JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Tags Amanda Knox , Meredith Kercher , murder cases , Raffaele Sollecito

Closed Thread
Old 22nd October 2010, 05:47 AM   #12121
Fuji
Critical Thinker
 
Fuji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by Justinian2 View Post
My challenge was for anyone to show a precedent where a woman and her new boyfriend conspire to kill a new housemate in her room/house with the help of a new accomplice for reasons not involving theft, insurance money or inheritance, then I would like to hear it.

I can give you the case of the Craig's List killer which is a 'lone wolf' case similar to the fundamental case against Guede.

The precedent that I give of the Perugia murder is of the Craigslist Killer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Markoff

The case of the Craig's List killer is a lone wolf case that I think is an accurate precedent to the Guede murder. There are a lot of precedents similar to the Guede - as lone wolf - murder.

If you have a precedent where a woman and her new boyfriend conspire to kill a new housemate in her room/house with the help of a new accomplice for reasons not involving theft, insurance money or inheritance, then I would like to hear it.
My response to your post in this instance was to correct your manifest errors with regard to crime scene staging.

As indicated in my subsequent reply to lane99, my lack of knowledge of "a precedent where a woman and her new boyfriend conspire to kill a new housemate in her room/house with the help of a new accomplice for reasons not involving theft, insurance money or inheritance" can in no logical way be considered to support your apparent implied consequent that Knox and Sollecito are not guilty of Meredith Kercher's murder.
Fuji is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 05:51 AM   #12122
Fuji
Critical Thinker
 
Fuji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by lane99 View Post
Thanks for the warning. But your argument appears to be fallacious in more than just two aspects. Throughout, when it's not arguing against assertions I never made, it unwittingly supports the implications of what I actually had written.
This is a dense tangle of sophistic nonsense.

1) I did not make an argument. I was examining the validity or cogency* of your own argument, which you did indeed advance:

"That true believers in Knox's guilt can not come up with a single example of an uncontroversially proven case that would parallel the conspiracy that Knox and her boyfriend were supposedly part of, should give any sensible person reason to question their guilt."

*It is unclear from your statement whether "should" is being used in a strict determinative sense (in which case, validity would be the appropriate test), or it is being used in a more probabilistic sense (in this case, cogency is the appropriate test).

2) Though, as previously stated, I did not actually put forth a counter-argument, your statement "your argument appears to be fallacious in more than just two aspects," appears to assert that I have made multiple errors in my construction. What would those be?

3) What do you see as the implied argument that you advanced? I was quite explicit in my description of your implied argument, and directed my analysis at it. In what way was I "arguing against assertions [lane99] never made"?

4) I am most curious to know how my analysis "unwittingly supports the implications of what [lane99] actually had written," given that I believe I clearly demonstrated the opposite.
Fuji is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 05:52 AM   #12123
Fuji
Critical Thinker
 
Fuji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by Mary_H View Post
Now there is an excellent use of an analogy, platonov.
1) I am Fuji, not platonov.

2) Your apparent sarcasm implies that my example does not adequately support my analysis - how so?

Last edited by Fuji; 22nd October 2010 at 05:56 AM.
Fuji is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 05:54 AM   #12124
Fuji
Critical Thinker
 
Fuji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by Justinian2 View Post
Good point. Perhaps I should present this argument in terms of Occams Razor. A lone wolf precedent like the Craigslist killer fits better. In a case with no bloody fingerprint (other than that of Guede) and no eye witnesses, the simplest and most plausible answer is the most likely. This case is about probabilities NOT possibilities.
Your own link contains the following sentence in the third paragraph:

"In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result."

I do certainly agree with your final sentence, though probably not in that way that you intend it.
Fuji is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 05:55 AM   #12125
Fuji
Critical Thinker
 
Fuji's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 338
Originally Posted by Chris C View Post
There is evidence of planes hitting Sky scrapers before though.
I am not aware of any precedent (ante 11 September 2001) of two 110-story skyscrapers being deliberately struck by two passenger jet airliners and subsequently burning and collapsing upon themselves.
Fuji is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 06:00 AM   #12126
treehorn
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 494
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
It sounds more like you have been reading the tabloid quacks.

Look up the actual criteria for Antisocial personality disorderWP in DSM-IVWP, the definition used by real psychologists. You will find that Knox doesn't meet the criteria.
How so?

I've seen that page on Wiki, and I've got my old text book from Abnormal Psych (don't get the wrong idea - I'm not fool enough to think that a few undergrad psych courses qualify me to diagnose people - I know my limits.)

I'm not a psychologist or a psychiatrist (see, it's easy KL!), but I think the (well-regarded) psychologists I'm referring to were on the right track. I, too, think Knox fits.

Can you specify where you think they've gone wrong?

In respect of which criterion?

Last edited by treehorn; 22nd October 2010 at 06:01 AM. Reason: can't type today
treehorn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 06:05 AM   #12127
Matthew Best
Illuminator
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 4,559
Originally Posted by Fuji View Post
I am not aware of any precedent (ante 11 September 2001) of two 110-story skyscrapers being deliberately struck by two passenger jet airliners and subsequently burning and collapsing upon themselves.
There's a whole sub-forum for you to explore this topic. I suggest you do so there.
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 06:10 AM   #12128
Dan O.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dan O.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,217
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
So apparently the reason that Lumumba's bar remained closed for months was that he was still a suspect, and since he and Knox worked there and Meredith had visited there, it was a "potential crime scene" and therefore had to be sealed.

