Nadeau's or Newsweek's prestige very hard, you may find yourself lying on the ground with bruises and scrapes.
To find every message I have written in response to yours, choose the "search this thread" button, then choose "advanced search" at the bottom of the dialog box. A screen will come up. In the right hand column you will find a box that says username, and in the left hand column it will say keyword. Choose halides1 as the username, and choose treehorn as the keyword. Do you work on the space shuttle by any chance? Don't worry if you do not; using this feature is not rocket science.
Last edited:
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist
Please try to remember to keep the discussion civil. Some of the posts have been teetering - we don't want this thread to descend into unpleasant chaos again, do we?
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: arthwollipot
Katody Matrass
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,119
Interesting, but why are you so cryptic? Who testified so? I'm quite sure Massei doesn't use that compelling argument.
I see we have another misunderstanding. That's not what I said, and I obviously have much more reasons to think AK and RS are innocent.
To be strict, what I said was:
What is entirely sufficient to make me believe AK and RS are innocent is that the break-in was not staged. But that's simple logic.
The staging is a necessary condition for a guilt scenario. To argue guilt you either have to prove the staging (which you cannot do) or assume it (which I have no reason to do, considering the evidence).I haven't yet dealt with all of your points. I'm trying to do it methodically.
It's not a question of belief, but reason. I think that we don't have to assume the staging to explain the evidence. Incidentally, leaving that assumption away greatly simplifies our scenario, too. So it's Occam's Razor once again.
Pictures speek for themselves, let's look at this atmospheric photo. I wouldn't call it illuminated. And I wouldn't call it a front window either
But it has it's disadvantages, too. It certainly attracts lots of attention when e.g. a tenant and her boyfriend happens to be inside. Some say Rudy had a misfortune of finding himself in such a situation before, so I guess he would be extra careful about it this time
BTW "hanging on the window" is another misconception, but let's leave it for later
Yes. I have.
No. You have not.
It would be more accurate to say that I have tried to point out that there are a number of noted psychologists who have suggested that there are some strong indications that Knox may be suffering from antisocial PD/ BPD.
No, you have not. Far from it.
Last edited:
Work on it?
I could probably ****** fly it.
PS I'd prefer it if you'd state exactly what your contentions are - I've been disappointed by your references to 'posts past' a number of times now. It's a real drag to take the time to dig through the records in search of these 'grand counter-claims' of yours, only to find (for example) a short post that does nothing more than cite an 'unnamed poster' as a source.
Edited by Tricky:
Edited for rule 10.
Last edited by a moderator:
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,573
ask your siblings
treehorn,
No, you do not recall correctly. I gave examples of Ms. Nadeau’s errors, and you failed to challenge them. Please go back and look them over if you wish to discuss them now. I have already quoted from Daniel’s witness statement twice.
A couple of days ago I quoted some advice from an anesthesiology group that said to refrain from eating six hours before surgery. An anesthesiologist whom I had previously asked told me that anesthesia relaxes a muscle that ordinarily prevents regurgitation of food. An empty stomach obviously is desirable to prevent this from happening. I cannot square their advice with people having a full stomach five hours after their last meal, which is what the prosecution is asking us to believe. Maybe you can ask you siblings about this and get back to us.
treehorn,
No, you do not recall correctly. I gave examples of Ms. Nadeau’s errors, and you failed to challenge them. Please go back and look them over if you wish to discuss them now. I have already quoted from Daniel’s witness statement twice.
A couple of days ago I quoted some advice from an anesthesiology group that said to refrain from eating six hours before surgery. An anesthesiologist whom I had previously asked told me that anesthesia relaxes a muscle that ordinarily prevents regurgitation of food. An empty stomach obviously is desirable to prevent this from happening. I cannot square their advice with people having a full stomach five hours after their last meal, which is what the prosecution is asking us to believe. Maybe you can ask you siblings about this and get back to us.
Machiavelli
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,844
Interesting, but why are you so cryptic? Who testified so? I'm quite sure Massei doesn't use that compelling argument.
I see we have another misunderstanding. That's not what I said, and I obviously have much more reasons to think AK and RS are innocent.
