Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[smkovalinksy]

When I look at this picture, I could just as soon add the caption: "Holy crap! You people really are crazy, aren't you?" (looking at Mignini, Comodi, Maresca, et al).

She likely was thinking along those lines. Or, "Why did this happen to me, and what am I supposed to be learning from being scapegoated by lunatics?"

 

[Dougm]

But, if psychologists' opinions are what apparently impress some arguing innocence, consider this:
Renowned psychologist Dr. Coline Covington wrote the following about Amanda Knox:
“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."

My reaction is that says worlds more about Dr. Covington than it says about Amanda Knox. Any 6th grader can tell you that coming up with an analysis like that based on simply observing someone in a video is simply bizarre. He has no idea what he is talking about. (or is he a "her?")

 

[Bill Williams]

Interesting argument, Bill, but no I do not agree.

I also watched the return to Sea-Tac, Marriott managed and manipulated press conference.
As far as any statement analysis of that 'performance'.....
My only thoughts were that Patrick Lumumba was indeed correct when he said "Knox was the World's greatest actress. She has no soul".
Patrick, BTW, had many more opportunities to observe Knox in action, at work, and in Court, than all the posters above combined]/i]

But, if psychologists' opinions are what apparently impress some arguing innocence, consider this:
Renowned psychologist Dr. Coline Covington wrote the following about Amanda Knox:
“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."

With all due respect, my response is not meant for you, but for anyone reading your reflection and granting it any serious integrity......

That is exactly what I mean by "reading in" presumptions into one's analysis. I at least admitted that I was probably doing that, too.

But for venturing into territory that trained theologians would tread ever so lightly, "she has no soul," especially based on that press conference, exposes the absolute worst of what's been done to AK in the media.

It has created people who would dare even claim the ability to discern the contents of a soul from a media presentation! I have the feeling you're going to back-up saying something like, "It's just a turn of phrase," and I, for one, will appreciate the backing up.

My hope is that Pilot Padron's comments are spread far and wide as an example of what's known as eisegesis. The worst kind.

I also thought that Lumumba was an aspiring entrepreneur, who himself got caught up in a whirlwind not of his making. I am not aware of his theological credentials to make such a statement.

Sheesh. I hope this is repeated far and wide for all to see.

 

[Kaosium]

Yes. Said perfectly; you have captured their mindset.

Of course here she is , as the journalist terms it, "shooting the photographer a sullen look" - as well she should. A killer walking free must needs look very sullen:

[qimg]http://www.radaronline.com/sites/radaronline.com/files/photos/image_20111114/FNP_EW_0251094.jpg[/qimg]

If Amanda were to set up a farm for homeless bunnies, that being a precarious profession rife with the risk of becoming roadkill or a test subject for haircare products, it would be decided it was more proof of her perfidious nature and involvement in the murder. The pychobabble experts would intone that it just displayed her craving for power over helpless creatures, like she once wielded mercilessly over Meredith, and her need to 'imprison' something as an act of vengeance against a world that 'turned against her.' That she might be saving them from becoming bedroom footwear and keychain accessories would just be a 'cover' to hide disturbing impulses from manifesting again.

 

[Dougm]

Interesting argument, Bill, but no I do not agree.

I also watched the return to Sea-Tac, Marriott managed and manipulated press conference.
As far as any statement analysis of that 'performance'.....
My only thoughts were that Patrick Lumumba was indeed correct when he said "Knox was the World's greatest actress. She has no soul".
Patrick, BTW, had many more opportunities to observe Knox in action, at work, and in Court, than all the posters above combined]/i]

I continue to be amazed that there are a set of people (dwindling in number) who think that although Knox is evil incarnate for what she said about Lumumba, he is allowed to say whatever slanderous things he wants about her, repeatedly. He is charging her with a murder that she did not commit, sound familiar?

 

[smkovalinksy]

If Amanda were to set up a farm for homeless bunnies, that being a precarious profession rife with the risk of becoming roadkill or a test subject for haircare products, it would be decided it was more proof of her perfidious nature and involvement in the murder. The pychobabble experts would intone that it just displayed her craving for power over helpless creatures, like she once wielded mercilessly over Meredith, and her need to 'imprison' something as an act of vengeance against a world that 'turned against her.' That she might be saving them from becoming bedroom footwear and keychain accessories would just be a 'cover' to hide disturbing impulses from manifesting again.

Exactly. She can't win. I guess she is just going to have to shut the mob out, and focus on those who support her, and those who know her.