The bar was a cesspool of co-conspirators that were undermining the police authority and manufacturing an alibi for the prime suspect. Did the police take a single witness statement from any of the patrons of the bar that night?
Dan O. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 06:19 AM   #12129
Matthew Best
Illuminator
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 4,559
Originally Posted by treehorn View Post
Knox's friends and family see the same behavior the psychologists are noting, but they write it off to "eccentricity"/ "immaturity"/ "child-like innocence"/ "Amanda just being Amanda."

I'm leaning more toward the psychologists.
Which psychologists? Is there a reason you haven't said who they are or quoted their actual words?
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 06:19 AM   #12130
loverofzion
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New yORK
Posts: 523
Originally Posted by treehorn View Post
How so?

I've seen that page on Wiki, and I've got my old text book from Abnormal Psych (don't get the wrong idea - I'm not fool enough to think that a few undergrad psych courses qualify me to diagnose people - I know my limits.)

I'm not a psychologist or a psychiatrist (see, it's easy KL!), but I think the (well-regarded) psychologists I'm referring to were on the right track. I, too, think Knox fits.

Can you specify where you think they've gone wrong?

In respect of which criterion?
http://data.psych.udel.edu/abelcher/...ur,%201991.pdf
loverofzion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 06:34 AM   #12131
treehorn
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 494
Originally Posted by Kaosium View Post
Yeah, the homeowner or the person on the lease. They're responsible for noise coming from a party on their property.
Amanda was the ONLY one leasing the house?

I've read otherwise.

Do tell.


Originally Posted by Kaosium View Post
would someone from Seattle care overmuch about what a tabloid in Britain wrote? Especially the Mail? What could they do about it anyway?

That article in the British newspaper was used as part of the prosecution's case, was it not?
treehorn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 06:36 AM   #12132
Kestrel
Illuminator
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,830
Originally Posted by treehorn View Post
How so?

I've seen that page on Wiki, and I've got my old text book from Abnormal Psych (don't get the wrong idea - I'm not fool enough to think that a few undergrad psych courses qualify me to diagnose people - I know my limits.)

I'm not a psychologist or a psychiatrist (see, it's easy KL!), but I think the (well-regarded) psychologists I'm referring to were on the right track. I, too, think Knox fits.

Can you specify where you think they've gone wrong?

In respect of which criterion?
Here is the list of criteria from DSM-IV:

A. There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

Note that the diagnosis requires meeting three or more of the criteria.

(1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.

The criteria specifies repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest. Do you really think that posing with a machine gun in a museum meets this standard?

(2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure.

Where is the evidence for Knox repeatedly lying?

(3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead.

Where is your evidence that Knox failed to plan ahead?

(4) irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults.


Do you have any evidence that Knox repeatedly assaulted others or got into physical fights?

(5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others.

Where is your evidence that Knox disregarded safety?

(6) consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain
consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations


May I remind you that Knox was an honor student who earned her own money to study abroad?

(7) lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

Evidence?

Note that you claimed she showed these signs before the murder.
Kestrel is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 06:41 AM   #12133
treehorn
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 494
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
Which psychologists? Is there a reason you haven't said who they are or quoted their actual words?
Here's ONE example:

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/57043,...s-a-psychopath

Dr Coline Covington is a highly experienced psychotherapist who has studied at Princeton University, Cambridge University and the London School of Economics. She was the former Editor of the Journal of Analytical Psychology as well as the former Chair of the British Psychoanalytic Council. She has also worked for the Metropolitan Police.

“Knox’s narcissistic pleasure at catching the eye of the media and her apparent nonchalant attitude during most of the proceedings show the signs of a psychopathic personality. Her behaviour is hauntingly reminiscent of Eichmann’s arrogance during his trial for war crimes in Jerusalem in 1961 and most recently of Karadzic’s preening before the International Criminal Court at the Hague.

The psychopath is someone who has no concern or empathy for others, no awareness of right and wrong, and who takes extreme pleasure in having power over others. The psychopath has no moral conscience and therefore does not experience guilt or remorse.

Most psychopaths are highly skilled at fooling those around them that they are normal by imitating the emotions that are expected of them in different circumstances. They are consummate at charming people and convincing them they are in the right. It is only when they reveal a discrepancy in their emotional response that they let slip that something may be wrong with them.

The psychopath is the conman, or in the case of Amanda Knox, the con-woman par excellence. Her nickname ‘Foxy Knoxy’, given to her as a young girl for her skills at football, takes on a new meaning.

Whether or not Knox, who is appealing her verdict, is ultimately found guilty, her chilling performance remains an indictment against her. Her family’s disbelief in the outcome of the trial can only be double-edged”

Last edited by treehorn; 22nd October 2010 at 06:42 AM. Reason: added link
treehorn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 06:57 AM   #12134
Matthew Best
Illuminator
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 4,559
So, not a psychologist, then?
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 06:58 AM   #12135
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 6,610
undergraduate creative writing; wrong war

Originally Posted by treehorn View Post
Interesting find, CW

And what, pray tell, do you make of Knox's penchant for authoring and posting short stories about rape/ stalking/ violence against young women?

