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

[Machiavelli]

Mach I think this is what Bill refers to:

This Court considers that both the defendants should be granted generic mitigating circumstances equivalent to the above-mentioned special aggravating circumstance. (...)

In fact, he quotes the mitigating circumstance as "proof" that Massei "debunked" an alleged (actually non-existing) theory (or evidence) about "psychopatology".
Bill's is an absurd statement, for whoever has a basic knowledge of law, maybe for just those who can read.

The generic mitigating circumstance cannot be granted based on any reference to psychopatology, nor based on the absence of psychopatology.
To say the generic mitigating circumstance is a fact finding about psychopatology, is pure nonsense.

To describe Massei's word as a finding about psychopatology, is pure nonsense.

 

[Bill Williams]

Raffaele getting it done... in Italy.

"I had no reason to hurt Mez."

http://tg24.sky.it/tg24/cronaca/2014/02/15/raffaele_sollecito_omicidio_meredith_ospite_l_incontro_intervista_emilio_carelli.html

The young man, who was sentenced to 25 years for the murder of Meredith Kercher, is host of the meeting , the new program led by Emilio Carelli. "I am innocent. There is no light on my future, but I do not accept to give up because of a theorem "

 

[Bill Williams]

In fact, he quotes the mitigating circumstance as "proof" that Massei "debunked" an alleged (actually non-existing) theory (or evidence) about "psychopatology".
Bill's is an absurd statement, for whoever has a basic knowledge of law, maybe for just those who can read.
The generic mitigating circumstance cannot be granted based on any reference to psychopatology, nor based on the absence of psychopatology.
To say the generic mitigating circumstance is a fact finding about psychopatology, is pure nonsense.

To describe Massei's word as a finding about psychopatology, is pure nonsense.

Machiavelli - if you are sincere in saying this - and I believe you are not sincere - you would be arguing against all the people on the three hate sites who bring up the most bizarre, vile accusations with this as its underpinning.

Yet you do not.

 

[Bill Williams]

From an article asking: why do internet trolls annoy you?

Though not just sadists — researchers say online trolls also score above average in narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy.

Makes you want to laugh a little less about me, don't it!!!!

 

[Machiavelli]

(So what he posted above is irrelevant? Machiavelli: which other parts of Massei are irrelevant? His reasoning about the break-in?)​

(...)

Under the final, legal point of view, strictly talking, all parts of what Massei wrote are irrelevant, since he has been challenged by an appeal. Massei is an obsolete document, a "beta" version in legal terms.

Under a logical point of view, or under a legal point of view limited to the scope of the first instance trial, the parts that are irrelevant are those parts that are not fact fndings but are either a) speculation to fill the blanks, and b) decisions and assessments depending on the discretional power of judge.

Therefore 'motive' is an irrelevant topic for example, insofar as motive is not a piece of evidence itself but just a speculation or may just be omitted. The 'narative' or "explanation of the crime' part is irrelevant, since may be just a speculation or may be partly or fully omitted.

 

[Machiavelli]

Machiavelli - if you are sincere in saying this - and I believe you are not sincere - you would be arguing against all the people on the three hate sites who bring up the most bizarre, vile accusations with this as its underpinning.

(...)

I think this is bs. What 'vile accusation'? Those who thing about Knox of being a narcissistic charachter, or a psychopath? These are not vile accusations. Those are legitimate opinions and assessments about a person.

For example I do agree that Knox suffers of a Narcissistic Personality Disorder, while I may disagree with calling her psycopath (although, I'm not entirely sure). As long as it is just about name-calling, quick colloqual speaking, to say 'psycopath', as long as it is just talking that may be ok. But as for talking seriously and accurately about a medical condition, the term 'psycopath' may require some other kind of evidence.

However, those are opinions and subjective assessments people are free to do. I also think Berlusconi suffers of a NPD, I also think my uncles suffers of an NPD. A lot of people do. To think someone suffers of a clinical condtion is not a 'vila accusation'.

It's very different, however, if you assert that Massei said something.
That is not an assessment, that is a false reporting.

 

[Bill Williams]

Raffaele getting it done... in Italy.