To be strict, what I said was:
What is entirely sufficient to make me believe AK and RS are innocent is that the break-in was not staged. But that's simple logic.The staging is a necessary condition for a guilt scenario. To argue guilt you either have to prove the staging (which you cannot do) or assume it (which I have no reason to do, considering the evidence).
I haven't yet dealt with all of your points. I'm trying to do it methodically.
It's not a question of belief, but reason. I think that we don't have to assume the staging to explain the evidence. Incidentally, leaving that assumption away greatly simplifies our scenario, too. So it's Occam's Razor once again.
Pictures speek for themselves, let's look at this atmospheric photo. I wouldn't call it illuminated. And I wouldn't call it a front window either
But it has it's disadvantages, too. It certainly attracts lots of attention when e.g. a tenant and her boyfriend happens to be inside. Some say Rudy had a misfortune of finding himself in such a situation before, so I guess he would be extra careful about it this time
BTW "hanging on the window" is another misconception, but let's leave it for later
Now, i will consider arguments in later posts. I want to say here, I would consider your posts more worth of consideration if you avoided the use of smiles on all your answers. In fact a first minimal step in a critical approach would be to acknowledge there is nothing to smile about. You said you believe in stagin and on this belief you base your other convincements. You also expressed a belief that bloody prints in the bathroom totally disappeared casually due to a shuffle of the bathmat, that the blood mark of what you consider a "second toe" happens to fall casually in another place and to be continuous with the big toe by chance. The fact the bathmat print matches i widht the size of Raffaele s to you a good reason to attribute it to Rudy, on the ground that there are also (smaller) differences with Sollecito's plantar arch. Your argument consists in putting smiles in all your thoughts. You skimmed on the fact Vinci didn't attempt to tackle Rinaldi's measurement and didn't apply a process of perspective correction on the same picture. You try to explain to me that the window on the front is not illuminated and the rear window is not dark, that a window and a balcony can be seen as analogue and the difference is merely a misconception (you explain this to judges and policemen who deal with 600 burglaries every year). I think you can realize your views are surreal from the seat of a jurors a court. The judges would remember of you as a big floating smiling head of a cheshire cat, who is talking about Wonderland
Surely, in the sense of there being a need that staging being specifically proved, this argument is false? There could be no evidence from the break in to indicate it was anything but authentic, however, if there is sufficient evidence that they committed the crime, then the break in is indirectly proved to be fake.
This seems to be a common theme, that the prosecution must prove every element of their case beyond reasonable doubt.
Last edited:
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
I see you will be asking your brothers when you speak at Christmas, I hadn't seen that when I wrote my last post. I will look forward to your post so I can take into account your information. I cannot pretend to any great knowledge of biology, indeed the best I can say is that I'm terribly proud of the 'B' (on a curve!) I earned in college in that killer 5 credit biology class I had to take for something else. After a few weeks of curious words like 'telomerease' (which I probably just misspelled) and crap like 5:3 ends, I decided I was far more interested in the hands on sort of biology one practices with their female lab partner, and did my best to cram my way through it and survive.
However one thing I do know something about is evaluating sources. I prefer to have as much information as possible about anything I'm considering, and find that even what some consider poor sources add to my knowledge. In fact, sometimes completely distorted information or outright lies say a great deal, and not always for nefarious purposes. There are times when 'lies are the bodyguard of the truth' and employed for noble goals. There are other times I find I can learn a great deal about sources and situations from information I know is not true.
In this case you believe that if Barbara was incorrect about the information she published in Newsweek that she would have been 'lying.' I don't believe it's as Manichean as that, in fact I find when dealing with human beings things seldom are. I've read Nadeau's Newsweek accounts and have noted that a number of things she reported turned out not to be true, however I don't think she was 'lying.'
I've noted there's a number of people angered by the way she reported this story; indeed once when reading an comparison of what she wrote about Amanda's diary and what the diary actually said, my fist clenched reflexively. There's a number of instances in her Newsweek accounts where the information presented appears grossly distorted compared to subsequent accounts which I place greater confidence in. However, I think reading her experience there is valuable to understanding what occurred.