Or the infamous 'German machine gun pose', the self-described "inner Nazi", and the taunting of a Jewish coworker?

Drawings in a locker. Stories on a MySpace page.
Treehorn,

I spoke with a friend who teaches creative writing, and he told me that date-rape stories are not uncommon, because both talented and less talented students "seem to think that art is about shock value." Ms. Knox's teacher might have exacerbated his or her students' tendencies in this regard by asking for shocking effects, IIRC.

The veracity of the story about Ms. Knox and her coworker has been debated upthread, but even if it were true, describing it as taunting is dubious (bad joke is more like it). The article that reported this had several factual errors and quoted an anonymous coworker. The “inner-Nazi” remark originated with Ms. Knox’s sister, if I understand who captioned the photo correctly. Whoever did add the caption apparently did not take the time to examine the machine gun carefully, which probably originates from WWI (see upthread).

Time to find my icepack.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 08:12 AM   #12136
treehorn
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 494
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
Here is the list of criteria from DSM-IV:

A. There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

Note that the diagnosis requires meeting three or more of the criteria.

(1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.

The criteria specifies repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest. Do you really think that posing with a machine gun (not illegal, but it was a German gun and, taken with her infamous (alleged) taunting of a Jewish coworker, and her "inner Nazi" comment, it may be indicative of a lack of empathy for others, a lack of respect for social norms/ "tendency to violate boundaries and rights of others, "poor behavioral control", "disregard for right and wrong/ immorality, "aggressive" behavior, etc.) in a museum meets this standard?

1. Police-issued citation/conviction in court for "Residential Disturbance" in connection with Drug/Alcohol-Fueled Rock-Throwing incident at drug-fueled 'going away party';
2. Under Age Drinking (lame, yes, but nevertheless unlawful);
3. Buying(?)/ Using illicit Narcotics (to the point of memory loss);
4. Bearing False Witness Against an Innocent Man/ Friend/Employer/ Neighbor;
5. Defamation of Police/ Perjury (to be determined)
6. Homicide (under appeal)


(2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure.

Where is the evidence for Knox repeatedly lying?


Obviously you do not believe she is factually guilty. Many do not agree, and from their perspective, Knox began lying the moment the postal police showed up with Meredith's cell phones almost 3 years ago, and hasn't stopped since.

It might be better to focus on the big ones, as I do not like to type:

1) Naming an innocent man, Lumumba, as her accomplice in the 'bit of fun' she intended to have with Meredith on Nov 1/07

2) Lying by omission = failing to retract her false accusation of Lumumba

3) Accusing the police of beating a confession from her (in dispute, yes, but why can she not provide a name/ basic description/ artist sketch of the officer in question? My guess: lies have no details)


(3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead.
Where is your evidence that Knox failed to plan ahead?


1) blows off internship arranged by German uncle on a whim = impulsivity
2) 3 to 6 sex partners in her 6 weeks in Perugia (including unprotected sex) = impulsivity
3) (correct me if I am wrong here) underfunded in Perugia/ not enough cash saved, and not enough coming in, to last the academic year = failed to plan ahead


(4) irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults.


Do you have any evidence that Knox repeatedly assaulted others or got into physical fights?


1) attack on Meredith Kercher
2) rock-throwing incident (criminal mischief to assault, depending on what was hit with the rocks)
3) if true, UW "rape prank" = unconsented, therefore assault/ battery
4) false accusation of Lumumba may be considered a form of (very) aggressive behavior
5) false accusation of police (in dispute, yes, but, again, if true is also aggressive/ malicious behavior)


(5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others.

Where is your evidence that Knox disregarded safety?

1) instigating/ participating in the rape/ murder of Meredith Kercher
2) false accusation of Lumumba
3) bringing, inter alia, a knife collector/ rape fetishist (?)/ cocaine addict she'd only known for 6 days into a shared residence for 4 females
4) if true, the Seattle "rape prank"
5) rock-throwing incident in Seattle

6) not consider her own safety (or her partners') when having sex with 3 to 6 Italinan strangers in 6 weeks (including unprotected sex)





(6) consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain
consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations



May I remind you that Knox was an honor student who earned her own money to study abroad?


1) on a whim, Knox blew off internship arranged by German uncle

2) there is reason to suspect that Knox may have taken Meredith's rent money to finance a drug habit she was developing under the tutelage of Sollecito - there is no definitive proof, but I'm sure you're aware of some of the facts that provide support for this supposition

3) Was Knox on the "Dean's List" or was she just in an "honors program"? I've listened to her testify. I've read her short stories and statements to police. I've even read excerpts of her "prison diary." In the result, I have come to suspect that her verbal skills are not what one would expect of an engineering student, much less a languages major. What was her course load? Dabbling in 'creative writing courses' and German 101 - when you were raised in a family of Germanophones - isn't exactly setting the academic world on fire. Alas, even if she were a bona fide 'Dean's Lister', that hardly counts for much in her favor - surely you're familiar with the names of a least a few homicidal sociopaths with good grades.