"I had no reason to hurt Mez."

http://tg24.sky.it/tg24/cronaca/2014/02/15/raffaele_sollecito_omicidio_meredith_ospite_l_incontro_intervista_emilio_carelli.html

Q: Did you think of fleeing abroad?
A: Talked about it, but I'm Italian, don't want to leave, I'm frightened, courts are horrid, press is worse, it is all unfair.
Q: If the cassazione frees you will you go abroad?
A: No, why should I.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think this is bs. What 'vile accusation'? Those who thing about Knox of being a narcissistic charachter, or a psychopath? These are not vile accusations. Those are legitimate opinions and assessments about a person.

For example I do agree that Knox suffers of a Narcissistic Personality Disorder, while I may disagree with calling her psycopath (although, I'm not entirely sure). As long as it is just about name-calling, quick colloqual speaking, to say 'psycopath', as long as it is just talking that may be ok. But as for talking seriously and accurately about a medical condition, the term 'psycopath' may require some other kind of evidence.

However, those are opinions and subjective assessments people are free to do. I also think Berlusconi suffers of a NPD, I also think my uncles suffers of an NPD. A lot of people do. To think someone suffers of a clinical condtion is not a 'vila accusation'.

It's very different, however, if you assert that Massei said something.
That is not an assessment, that is a false reporting.

Machiavelli. I am getting rich off of you. I get a Euro from a donor every time you say something like this.

Please read the Massei quote again, the one cut and paste by Grinder, and offer an opinion as to whether or not Massei supports you in that assessment.

I get some PMs about this. It appears some people moderately agree with you, in the strictest and most literal sense.

However, please take a look at what you are conceding. You concede that many make these armchair psychological assessments. Massei had access to actual psychiatrists, one of whom was ordered (so they say) to see Knox following her 2009 conviction; because she restyled her hair! She was offered medication in prison.

You are conceding that there is an internet campaign to psychologize Amanda Knox, which I am saying is unfair and more a reflection on people like you than her.

In this context, in all Massei had access to, and all he heard in the courtroom about "Lucerfina" and he lurid tales of how she narcissistically had no concern for her friend, how she laughed at the wrong times and cried only to manipulate.......

Massei calls her normal, and the crime (for him) a one-off choice for evil with drugs at its core = NOT the result of psychopathology. Deal with it.

In short, Massei does not support your contention above. At all. You are engaging in lies when you say he's silent on the matter. You even admit that to use a term like "psychopath" requires some other kind of evidence, other than the urge to engage in character assassination on the internet.

Massei had access to that "other kind of evidence" and in my view, ruled on it by writing what he wrote. Deal with it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Under the final, legal point of view, strictly talking, all parts of what Massei wrote are irrelevant, since he has been challenged by an appeal. Massei is an obsolete document, a "beta" version in legal terms.

Under a logical point of view, or under a legal point of view limited to the scope of the first instance trial, the parts that are irrelevant are those parts that are not fact fndings but are either a) speculation to fill the blanks, and b) decisions and assessments depending on the discretional power of judge.

Therefore 'motive' is an irrelevant topic for example, insofar as motive is not a piece of evidence itself but just a speculation or may just be omitted. The 'narative' or "explanation of the crime' part is irrelevant, since may be just a speculation or may be partly or fully omitted.

Machiavelli. This, in internet terms, is called "a punt". It's a reference to American football. In relation to the point I raised, it is a complete non sequitor.

Sorry. I thought you were better than this.

 

[Bob001]

....
I look forward to some of your opinions after you watch or re-watch that video clip...
Is Amanda Knox guilty?
RW

The video is heartbreaking. Of course she's not guilty. We know that. The video leaves me wondering about some of the procedures. Where were her lawyers? We hear discussion in Italian off-camera. What was being debated, and by whom? What were her lawyers doing? How well does she understand Italian? She seemed to be responding to questions in Italian with a puppydog eagerness (a clue to me that she still doesn't understand how much trouble she's in). It might have been tactically smarter to wait for the translations, to emphasize that she was a stranger in a strange land. The translator was speaking over her answers, pretty much phrase by phrase. I would think it might have been hard for the judges/jurors to follow. Are there Italian-speakers who can comment on the quality of the translation?