 

[Dougm]

If Amanda were to set up a farm for homeless bunnies, that being a precarious profession rife with the risk of becoming roadkill or a test subject for haircare products, it would be decided it was more proof of her perfidious nature and involvement in the murder. The pychobabble experts would intone that it just displayed her craving for power over helpless creatures, like she once wielded mercilessly over Meredith, and her need to 'imprison' something as an act of vengeance against a world that 'turned against her.' That she might be saving them from becoming bedroom footwear and keychain accessories would just be a 'cover' to hide disturbing impulses from manifesting again.

But Kaosium, I thought you had an issue with "bunnies"!

 

[Bill Williams]

But, if psychologists' opinions are what apparently impress some arguing innocence, consider this:
Renowned psychologist Dr. Coline Covington wrote the following about Amanda Knox:
“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."

Please note, that Dr. Covington's comments could be true - but what has that got to do with a lack of evidence that either AK or RS did the crime? They could be the reincarnation of Eichmann, RS could be Martin Bormann.... but what's that got to do with it?

Covington is, at best, commenting on AK's behaviour at trial. It is not a comment on any pre-existing behaviour that would make her a suspect in a murder. Strangely, Rudy Guede exhibits ALL the preexisting behaviour for such a deed. And Rudy works alone!

This is the worst of guilter logic. I, for one, hope it gets repeated for all to see. It is stunning in its ignorance - and I mean 'ignorance' in the most precise meaning of the term.

You decide.

 

[js202]

Interesting argument, Bill, but no I do not agree.

I also watched the return to Sea-Tac, Marriott managed and manipulated press conference.
As far as any statement analysis of that 'performance'.....
My only thoughts were that Patrick Lumumba was indeed correct when he said "Knox was the World's greatest actress. She has no soul".
Patrick, BTW, had many more opportunities to observe Knox in action, at work, and in Court, than all the posters above combined]/i]

But, if psychologists' opinions are what apparently impress some arguing innocence, consider this:
Renowned psychologist Dr. Coline Covington wrote the following about Amanda Knox:
“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."

Utterly preposterous. By whom, exactly, is this Covington renowned? Presumably by readers of English tabloids who would take a piece with a title like "Does Julian Assange suffer from being a mama's boy?" as a serious work of clinical psychology? You have bought a bill of goods from grandstanding imbeciles.

Anyone who could watch Amanda Knox's heartfelt address to the group at Seattle Airport and not come away moved is so tone deaf as to be only marginally human. Needless to say, any such person's gut is so completely unreliable that it would amply explain their decision to side with the hateful loons on PMF and TJMK.

 

[Bill Williams]

ETA:
Please address all outcries of dissent and the inevitable endless, mindless atta boys about the dissent, directly either to Mr Lumumba and/or Dr Covington.
Messengers who happen to bring what you prefer not to hear should not be shot. (again)

We are not shooting at you. If you think so, obviously you have never actually been shot at for expressing a minority point of view.

We are arguing with you. You. Actually, not with you or your soul, but with passing on and giving creedence to incredibly ignorant remarks by a Perugian bartender and someone else who hopefully earned a Dr. because of a Ph.D. and not from an online academy.

The content of what someone named Pilot Padron posted to a website somewhere (just where IS this website anyway?) is foolish, uninformed, appealing to two authorities who - I don't think it's a stretch to say - are not authorities at all.

It was you who appealed to authority to justify remarks about another person being soulless.

Geez, I though I was going to get it by calling AK's Sea-Tac speech annoying. I should at least thank you for taking the heat off of me!

 

[Dougm]

Please note, that Dr. Covington's comments could be true - but what has that got to do with a lack of evidence that either AK or RS did the crime? They could be the reincarnation of Eichmann, RS could be Martin Bormann.... but what's that got to do with it?

Covington is, at best, commenting on AK's behaviour at trial. It is not a comment on any pre-existing behaviour that would make her a suspect in a murder. Strangely, Rudy Guede exhibits ALL the preexisting behaviour for such a deed. And Rudy works alone!

This is the worst of guilter logic. I, for one, hope it gets repeated for all to see. It is stunning in its ignorance - and I mean 'ignorance' in the most precise meaning of the term.

You decide.

Bill --

This is the kind of stuff the entire case against Amanda and Raffaele was based on. And there are still a few out there who actually think this kind of thing makes sense.

Fortunately, now that the acquittal has happened, there is less and less opportunity for this kind of stuff to be taken seriously. Let's hope it stays that way.

 

[Fine]

At the risk of passing on gossip, there was a report on another website that some pro-guilters are trying to interfere in AK re-enrolling at UWash. Does anyone have a citation for this?