(7) lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

Evidence?

Note that you claimed she showed these signs before the murder.
I do think she was showing some of the 'signs' before Nov 1/07, but it is important to remember that this PD (as well as some of the other PD's Knox may be afflicted with) tend to emerge in the late teens/ early 20's (i.e., about the age Knox was on Nov 1/07). Ergo you wouldn't expect to see a long standing pattern in respect of some of the criteria.

Alas, if Knox, herself, is the source of these poor excuses for the conviction for "Residential Disturbance", perhaps there IS pre-murder evidence of indifference/ rationalizing/ lack of remorse.

The police do not, and cannot, write up a citation and ask for 'volunteers' to face the music in court. That's complete and utter BS.

Knox, and only Knox, was charged by the Seattle police for "Residential Disturbance" in connection with rock-throwing.

Based on the stories her family doles out, Knox appears to have told her parents that it was "just a noise ticket", that she was "the only one mature enough to accept responsibility for it," etc.. (Then again, it might just be the PR firm tying to put lipstick on a pig.)

None of this sounds to me like a young woman acknowledging that she was a full participant in highly antisocial conduct (driven by the abuse of alcohol and street drugs) that literally frightened people into calling the police.

Last edited by treehorn; 22nd October 2010 at 08:41 AM. Reason: color
treehorn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 08:27 AM   #12137
LondonJohn
Philosopher
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,512
Originally Posted by treehorn View Post
Here's ONE example:

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/57043,...s-a-psychopath

Dr Coline Covington is a highly experienced psychotherapist who has studied at Princeton University, Cambridge University and the London School of Economics. She was the former Editor of the Journal of Analytical Psychology as well as the former Chair of the British Psychoanalytic Council. She has also worked for the Metropolitan Police.

“Knox’s narcissistic pleasure at catching the eye of the media and her apparent nonchalant attitude during most of the proceedings show the signs of a psychopathic personality. Her behaviour is hauntingly reminiscent of Eichmann’s arrogance during his trial for war crimes in Jerusalem in 1961 and most recently of Karadzic’s preening before the International Criminal Court at the Hague.

The psychopath is someone who has no concern or empathy for others, no awareness of right and wrong, and who takes extreme pleasure in having power over others. The psychopath has no moral conscience and therefore does not experience guilt or remorse.

Most psychopaths are highly skilled at fooling those around them that they are normal by imitating the emotions that are expected of them in different circumstances. They are consummate at charming people and convincing them they are in the right. It is only when they reveal a discrepancy in their emotional response that they let slip that something may be wrong with them.

The psychopath is the conman, or in the case of Amanda Knox, the con-woman par excellence. Her nickname ‘Foxy Knoxy’, given to her as a young girl for her skills at football, takes on a new meaning.

Whether or not Knox, who is appealing her verdict, is ultimately found guilty, her chilling performance remains an indictment against her. Her family’s disbelief in the outcome of the trial can only be double-edged”
This is exceptionally unprofessional behaviour by someone calling themselves a professional psychologist/psychoanalyst. Incidentally though, neither of these two terms gives Covington the proper qualifications to diagnose personality disorders. Only a psychiatrist has the proper means to be able to do that.

Regardless of that, though, Covington would surely be very well aware that diagnoses of this sort are extremely difficult (if not impossible) from a mere browse through second-hand (or worse) testimony - much of which may have been distorted. In fact, no psychiatrist worth their salt would ever dream of making a positive diagnosis of a personality disorder without personally meeting the subject over many more than one session. It seems to me like Covington is more interested in getting her "opinions" published than in making considered medical diagnoses.

And lastly, even if Knox does have a diagnosable personality disorder, this would do very little indeed to indicate that she was also a murderer. Being (e.g.) a sociopath does not make one a murderer, in the eyes of the law. Only overwhelming evidence of participation in a murder - to the exclusion of reasonable doubt - makes one a murderer.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 08:32 AM   #12138
Justinian2
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,804
Originally Posted by Fuji View Post
My response to your post in this instance was to correct your manifest errors with regard to crime scene staging.

As indicated in my subsequent reply to lane99, my lack of knowledge of "a precedent where a woman and her new boyfriend conspire to kill a new housemate in her room/house with the help of a new accomplice for reasons not involving theft, insurance money or inheritance" can in no logical way be considered to support your apparent implied consequent that Knox and Sollecito are not guilty of Meredith Kercher's murder.
What is third in the sequence 2, 4? There is more than one answer. Possible answers are 6 and 8.

Likewise with the staging or break-in, the double LCN DNA knife (or was it contamination), and the motivation (sex, profit, anger, or elimination of the witness to the break-in). They all have more than one answer.

Mathematically speaking, you have far more unknowns than equations; the problem cannot be solved. When trying to solve a mathematics problem, the first thing I decide is if it can be solved from the given data. My decision here is that the equation cannot be solved. AK and RS cannot be proven to be guilty OR innocent.

So we get into things like precedents to find the most likely solution. That answer, again and again is Guede acting as lone wolf.

We look into Amanda's history and find no precedent of intended or actual murder or great bodily harm.

