Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was thinking of articles like this one?

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php...psychology_in_the_perugia_case_could_this_be/

And similar arguments have just been made by Professor David Wilson
However Professor David Wilson, a criminologist at the University of Central England who has studied her prison diaries, is convinced of Knox’s guilt. “This is a woman clearly involved with an older, more experienced boyfriend who introduced her to a lifestyle that allowed her to bend the rules of morality that had guided her in the US,” he says. “She was rather like a gap-year Rose West. I believe she was naive and got caught up in a very different world, which she embraced enthusiastically.”
 
LondonJohn said:
"

Let's start by noting what I wrote in my post. This is what I wrote:
Click to expand...

Yes, lets start by noting what I wrote in my post.

"Wasn't she labelled as a borderline psychopath because of her behaviour?"

to which you answered

"No. She wasn't. Not by anyone qualified to make such a diagnosis."

The truthful answer would have been,

"Yes. She was. But not by anyone qualified to make such a diagnosis."

So, as you were....:D
 
Lothian said:
Guilty although I consider in context it is obvious which means which. Innocent, I am using the term innocent for not committing the crime not guilty for the legal decision.

I said "The fact is innocent (meaning innocent) people sometimes are found guilty (meaning legally) and guilty (meaning factually) people are sometimes found not guilty (meaning legally)."

Which is what you say here
I am not in knots. I have been talking all the time about factual innocence. I have only just joined the thread. I am not reading it all. My starting point was:


The points I made, after my witty and cool opening are.

You can not know for sure Amanda is innocent
Courts get it wrong both ways.

Seems to me you have now come around and agree with me. Or perhaps you have always agreed with me but made a false assumption that somewhere in my posts above I made a suggestion she was guilty.
Click to expand...


Try as I might, I don't understand the first part of your post at all. But I get the second part. I've already said that only Knox and Sollecito themselves (and probably Guede, oh and God too if he existed (but he doesn't)) know whether or not they truly are factually innocent. But I then said that that's not the point.

Only very rarely do courts "incorrectly" (to use your word) find people not guilty (with OJ Simpson being one exception that proves the rule). Courts almost always find people not guilty if there is insufficient evidence to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes with which they are charged. And in such circumstances, then it's entirely correct for a court to reach a not guilty verdict, even if the person was factually culpable of the crime.. This is the entire meaning of the term "Innocent until proven guilty".

If there's insufficient evidence to find Knox/Sollecito guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then law and morality both insist that we view them as innocent. Even if one or both of them actually was culpable of participation in the murder (a fact known only to them and possibly Guede and not God). If there's insufficient evidence to prove that they participated, then in the eyes of law and morality it's irrelevant whether they were totally factually innocent of the crimes, or whether they were in fact culpable, but they did not leave enough evidence to find them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The law and morality cannot - and does not - distinguish between these two ends of the "not guilty" spectrum. Not guilty = presumed innocent. End of story.

What is it that you don't understand about that?
 
Skwinty said:
I was thinking of articles like this one?

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php...psychology_in_the_perugia_case_could_this_be/

And similar arguments have just been made by Professor David Wilson
However Professor David Wilson, a criminologist at the University of Central England who has studied her prison diaries, is convinced of Knox’s guilt. “This is a woman clearly involved with an older, more experienced boyfriend who introduced her to a lifestyle that allowed her to bend the rules of morality that had guided her in the US,” he says. “She was rather like a gap-year Rose West. I believe she was naive and got caught up in a very different world, which she embraced enthusiastically.”
Click to expand...

It's funny you should quote this. Raffaele was not more experienced. In fact, according to Nina Burleigh's book, he was a virgin when he met her. Moreover, Miss Represented isn't a practicing psychologist. She is a social media analyst.
 
Last edited:
Skwinty said:
Yes, lets start by noting what I wrote in my post.

"Wasn't she labelled as a borderline psychopath because of her behaviour?"

to which you answerted

"No. She wasn't. Not by anyone qualified to make such a diagnosis."

The truthful answer would have been,

"Yes. She was. But not by anyone qualified to make such a diagnosis."

So, as you were....:D
Click to expand...


