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

[anglolawyer]

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 think Bill explained that he is addressing a guilter myth, the myth being that they were nuts as manifestly demonstrated by the noise ticket, the armoury and the porn collection.

 

[Grinder]

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.

You miss the part about drug taking and what the Italian old fogies think about it. Massei basically says they were on drugs and made a choice for evil under the influence.

In that I'm not a crime tourist, I don't have the history of every murder committed to memory but I'm sure many killers seemed like regular people. We have a woman locally that killed her husband 10 years ago and nobody has said anything about her history.

 

[Grinder]

I think Bill explained that he is addressing a guilter myth, the myth being that they were nuts as manifestly demonstrated by the noise ticket, the armoury and the porn collection.

But why continue to bring up Massei a judge that no one here thinks got it even close to correct.

Mach comes back to what actually happened in court and says that the issue was never addressed in a way that could elicit a statement on the issue. He says that listing their good behavior was only for mitigation and that no psychologists ever testified to the kids' mental condition. According to Mach Mignini never made the case there were nuts.

Just like the satantic rite issue Bill can't seem to find the records to back up his contentions. Giving a quote from a reporter that isn't that well regarded doesn't cut it.

The PGP say she is a whack job and I don't care what those whack jobs say, except for entertainment. Yesterday they were fighting over whether or not to harass the UW over her attendance. They would like to deny her a degree while cheering on Rudy's.

 

[Bill Williams]

I think Bill explained that he is addressing a guilter myth, the myth being that they were nuts as manifestly demonstrated by the noise ticket, the armoury and the porn collection.

That's where the list started. After following this for about six months, one can make note of common guilter myths.

I then read Massei, assuming (fearing) that these myths were being drawn from some judicial authority. Comparing the myths with what Masseu actually says led me to believe guilters never read Massei.

An exception is Edward McCall / Brendan Mull, who at least had the honesty to openly disagree with Massei over the issue of the timing of the 112 calls.

Most others, Machiavelli included, tries to fudge what Massei says, or argue semantics until ones eyes glaze over.

But the start of the list were the common guilter myths completely unsupported by Massei. The best Machiavelli can do in response to the psychopathology claim is to try to argue that Massei is quiet on the subject, just so Mach can slip in his own stupid opinions about narcissism, basically being led by tabloids or his own theatre training.

What a load of hooey.

 

[anglolawyer]

That's where the list started. After following this for about six months, one can make note of common guilter myths.

I then read Massei, assuming (fearing) that these myths were being drawn from some judicial authority. Comparing the myths with what Masseu actually says led me to believe guilters never read Massei.

An exception is Edward McCall / Brendan Mull, who at least had the honesty to openly disagree with Massei over the issue of the timing of the 112 calls.

Most others, Machiavelli included, tries to fudge what Massei says, or argue semantics until ones eyes glaze over.

But the start of the list were the common guilter myths completely unsupported by Massei. The best Machiavelli can do in response to the psychopathology claim is to try to argue that Massei is quiet on the subject, just so Mach can slip in his own stupid opinions about narcissism, basically being led by tabloids or his own theatre training.

What a load of hooey.

You might need to remember people lose track of your shorthand when you say 'no psychopathology' which turns out, after you explained it recently, to be a perfectly reasonable anti-guilter point. I don't like the word much but now I know what you mean by it, I agree.

It's all very well for PGPs to pronounce solemnly that motive is not required (in their world, evidence isn't either) but it's damn strange all the same to come across a crime like this in which two of the three participants have no relevant history - as Massei found. It's yet another level of improbability to be overcome.

 

[anglolawyer]

But why continue to bring up Massei a judge that no one here thinks got it even close to correct.

Mach comes back to what actually happened in court and says that the issue was never addressed in a way that could elicit a statement on the issue. He says that listing their good behavior was only for mitigation and that no psychologists ever testified to the kids' mental condition. According to Mach Mignini never made the case there were nuts.