We look to motives. Those given by the prosecution are fictitious at best.

We look at the evidence. Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

The finger of blame for this confusion does NOT point to AK and RS, but in the opposite direction. The other needed equations and variables lie with the prosecution, the forensics lab, the police, and Guede.

Last edited by Justinian2; 22nd October 2010 at 08:40 AM.
Justinian2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 08:33 AM   #12139
LondonJohn
Philosopher
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,512
Originally Posted by Fuji View Post
I am not aware of any precedent (ante 11 September 2001) of two 110-story skyscrapers being deliberately struck by two passenger jet airliners and subsequently burning and collapsing upon themselves.
I am not aware of any precedent (ante 1970) of a man named Bundy abducting, raping and killing young girls in the Washington State, Idaho, Colorado and Utah areas.

I am, however, aware of precedents where a white well-educated male in his 30s abducted, raped and killed young girls in the vicinity of where he happened to be living at the time.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 08:50 AM   #12140
treehorn
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 494
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Only a psychiatrist has the proper means to be able to do that.
Oh?

My Prof for Abnormal Psych was just a PhD in Psych, not a MD/ psychiatrist, yet he appears to have been involved with the diagnosis of patients of this kind, he certainly was involved in their study/ analysis/ treatment (to the extent such a thing is even possible)...

Mmmmmm.
treehorn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 08:53 AM   #12141
Dan O.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dan O.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,217
Originally Posted by treehorn View Post

The police do not, and cannot, write up a citation and ask for 'volunteers' to face the music in court. That's complete and utter BS.

Knox, and only Knox, was charged by the Seattle police for "Residential Disturbance" in connection with rock-throwing.

Based on the stories her family doles out, Knox appears to have told her parents that it was "just a noise ticket", that she was "the only one mature enough to accept responsibility for it," etc..

None of this sounds to me like a young woman acknowledging that she was a full participant in highly antisocial conduct (driven by the abuse of alcohol and street drugs) that literally frightened people into calling the police.

It looks like you are the one throwing rocks at the accused.

Here is the text of the narrative, written by Seattle police officer Jason Bender (From SeattlePI):
In the city of Seattle

I was on uniformed patrol in the marked unit as 3U5. At approximately 0028 hours, I responded to the report of a loud party in the listed location. The complainant relayed to dispatch that participants from the party were throwing rocks at his house and at passing cars. The complainant requested officer not contact him. Upon arrival, I noted loud amplified music coming from the listed address. The music could be heard from a distance greater than 75 ft from the source. I also noted several rocks in the street. I did not locate any damage at that time. I contacted a party participant and had them retrieve a resident.

S1/Knox contacted me (in front of the house). She stated that she was one of the current residents. She stated that she was the one who was hosting the party (as she was moving out). She stated that she was not aware of any rock throwers at the gathering.

I issued S1/Knox this infraction for the noise violation and a warning for the rock throwing. I explained how dangerous and juvenile that action was.


See Cad event 264012 for further.

No further action taken at this time.

Looks to me like it was "just a noise ticket".
No citation of alcohol abuse.
No citation for drugs.
No report of damage.



ETA:

Is the medieval practice of throwing rocks at the accused as they are paraded through the streets or todays practice of throwing smears against the accused on internet blogs considered a social norm? Is anyone that fails to follow these practices therefore abnormal?

Last edited by Dan O.; 22nd October 2010 at 09:05 AM.
Dan O. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 08:54 AM   #12142
LondonJohn
Philosopher
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,512
Originally Posted by treehorn View Post
Oh?

My Prof for Abnormal Psych was just a PhD in Psych, not a MD/ psychiatrist, yet he appears to have been involved with the diagnosis of patients of this kind, he certainly was involved in their study/ analysis/ treatment (to the extent such a thing is even possible)...

Mmmmmm.
"Professor for Abnormal Psychology"? And "yours"?

In the UK (where Covington qualified and practises), only psychiatrists are qualified to diagnose personality disorders. Psychologist and psychotherapists are not even classified as medical doctors.

Mmmmmm.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 08:56 AM   #12143
LondonJohn
Philosopher
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,512
Originally Posted by Dan O. View Post
It looks like you are the one throwing rocks at the accused.

Here is the text of the narrative, written by Seattle police officer Jason Bender (From SeattlePI):
In the city of Seattle

I was on uniformed patrol in the marked unit as 3U5. At approximately 0028 hours, I responded to the report of a loud party in the listed location. The complainant relayed to dispatch that participants from the party were throwing rocks at his house and at passing cars. The complainant requested officer not contact him. Upon arrival, I noted loud amplified music coming from the listed address. The music could be heard from a distance greater than 75 ft from the source. I also noted several rocks in the street. I did not locate any damage at that time. I contacted a party participant and had them retrieve a resident.

S1/Knox contacted me (in front of the house). She stated that she was one of the current residents. She stated that she was the one who was hosting the party (as she was moving out). She stated that she was not aware of any rock throwers at the gathering.

I issued S1/Knox this infraction for the noise violation and a warning for the rock throwing. I explained how dangerous and juvenile that action was.


See Cad event 264012 for further.

No further action taken at this time.

