Continuation Part Six: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[LondonJohn]

We'll be visiting you in Capanne. I promise!

Don't worry - I'll be in there too remember! Charlie and I can keep each other occupied playing scrabble and writing proto-revolutionary street poetry

 

[yimyammer]

Machiavelli, I do wish you had a clearer sense of how horrifying this sort of thing sounds to educated observers of your country's legal processes from other liberal democracies. I'm from Australia, and while there are a few criminal defamation statutes on the books here, they are essentially dead letters. I don't think any convictions have been recorded since the 1980s. Mignini's penchant for instigating criminal libel actions against those who criticise him is fascistic in the truest sense of the word, and indicative of a profoundly diseased system - another example of which is the manner in which you personally squander your talents by zealously pursuing a cause whose flaws are obvious to any clear-headed rational thinker.

I wish there was a "like" button for posts but since there's not let me say I really like this post.

So if I call someone an ******* in Italy, am I at risk of being thrown in jail?

Edited by Myriad: 

Edited for Rule 10. Do not alter the spelling or word spacing of profanities to evade the auto-censor.

 

[MDDVS]

I wish there was a "like" button for posts but since there's not let me say I really like this post.

So if I call someone an ******* in Italy, am I at risk of being thrown in jail?

See here:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/02/italy-outlaws-no-balls-phrase

 

[Bill Williams]

Holy cow. It appears that one of the more prominent pro-guilt commentators (the messianic one who flew to Italy for the SC ruling) actually telephoned a US local TV news reporter (based in St Louis) at her place of work to challenge her on her views on the Kercher case (it appears that she tweeted something related to Knox at some point, triggering a pile-on by pro-guilt commentators).

We really are living in a strange and troubled world now, if this sort of thing is going on. And I don't think it's too much to suggest that if this type of contact (telephoning people at their place of work) has provably taken place in this instance, it has almost certainly taken place in other instances too.

In my opinion, this sort of activity oversteps the line by some considerable margin. It deserves to be pointed out as one of the more unpleasant and unbalanced activities linked to the citizen-commentator debate about this case. I am at least confident that the relevant authorities are keeping a low-level watching brief on certain individuals.

I'm confused? Why didn't he just appear in a vision in the middle of the night?

God is an AT&T customer?

 

[yimyammer]

See here:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/02/italy-outlaws-no-balls-phrase

wow, I can't believe they let cases like that clog the system.

 

[Myriad]

I wish there was a "like" button for posts but since there's not let me say I really like this post.

So if I call someone an ******* in Italy, am I at risk of being thrown in jail?

Well, probably not, since "*******" is a squishy subjective assessment. However, if you say to your cab driver "I think you're lost," you're impugning his professional competence and he'll drive you straight to prison.

And you don't even want to know what they'll do to you if you complain about a fly in your soup in a restaurant.

 

[snook1]

Don't worry - I'll be in there too remember! Charlie and I can keep each other occupied playing scrabble and writing proto-revolutionary street poetry

Well, I think Macchiavelli will try to put you in solitary confinement first, as you are a criminal. You might call it insane but that's the law in Italy. Ask Amanda Knox. Or better, ask convicted seismologists. Crazy!

 

[acbytesla]

wow, I can't believe they let cases like that clog the system.

UNBELIEVABLE!!!!

Every country has morons, but most don't let them become judges......... But it seems as if it is a prerequisite if you want to become an Italian Supreme Court Justice.

No wonder I was wrong about how their Supreme Court would rule early this year. I really expected them to have brains. Thank God I don't live in Italy, this phrase would get me thrown in jail!!! No wonder Machiavelli is so screwed up.

 

[Grinder]

It is not confirmation bias to reject an incredibly silly argument.

It is not silly to imagine that if Amanda really was out of her mind with anger believing that Meredith had stolen her job, that she would grab the knife and head to the cottage. However, you can't do that because you are incapable of separating your thinking from what you "know" to be true. That's confirmation bias just as it is for the PGP as pointed out here repetitively.

Can you say that there is no way that anybody would ever grab a large knife and go somewhere to even a score? Remember this person is out of their mind with anger and isn't acting with any rationality. Once the act is done the best approach would be to clean the knife and keep it.

Btw, what is your source for the bleach being unopened?

