Meredith Kercher case

[John Hacker]

Knox is guilty as hell. This is not rocket science; it's police work 101. She changed her story several times, had a completely unfeeling and inappropriate affect regarding the circumstances of her rommates death and the circumstances she found herself in, and she has shown no fear of anyone or the circumstances surrounding Meredith's death at any time.

Guede's DNA was found on/in Meredith's body, Knox'd DNA was found on one of the instruments used to torture and kill Meredith, with Meredith's DNA found on the other end. Sollecito helped out, and his bloody footprints were found.

There is no mystery here, other than how Knox the sociopath managed to keep somewhat of a lid on herself for so many years...

Welp, if odd behavior made for one being guilty Jack the Ripper would be a killing team numbering into the dozens... So I think we can dismiss that...

The independent expert appointed by the court to look at the evidence didn't think the knife matched some of the wounds and expressed concern about the DNA work so I think we can dismiss this as shaky...

And since the footprint attributed to Sollecito didn't match the deformity of his foot I think that's in the bin too as a reliable indicator of guilt.

Got anything else?

[Ally]

Knox is guilty as hell. This is not rocket science; it's police work 101. She changed her story several times, had a completely unfeeling and inappropriate affect regarding the circumstances of her rommates death and the circumstances she found herself in, and she has shown no fear of anyone or the circumstances surrounding Meredith's death at any time.

Guede's DNA was found on/in Meredith's body, Knox'd DNA was found on one of the instruments used to torture and kill Meredith, with Meredith's DNA found on the other end. Sollecito helped out, and his bloody footprints were found.

There is no mystery here, other than how Knox the sociopath managed to keep somewhat of a lid on herself for so many years...

A perfect example of what happens when people let the media do their thinking for them. Not only was half of what was quoted as being factual not even remotely close to being true, the rest was the kind of empty headed logic that states "she isn't normal and didn't behave like I think she ought to have behaved so she's guilty" kind of stupidity that makes me fearful that people like this are actually on juries.

[cappuccina]

....sorry, but there are certain generally accepted common psychological aberrations/hallmarks regarding not only sociopaths, but also in non-sociopathic individuals who are guilty of crimes....Knox is a sociopath, plain and simple. Certainly there is some room for variation, but your telling me that "anyone can react in any way they want about anything, including violent crime, and it's all within the possible realm of normalcy" is absurd.

Why do you that a large part of the training of LE, FBI agencts, etc., etc., in addiiton to all of the forensic areas etc. has to do with....behavior....

Your argument is absurd. And...so, you discount the DNA evidence because....you feel like it, or WTF?????????

If the DNA matched, it matched...the only "concern" that could have been experssed is regarding someone planting blood evidence which was not done in this case.

[Archaic]

re: Smiles In Court

The notion that Amanda Knox must be guilty because she the Italian media shows film footage of her smiling in court baffles me.

Amanda has been in custody for 2 YEARS and is filmed continuously.

Her mother, father, two little sisters and numerous friends have traveled 5,500 miles in order to be there with her in court and show their support for her innocence. The family has said in interviews that one of their most important goals from day one has simply been to try and keep her spirits up. They are trying to keep her thinking positively and believing that despite it all, the system will work and justice will prevail.
Amanda is also trying to keep up the spirits of her loved ones and show them how much she appreciates them being there. So they smile at her, and she smiles at them.

Then the film editors comes along, and out of many months of somber, tedious trial footage cull a handful of clips showing
Amanda smiling- Voila! She is instantly revealed to be a heartless grinning witch, reveling in her own evil.

Too bad the film editors don't also show the parent, sister or friend who, just out of range of the camera, is smiling at Amanda and probably giving her a thumb's up as a silent message to "hang in there".

Think about it, if Amanda had a complete emotional breakdown and went on a crying jag in court,
the same people who criticize her now for ever smiling at anyone would immediately say "Look, she's crying because she knows she's guilty!"

Best regards, Archaic

[John Hacker]

....sorry, but there are certain generally accepted common psychological aberrations/hallmarks regarding not only sociopaths, but also in non-sociopathic individuals who are guilty of crimes....Knox is a sociopath, plain and simple. Certainly there is some room for variation, but your telling me that "anyone can react in any way they want about anything, including violent crime, and it's all within the possible realm of normalcy" is absurd.

Why do you that a large part of the training of LE, FBI agencts, etc., etc., in addiiton to all of the forensic areas etc. has to do with....behavior....

Your argument is absurd. And...so, you discount the DNA evidence because....you feel like it, or WTF?????????

If the DNA matched, it matched...the only "concern" that could have been experssed is regarding someone planting blood evidence which was not done in this case.

Ok... Back to reality...