Looks to me like it was "just a noise ticket".
No citation of alcohol abuse.
No citation for drugs.
No report of damage.
No no no no! According to some, Knox was the orchestrator of an orgy of violence aimed at the neighbours and their property. After all, this is just the sort of thing that leads to murder.......
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 08:57 AM   #12144
treehorn
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 494
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post

Regardless of that, though, Covington would surely be very well aware that diagnoses of this sort are extremely difficult (if not impossible) from a mere browse through second-hand (or worse) testimony - much of which may have been distorted. In fact, no psychiatrist worth their salt would ever dream of making a positive diagnosis of a personality disorder without personally meeting the subject over many more than one session. It seems to me like Covington is more interested in getting her "opinions" published than in making considered medical diagnoses.
I take it you think FBI "profilers" and the bureau's "behavioral sciences" unit are of no value then, correct?

I mean they often don't even get to look at "second-hand testimony" (distorted or otherwise).
treehorn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 09:01 AM   #12145
LondonJohn
Philosopher
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,512
Originally Posted by treehorn View Post
I take it you think FBI "profilers" and the bureau's "behavioral sciences" unit are of no value then, correct?

I mean they often don't even get to look at "second-hand testimony" (distorted or otherwise).
They don't make diagnoses of personality disorders. What is it that you're not understanding?
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 09:01 AM   #12146
treehorn
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 494
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
No no no no! According to some, Knox was the orchestrator of an orgy of violence aimed at the neighbours and their property. After all, this is just the sort of thing that leads to murder.......
almost 3 years old and STILL not retracted:


The officer suspected "some kids" were just playing their music too loud, but what he found was no run-of-the-mill summer student party: he later told colleagues it was like a scene from Baghdad.
Gangs of students, high on drink and drugs, were hurling rocks into the road. Cars were swerving to avoid them. Debris littered the road. It was mayhem.
Fearing reprisals, neighbours who had called the police refused to give their names. The police officer called for back-up as the youths began throwing rocks at the windows of houses on the neat, tree-lined streets.
Eventually, after reinforcements had arrived, the students calmed down. Police made only one arrest: the person they held responsible for the party and the disorder.
Her name? Amanda Knox, or, as she prefers to be known, Foxy Knoxy.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...#ixzz136VHqjqJ

Last edited by treehorn; 22nd October 2010 at 09:02 AM. Reason: link added
treehorn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 09:05 AM   #12147
Justinian2
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,804
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
I am not aware of any precedent (ante 1970) of a man named Bundy abducting, raping and killing young girls in the Washington State, Idaho, Colorado and Utah areas.

I am, however, aware of precedents where a white well-educated male in his 30s abducted, raped and killed young girls in the vicinity of where he happened to be living at the time.
Thanks for getting me back on track. That's a good precident. An FBI agent (a tenant) once told me that there were usually six active serial murderers in the USA at one time. Our chance of bumping into one (a serial murderer) are slim unless there are lots of unsolved murders around and we happen to fit the profile of the victims. Most of the time the serial murderers are men. If they do murder in their home, they hide or bury the body - they don't call the police.

Last edited by Justinian2; 22nd October 2010 at 09:07 AM.
Justinian2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 09:06 AM   #12148
Kestrel
Illuminator
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,830
I note that treehorn is assuming that every accusation by the prosecution or press agains't Amanda is true, then using those accusations to prove that Knox showed signs of being a sociopath before the murder.

For criteria (1), treehorn's examples are all rather lame. He assumes that Amanda is guilty and uses the prosecutions claims against her as evidence that she was a sociopath before the murder. Drinking is rather normal for American college students, as is occasionally smoking marijuana. He also exaggerates the noise citation as he has done repeatedly in this thread. But even if we accept that Amanda meets this criteria because she drank and smoked the occasional joint, we need to find two more criteria.

For criteria (2), treehorn uses three events that happened after the murder.

For criteria (3), he uses false information about the number of sex partners Knox had in Italy. (The Amanda is a slut gambit was long ago proven false). He calls making a decision not do an internship in Germany impulsive rather than simply a choice. And he is simply wrong about Amanda being underfunded for her stay in Italy.

For criteria (4), he makes the assumption that Amanda was throwing rocks. There is no evidence of that. He calls a reputed prank a physical assault. The rest of his examples assume Amanda's guilt in the murder. And since when is a verbal accusation a "physical assault"?

For criteria (5), he falsely calls Sollicito a cocaine addict, uses the Amanda is a slut gambit once more, and exaggerates the so called rape prank. And uses the claims of the prosecutor once more to prove that Amanda was a sociopath before the murder.