So if a bloke I met down the pub had said to me over a pint: "Oh, that Amanda Knox, yeah I've read about her. She's a bloody psychopath, isn't she?", I'd have grounds to claim that Knox had been labelled a psychopath, would I?

You really should think things through a bit more before posting. The ability of someone to give a properly-qualified opinion is paramount in such an instance. And in this instance, The First Post's "resident psychoanalyst" is barely more qualified to give a proper opinion on Knox's mental health than a man down the pub, and therefore her opinion is pretty much as irrelevant to the debate as that of the man down the pub.
 
LondonJohn said:
So if a bloke I met down the pub had said to me over a pint: "Oh, that Amanda Knox, yeah I've read about her. She's a bloody psychopath, isn't she?", I'd have grounds to claim that Knox had been labelled a psychopath, would I?.
Click to expand...

Only if he published that opinion through the media to millions of people.

Would that not satisify your definition of labelled?
 
HumanityBlues said:
It's funny you should quote this. Raffaele was not more experienced. In fact, according to Nina Burleigh's book, he was a virgin when he met her. Moreover, Miss Represented isn't a practicing psychologist. She is a social media analyst.
Click to expand...


Professor David Wilson has become a psyschoanalyst/criminal profiler for hire here in the UK over the past few years. He is rather fond of appearing on television programmes, giving his "considered professional opinion" on pretty much every crime put in front of him that's happened over the past century. Once again, he's making remote judgements without having any first-hand access to the individuals, and seemingly with very limited background knowledge of the crimes themselves. I wouldn't accord his "professional" opinion very much weight at all, for those reasons.
 
Liszt of errors

Skwinty said:
I was thinking of articles like this one?

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php...psychology_in_the_perugia_case_could_this_be/

And similar arguments have just been made by Professor David Wilson
However Professor David Wilson, a criminologist at the University of Central England who has studied her prison diaries, is convinced of Knox’s guilt. “This is a woman clearly involved with an older, more experienced boyfriend who introduced her to a lifestyle that allowed her to bend the rules of morality that had guided her in the US,” he says. “She was rather like a gap-year Rose West. I believe she was naive and got caught up in a very different world, which she embraced enthusiastically.”
Click to expand...
Skwinty,

There are a number of factual errors in this article as well. They met at a classical music concert a few days before Halloween. If the program included "Danse Macabre" and the "Mephisto Waltz," maybe that inspired a Satanic orgy. Maybe not, though.
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
Skwinty,

There are a number of factual errors in this article as well. They met at a classical music concert a few days before Halloween. If the program included "Dance Macabre" and the "Mephisto Waltz," maybe that inspired a Satanic orgy. Maybe not, though.
Click to expand...

Your Honour,
I used those articles as evidence of Knox being labelled as a psychopath, not in testimony to her committing a murder. :)
 
Skwinty said:
Only if he published that opinion through the media to millions of people.

Would that not satisify your definition of labelled?
Click to expand...


The bloke in the pub "labelled" Knox a psychopath to me as well. Why does it matter where this opinion was published? Or how many people might have read/heard that opinion? You have a funny definition of what constitutes "qualified to make such a diagnosis".

In the UK, Jan Moir, a columnist for the Daily Mail, wrote a column shortly after the gay Boyzone singer Stephen Gately was found dead in his Majorca apartment. In it, she blamed his death on his "homosexual lifestyle", calling the circumstances of the death "sleazy" and suggesting that there was a cover-up to conceal what had really gone on in that apartment (including, in her opinion, a gay three-way and multiple drug abuse). Her column was written and published in a major UK national newspaper, and was read by millions. That didn't stop it from being completely, outrageously offensive and incorrect though. So quite why you think that just because someone has published an article (whether in an online journal or in a major printed (and online) national newspaper) this somehow lends a magical "validity" to their writings, I'm at a loss to understand.
 
Rosemary West?

Skwinty said:
Your Honour,
I used those articles as evidence of Knox being labelled as a psychopath, not in testimony to her committing a murder. :)
Click to expand...
Skwinty,

The tidbit about their meeting at a classical music concert was in response to Professor Wilson who wrote, "This is a woman clearly involved with an older, more experienced boyfriend who introduced her to a lifestyle that allowed her to bend the rules of morality that had guided her in the US,” His comparison to serial killer Rosemary West is utter rubbish. Raffaele smoked marijuana, but so did all four of the girls who were the tenants of the cottage.
EDT
I would also like to know whether Professor Wilson read her diaries or the double-translated, inaccurate diaries that appeared in the press early on.
 