_____________________

Bill,

It's my understand that Amanda has always been an enrolled student at the University of Washington since 2005. While in prison during some calendar quarters, she was an active student, taking classes. During other calendar quarters, she was an on-leave student, taking no classes. So no "re-enrolling" is required. If she wants to take classes for the upcoming winter quarter she chooses those classes on line, pays the required tuition, and shows up. There is no mechanism for someone "interfering" with her doing that.

///

 

[Bill Williams]

_____________________

Bill,

It's my understand that Amanda has always been an enrolled student at the University of Washington since 2005. While in prison during some calendar quarters, she was an active student, taking classes. During other calendar quarters, she was an on-leave student, taking no classes. So no "re-enrolling" is required. If she wants to take classes for the upcoming winter quarter she chooses those classes on line, pays the required tuition, and shows up. There is no mechanism for someone "interfering" with her doing that.

///

Thanks.

 

[js202]

We are not shooting at you. If you think so, obviously you have never actually been shot at for expressing a minority point of view.

We are arguing with you. You. Actually, not with you or your soul, but with passing on and giving creedence to incredibly ignorant remarks by a Perugian bartender and someone else who hopefully earned a Dr. because of a Ph.D. and not from an online academy.

The content of what someone named Pilot Padron posted to a website somewhere (just where IS this website anyway?) is foolish, uninformed, appealing to two authorities who - I don't think it's a stretch to say - are not authorities at all.

It was you who appealed to authority to justify remarks about another person being soulless.

Geez, I though I was going to get it by calling AK's Sea-Tac speech annoying. I should at least thank you for taking the heat off of me!

I have no problem with "shooting" at individuals gullible -- or disingenuous -- enough to submit a piece of hackery as a serious psychological assessment. From what I can gather, this Covington is an unabashed pop psychologist -- not so different from Dr. Phil, but with a soupcon of English snark -- and never asked anyone to reference her as any kind of authority on the Knox affair.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I will try and stop looking over at pmf. I wish the Supreme Court ruling would hurry and come, as they will uphold Hellmann's wise verdict. And there will be nowhere for such as these to go....Nowhere:

Mercury2113 wrote:
Only out for 2 months after spending 4 years in prison and the first thing the little angel does it hook up with a guy and move in with him---yep nothing wrong with her. This is what happens when sociopaths go unchecked...not in therapy---has to get out of restraint from parents grip to start-up the fantasy life again. I hope to f'kin god that appeal gets overturned and she ends up right back where she belongs before she does anymore damage to innocent people... the same goes for RS, who I believe is even sicker than her. At least her mask is a bit more refined than his.

The Machine wrote:

I think the judges at the Italian Supreme Court will overturn Judge Hellman's insane verdict. I was shocked when I heard that Judge Hellman and Judge Zanetti have very little experience of criminal trials. It's even more concerning that Carla Vecchiotti was hired to review such an important case when you consider her poor academic background and some of her terrible mistakes in other high-profile cases. When you read the court transcripts of the exchanges between Vecchiotti and Comodi, you realise just biased she was. She seems to have a huge chip on her shoulder.

I'm not sure Amanda Knox's mask is particularly refined. Her bizarre behaviour in the days following Meredith's murder indicates that the mask sometimes slips and reveals just how disturbed she actually is.

 

[Kaosium]

But Kaosium, I thought you had an issue with "bunnies"!

I like bunnies! I have at least a family of them living in the backyard now, I don't hit them with the lawnmower, they're kinda cute, especially when the neighbor's cat chases them around the yard.

However, you reminded me of something, we know all about bunnies! That wouldn't be forgotten either. If Peter Hyatt finds sex in the shower stall, think what he'd find on a rabbit farm!

No, it doesn't matter if all those homeless bunnies die horribly, Amanda must leave them to their wretched fate, as trying to help them would just 'reveal' so much about her.

 

[Bill Thompson]

We believe what we want, but didn't some scientist prove that Knox could not be guilty because the lack of DNA evidence at the crime scene?

 

[Bill Williams]

We believe what we want, but didn't some scientist prove that Knox could not be guilty because the lack of DNA evidence at the crime scene?

Bill - yup.

Bill

 

[Bill Williams]

What drew me to this case

At least this poster is AWARE of her biases and names them up front. She actually says that aside from what her brain was telling her - ie. that a massive PR campaign had been instrumental in absolving AK - it was what her emotions told her. She KNOWS Ak is guilty. Strangely, she does not mention this emotional conclusion in relation to RS or RG. However, there is an honesty here, an inquiry into why ant of us come to the conclusions we come to.

Oh that all of us would ask that question..... innocenters, too!