Treehorn, isn't it time you stopped exaggerating the nature of the noise ticket? Amanda's offense was not grounds for arrest, she was not arrested. She was issued a ticket for noise and paid a fine. Your persistence on this issue isn't helping your case, it's simply showing your inability to comprehend reality.
Kestrel is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 09:09 AM   #12149
LondonJohn
Philosopher
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,512
Originally Posted by treehorn View Post
almost 3 years old and STILL unretracted:


The officer suspected "some kids" were just playing their music too loud, but what he found was no run-of-the-mill summer student party: he later told colleagues it was like a scene from Baghdad.
Gangs of students, high on drink and drugs, were hurling rocks into the road. Cars were swerving to avoid them. Debris littered the road. It was mayhem.
Fearing reprisals, neighbours who had called the police refused to give their names. The police officer called for back-up as the youths began throwing rocks at the windows of houses on the neat, tree-lined streets.
Eventually, after reinforcements had arrived, the students calmed down. Police made only one arrest: the person they held responsible for the party and the disorder.
Her name? Amanda Knox, or, as she prefers to be known, Foxy Knoxy.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...#ixzz136VHqjqJ
Ironically, the part you highlighted in red is the most salient part. Knox was deemed to be the "person responsible for the party". There's no evidence (or even suggestion) that she was even involved in the alleged rock-throwing - I would strongly suspect that if rocks were thrown, they were thrown by young males at the party.

And I also very, very strongly suspect that if students were "high on drink and drugs", there would have been multiple arrests there and then, and the whole house would have been searched for illegal substances. But then that didn't happen, did it. And nor were any criminal charges whatsoever ever levelled at either Knox or any of the other partygoers.

This officer's "recollection" of events sounds like a classic ex-post rationalisation, following Knox's arrest for murder in Perugia. But again, even if it's exactly as he described, quite how one jumps from this to involvement in a murder is more than a bit hard to figure out. I wonder what the ratio of "people at student parties that got out of control" to "people from those parties who go on to commit murder" might be........
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 09:16 AM   #12150
treehorn
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 494
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
"Professor for Abnormal Psychology"? And "yours"?

In the UK (where Covington qualified and practises), only psychiatrists are qualified to diagnose personality disorders. Psychologist and psychotherapists are not even classified as medical doctors.

Mmmmmm.
I'm not sure what you are suggesting.

I took a course in undergrad entitled, "Abnormal Psychology."

My professor for this course was an American psychologist (not a psychiatrist), yet he was actively involved in the diagnosis, treatment and study of patients with antisocial PD.

I've never been made aware that only a MD could make such a diagnosis - it may well be true, I've just never heard such a claim before.

In America it's clear that only MD's can PRESCRIBE medications, but psychologists are often called upon in the diagnosis stage...

Just never thought of it.

What is the rationale for such a requirement?
treehorn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 09:18 AM   #12151
Amazer
Graduate Poster
 
Amazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Bangalore, Cork, Sliedrecht
Posts: 1,185
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
There's a whole sub-forum for you to explore this topic. I suggest you do so there.
Matthew,

Why don't you stick to reporting posts that you feel are OT instead of trying to play moderator. That's what real moderators are for.

The upside would also be that you can start contributing something meaningful to the thread for a change.
Amazer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 09:20 AM   #12152
Kestrel
Illuminator
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,830
Originally Posted by treehorn View Post
almost 3 years old and STILL not retracted:


The officer suspected "some kids" were just playing their music too loud, but what he found was no run-of-the-mill summer student party: he later told colleagues it was like a scene from Baghdad.
Gangs of students, high on drink and drugs, were hurling rocks into the road. Cars were swerving to avoid them. Debris littered the road. It was mayhem.
Fearing reprisals, neighbours who had called the police refused to give their names. The police officer called for back-up as the youths began throwing rocks at the windows of houses on the neat, tree-lined streets.
Eventually, after reinforcements had arrived, the students calmed down. Police made only one arrest: the person they held responsible for the party and the disorder.
Her name? Amanda Knox, or, as she prefers to be known, Foxy Knoxy.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...#ixzz136VHqjqJ
A skeptic should know that the wild reportings of a tabloid such as the Daily Mail are not considered reliable source. It does however appeal to people who want to read the latest celebrity gossip and stories about Bigfoot, alien abductions and the moon landing hoax.

ETA: Just for a reality check, look a few posts back at the actual text of Knox's citation and you will find that she wasn't arrested. She simply paid a fine.

Last edited by Kestrel; 22nd October 2010 at 09:32 AM.
Kestrel is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 09:38 AM   #12153
treehorn
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 494
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Ironically, the part you highlighted in red is the most salient part. Knox was deemed to be the "person responsible for the party". There's no evidence (or even suggestion) that she was even involved in the alleged rock-throwing - I would strongly suspect that if rocks were thrown, they were thrown by young males at the party.

And I also very, very strongly suspect that if students were "high on drink and drugs", there would have been multiple arrests there and then, and the whole house would have been searched for illegal substances. But then that didn't happen, did it. And nor were any criminal charges whatsoever ever levelled at either Knox or any of the other partygoers.

This officer's "recollection" of events sounds like a classic ex-post rationalisation, following Knox's arrest for murder in Perugia. But again, even if it's exactly as he described, quite how one jumps from this to involvement in a murder is more than a bit hard to figure out. I wonder what the ratio of "people at student parties that got out of control" to "people from those parties who go on to commit murder" might be........
FWIW the provision Knox was convicted under allows for a penalty of up to 180 days in jail.

If the police had been forced to return to the scene a second time, Knox would have been looking at that possibility.

I suspect that the police were going out of their way to go easy on Knox (probably precisely because they were faced with a nice-looking, female college kid).

Based on the Daily Mail's description, the police well could have charged Knox with any number of criminal offenses (mischief in respect of private property at a minimum).