Present a reasonable sane idea than I would say hmmmm, maybe.
I have no problem being wrong. Give me something that makes SOME SENSE. Because this doesn't. I'd have a hard time believing this knife was used if it was covered in Meredith's blood. (I would however have to concede that it was if that was the case) It's a cooking knife, not a murder weapon

Look I'm not a crime tourist but I'll bet someone here could provide a list of knife crimes committed with non "murder weapons" such as steak knives. Are knives labeled "cooking" and "murder"?

There really is no reason at all for Amanda and Raffaele to have transported that knife. NONE. If it had been Halloween, instead of November 1, then I could see them carrying such a knife as part of a costume. But it wasn't.

Anger to the point of tunnel vision, completely irrational but that doesn't fit your confirmation bias. You just can't get beyond they are innocent and good kids with no psychopathy for the crime. At least you are trying by admitting if the knife had visible blood of Meredith on it you wouldn't believe it was used in the murder.

I at one time thought that there might be a reason to consider this knife if Amanda had planned to kill Meredith. But given the cottage is filled with similar knives, therefore this doesn't really make much sense either.

You just can't get that for Amanda to have done this it would require her to be irrational and angry beyond your ability to imagine.

Why would three people, Amanda, Raffaele...both of whom have plenty of money conspire with Rudy to steal just $300??? Split 3 ways, that is a $100 ea. Amanda probably makes that in tips on a Saturday night. And does Meredith have drugs?? Even if Amanda had some deep crazy unknown hatred for Meredith..which there is no evidence she did, do you really think she could enlist two virtual strangers to help her commit a homicide?

Perfect. Even while trying to focus for just a few minutes on the question of the knife, you can't resist bringing in your blatant confirmation bias. The points above are straw men in terms of the question about whether an insane person (in this case temporary) would/could take the knife from the flat.

The problem with all respect, is that you are bending over backwards to entertain an idea that doesn't have even a moment's logic associated with it.

Once again, I'm sure in the annals of crime, the taking of this knife to the cottage wouldn't make any list of wacky criminal behavior.

 

[Grinder]

Um, if we're in an alternate universe, then anything at all could be true, because the rules of that universe wouldn't be known.

Why must anyone imagine a dozen things that make no sense in the actual universe just to see how another crazy thing could fit perfectly into the fantasy? I don't follow.

The analysis of whether or not it is feasible that a murderer would have moved the knife must be taken without bringing in what "we know" to be true. That's what is known as confirmation bias.

Is it out of the question that anyone would ever take a knife from their home to go kill someone? Obviously the answer is no as it has happened many a time. That's in this universe.

I do not believe that the knife was used in the murder. I certainly don't believe the knife was the killing weapon. I doubt that the weapon was even at the cottage, but not because it is impossible to believe that anyone would ever do that it, as you put it in this universe, or cosmos or galaxy.

As my complement LJ recently wrote, bad reporting or analysis (I may be embellishing a bit, be gentle) in the kids' favor is not helpful.

To ascribe rational behavior to people that would need to be out-of-their-minds to do what they did is beyond stupid. Insane itself.

 

[Skind]

All of which is moot and academic if there's no evidence that Knox was ever prone to being temporarily insane, or angry beyong imagination.

There simply isn't the evidence to support the contention that she had any psychological vulnerabilities that would enable such a scenario to be possible, much less probable.

Taking the knife to the house would not be wacky criminal behaviour, but it would be wacky Knox behaviour.

 

[Bill Williams]

The analysis of whether or not it is feasible that a murderer would have moved the knife must be taken without bringing in what "we know" to be true. That's what is known as confirmation bias.

Is it out of the question that anyone would ever take a knife from their home to go kill someone? Obviously the answer is no as it has happened many a time. That's in this universe.

I do not believe that the knife was used in the murder. I certainly don't believe the knife was the killing weapon. I doubt that the weapon was even at the cottage, but not because it is impossible to believe that anyone would ever do that it, as you put it in this universe, or cosmos or galaxy.

As my complement LJ recently wrote, bad reporting or analysis (I may be embellishing a bit, be gentle) in the kids' favor is not helpful.

To ascribe rational behavior to people that would need to be out-of-their-minds to do what they did is beyond stupid. Insane itself.

With all due respect, read John Douglas.

 

[acbytesla]

It is not silly to imagine that if Amanda really was out of her mind with anger believing that Meredith had stolen her job, that she would grab the knife and head to the cottage. However, you can't do that because you are incapable of separating your thinking from what you "know" to be true. That's confirmation bias just as it is for the PGP as pointed out here repetitively.

Can you say that there is no way that anybody would ever grab a large knife and go somewhere to even a score? Remember this person is out of their mind with anger and isn't acting with any rationality. Once the act is done the best approach would be to clean the knife and keep it.

Btw, what is your source for the bleach being unopened?


Look I'm not a crime tourist but I'll bet someone here could provide a list of knife crimes committed with non "murder weapons" such as steak knives. Are knives labeled "cooking" and "murder"?

Anger to the point of tunnel vision, completely irrational but that doesn't fit your confirmation bias. You just can't get beyond they are innocent and good kids with no psychopathy for the crime. At least you are trying by admitting if the knife had visible blood of Meredith on it you wouldn't believe it was used in the murder.

You just can't get that for Amanda to have done this it would require her to be irrational and angry beyond your ability to imagine.

Perfect. Even while trying to focus for just a few minutes on the question of the knife, you can't resist bringing in your blatant confirmation bias. The points above are straw men in terms of the question about whether an insane person (in this case temporary) would/could take the knife from the flat.

Once again, I'm sure in the annals of crime, the taking of this knife to the cottage wouldn't make any list of wacky criminal behavior.

Respectfully Grinder, this is all fine and dandy with a clearly crazy person acting alone in a rage. In fact, we have seen the kind of crime you are speaking about. Rare, but among the mentally ill, it happens. It also might be possible with the Manson family. But beyond that, it DOESN'T come close to being remotely possible.

Step away from that this scenario would be totally out of character to everything we know and see from Amanda Knox. This would have HAD to be conspiracy among not two people, but three people, all of whom would have to have more than a few screws loose. And they barely know each other!!!

So NO, I still think it is WAY, WAY, WAY outside the realm of possibility.

Amanda is not grabbing Raffaele's COOKING KNIFE, joining up with Rudy Guede, and the three of them cutting up Meredith, then one of them cooly leaves the scene to go dancing at a disco while the other two hang around to clean up the murder scene carefully eliminating the evidence of themselves..but leaving Rudy's and then returning to Raffaele's and putting the knife back into the kitchen drawer (without cleaning it) and then the next morning casually returning to the scene of the crime to discover the body!
IMPOSSIBLE, I say. TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE!!!

 

[Grinder]

I default to people like John Douglas. Douglas learned through interviewing the perps themselves that it is useless to speculate all the possibilities that exist out there.

So he backs my point, great.

As it says in the Wiki article on "Offender profiling", Douglas made a career out of taking a shortcut to limit who police might want to look for... creating these limits or "typologies" from what the offenders themselves told him at interview after they'd been caught.

Has nothing to do with the knife being moved. Back to the kids are innocent so... Confirmation bias in spades. Douglas says it could have been the kids; therefore, it couldn't be the knife not the other way round.

Let me repeat that, the kids are innocent; therefore, the knife couldn't have been moved from the flat. Not the other way around.

Now if you're going to go for all the ifs, ands, and buts you could be correct - indeed anything, actually, IS possible.....

Sophistry.

But Douglas looks at this and (although he doesn't specifically make mention of this one item) the thought that ANY perp would participate with others and then have BOTH agree to take the knife with them - particularly after doing a world-class clean-up to mask things at the scene - is taking credulity to the stratosphere.

Your scenario has them thinking about television programs, and seeking a remedy of cleaning and returning the knife. Whereas you will take me to task for assuming the probable - that they'd toss it in the nearest river, or heave it as far as they could into the forest right by the cottage.....

Worked pretty well with the phones didn't it? What river? You just have a very hard time actual imagining what it would be like to have a murder weapon late a night with everyone watching. Perhaps, they should have assumed that the PLE couldn't find their own asses in their own pants but just throwing things away doesn't work. Phones!

.... I would similarly take you to task for showing how this sort of cleaning and returning of a murder weapon (that they'd continue to cook with) is anything resembling the "typology" of known offenders.[/quotes]

Oopsie! Confirmation bias raises its ugly head again.

I have no idea what Rudy did with the real murder weapon.... in fact, the typology of heading to Germany and the weapon being never seen again IS the typical behaviour.... ask Steve Moore. Read John Douglas's Law and Disorder.