Last edited:
halides1 said:
Skwinty,

The tidbit about their meeting at a classical music concert was in response to Professor Wilson who wrote, "This is a woman clearly involved with an older, more experienced boyfriend who introduced her to a lifestyle that allowed her to bend the rules of morality that had guided her in the US,” His comparison to serial killer Rosemary West is utter rubbish. Raffaele smoked marijuana, but so did all four of the girls who were the tenants of the cottage.
EDT
I would also like to know whether Professor Wilson read her diaries or the double-translated, inaccurate diaries that appeared in the press early on.
Click to expand...


Having seen and read Professor David Wilson in action, and observed his ability to appear to opine at an in-depth psychoanalytical level on literally dozens of crimes with which he's had absolutely zero personal involvement, I wouldn't say he has much professional credibility in the area of sound-bite media analysis whatsoever.

Judging by his published "views" on Knox and Sollecito, it looks like his "professional research" on this case may well have consisted of a morning's internet browsing followed by a half-hour delve into the bag of psychoanalytical media-friendly buzz-words for his "opinion".
 
LondonJohn said:
Try as I might, I don't understand the first part of your post at all. But I get the second part. I've already said that only Knox and Sollecito themselves (and probably Guede, oh and God too if he existed (but he doesn't)) know whether or not they truly are factually innocent. But I then said that that's not the point.

Only very rarely do courts "incorrectly" (to use your word) find people not guilty (with OJ Simpson being one exception that proves the rule). Courts almost always find people not guilty if there is insufficient evidence to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes with which they are charged. And in such circumstances, then it's entirely correct for a court to reach a not guilty verdict, even if the person was factually culpable of the crime.. This is the entire meaning of the term "Innocent until proven guilty".

If there's insufficient evidence to find Knox/Sollecito guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then law and morality both insist that we view them as innocent. Even if one or both of them actually was culpable of participation in the murder (a fact known only to them and possibly Guede and not God). If there's insufficient evidence to prove that they participated, then in the eyes of law and morality it's irrelevant whether they were totally factually innocent of the crimes, or whether they were in fact culpable, but they did not leave enough evidence to find them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The law and morality cannot - and does not - distinguish between these two ends of the "not guilty" spectrum. Not guilty = presumed innocent. End of story.

What is it that you don't understand about that?
Click to expand...
It is not me that has the comprehension issues.

The first part of my post is not saying anything different to the second.

The points I have made are

  • You don't know for certain that Amanda Knox did not kill Meredeth Kercher.
  • Some people are found guilty of crimes they did not commit.
  • Some people commit crimes yet are found not guilty.

These seem to me to be very uncontroversial points.

It certainly looks like you do not disagree with any of them although you struggle to say so directly and instead have been focusing on a presumption of innocence. A totally irrelevant point to the ones I made.

The attitude here is very disappointing. When you aggressively attack people you agree with and accuse them of being trolls it is no wonder that those who you disagree with lose patience and leave.
 
Amanda was labelled a psychopath. Big deal. She was labelled "luciferina", she-devil, whore, "sex-killer", diabolic, manipulative etc.
When she's exonerated (which is quite certain) I think her lawyers are going to have their hands full, dealing with the nutjobs persecuting her online and with the media that were spreading lies.
 
Rolfe said:
Point of information. My medical expertise may be in the field of pretty much every mammal on the planet bar one, as opposed to being confined to just the one mammal. However I do have higher postgraduate degrees including a PhD.

And I am regularly called on by the courts to give forensic medical evidence in criminal prosecutions, and that includes evidence as to time of death.

Just to keep the record semi-straight.

Funny, you know. When I was ignoring these threads, one or two of the guilters PMed me and asked me to contribute, because of my expertise, and the respect in which I am apparently held in the forum. Now that I am contributing, somehow "veterinarian" has become a term of insult.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...




I grew up on a farm. We always held the opinion that the veterinarian had to be smarter than a MD. The vets patients refused to describe their symptoms and so the vet had to have a more robust knowledge to treat their patients.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom