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

[Machiavelli]

I get if you are guilty you avoid all places you can be photographed,especially court rooms full of people you slandered

You perfeclty know you are taking advantage from violating the rules, I cannot answer you from within the jref forum rules.

 

[RandyN]

I don't know what to make of Nencini's statement. As a judge he undoubtedly would want Knox to be in court. He may be expressing his criticism of her, or he may be doing something else. He may be demonstrating his firmness to his judiciary overseerers to show that he is not weak on Knox - and may give real consideration to what she wrote. I just don't know which.

Don't forget that he may just be marking time in this sham called a trial in Italy. My bet is that this judge will follow the orders given to it by the whack jobs on the ISC.

I would love to hear a follow up from Hellmann about the motivation report of the ISC to overturn his courts decision. I suppose he must live in Italy and therefore fears for his life...so that seems unlikely to ever happen.

All this out in the open...imagine what goes on behind the closed doors...and no one checking or balancing anything....unless one considers the toothless ECOHR as something that can drive change. I find that dubious.

 

[acbytesla]

You need to be innocent in order to be "without fear".

Yes I acknowledge it's a rethorical answer. But I really think Knox can't be "without fear" ever, even when she is in the US.
The only way to live without fear is to confess.

That is silly Mach. Being innocent has nothing to do with fear of incarceration. Amanda should have nothing to fear. But given the haters and guilters out there, and the crazy Italians, she still has a good reason to fear.

The day the scummy Italians stop their absurd persecution and the day people like Yummi, Harry Rag, Peter Quennell, and BR Mull give up their threats veiled and otherwise...she will be able to set the fear aside.

 

[Bill Williams]

Maybe you misunderstood: there are people who perceive what Knox says as infuriating and gets under their skin.
But to me, no, she does not infuriate me. No no, I don't feel any anger. Nothing personal. I am just extremely negatively impressed. I just can't believe a word she says. And I can't believe my eyes when I see her nodding while sayin no, failing to answer questions, sighing and swallowing inconsistently, smirking before talking: she really is incongruent, she is lying about everything and she offer a load of red flags to anyone. In other words, she such a bad actress far more than I expected. And she comes across as a more severe narcissist than I thought.

Machiavelli - apply all of this reasoning of yours, and transplant it to you walking into an interrogation room on the late evening of Nov 4, 2007 - where Ficarra is telling you, "She knows something she's not telling us."

Just as you would not believe her at trial because she's a bad actress.... why would you believe a word she said about the cottage, Lumuba, or anything - esp. the stuff she may or may not have said after a few slaps to the head - you would not have believed the scenario..... UNLESS it was the scenario that Ficarra and Mignini were trying to get her to confess to; as someone else said, "She buckled and told us what we already knew...."

Based on what you, yourself, assessed at trial when she testified, you simply would NOT have sent cops to go arrest Lumumba for all the reasons you state above.

.... and two weeks later Rudy Guede would have been spotted in Germany and the crime would have been solved.

You have a right to have your opinions about how you react to Knox... who in your own words is such a bad actress you wouldn't believe a word she said.

Why then do you think she's such a great actress to pull off Lumumba's arrest? An obvious false arrest?

Do you ever connect dots?

 

[andreajo]

But I know many girls. Even known few North American ones. Actually, young women from North America they don't make that negative impression to me.
Actually, I recall only one woman from North America who made a comparable negative impression on me, and even more to a number of people who were working with me; maybe it's irony but that woman was a Canadian (no offence; I had a Canadian neighbour who was a very nice young guy).
I recall that woman, a narcissist, a sociopath, really an extremely negative charachter.
Acutally that woman, despite she was beautiful, I found her physically repulsive, on chemical grounds: I could not stand her odour. There was something wrong. An immediate alarm bell. The first negative message was physical, from molecules.

I obviously happened to know some other more ore less sick or disturbing individuale, probably most individuals I felt as disturbed tend to be men but I can think about several even if we speak about women. And anyway, "disturbs" are not the same, personalities are obviously very different from each other. I mean know superficially; mostly don't happen to know that kind of disturbed women closely, they are not part of my everyday life, but anyway I observe people a lot, and I happen to know a lot about several let's say "psychiatric" life situations.