Typology, new favorite? What was that murder of the next door neighbor in England where the one neighbor was originally suspected even though he didn't run. Silly. Silly. Many murderers stay put.

John Douglas also says something else. He says that this tragic murder was a career case for most, if not all, in the PLE. To Douglas, though, this was simply another day at the office because he worked in the USA.

Guilters vilify Steve Moore.... good for them. I've never really seen a guilter lay into John Douglas. I wonder why?

Face it - ANY perp returning a murder weapon in this horrible saga back to normal use is beyond absurd.

Actually the PGP have laid into Douglas stating that profiling has been shown to be inaccurate. Face it, you have no idea how crazy people that kill in this way would behave. Putting it back makes the most sense as LJ has confirmed cleaning it would be fast and easy. I think full strength bleach would be necessary to damage the DNA beyond recognition, but other than that we agree that it would be easy.

We know of only two items that were tossed that night but they were found before midnight.

Three-two-one Cody - who made the crank call?

 

[Grinder]

All of which is moot and academic if there's no evidence that Knox was ever prone to being temporarily insane, or angry beyong imagination.

There simply isn't the evidence to support the contention that she had any psychological vulnerabilities that would enable such a scenario to be possible, much less probable.

Taking the knife to the house would not be wacky criminal behaviour, but it would be wacky Knox behaviour.

The question is narrow. Is it beyond credulity that anyone would carry the knife from the flat, use it, clean it and put it back in the drawer? That was the original contention. The answer is no.

It has nothing to do with Amanda's history.

Have any of you heard of the term temporary insanity?

temporary insanity n. in a criminal prosecution, a defense by the accused that he/she was briefly insane at the time the crime was committed and therefore was incapable of knowing the nature of his/her alleged criminal act.

 

[Skind]

The question is narrow. Is it beyond credulity that anyone would carry the knife from the flat, use it, clean it and put it back in the drawer? That was the original contention. The answer is no.

It has nothing to do with Amanda's history.

You've answered the original contention. Well done you.

We are now talking about whether it's a valid contention in regards to Knox. Please keep up.

Have any of you heard of the term temporary insanity?

temporary insanity n. in a criminal prosecution, a defense by the accused that he/she was briefly insane at the time the crime was committed and therefore was incapable of knowing the nature of his/her alleged criminal act.

Yes, I've heard of temporary insanity. People prone to temporary insanity are also prone to other psychological vulnerabilites. Those that aren't have typically been victims of involuntary illict drug taking.

My most recent case (last week) had both schizophrenia and absence epilepsy. The previous case (the week before) had non-combat PTSD. The previous case (start of october) had partial seizures. That's fairly typical of the people that attend for assessment.

I'm struggling to think of a (legitimate non-bull) case without evidence of psychological or organic dysfunction.

 

[Bill Williams]

So he backs my point, great.



Has nothing to do with the knife being moved. Back to the kids are innocent so... Confirmation bias in spades. Douglas says it could have been the kids; therefore, it couldn't be the knife not the other way round.

Let me repeat that, the kids are innocent; therefore, the knife couldn't have been moved from the flat. Not the other way around.



Sophistry.



Worked pretty well with the phones didn't it? What river? You just have a very hard time actual imagining what it would be like to have a murder weapon late a night with everyone watching. Perhaps, they should have assumed that the PLE couldn't find their own asses in their own pants but just throwing things away doesn't work. Phones!

.... I would similarly take you to task for showing how this sort of cleaning and returning of a murder weapon (that they'd continue to cook with) is anything resembling the "typology" of known offenders.[/quotes]

Oopsie! Confirmation bias raises its ugly head again.



Typology, new favorite? What was that murder of the next door neighbor in England where the one neighbor was originally suspected even though he didn't run. Silly. Silly. Many murderers stay put.




Actually the PGP have laid into Douglas stating that profiling has been shown to be inaccurate. Face it, you have no idea how crazy people that kill in this way would behave. Putting it back makes the most sense as LJ has confirmed cleaning it would be fast and easy. I think full strength bleach would be necessary to damage the DNA beyond recognition, but other than that we agree that it would be easy.

We know of only two items that were tossed that night but they were found before midnight.

Three-two-one Cody - who made the crank call?

Grinder, do yourself a favour. Read Douglas. Learn what "typology" means instead of using it as an excuse for an ad hominem against me.

