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

[davefoc]

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.

I am not a psychiatrist but I posted in this forum that I thought Cheney and Rove were able to manipulate Bush by taking advantage of his narcissistic tendencies. I don't think you need a psychology/psychiatry to speculate about this kind of thing.

However, in the posts where I made this speculation I provided the basis for my beliefs on this point.

I don't see a basis for Machiavelli's speculation except that he thinks Knox and Sollecito acted with Guede to murder Kercher. The problem with that is that part of the proof that RS and AK are guilty of murder in Machiavelli's mind seems to be that Knox was narcissistic and perhaps psychopathic and the evidence that AK was narcissistic and perhaps psychopathic is that she committed murder. This looks like circular reasoning from my perspective.

 

[Planigale]

Nothing – as it happens.

But in the vast panoply of bizarre arguments posted in Cartwheel world this appears to be new & thus provokes my interest.

So (in JREF parlance)

Evidences ?

It would be helpful if you specified exactly what evidence you wanted.

1) Is it that AK and RS were charged and convicted by Massei of sexual assault and theft (see Massei) art 110, 609 b) and c), art 624

2) Is it that RG DNA found in MK vagina? Micheli report

3) Is it That no AK and no RS DNA found on the body of MK? Micheli / Massei reports

4) Is it that RG DNA found on MK purse /handbag Micheli report

5) Is it that RG was not charged or convicted of theft? Micheli report

6) Is it that RG was not charged with sexual assault? Micheli report

RG only charged and convicted under article 576 (homicide).

 

[Skind]

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'.

First - are you using the DSM or ICD classification?

Second - what you are talking about is not what you have been accused of doing - and the difference is so obvious that it is not viable to consider your responses to be honest and good faith responses.

'thinking' someone has NPD is fine. Outright stating it absent of a clinical assessment is certainly a vile accusation. You forget that legitimate opinions and assessments can still be vile.

Holding the heartfelt belief that Knox has NPD does not make it any less of a vile accusation. Ascribing a serious psychological disorder to a person on spurious and shaky grounds is miles away from a serious objectiveassessment.

 

[anglolawyer]

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.

Being of good character in an English criminal court just means having no previous convictions.

 

[Bill Williams]

I am not a psychiatrist but I posted in this forum that I thought Cheney and Rove were able to manipulate Bush by taking advantage of his narcissistic tendencies. I don't think you need a psychology/psychiatry to speculate about this kind of thing.

However, in the posts where I made this speculation I provided the basis for my beliefs on this point.

I don't see a basis for Machiavelli's speculation except that he thinks Knox and Sollecito acted with Guede to murder Kercher. The problem with that is that part of the proof that RS and AK are guilty of murder in Machiavelli's mind seems to be that Knox was narcissistic and perhaps psychopathic and the evidence that AK was narcissistic and perhaps psychopathic is that she committed murder. This looks like circular reasoning from my perspective.

What is telling here is this... regardless of what Massei did or didn't say, or what he did or didn't find as factual....

.... these threads eventually expose this sort of circular reasoning.

Machiavelli has claimed sleep-diagnosis expertise to say that Knox could "choose not to sleep." He's claimed culinary experience to claim that stomach content analysis is bogus, especially with particularly troublesome pizza dough.

He's claimed that it is impossible to steal from dead people.

What is exposed here is that Machiavelli will say ANYTHING as long as it is vilifying Amanda Knox. He argues semantics of evidence which don't go his way, all the while backing off of claims like, "Guede was Knox's pimp" (which he never exactly put that way... what he really meant was that in Perugia, students had been known to exchange sex for drugs).... claim that Knox had the phone numbers of known drug dealers in her mobile.... all without ever once offering a shred of evidence....

..... because he admits he only says stuff like this to "demonstrate its compatibility".... whatever WTF that means....

O yes, he said that the denizens of Seattle, all of them, practise the Mafia art of forced-silence so as not to rat out Amanda Knox who eventually admitted she'd once done an April Fools prank.....

And that Amanda and her mother can talk "Mafia Code", which quite conveniently for Machiavelli means that the plain meaning of what they're saying is exactly its opposite and coincidently proves Machiavelli's point!!!!