She obviously pushes your buttons. However, keep in mind that you don't really know her. I am not saying that you would ever like her even if you did know her, because I am pretty sure you wouldn't.

Just remember that people who do know her do not see her as sick or psychopathic or violent or dishonest. Her BFF describes her as dorky, not narcissistic. Take that into account when you paint your mental picture. They are better judges than you in this situation, because they know her and you don't.

 

[Machiavelli]

Have you ever allowed yourself to think about the possibility of her or Raff being innocent? I think most, not all, but most people who steadfastly believe in their innocence have at some point considered the possibility they had some part in the crime. I am wondering if you have ever thought through the possibility they are not guilty.

At the beginning, when I didn't know much about the case.
Only a rather small doubt, yet reasonable.
It didn't last for long.

When I read carefully Knox's e-mail, her memoriale, her 05.45 statement against Lumumba, and then after I heared her court testimony, to begin with, just by that evidence I had already no doubt she was a manipulative liar.
The degree of her involvement in the murder, her precise role, this was something I didn't know.
But then looking at the autopsy report, I knew.

 

[Bill Williams]

But I know many girls. Even known few North American ones. Actually, young women from North America they don't make that negative impression to me.
Actually, I recall only one woman from North America who made a comparable negative impression on me, and even more to a number of people who were working with me; maybe it's irony but that woman was a Canadian (no offence; I had a Canadian neighbour who was a very nice young guy).
I recall that woman, a narcissist, a sociopath, really an extremely negative charachter.
Acutally that woman, despite she was beautiful, I found her physically repulsive, on chemical grounds: I could not stand her odour. There was something wrong. An immediate alarm bell. The first negative message was physical, from molecules.

I obviously happened to know some other more ore less sick or disturbing individuale, probably most individuals I felt as disturbed tend to be men but I can think about several even if we speak about women. And anyway, "disturbs" are not the same, personalities are obviously very different from each other. I mean know superficially; mostly don't happen to know that kind of disturbed women closely, they are not part of my everyday life, but anyway I observe people a lot, and I happen to know a lot about several let's say "psychiatric" life situations.

Are you all right?

 

[billyryan]

Have you ever allowed yourself to think about the possibility of her or Raff being innocent? I think most, not all, but most people who steadfastly believe in their innocence have at some point considered the possibility they had some part in the crime. I am wondering if you have ever thought through the possibility they are not guilty.

Mach knows full well that they are innocent,why else would he become so frightened of the click of a camera phone

 

[Machiavelli]

That is silly Mach. Being innocent has nothing to do with fear of incarceration. Amanda should have nothing to fear. But given the haters and guilters out there, and the crazy Italians, she still has a good reason to fear.

The day the scummy Italians stop their absurd persecution and the day people like Yummi, Harry Rag, Peter Quennell, and BR Mull give up their threats veiled and otherwise...she will be able to set the fear aside.

I'm not saying being innocent is sufficient for being without fear.
But it is one necessary thing.

 

[andreajo]

I'm not saying being innocent is sufficient for being without fear.
But it is one necessary thing.

Is low affect or lack of fear a characteristic of anti-social personality disorder (formerly known as psychopath/sociopath)?

 

[Strozzi]

really an extremely negative charachter.
Acutally that woman, despite she was beautiful, I found her physically repulsive, on chemical grounds: I could not stand her odour. There was something wrong. An immediate alarm bell. The first negative message was physical, from molecules.

Machiavelli, the woman's unpleaseant odour that you smelled "from molecules" is her DNA! How did you become contaminated by her DNA if you did not have physical contact with her?

Guede was an avid basketball player and dancer. Did Guede go home and shower each time after he played basketball or danced vigorously? Wouldn't he also give off an unpleasant odor after vigorous physical activity? Were others repulsed by his odor (molecules)? Why do you think any woman would be attracted to a guy who stank?

 

[billyryan]

Are you all right?

No he is not alright,would you be after a savage attack by a madman with a camera phone,to make matters worse when he got home he found the unscrupulous PR machine had stolen his pictures of Hellmann and Vecchiotti being bought off

 

[acbytesla]

The Supreme Court has sent down instructions on how to rule. Every claim of the prosecution must be sustained, and every problem raised by the defense must be dismissed.

Someone is quite pessimistic Charlie. Maybe Nencini will have a mind of his own.

I'm really curious how judges are promoted in Italy. In the US, it matters little in the careers of lower court judges if their rulings are overturned since the Executive branch appoints judges. State and county judges are also appointed or elected.

If it doesn't matter in Nencini's career, I can imagine him doing exactly whatever he wants.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...)
Please remember that the essence of your argument about the interrogation, was that Knox could "choose not to sleep," and therefore was fresh and ready to pull the wool over the eyes of seasoned investigators.....
(...)

What a BS. There was just my rebuttal of your unfounded assertion that Knox wass suffering of a sleep deprivation syndrome (and by the way, my rebuttal also never contained the concepts of "fresh" or "ready").

The "essence" of my argument about the intrrogation and statements instead is completely different, actually is the hand written notes, the Dec 17. interrogation, the series of Knox's statements and claims, the testimony of Donnino, etc.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

At the beginning, when I didn't know much about the case.
Only a rather small doubt, yet reasonable.
It didn't last for long.

When I read carefully Knox's e-mail, her memoriale, her 05.45 statement against Lumumba, and then after I heared her court testimony, to begin with, just by that evidence I had already no doubt she was a manipulative liar.
The degree of her involvement in the murder, her precise role, this was something I didn't know.
But then looking at the autopsy report, I knew.

But aren't defendants in Italy afforded the presumption of innocence?

So you've never looked at the evidence from an innocent perspective? That seems incredibly unfair. What if it were you accused of something you didn't do and Italians viewed all of your trial evidence through a thick lens of guilt?

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Maybe you misunderstood: there are people who perceive what Knox says as infuriating and gets under their skin.
But to me, no, she does not infuriate me. No no, I don't feel any anger. Nothing personal. I am just extremely negatively impressed. I just can't believe a word she says. And I can't believe my eyes when I see her nodding while sayin no, failing to answer questions, sighing and swallowing inconsistently, smirking before talking: she really is incongruent, she is lying about everything and she offer a load of red flags to anyone. In other words, she such a bad actress far more than I expected. And she comes across as a more severe narcissist than I thought.

I must say that at the beginning of this case, back in 2008 and 2009, I had a very negative human perception from Sollecito, far more than Knox. I couldn't stand him talking. I found his whiny expressions oily, omertose, offensive and outraging. But Raffaele Sollecito, he maybe somehow improved a little. I still think he is lying, logically, but I don't have the same negative feeling from his voice as years ago. He still obviously refuses questioning and says things which are objectionable like playing the ethnicity card, saying he didn't notice blood on the bathmat etc., but these things are only logical things meaning he is forced to lie, it's not about human perception of his charachter.

Knox, let's say she surprised me later. Both her personality disturb and her lying are so massively obvious.



I repeat it's nothing personal. My perception about her communication & interviews is just extremely negative. It would be negative even if I saw her for the first time without knowing who she is.

I'm not saying that this has an implication in terms of hatred or sympathy. I'm saying that the fact that she lies is just so absolutely obvious. And the fact that she is, well sick person, that she has problems such as her lack of empathy, a personality suffering, is also equally obvious.

Sure, nothing personal, because she is a complete stranger to you, and you are anonymous. You can attack without fear of retaliation. Nobody can scrutinize your correspondence, your personal diaries, or your relationships with other people, because nobody knows who you are. And if anyone draws character inferences from your sleazy commentary, you can whine to the mods.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

At the beginning, when I didn't know much about the case.
Only a rather small doubt, yet reasonable.
It didn't last for long.

When I read carefully Knox's e-mail, her memoriale, her 05.45 statement against Lumumba, and then after I heared her court testimony, to begin with, just by that evidence I had already no doubt she was a manipulative liar.
The degree of her involvement in the murder, her precise role, this was something I didn't know.
But then looking at the autopsy report, I knew.