There are accepted ways of identifying sociopaths... (Typically the Hare checklist) And none of them have happened here. A psychopath typically exhibits anti-social behavior and none of that is apparent based upon what is known about Knox so we can write off that diagnosis.

I have had personal experience with people dealing with the death of someone close to them and Knox's behavior is rather normal comparatively. People like to pretend they can understand how they would react in such a situation and until they're there, it's all a load. Any experienced police officer would tell you that. As far as training goes, I think that the evidence collection videos pretty much speak to how much of that goes on in Perugia.

As far as DNA evidence goes... The independent examiner raised serious alarm bells regarding the handling of the knife as well as the levels of DNA count... The samples around the flat allegedly containing mixed DNA are largely irrelevent even if accurate. Knox lived there. (Mixed DNA within a smaple does NOT imply mixed blood or anything like that) And given the way they seem to feel is appropriate to handle physical evidence... why on earth would any impartial person feel that they should be given any credence whatsoever?

The police and prosecution in this case have squandered any deference to their position they might otherwise be entitled to by:

1) Not having the slightest clue as to how to process physical evidence. (As exhibited by their handling of the clasp and Sollecitos's PC)

2) Proposing outlandish theory after outlandish theory to support their initial contention of guild regarding Knox and Sollecito despite not having any physical evidence to back it, even AFTER a known knife carrying burgler was definatively tied to the scene.

3) They apparently have no clue as to what the effects of marijuanna are. (Any college student could help them here)

4) Despite the abudance of (cough) evidence, they felt it necessary to actually try the case based on impuging Knox's personality. Even stooping to imaginary dialogue between the accused and the victim and a cartoon reanactment.

Now we really have 3 possibilities here. I'll rank them in reverse order of likelihood IMO...

A) We have an absolutely unprecedentled crime where 3 adults of different cultures and very short association decided as a group to kill, with premeditation, a close associate of one of them for... I dunno... Kicks... Extreme rent sex... Because the manga told them too... Take your pick.

B) Knox and Sollecito made an instant Bonnie and Clyde match and Guede is simply a victim here. 2 potential killers making a connection in such a short time is FAR more plausible than 3.

C) On the other hand... We have one person with a history of burglery... carrying a knife... whose DNA and fingerprints are all over the scene in a crime that is actually typical of a single killer sexual assualt...


Hmmm... Unless we can postulate the existence of some sort of magical cleaner that wipes the prints of 2 out of three killers... I think I'll go with C.

Why? Because it makes sense and is consistent with both the evidence and how crimes like this typically happen. The more outlandish the theory, the more evidence there needs to be for me to take it seriously. It's reasonabe for Knox's DNA to be found at the scene, that doesn't apply to Guede.

So... outside of dime store psychoanalysis and buying into the findings of the Keystone CSI team... Anything?

[John Hacker]

Think about it, if Amanda had a complete emotional breakdown and went on a crying jag in court,
the same people who criticize her now for ever smiling at anyone would immediately say "Look, she's crying because she knows she's guilty!"

Best regards, Archaic

Exactly. The cold blooded killer "with the face of an angel" story is MUCH more exciting. The media plays to the public that wants to see it. We DO love a good story.

[Malkmus]

Knox is guilty as hell. This is not rocket science; it's police work 101. She changed her story several times, had a completely unfeeling and inappropriate affect regarding the circumstances of her rommates death and the circumstances she found herself in, and she has shown no fear of anyone or the circumstances surrounding Meredith's death at any time.

Guede's DNA was found on/in Meredith's body, Knox'd DNA was found on one of the instruments used to torture and kill Meredith, with Meredith's DNA found on the other end. Sollecito helped out, and his bloody footprints were found.

There is no mystery here, other than how Knox the sociopath managed to keep somewhat of a lid on herself for so many years...

On her changing her story:
She originally told police that she had been at Raphaelle's that night. It wasn't until during the interrogation when the police (a group of them at that) latched on to the text messages between her and her boss Lumumba where he told her not to come in to work that night and she replied "Okay, see you later". The police were determined at that point that her reply meant she would see him that night and that she must have left Raphaelle's apartment. This group of officers proceeded to yell and physically threaten her (knocking her in the back of the head), calling her a liar, to the point where she thought maybe she had left the apartment and Lumumba could have done the killing. Of course that's when the police were satisfied with their interrogation and it wasn't until the next day after sitting in her cell for endless hours that she was able to think lucidly and surmise that, no, she had never left Raphaelle's and Lumumba was most likely innocent.
But it's important to note that the idea of Lumumba being the perpetrator never came about until the police noticed the text message from him and wouldn't let the issue drop until they heard what they wanted to hear.