You know, when you read that all together, I think I'm catching on to this "osmotic" reasoning.

Guilty! I say guilty!

 

[Grinder]

Being of good character in an English criminal court just means having no previous convictions.

\

Does that go for the lawyers as well?

 

[Bill Williams]

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.

Being of good character in an English criminal court just means having no previous convictions.

Given Massei's words on the subject in his motivations report, it would seem that the burden of proof to claim anything other than "normal" about these kids belongs to one who is claiming they suffer from a narcissist disorder....

However, I could be reading Machiavelli wrong here. Does anyone want to translate what he's trying to communicate?

 

[Skind]

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.

Yes, it's very clear that Mach made an accusation of a very specific psychological condition (not just a 'psychological opinion') and that his/her/their own argumentation requires that they put up "some other kind of evidence", or quit saying Knox has NPD.

It's also very clear that Mach will dodge any responsibility for any of this, and will argue using redefinition that he/she/they hadn't actually said what each and every person has witnessed them saying.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

I don't see that at all. I see baseless opinions. Machiavelli saying that Amanda suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder is moronic. It's totally without foundation.

But hey, the Italians seem very good at making baseless accusations.

 

[acbytesla]

. The problem with that is that part of the proof that RS and AK are guilty of murder in Machiavelli's mind seems to be that Knox was narcissistic and perhaps psychopathic and the evidence that AK was narcissistic and perhaps psychopathic is that she committed murder. This looks like circular reasoning from my perspective.

EXACTLY!!!!!

 

[Machiavelli]

I am not a psychiatrist but I posted in this forum that I thought Cheney and Rove were able to manipulate Bush by taking advantage of his narcissistic tendencies. I don't think you need a psychology/psychiatry to speculate about this kind of thing.

Sure, everyone has a right to speculate about everything they like. Accusing Stefanoni or Mignini of fabricating false evidence are vile false allegations. Accusing Quintavalle of lying is an unsupported claim. But your opinion that someone is a narcissist, or ugly, or selfish etc., when based on iterpretation of true facts, these are just normal perceptions.

However, in the posts where I made this speculation I provided the basis for my beliefs on this point.

I don't see a basis for Machiavelli's speculation except that he thinks Knox and Sollecito acted with Guede to murder Kercher. The problem with that is that part of the proof that RS and AK are guilty of murder in Machiavelli's mind seems to be that Knox was narcissistic and perhaps psychopathic and the evidence that AK was narcissistic and perhaps psychopathic is that she committed murder. This looks like circular reasoning from my perspective.

On this you are plain wrong. I thoulgt I made it clear n the past as well; I say it now again: my assessment that Knox is a pathological narcissist is totally independent from my conclusion that she is guilty of murder.
She would be a narcissist even if she were innocent - actually, she would be even more pathological and narcissist to my eyes if she were actually innocent (in that case part of her behaviour should be explained on pure pathological ground, instead of explaining it as logical behaviour consequent to being guilty).

Her pathological narcissism is - to me - something that stands out in a more immediate and obvious way than her guilt. I must say, I actually find it strange that there are people who don't perceive this aspect of her personality as obvious.

The narcissistic style of her personality stands out through a moltitude of details at basically every line of the English girl description of her behaviour, for example. It stands out in the description of her behaviour in prison. It is obvious from her writings. It is obvious from details like her copying people (imitation of piercings of Laura for example). She was a narcissist even in her movement and facial expression, even when she entered a public courtroom for the first time in 2008, you could perceive immediately the narcissistic reaction to public exposure. Overall, without entering details, she would always show off, she was evasive, unsincere and shielded, she tends to be megalomainac (think about her letter to the court and imitation of AlJazeera campaign just as recent example) and her behaviour is always inappropriate. She just came across as an unemphatic character.

 

[Grinder]

Given Massei's words on the subject in his motivations report, it would seem that the burden of proof to claim anything other than "normal" about these kids belongs to one who is claiming they suffer from a narcissist disorder....

However, I could be reading Machiavelli wrong here. Does anyone want to translate what he's trying to communicate?