Interesting. What did the autopsy report tell you about Amanda's role in the murder?

 

[Machiavelli]

Is low affect or lack of fear a characteristic of anti-social personality disorder (formerly known as psychopath/sociopath)?

There is actually some difference between anti-social personality disorder, psychopathy and sociopthy; albeit these diagnosis happen to overlap widely in their use, they were devised from different contexts, and not always they are so clear. Psychopathy for example is not so clear, considered to mean an extreme picture of the narcissistic disorder spectrum - which is very wide and varied - but does not have a precise boundary. Sociopathy seems rather precise in the North American authors that write about it but maybe limited, is not yet integrated in the DSM by APA, and not used in Europe. Anti social personality disorder is a bit too limited, more specific of repeated offenders (as for APA diagnosys at least).

Actually, a diminished capability to experience physical fear is only acknowledged to be typical of schyzoid disorder. This is what is agreed upon in literature. But it speaks only about physical fear.
There isn't a specific indicator that binds lack of fear to a specific disease. Normally narcissism implies ability to experience in some degree a feeling of omnipotence and thus psychopaty, being an extremely severe picture of narcissistic disorder, might be put in relation with episodes of abnormal ability to resist fear of physical/ non-physical threats or lack of fear about consequences. But this is a bit academic. The link is theoretical, and it means we would be talking about extreme pictures.

 

[Bill Williams]

(...)
Please remember that the essence of your argument about the interrogation, was that Knox could "choose not to sleep," and therefore was fresh and ready to pull the wool over the eyes of seasoned investigators.....
(...)

What a BS. There was just my rebuttal of your unfounded assertion that Knox wass suffering of a sleep deprivation syndrome (and by the way, my rebuttal also never contained the concepts of "fresh" or "ready").
The "essence" of my argument about the intrrogation and statements instead is completely different, actually is the hand written notes, the Dec 17. interrogation, the series of Knox's statements and claims, the testimony of Donnino, etc.

What then was your point in asserting that Knox could "choose not to sleep", if not to make the point that she was rested enough to pull the wool over seasoned investigators?

But you have also avoided the more immediate question.

At one point you have Knox as a poor actress, and at another she is such an actress that she can fool investigators?

How could someone do that if this is the description of her: "But to me, no, she does not infuriate me. No no, I don't feel any anger. Nothing personal. I am just extremely negatively impressed. I just can't believe a word she says. And I can't believe my eyes when I see her nodding while sayin no, failing to answer questions, sighing and swallowing inconsistently, smirking before talking: she really is incongruent, she is lying about everything and she offer a load of red flags to anyone. In other words, she such a bad actress far more than I expected. And she comes across as a more severe narcissist than I thought."

Or are we going to have another one of those dietrological conversations where you deny you said this?

 

[andreajo]

There is actually some difference between anti-social personality disorder, psychopathy and sociopthy; albeit these diagnosis happen to overlap widely in their use, they were devised from different contexts, and not always they are so clear. Psychopathy for example is not so clear, considered to mean an extreme picture of the narcissistic disorder spectrum - which is very wide and varied - but does not have a precise boundary. Sociopathy seems rather precise in the North American authors that write about it but maybe limited, is not yet integrated in the DSM by APA, and not used in Europe. Anti social personality disorder is a bit too limited, more specific of repeated offenders (as for APA diagnosys at least).

Actually, a diminished capability to experience physical fear is only acknowledged to be typical of schyzoid disorder. This is what is agreed upon in literature. But it speaks only about physical fear.
There isn't a specific indicator that binds lack of fear to a specific disease. Normally narcissism implies ability to experience in some degree a feeling of omnipotence and thus psychopaty, being an extremely severe picture of narcissistic disorder, might be put in relation with episodes of abnormal ability to resist fear of physical threats or lack of fear about consequences. But this is a bit academic. The link is theoretical, and it means we would be talking about extreme pictures.

But lack of fear might not be limited to innocents?