Just like the satantic rite issue Bill can't seem to find the records to back up his contentions. Giving a quote from a reporter that isn't that well regarded doesn't cut it.

The PGP say she is a whack job and I don't care what those whack jobs say, except for entertainment. Yesterday they were fighting over whether or not to harass the UW over her attendance. They would like to deny her a degree while cheering on Rudy's.

I don't see what's wrong with pointing out that many of the points the PGPs obsess about are derived from their fevered imaginations. You're a guy who values PR so you understand the importance of these memes and their potential for harm.

 

[anglolawyer]

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.




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




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.

The English system is being starved of cash to the point where injustice must follow. The state will no longer pay defence lawyers to read unused (=Brady) material. Can you believe that?

 

[Machiavelli]

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.

This is complete nonsense. Massei does not 'support' nor 'deny' nor 'object' to what I say. Massei is a judge not a doctor. He does not make any 'fact finding' in terms of psychopathology. This is simply a topic judge Massei has nothing to do with. He is not supposed to be interested in health problems or psychopatological issues of defendants, nor to know about them. Even less to write about them.

 

[Machiavelli]

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 never uses the words "normal kids". Never. Never uses the word "kids" (nor an equivalent concept) and never uses the word "normal".
If you report that Massei stated they were "normal kids" you are simply falsely reporting.

 

[davefoc]

Comment on the disagreement that is principally between Bill Williams and Machiavelli on the issue of what the Massei report had to say about the psychopathology of RS and AK:

I have tried to follow this dispute but I might not understand it and if that is the case my apologies in advance.

Bill Williams claims the following:

Massei denies that the two [RS and AK] have any psychopathology

Machiavelli objects to this claim because Massei does not state explicitly that RS and AK did not have any psychopathology or anything similar.

Williams quotes a few paragraphs from Massei which descibe RS and AK as normal non-violent people to support his claim.

It appears to me that this is entirely a semantic disagreement.

There are two ways to understand Williams' claim:
1. Williams is claiming that Massei states explicitly that AK and RS do not have psychopathology exactly or in equivalent words.
2. Williams is claiming that Massei states that the evidence shows that AK and RS are normal non-violent people and based on an inference from what Massei says about this that Massei is also claiming that AK and RS have not demonstrated signs of psychopathology.

I initially assumed that Williams was making claim one. I believe that Machiavelli assumed something similar and he, reasonably enough, objected to it because it isn't true.

However, I realize that there is another way to understand what Williams claimed and that is that he meant something similar to item two in the list. With hindsight it appears that either interpretation is plausible.

Anglolawyer has described the paragraphs Williams quotes from Massei in a less ambiguous way:

... 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?

This summary of Massei on this point looks accurate and unambiguous to me and perhaps on this Williams and Machiavelli would find common ground without the difficulties stemming from the different interpretations possible of Williams' claim.

 

[Machiavelli]

(...) 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. (...)

It's completely made up. Your reasoning is just ridiculous. Massei did not appoint any psychiatrist and did not access any psychiatric report about the defendants. Moreover, he did could not have access to any expert report beyond those documents that were deposited by the experts themselves in his courtroom. This is catastrophic ignorance about the procedure code.

 

[Bill Williams]

(...) 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. (...)

It's completely made up. Your reasoning is just ridiculous. Massei did not appoint any psychiatrist and did not access any psychiatric report about the defendants. Moreover, he did could not have access to any expert report beyond those documents that were deposited by the experts themselves in his courtroom. This is catastrophic ignorance about the procedure code.

Sometimes I think what's going on here is a simple language issue. Where did I ever say Massei appointed a psychiatrist? But it is very hard to believe that the Italian system would deny a judge access to ANYTHING relevant to the crime.

But here's the deal.... if no one made a big deal about the pair's presumed psychopathology, why do you still make posts the way you do, where this is what you are saying, with your narcissism nonsense?

Why if are you a self-appointed expert if even by your own admission, the presiding judge saw no reason to investigate this line of inquiry?