What a grotesque travesty.

 

[Grinder]

Other than 'footpath' there is no word with 'path' in it that I understand. In an English court we would render the highlighted text from Massei by saying they were young people of previous good character, especially no history of violence, who acted without premeditation. Does Mach disagree with that?

I would say he agrees with you. The point lost between the two in this endless battle is the difference from a formal declaration and an implied position. I believe Mach points out that there was no testimony given on their psychological states and further that Mignini didn't formally argue they had a psychopathy. I add why would he? If they were mentally kill ,that would get them off.

Clearly Massei says that the kids seem pretty normal to him except for drug taking and killing Meredith. He angered the PGP by not declaring remediation which forced the absurd speculation that she carried the knife for protection.

The oft pointed out weakness of the motivations report is that it opens up the court to defending what by its very nature is speculation.

Perhaps you with your experience and training could determine why Bill thinks that pointing out where Massei disagrees with either Mignini or the PGP or both is worthy of discussing 5 years later. As Mach points out, the conviction by Massei no longer is valid as it was appealed and a new verdict by the appellate court has been rendered.

Hellmann said the Massei verdict was wrong. Had the ISC upheld Hellmann the Massei verdict would no longer be valid.

There may be aspects of Massei worth bringing up and certainly there is information about evidence and expert and non-expert testimony in his report but I see no value in most of this back and forth. Perhaps you can get to the bottom of it.

 

[Grinder]

Meanwhile Grinder and LJ think Knox style in court was the tipping point of this case... No, I know you dont think that but what the hey???

Address the illogical, stupid, crazy conclusions that Italy made and continues to make in this grossly wrongful prosecution please?

Randy though you have a tongue in cheek, I am addressing the second point with my suggestion that Amanda should be working on the docudrama of her case to counter what has transpired and is transpiring.

You have bashed her attorneys and I tend to agree for the most part. Today her advisers are failing her as much as her legal people did throughout.

 

[Grinder]

If it were true, yes, because she might otherwise be caught out by witnesses.

In fact there is a witness that says they were togethr several times but Rose says it is a bad translation. This is exactly the type of point, the bad translation, that could be exposed in the docudrama.

Your point is solid but I think Rudy could have dropped by a few times at the club and on the street without anybody noticing. He could have dropped by the cottage when only Amanda was there. Remember the FOA did start out by saying she didn't know him at all and they were called out.

 

[Bill Williams]

I would say he agrees with you. The point lost between the two in this endless battle is the difference from a formal declaration and an implied position. I believe Mach points out that there was no testimony given on their psychological states and further that Mignini didn't formally argue they had a psychopathy. I add why would he? If they were mentally kill ,that would get them off.

Clearly Massei says that the kids seem pretty normal to him except for drug taking and killing Meredith. He angered the PGP by not declaring remediation which forced the absurd speculation that she carried the knife for protection.

The oft pointed out weakness of the motivations report is that it opens up the court to defending what by its very nature is speculation.

Perhaps you with your experience and training could determine why Bill thinks that pointing out where Massei disagrees with either Mignini or the PGP or both is worthy of discussing 5 years later. As Mach points out, the conviction by Massei no longer is valid as it was appealed and a new verdict by the appellate court has been rendered.

Hellmann said the Massei verdict was wrong. Had the ISC upheld Hellmann the Massei verdict would no longer be valid.

There may be aspects of Massei worth bringing up and certainly there is information about evidence and expert and non-expert testimony in his report but I see no value in most of this back and forth. Perhaps you can get to the bottom of it.

I too see little value in this back and forth. The other ten or eleven things Massei found as factual carry osmotic weight, that's all.

The only import, really, for the back and forth is that there is no judicial backing to Machiavelli's armchair diagnoses. They just make them up to justify their confirmation bias.

Mach demonstrates this upthread. He thinks they are narcissists, just because.

And Massei WOULD have mentioned this if so. The kind of psychopathology claimed does not speak to diminished capacity. It would be a reason too convict.