At the risk of a gargoyle pouncing upon me, I will attempt an anecdote. I once read a book by a fellow by the name of Shirer who was relating an epic sequences of events. Unfortunately I lent my copy out thus must rely on imperfect memory, but the gist of what I remember will hopefully illustrate my point. He was reporting from a country in great turmoil, and one day there was a fire to a historic building that shocked that nation and precipitated even greater havoc. There was a man leading a relatively new political movement who seized upon this event and demanded he be handed absolute power to resolve the crisis. The legislative body of that country acceded, the last meaningful vote it would ever make.
That of course has nothing to do with Barbara or what she was reporting on in Perugia, what does is his account of those events at the time and upon reflection. He notes in his book that during those tumultuous events there was something in the air, a zeitgeist if you will, and he looks back at what he wrote then with shame, but with some fascination. He was not the only one, a whole host of reporters from various different countries and differing philosophies reported this event positively, when very few had any sympathy for the man taking power, and especially for the politics he espoused.
However the atmosphere at the time was so chaotic, and the mood of everyone he spoke to from the clerks at the stores to the waiters in restaurants so desperate, that he and many others who otherwise would react with horror to that possibility believed that the only thing to be done was to allow that man who wanted power to have it and sort things out. They surrendered their judgment to an irrational fantasy that they wouldn't have, had it not seemed everyone around them agreed.
I suspect something similar happened in Perugia, not of course on anything approaching the significance, but to the people and especially the media there. The initial information was so damning, and so salacious, that the people reporting upon it created a monster in their minds: 'Foxy Knoxy'--the Sex Monster of Seattle. The tale grew in the telling of it; when Nadeau and others were deciding what they should report they outdid themselves in looking for more and more outrageous possibilities. In Barbara's case to the point she would scan a diary 'sure' it was nothing but self-serving lies in search of anything that could possibly be an indication of even more extravagant behavior. Everything they were hearing was bad, so anything could be true.
Thus I don't think if one questions what Nadeau wrote for Newsweek they must think she was 'lying.' I suspect instead her account is valuable not for the dubious information she related on some subjects unquestioningly, but as witness to an unusual media feeding frenzy in which the suspension of disbelief eroded to the point of absurdity.
You on the other hand are free to believe it all if you like, I have just found so much of it not true I have been thinking about just what might have produced such an environment where so much distorted information was reported and it finally came spewing out.
Last edited:
Chris_Halkides
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 12,573
no more excuses
treehorn,
I quoted Daniel's witness statement in Italian and in a rough translation on November 13th. It flatly contradicts one of your contentions. I think if you cannot master the advanced search function here, then you are not in a position to advance the conversation intelligently. Here are the message and page numbers of some of my previous comments directed toward you. Now you have even less of an excuse than you did before to fail to answer these questions and to admit that you were wrong.
18587, page 465
16723, page 419
14896, page 373
14885, page 373
14765, page 370
14742, page 369
treehorn,
I quoted Daniel's witness statement in Italian and in a rough translation on November 13th. It flatly contradicts one of your contentions. I think if you cannot master the advanced search function here, then you are not in a position to advance the conversation intelligently. Here are the message and page numbers of some of my previous comments directed toward you. Now you have even less of an excuse than you did before to fail to answer these questions and to admit that you were wrong.
18587, page 465
16723, page 419
14896, page 373
14885, page 373
14765, page 370
14742, page 369
Last edited by a moderator:
Katody Matrass
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,119
Very true, shuttlt, if we had strong evidence of the crime then it would support the assumption that break-in was staged, despite lack of direct evidence. But what I observe is the other way round. The staging is assumed on questionable grounds and used to support the rest of the shaky evidence. But it won't work that way. If we were to use the staging as evidence of crime we must place the staging itself under a very heavy burden of proof.
Katody Matrass
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,119
Great sacrifice it is that you demand from me.
It would be also a step in good direction if you revealed your sources of the claim that the shutters were open.
From the rest of your post I presume you depleted your arguments regarding your point 1.
- Status