You take your car to the shop and ask the mechanic if there is anything wrong with the car that can be fixed under warranty. He checks and says that only the transmission can be repaired under warranty. You would contend that the car is fine except for the transmission but Mach would point out that the mechanic only looked for warrantied repairs so there may be more faults needing work.

People here make the claim that the kids are this or that but without any judge backing them up or anything other than anecdotal proof.

Someone upstream hit it on the head with the circular nature of Mach's positions. He says she killed Meredith and only a crazy person would do that so she's crazy. The break-in of obviously staged so it was staged. Blah, blah blah. Why not talk evidence?

 

[anglolawyer]

Mach

I don't see any equivalence between your diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder and the perfectly reasonable and objectively verifiable claims that Stefanoni and Mignini are liars.

 

[Vibio]

The narcissistic style of her personality stands out through a moltitude of details at basically every line of the English girl description of her behaviour

The description of Knox's behavior at the police station as described by the people who were actually there witnessing her glee-like behavior: she laughed, kissed, cuddled, joked, stuck out her tongue etc. ...it's a pretty sickening account.

 

[Machiavelli]

What is telling here is this... regardless of what Massei did or didn't say, or what he did or didn't find as factual....

.... these threads eventually expose this sort of circular reasoning.

Machiavelli has claimed sleep-diagnosis expertise to say that Knox could "choose not to sleep." He's claimed culinary experience to claim that stomach content analysis is bogus, especially with particularly troublesome pizza dough.

He's claimed that it is impossible to steal from dead people. (...)

Look, all what you do is trying to twist other's opinion. You will pick up lines here and there and then try to throw them against me or agaisnt your opponents. This rethoric is all what you do.

There is nothing else on your part, beyond this attempt to twist others' thought along with an attempt to "use" it your way, and "against" someone. You would cherry pick up pieces of statements from here and there, twist them attempting to discredit someone, and you would never deal with any complete argumentation. You would also just abundantly lie about everything (like stating that Mignini says this to Griffin and I say he lies .. etc.). You falsely claimed that Mignini put forward a Satanic ritual for years, and refused to back your claim in any way. You always made claims and failed to back them.
As for the stomach content, also you always fail to set the actual "guilter" argument in the way a guilter sees it - therefore by omitting its actual setting and frame, you just falsify it.
There is simply no sincere intent to deal with an argument on your part, never to acknowledge the existence of any actual argument, this is very obvious, I just point it out once more.

 

[anglolawyer]

The description of Knox's behavior at the police station as described by the people who were actually there witnessing her glee-like behavior: she laughed, kissed, cuddled, joked, stuck out her tongue etc. ...it's a pretty sickening account.

I have posted before, using Follain as a source, that she exhibited a lot of behaviour that showed her to be stressed and concerned for others. Where did you get this 'description' of yours from?

 

[Machiavelli]

Mach

I don't see any equivalence between your diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder and the perfectly reasonable and objectively verifiable claims that Stefanoni and Mignini are liars.

In fact there is no equivalence: allegations that Stefanoni and Mignini are liars are factual allegations, and they are unsupported, or proven to be false.

 

[anglolawyer]

In fact there is no equivalence: allegations that Stefanoni and Mignini are liars are factual allegations, and they are unsupported, or proven to be false.

You did not reply to Kaosium's post detailing some of Stefanoni's more serious lies.

 

[Machiavelli]

I have posted before, using Follain as a source, that she exhibited a lot of behaviour that showed her to be stressed and concerned for others. Where did you get this 'description' of yours from?

Even if - theoretically - she was innocent, her behaviour was still perceived as grossly inappropriate, disphoric and unempathic.

 

[Machiavelli]

You did not reply to Kaosium's post detailing some of Stefanoni's more serious lies.

I don't recall having seen such a post detailing "lies" of Stefanoni.

On the other hand, I noted that no one was able to answer about my posts detailing and showing some of Vecchiotti's lies. Your answer about one of them was a non-reasonable claim: I think you refused to believe a news source reporting Vecchiotti's words from the court room. Other people refused to accept Crini's or Comodi's statements and Stefanoni's declaration about negative controls being deposited with Micheli's court in 2008.