I'm an inveterate writer, having written on various chat forums for the last twelve years or so. Most of my writing there was political and concerned with social justice as opposed to my main interest of spiritual writing. Finally, after three years and 20,000 comments on Huffington Post I got tired of endless debate that seemed like a substitute for action. I'd returned from a trip to Bulgaria and decided to quit. I wrote a blog, Bye Bye Huffington Post, and then, got sucked into the Murder of Meredith Kercher.

What I noticed was that there were two, well defined camps of opinion. One side, that Rudy Guede, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were all guilty of the crime of murder, and the other, that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had been railroaded by a crazy prosecutor and the crime had been committed by one person, Rudy Guede.

Now, I'm a long time reader of crime fiction, starting with the Ellery Queen mysteries (that pegs me as quite old) From the legal perspective, I read Perry Mason novels before there was TV. Movies, and I loved Hitchcock. I was 7 years old when I watched "Rear Window". Chills, man.

What drew me to this case was the debate on Huffington Post. People seemed so sure of their views. This was when Amanda Knox had been found guilty. It seemed like her supporters were deranged. Calls to invade Italy, that she was 'not the type to commit murder', attacks on the victim's family, oh dear.

First, I wanted to know which side I chose. I hope you'll also share what convinced you. For me, it was very simple. She'd accused an innocent man. Her story kept changing. Her boyfriend refused to corroborate her alibi. There was a clearly staged break in; a window no self respecting burglar would have climbed through. Her blood mixed with Meredith's, Raffaele's DNA on Meredith's bra, his bloody footprint on the bathmat, Amanda's DNA on the knife, witnesses who placed them at the scene, cell phone and computer activity, and. most tellingly of all, her strange behaviour before and after the crime was discovered convinced me the two were also guilty. Rudy Guede, their accomplice, first denied their involvement, then when he lost his appeal and no longer had anything to gain by lying, named them as the killers.

In contrast, the mental gymnastics of her defenders to try and refute every point really mirrored that of Amanda's: the excuses a child makes to avoid punishment. The fingerprints of a PR agency determined effort to absolve her of guilt. The antics of her and Raffaele's parents, who seemed to be in denial. The abusing of a whole country, Italy. American hypermedia using the same florid style they use to sell wars.

But that was what my brain told me. The emotions were deeper. I knew she was guilty. And unlike most people nowdays, I trust my gut even more than my brain. I almost always go with my first impression, which serves me well. I still examine that impression for mistakes, but confess, this case got me from the beginning.

Meredith Kercher was a Capricorn, like me. But then, so was Rudy Guede. Rafaele Sollecito was an Aries, and, Amanda Knox was a Cancer, with the same birthday as OJ Simpson, July 09. The similarities between that case and this was interesting. The day of the murder, November 01, 2007, had many astrological significators which showed the power to capture the public imagination. My blog articles, What Might Have Been, The Criminal Mind, and The Psycho-Astrological Perspective on the Relationship of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were a reflection of my own perspective.

On a deeper, more visceral level, Meredith Kercher looked like my daughter. I could identify what the Kerchers must be going through. That was not what convinced me though. I read the reasoning of the Massei court's guilty verdict. The Micheli court had already made that very clear, and the Supreme Court ruling on Rudy Guede also filled out the gaps in the story. I did not want to rely only on emotion, but, wanted an intellectual reasoning behind that. Yet, ironically, it was my feeling, once again, that convinced me the appeals court would acquit the two defendants. I didn't want to say that too openly, though, but there really were too many signs to indicate there was a political element to the whole trial, and wrongful influence of the verdict at the Hellmann court.

What keeps us coming back to this story? I think it is because the story has not ended. Like all good stories, we want to know how it turns out. There is an old Italy which allowed the two accused to walk free. Now that a new Italy is here with a change of government, hopefully justice will be done.

I know I will be here till the final ruling comes down, to see how the story ends.

Naseer Ahmad

 

[Dougm]

What drew me to this case

At least this poster is AWARE of her biases and names them up front. She actually says that aside from what her brain was telling her - ie. that a massive PR campaign had been instrumental in absolving AK - it was what her emotions told her. She KNOWS Ak is guilty. Strangely, she does not mention this emotional conclusion in relation to RS or RG. However, there is an honesty here, an inquiry into why ant of us come to the conclusions we come to.

Oh that all of us would ask that question..... innocenters, too!

There is an honesty here, but so what? This is also someone who said they read the Massei report and found it to make sense. Because their "gut" told them AK was guilty.

I hope to never be judged on such a basis. Speaking for myself, I read the Massei report, at a time when I expected to find some evidence that they were guilty, and there was nothing.