The other thing is that Mach gives his best WTF posts in response to this. But the downside is that it gives him opportunity to ignore the other ten points.

 

[Desert Fox]

Clearly Massei says that the kids seem pretty normal to him except for drug taking and killing Meredith. He angered the PGP by not declaring remediation which forced the absurd speculation that she carried the knife for protection.

There is kind of a weird problem with this. . .
Assuming that they are both normal, they have normal level empathy.
In essence, it would not allow them to kill Meredeth.
It either has to be some kind of high level anger, some kind of dehumanizing of Meredeth, or some kind of mental issue.

Using the only sure example I know, I ran over a possum in my car accidentally. I know it bothered me for several days.
James Randi talks about getting out of his car to help get a turtle across the road.

 

[Bill Williams]

There is kind of a weird problem with this. . .
Assuming that they are both normal, they have normal level empathy.
In essence, it would not allow them to kill Meredeth.
It either has to be some kind of high level anger, some kind of dehumanizing of Meredeth, or some kind of mental issue.

Using the only sure example I know, I ran over a possum in my car accidentally. I know it bothered me for several days.
James Randi talks about getting out of his car to help get a turtle across the road.

Now you're talking.

This is exactly what Massei struggled with. He blamed the soft drugs for his theorizing - of how two normal kids could get caught in this absurd, "choice for evil."

Massei, no believer in even armchair psychologizing of this, even blames that they were young and far from normal referents.

In short, Massei's case against them does not hold osmosmotically.

There's no basis for Machiavelli's arm chair psychologizing. Just like his expert sleep analysis. Or tgat you can't steal from a dead person.

 

[Rolfe]

It's interesting what you say about translations. There is a similar (but opposite) problem in the Lockerbie case which I don't think anyone has spotted. The report on baggage transfers at Frankfurt airport is written in German. Originally I only had the German version, and noted a point which should have been crucial for the defence.

In den Ermittlungen konnten keine Hinweise auf den vorgenannten Flug gewonnen werden, so dass der Koffer mit ziemlicher Sicherheit nicht von LH1071 kam.

Then someone passed me the English translation the lawyers were working from.

The enquiries could not produce any reference to the aforementioned flight, so that the case almost certainly came from LH1071.

That actually doesn't make any sense. But it's a mistranslation. The translator has missed the "nicht". The report says that the suitcase (Koffer) almost certainly did not come from LH1071. That, in context, is a huge point for the defence. But it looks as if the lawyers just blanked the meaningless sentence and didn't check what had really been said.

Translation in the context of legal proceedings, whether dealing with a witness or accused person who doesn't speak the language of the court or with documents in a foreign language. It is a matter of great concern that this is something which is currently being privatised in England, with defendants complaining f translators provided on the cheap by private companies simply not being up to the job of conveying the meaning of the legalese.

Rolfe.

 

[Desert Fox]

Now you're talking.

This is exactly what Massei struggled with. He blamed the soft drugs for his theorizing - of how two normal kids could get caught in this absurd, "choice for evil."

Massei, no believer in even armchair psychologizing of this, even blames that they were young and far from normal referents.

In short, Massei's case against them does not hold osmosmotically.

There's no basis for Machiavelli's arm chair psychologizing. Just like his expert sleep analysis. Or tgat you can't steal from a dead person.

It is like suggesting they just went, "We are just going to go rape and murder my friend for the fun of it." Only thing I can do is scratch my head at just the idea of it.

Going to be fascinating whatever the newest motivation report is going to have in it. Pretty sure it will have no basis in reality.

Do have a smidgen of hope that the judge will throw up his hands and just say "This makes no sense, I give up. They are innocent."

 

[Strozzi]

Well it's perhaps slightly more complicated that that. It comes down to questions of sensitivity and specificity (as it does with Luminol and TMB....)

HIV tests are almost always a two-part test. The first test is almost always the ELISA test. This test is relatively cheap to administer, and gives quick results. And it has two important characteristics: high sensitivity and low specificity. This essentially means that if the person being tested does have HIV, this test will almost always come back positive (high sensitivity), but if the test comes back positive, it may be for reasons other than that the person being tested has HIV (low specificity).