 

[lane99]

No relation, far as I know

The only way I see getting a real believable story out if Rudy is to try the Mr Big approach... I live in Nova Scotia Canada and its broken 3 murder cases I can think... .

Sure would be interesting. And only the most dogmatic of Knox's supporters would profess to seeing no utility in knowing what Guede might say when caught on tape in an unguarded moment.

One case (next door to you, in Newfoundland) solved by this kind of undercover technique has some curious parallels to the Kercher murder. Greg Parsons was convicted of murdering his mother. The police and prosecutor had said the crime scene was staged; that it was "impossible" for anyone to have entered through a basement window that otherwise appeared to be the point of entry for an unknown assailant.

Years later, the real killer was caught on tape admitting to the murder. And he confirmed he had indeed entered the victim's house through that same window.

Incidentally, the name of the prosecutor who wrongfully convicted Greg Parsons? Cathy Knox.
.
.

 

[Bill Williams]

Comment on the disagreement that is principally between Bill Williams and Machiavelli on the issue of what the Massei report had to say about the psychopathology of RS and AK:

I have tried to follow this dispute but I might not understand it and if that is the case my apologies in advance.

Bill Williams claims the following:

Machiavelli objects to this claim because Massei does not state explicitly that RS and AK did not have any psychopathology or anything similar.

Williams quotes a few paragraphs from Massei which descibe RS and AK as normal non-violent people to support his claim.

It appears to me that this is entirely a semantic disagreement.

There are two ways to understand Williams' claim:
1. Williams is claiming that Massei states explicitly that AK and RS do not have psychopathology exactly or in equivalent words.
2. Williams is claiming that Massei states that the evidence shows that AK and RS are normal non-violent people and based on an inference from what Massei says about this that Massei is also claiming that AK and RS have not demonstrated signs of psychopathology.

I initially assumed that Williams was making claim one. I believe that Machiavelli assumed something similar and he, reasonably enough, objected to it because it isn't true.

However, I realize that there is another way to understand what Williams claimed and that is that he meant something similar to item two in the list. With hindsight it appears that either interpretation is plausible.

Anglolawyer has described the paragraphs Williams quotes from Massei in a less ambiguous way:


This summary of Massei on this point looks accurate and unambiguous to me and perhaps on this Williams and Machiavelli would find common ground without the difficulties stemming from the different interpretations possible of Williams' claim.

I have no problem with this... I think that an Italian Judge who wrote a 400+ page report on a conviction where some sort of psychopathology was supposed to have played a role....

.... in the measure which guilters claim....

... would have mentioned it. The fact that he actually says what he says, be it....

... 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?

... and never once leaves a mention in those 400+ pages which would encourage Mach to make the claims he does...

... says it all for me.

I'm not sure why this one has legs, though. Mach... what about mixed blood? What about the normal relationship between friends Meredith/Amanda? What about the lamp being in Meredith's room for no discernable reason?

Why aren't you going after the other guilters about these things - which Massei holds as factual? Or do "made up facts" count?

 

[Rolfe]

The English system is being starved of cash to the point where injustice must follow. The state will no longer pay defence lawyers to read unused (=Brady) material. Can you believe that?

What do you mean by "Brady"?

I have not heard of similar complaints in Scotland, but I'd be very surprised if it's not happening. Everything else bad is already happening.

Rolfe.

 

[Machiavelli]

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?

If I agree or disagree, this would depend on the meaning your are giving to the words "good charachter".
In other words, from my point of view there is just a caveat, and that is about the meaning and implication of such concept "good charachter"; it looks like Bill likes to extend, widen or inflate and universalize right this concept of "good charachter", he starts to build pictures and draw inference along with his own imagination, what he thinks "good charachter" is, goes further thinking that it is the equivalent of saying that they are two "normal kids", that is psychologically sane and normal, with "no psychopatology".