And as far as her demeanor... What you've seen of her and Raphaelle has been extremely selective, the worst of which was what? Her being consoled by her boyfriend outside the murder scene, and that they kissed? They're kids, they're affectionate! And it's not like she was beaming with delight, quite the opposite.

You really should look more in to the details of the case, of which their are transcripts of the trial to be read. The more I read them, the more I become convinced that an innocent girl and boy are behind bars.

[Archaic]

re: "See You later"

Hi, Malkmus.
I see you are a new poster, so I just wanted to welcome you to the forums.
By choosing this thread, you seem to have jumped in at the deep end.

I agree with what you said in your post.

The phrase "See you later" is a casual idiomatic phrase that just means "goodbye". As does its shortened form, "see ya", and its briefest form, "later".

We all know that when we say "see you later" to a friend we are not making an appointment with them or a promise to actually see them later- that's absurd! In fact, it's about as close to a meaningless social phrase as you can get.

"See You Later" is an incredibly common and popular phrase used all over the world when people are signing off.
It's hard to believe that Amanda's Italian interrogators didn't understand its true meaning.

Best regards, Archaic

[Ally]

[QUOTE]

....sorry, but there are certain generally accepted common psychological aberrations/hallmarks regarding not only sociopaths, but also in non-sociopathic individuals who are guilty of crimes....Knox is a sociopath, plain and simple.

Well thank you Dr. Cappucina. With your years of extensive medical training, not to mention the hours you've spent personally examining the person in question, it's nice to know you can give us such an irrefutable diagnosis. Oh wait...you mean you haven't actually examined her personally and are instead going off the pap you've been spoonfed by the media and have absolutely no more clue than my dog what this girl is? Knox is a sociopath plain and simple? You are full of it, plain and simple.

Why do you that a large part of the training of LE, FBI agencts, etc., etc., in addiiton to all of the forensic areas etc. has to do with....behavior....

And yet, not one of the people you listed are actually in anyway QUALIFIED to identify a psychopath. So if they aren't, with all their training, you certainly are not.

Your argument is absurd. And...so, you discount the DNA evidence because....you feel like it, or WTF?????????

What DNA evidence? You mean the absolute LACK of any DNA by amanda knox anywhere in the murder room? I am surely not discounting that. I am of course wondering how one manages to have a sex orgy and murder without leaving a single trace of your DNA in the room. The knife "dna" is so absurd as to be laughable--they can't even prove it's the murder weapon and the DNA sample was so small as to be considered worthless by forensic experts and it was, of course, "destroyed" in testing so no possibility of a retest. Not to mention, why in god's name would Sollecito bring one of his own knives from home, then nicely take it all the way back there?

If the DNA matched, it matched...the only "concern" that could have been experssed is regarding someone planting blood evidence which was not done in this case.

Or of cross contamination, which if you actually STUDIED the case instead of relying on the National Enquirer to spoon feed you your opinions, you would know is a significant possibility since the police did not follow proper evidence gathering procedures at all...

[Malkmus]

Hi, Malkmus.
I see you are a new poster, so I just wanted to welcome you to the forums.
By choosing this thread, you seem to have jumped in at the deep end.

Thanks for the welcome

[cappuccina]

I see, Ally....and Knox's accusing an African man, Patrick Lamumba, who was, in fact her employer, of the crime, surely points to her complete innocence as well...

[cappuccina]

OK...Mr. Hacker says that Ms. Knox meets none of the Hare sociopathic personality traits...

well, here's Hare's list...let's see...

http://www.sociopathicstyle.com/traits/classic.htm

...excerpt:

1. GLIB and SUPERFICIAL CHARM -- the tendency to be smooth, engaging, charming, slick, and verbally facile. Sociopathic charm is not in the least shy, self-conscious, or afraid to say anything. A sociopath never gets tongue-tied. They have freed themselves from the social conventions about taking turns in talking, for example.

2. GRANDIOSE SELF-WORTH -- a grossly inflated view of one's abilities and self-worth, self-assured, opinionated, cocky, a braggart. Sociopaths are arrogant people who believe they are superior human beings.

3. NEED FOR STIMULATION or PRONENESS TO BOREDOM -- an excessive need for novel, thrilling, and exciting stimulation; taking chances and doing things that are risky. Sociopaths often have low self-discipline in carrying tasks through to completion because they get bored easily. They fail to work at the same job for any length of time, for example, or to finish tasks that they consider dull or routine.

4. PATHOLOGICAL LYING -- can be moderate or high; in moderate form, they will be shrewd, crafty, cunning, sly, and clever; in extreme form, they will be deceptive, deceitful, underhanded, unscrupulous, manipulative, and dishonest.