This is a well trod field, none of us are going to reinvent it on JREF with our back and forths here.

You're trying too hard to be the smartest person here, all the while admitting you don't read others who know the lay of the land.

Read Douglas. THEN try to put the transport and return of the knife into the proper context of what actually happens. Put it in situ......

 

[Grinder]

Respectfully Grinder, this is all fine and dandy with a clearly crazy person acting alone in a rage. In fact, we have seen the kind of crime you are speaking about. Rare, but among the mentally ill, it happens. It also might be possible with the Manson family. But beyond that, it DOESN'T come close to being remotely possible.

You really think it rare on that level for someone to grab a weapon and go get someone?

Step away from that this scenario would be totally out of character to everything we know and see from Amanda Knox. This would have HAD to be conspiracy among not two people, but three people, all of whom would have to have more than a few screws loose. And they barely know each other!!!

Confirmation bias. Is it impossible or nearly impossible that someone would take a knife from their home to another home for the purposes of committing murder? No.

So NO, I still think it is WAY, WAY, WAY outside the realm of possibility.

Nope. You just can't get outside of your bias.

Amanda is not grabbing Raffaele's COOKING KNIFE, joining up with Rudy Guede, and the three of them cutting up Meredith, then one of them cooly leaves the scene to go dancing at a disco while the other two hang around to clean up the murder scene carefully eliminating the evidence of themselves..but leaving Rudy's and then returning to Raffaele's and putting the knife back into the kitchen drawer (without cleaning it) and then the next morning casually returning to the scene of the crime to discover the body!
IMPOSSIBLE, I say. TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE!!!

Well you are just wrong. Take the names out because you have a big case of bias. The knife would have been cleaned before putting it in the drawer. After a good washing and maybe a wipe down with bleach it was then left in a dish tub soaking.

You can shout that TMB proves that it wasn't blood and you are wrong.

You can yell that it is impossible that anyone would take a knife and return it and you would be wrong again.

 

[Bill Williams]

You really think it rare on that level for someone to grab a weapon and go get someone?



Confirmation bias. Is it impossible or nearly impossible that someone would take a knife from their home to another home for the purposes of committing murder? No.



Nope. You just can't get outside of your bias.



Well you are just wrong. Take the names out because you have a big case of bias. The knife would have been cleaned before putting it in the drawer. After a good washing and maybe a wipe down with bleach it was then left in a dish tub soaking.

You can shout that TMB proves that it wasn't blood and you are wrong.

You can yell that it is impossible that anyone would take a knife and return it and you would be wrong again.

Gird your loins, Grinder - I'm about to use another big word which will not impress you.

Methodology.

There, I said. Aren't you impressed?

Learn Douglas's methodology then get back to the forum. Your use of the term "confirmation bias" is wrong.

Just saying..... here's a hint - Douglas's contribution to this field was the shift in thinking from what is possible and impossible to what actually happens. He's been a tad successful with this... and you will perhaps pull up another PGP quote to shoot him down.

Good for you.

 

[Grinder]

You've answered the original contention. Well done you.

We are now talking about whether it's a valid contention in regards to Knox. Please keep up.

No you may wish to shift the goal posts but the original point remains. I have during this back and forth said many times that I don't believe the knife wasw involved but not because it is impossible to believe someone would take the knife and return it.

Yes, I've heard of temporary insanity. People prone to temporary insanity are also prone to other psychological vulnerabilites. Those that aren't have typically been victims of involuntary illict drug taking.

A psychotic break occurs when a person experiences an episode of acute primary psychosis - generally for the first time,[1] though it may also be after a significant symptom-free period.
Some have suggested that (however disconcerting) such a break may be a form of psychological communication, opening the way for a less ego-bound and more emotionally grounded sense of personality

My most recent case (last week) had both schizophrenia and absence epilepsy. The previous case (the week before) had non-combat PTSD. The previous case (start of october) had partial seizures. That's fairly typical of the people that attend for assessment.

Ever dealt with a full blown psychotic break and a serious crime? Truly curious not challenging.

I'm struggling to think of a (legitimate non-bull) case without evidence of psychological or organic dysfunction.

I appreciate the effort, once again sincerely.

If the question is, do I think that they carried the knife to the cottage my answer remains no. If the question is, is it possible to believe someone would take a knife, kill and return it to the drawer I'd say absolutely.