My caveat, instead, is about pointing out the very limited scope of Massei's statement. Massei is making a reasoning strictly limited within a narrow scope of topics, that is a reasoning limited to what pertains to the defendants being entitled to obtain generic mitigation.
By the way (it is a non connected topic, but just to give you an idea) you may recall that, under Italian law, even the 60y old man who had sex with the 11yo girl was entitled to generic mitigation, because the man had a caring attitude and the girl felt true love. We all agree however that this is not equivalent of saying they are psychologically normal; obviously the 60yo man is not normal by medical standards.
But the assessment about "normality" is not pertaining to a court's judgement; a judge simply won't assess if a person is normal or not, they couldn't care less.
Also the Monster of Foligno obtained generic mitigation on consideratiosn about his personality, after sexually abusing and killing two young boys. Also Rudy Guede did, and was described in rather positive terms.

So the reading of the whole statement by Massei needs to start under this caveat: the implicit premise, is that Massei is only talking about those aspects of "charachter" that matter to legal requirements for generic mitigation. Not being a previous offender is a requirement; being a charachter who could be socially rehabilitated (because young and other factors) might be a point in favor by the discretional power of the judge; the judge assumption that the defendant for some reason might feel remorse for the action is the most important factor. The concept "good charachter" here only means they did not commit previous crimes of comparable nature; it means they are not repeated offenders, cold-blood killers or anti-social drop-out kinds.
But from here to saying they are "psychologically normal", this is all about Bill William's free imagination.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

WOW!!! You have to be kidding Machiavelli. You are much more a narcissist than Amanda. In fact those are vile accusations and not legitimate opionions. There is ZERO basis for such assessments or opinions. They stink as much as Crini's poop. Like every accusation made against Amanda and Raffaele, they are baseless.

Correct me if I'm wrong. But you are not a psychiatrist. Are you? You have not attended medical school. Or did you? Feel free to and offer up your credentials if I'm mistaken.

Tell us the name of the psychiatrist that interviewed Amanda and made such a diagnoisis. You can't. Typical.

 

[Vibio]

Correct me if I'm wrong. But you are not a psychiatrist. Are you? You have not attended medical school. Or did you? Feel free to and offer up your credentials if I'm mistaken.

Oh c'mon. Knock it off. This thread is FULL of people making psychological opinions about others.

Machiavelli explains himself well: "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."

It's very clear.

 

[acbytesla]

You think Mignini thought that Miranda Barbour the Pennsylvania 'Craigslist killer was the person who killed Meredith? Mrs Barbour she slayed dozens more across U.S. as part of satanic cult.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...c-cult-report-article-1.1616297#ixzz2tWP8SuRe

Miranda Barbour, who along with her husband is facing the death penalty for killing a 42-year-old man she met on Craigslist, claimed in a jailhouse interview that she has killed at least 22 other people as a part of her involvement with a satanic cult.

While the police are looking into her claims, so far, there were no reports of any evidence linking Barbour or her husband to any other killings.

Things that make you go hmmmmmmm

 

[Grinder]

I have no problem with this... I think that an Italian Judge who wrote a 400+ page report on a conviction where some sort of psychopathology was supposed to have played a role....

.... in the measure which guilters claim....

... would have mentioned it. The fact that he actually says what he says, be it....

Can you show specific court entered document or expert testimony that makes the case that 'psychopathy' "played a role" The fact that the nutters say she was a murderess waiting to happen means nothing.

Mach makes it perfectly clear that there are things that Massei could address such as mitigation background necessities but that he didn't have the testimony from experts to make the 'psychopathy'

... and never once leaves a mention in those 400+ pages which would encourage Mach to make the claims he does...

... says it all for me.

Massei made mistakes according to you so Mach too is allowed to take exception to some of what he said.

Or do "made up facts" count?

Bill some of the fools over there keep up with the mixed blood. Once again the fact that a Massei said one thing or another about it doesn't make it true. He said she carried a knife for protection. Can Mach quote that as proof she did.

As for Anglo's point on PR, this all seems so obscure as to not even make the first cut.