In other words, a negative ELISA test means that the patient almost certainly is not HIV+. Therefore, if the ELISA test comes up negative, the person is told that they do not have HIV, and no further testing is necessary (apart from perhaps another test later in time, to allow for incubation periods). However, if the ELISA test comes back positive, then this means that the person might be HIV+.

It's at this point (positive ELISA test) that two things happen: firstly, the patient is usually told that they might be HIV+, but that there is a significant chance that the ELISA test is giving a false positive; and secondly, the second test - the Western Blot test - is performed. This test is the perfect complement to ELISA, as it has low sensitivity and high specificity (the opposite to ELISA).

What this means in practice is that if the person tests positive with ELISA and negative with Western Blot, they almost certainly are not HIV+. But if the person tests positive with both ELISA and Western Blot, then they almost certainly are HIV+. (And of course if they test negative with ELISA, they are almost certainly not HIV+, and no Western Blot test is performed).

So what does this all mean in relation to Knox? It means that she had the ELISA test performed on her blood first. Personally, I suspect that she did come back positive with ELISA (it's very possible that the fact that she carried herpes simplex (via a cold sore) might have produced a false positive). But Knox was in a low-risk group for HIV, and it's the low-risk groups that have the highest proportion of false positives.

Therefore, what Knox should have been told - if indeed the ELISA test came back positive, was that she'd tested positive with the first test but that there was a good possibility that it was a false positive, and that only the second test would truly tell whether she was indeed HIV+. In other words, she most definitely should not have been frightened or told in any way that she was HIV+.

If Knox's account is to be believed (and, given her known actions (diary entries etc), I'd say there's little reason to disbelieve her here), then it appears that the authorities might have acted way outside accepted protocols - and WHO guidelines - in how they dealt with a positive ELISA test in a low-risk-group individual. It appears that they put the fear of God into Knox by implying that she really was most likely HIV+, and it also appears that they may have used the situation as a device for getting Knox to divulge her sexual history. Personally (again), I wonder whether they hoped Knox was going to list Guede in her sexual partners.....?

LondonJohn and NancyN, I have followed your comments regarding the way the two HIV tests are to be given. I think the health personnel at Capanne Prison must have the proper procedures correct and don't make (with rare exception) order-of-test mistakes with it - otherwise they would often make false diagnoses and have a lot of problems dealing with prisoners whom they informed falsely were HIV positive.

Knox wrote in her book that the deputy warden of the prison who harassed Knox verbally about her sex life, sex position preferences, and whether she would have sex with him, is the one who took her to the medical ward to be given the bad news that she was HIV positive. After giving her this bad news, the prison "doctor" suggested she think of whom all her sex partners were. As he took Knox in a stairwell back to her cell, the deouty warden told Knox he'd still have sex with her in spite of her test result.

I think it obvious from what you wrote about the order of tests and what we know about having to deal with false positive scares, that the doctor and deputy warden were in collusion and that the false HIV scare was deliberate.

Good people have difficulty comprehending just how manipulative and malicious the police, prosecutors, and a few senior colleagues at Capanne Prison were to manipulate Knox and Sollecito and get what they thought they needed to convict them.

Mignini had the police listen to Sollecito family phone calls for years in order to learn what they might be doing to help Raffaele defend himself.

 

[Grinder]

I too see little value in this back and forth. The other ten or eleven things Massei found as factual carry osmotic weight, that's all.

But they carry no weight at this time. The defense can't argue that Massei found that she didn't bring the knife for the murder therefore no premeditation.

The only import, really, for the back and forth is that there is no judicial backing to Machiavelli's armchair diagnoses. They just make them up to justify their confirmation bias.

There is no judicial backing for my contention that the calunnia was the work of the police but that isn't a problem for you anymore, is it?

Mach demonstrates this upthread. He thinks they are narcissists, just because.

But it doesn't make any difference if they are or if they aren't. There are billions of them.

And Massei WOULD have mentioned this if so. The kind of psychopathology claimed does not speak to diminished capacity. It would be a reason too convict.

I don't know that to be true. If the evidence wasn't presented than he would have a hard time saying it. he couldn't really just deduce it.