5. CONNING AND MANIPULATIVENESS- the use of deceit and deception to cheat, con, or defraud others for personal gain; distinguished from Item #4 in the degree to which exploitation and callous ruthlessness is present, as reflected in a lack of concern for the feelings and suffering of one's victims.

6. LACK OF REMORSE OR GUILT -- a lack of feelings or concern for the losses, pain, and suffering of victims; a tendency to be unconcerned, dispassionate, coldhearted, and un empathic. This item is usually demonstrated by a disdain for one's victims.

7. SHALLOW AFFECT -- emotional poverty or a limited range or depth of feelings; interpersonal coldness in spite of signs of open gregariousness.

8. CALLOUSNESS and LACK OF EMPATHY -- a lack of feelings toward people in general; cold, contemptuous, inconsiderate, and tactless.

9. PARASITIC LIFESTYLE -- an intentional, manipulative, selfish, and exploitative financial dependence on others as reflected in a lack of motivation, low self-discipline, and inability to begin or complete responsibilities.

10. POOR BEHAVIORAL CONTROLS -- expressions of irritability, annoyance, impatience, threats, aggression, and verbal abuse; inadequate control of anger and temper; acting hastily.

11. PROMISCUOUS SEXUAL BEHAVIOR -- a variety of brief, superficial relations, numerous affairs, and an indiscriminate selection of sexual partners; the maintenance of several relationships at the same time; a history of attempts to sexually coerce others into sexual activity or taking great pride at discussing sexual exploits or conquests.

12. EARLY BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS -- a variety of behaviors prior to age 13, including lying, theft, cheating, vandalism, bullying, sexual activity, fire-setting, glue-sniffing, alcohol use, and running away from home.

13. LACK OF REALISTIC, LONG-TERM GOALS -- an inability or persistent failure to develop and execute long-term plans and goals; a nomadic existence, aimless, lacking direction in life.

14. IMPULSIVITY -- the occurrence of behaviors that are unpremeditated and lack reflection or planning; inability to resist temptation, frustrations, and urges; a lack of deliberation without considering the consequences; foolhardy, rash, unpredictable, erratic, and reckless.

15. IRRESPONSIBILITY -- repeated failure to fulfill or honor obligations and commitments; such as not paying bills, defaulting on loans, performing sloppy work, being absent or late to work, failing to honor contractual agreements.

16. FAILURE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR OWN ACTIONS -- a failure to accept responsibility for one's actions reflected in low conscientiousness, an absence of dutifulness, antagonistic manipulation, denial of responsibility, and an effort to manipulate others through this denial.

17. MANY SHORT-TERM MARITAL RELATIONSHIPS -- a lack of commitment to a long-term relationship reflected in inconsistent, undependable, and unreliable commitments in life, including marital.

18. JUVENILE DELINQUENCY -- behavior problems between the ages of 13-18; mostly behaviors that are crimes or clearly involve aspects of antagonism, exploitation, aggression, manipulation, or a callous, ruthless tough-mindedness.

19. REVOCATION OF CONDITION RELEASE -- a revocation of probation or other conditional release due to technical violations, such as carelessness, low deliberation, or failing to appear.

20. CRIMINAL VERSATILITY -- a diversity of types of criminal offenses, regardless if the person has been arrested or convicted for them; taking great pride at getting away with crimes.

I'd say she meets all of 1-11 (inclusive), and 14, 16, 17 and 20, for starters...

Mr. Hacker, is the list I've referenced above the one you were referring to?? If so, could you please tell me how Ms. Knox does not fall within the characteristics listed above. Thank you ever so much.

[John Hacker]

OK...Mr. Hacker says that Ms. Knox meets none of the Hare sociopathic personality traits...
.
.
.
I'd say she meets all of 1-11 (inclusive), and 14, 16, 17 and 20, for starters...

Mr. Hacker, is the list I've referenced above the one you were referring to?? If so, could you please tell me how Ms. Knox does not fall within the characteristics listed above. Thank you ever so much.

The PCL-R is admisinstered by professionals, not by observing a behavior trait and going "Ahha!" Each of the items is scored (not checked off) based on their case history and a professionally administered interview.

Most people at one point or another in their life display most of the factor 1 traits (the first 10), the question is a matter of degree and how central these traits are to their personality and you have no information to base a rational assesment on. You're simply making unqualified assumptions based on a media portrayal of her as a killer with no apparent basis in fact.

[cappuccina]

....thank you for not answering my question and for refusing to address the obvious...

[John Hacker]

....thank you for not answering my question and for refusing to address the obvious...

The only question you asked, neither of us are qualified to answer. And in any case, you're the one making the diagnosis doc, you gotta make a case to support it and you're a long way from doing so.

And in any case, your entire premise is based around the assumption that she's guilty and it's one you haven't been able to back up.