Tell me, John, if your daughter had started to smoke dope in her 2nd year, and then came home with a police-issued citation on a promise to appear in court, would you turn a blind eye and send her overseas, unsupervised, or would you sit her down for a chat and maybe send her to a doctor/ rehab?
treehorn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 09:41 AM   #12154
treehorn
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 494
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
A skeptic should know that the wild reportings of a tabloid such as the Daily Mail are not considered reliable source.
Is Candace Dempsey a "reliable source" in your book?
treehorn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 09:49 AM   #12155
Kestrel
Illuminator
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,830
Originally Posted by treehorn View Post
FWIW the provision Knox was convicted under allows for a penalty of up to 180 days in jail.

If the police had been forced to return to the scene a second time, Knox would have been looking at that possibility.
Those of us with a clue have noticed that Knox didn't violate that provision of the law.
Kestrel is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 09:52 AM   #12156
Kestrel
Illuminator
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,830
Originally Posted by treehorn View Post
Based on the Daily Mail's description, the police well could have charged Knox with any number of criminal offenses (mischief in respect of private property at a minimum).
What you don't seem to comprehend is that the Daily Mail article isn't reality based. The false claim in the article that Knox was arrested should have given you a clue.
Kestrel is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 09:56 AM   #12157
LondonJohn
Philosopher
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,512
Originally Posted by treehorn View Post
FWIW the provision Knox was convicted under allows for a penalty of up to 180 days in jail.

If the police had been forced to return to the scene a second time, Knox would have been looking at that possibility.

I suspect that the police were going out of their way to go easy on Knox (probably precisely because they were faced with a nice-looking, female college kid).

Based on the Daily Mail's description, the police well could have charged Knox with any number of criminal offenses (mischief in respect of private property at a minimum).


Tell me, John, if your daughter had started to smoke dope in her 2nd year, and then came home with a police-issued citation on a promise to appear in court, would you turn a blind eye and send her overseas, unsupervised, or would you sit her down for a chat and maybe send her to a doctor/ rehab?
Oh here we go again.....

The whole point about the structure of that legislation is that the police show up and give you a warning and a fine for civil disturbance. And they warn you of the consequences of continued disturbance. If you continue to cause a disturbance, the police have the right to arrest you, and a court has the right (if the case is proven) to send you to prison for up to 180 days.

But Knox and her fellow partygoers seemingly took the police's words on board, since they were not re-summoned to the party, and no further action was taken. So your point about the 180 days' prison is not only moot, it's misleading (probably intentionally so).

And regarding your completely unsubstantiated suggestion that the police "could have charged Knox" with all sorts of criminal offences, I'm somewhat speechless to be honest! You seem to be suggesting that Knox's appearance and gender prevented the police from doing their jobs. You might want to think carefully about what that implies about the law enforcement community in Seattle. Is it not infinitely more likely that Knox had not ostensibly committed any criminal offences whatsoever? And neither had anyone else at that party?

Lastly, you seem to be applying the morals of the Victorian age to the 21st century. I realise that some people have invented some sort of "moral outrage" towards Knox's parents for allowing their "seriously derailed" daughter to go "unsupervised" to Perugia, and that things were bound to end in tragedy. I would like to say that this point of view is not only wrong, it's disgustingly wrong. Prior to going to Italy, Knox was - by all accounts - a mild user of cannabis, and a moderate drinker of alcohol at worst. And she'd hosted a party which got too rowdy.

But if you're seriously suggesting that this was sufficient cause for her parents to "maybe send her to a doctor/rehab", then there's nothing I can say to that, other than that if everyone whose child has dabbled in weed and drink when in their late teens took this course of action, half the western world would consist of doctors' surgeries and rehab centres. It's arrant nonsense.

As for having a word with her, I'd be surprised if Knox's parents didn't talk with her before leaving her on her own about looking after herself, staying out of trouble, and calling them if she felt like things were in any way out of control. The misleading idea (again, propagated by those with a certain agenda) that Knox was just simply "cast out" into the wide world by her family is, I suspect, both incorrect and grossly unfair.

Last edited by LondonJohn; 22nd October 2010 at 10:03 AM.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 10:03 AM   #12158
treehorn
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 494
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
They don't make diagnoses of personality disorders. What is it that you're not understanding?
Oh, I think it's not so clear cut. Profilers aim to determine, as precisely as possible, a suspect's 'personality' based on their behavior.

Recognizing the signs of a disordered personality, therefore, go with the territory.

Consider this quote from an FBI 'profiler':

"The basic premise is that behavior reflects personality," explains retired FBI agent Gregg McCrary. In a homicide case, for example, FBI agents glean insight into personality through questions about the murderer's behavior..."

see: http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/criminal.aspx

A profiler ignorant of/ blind to the signs and symptoms of a disordered personality wouldn't stand much of a chance in the analysis of a suspect's behavior, now would s/he?

What is it that you're not grasping?

Last edited by treehorn; 22nd October 2010 at 10:04 AM. Reason: kindness
treehorn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 10:06 AM   #12159
Katody Matrass
Master Poster
 
Katody Matrass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,025
Boring and OT

Hi, Machiavelli
Just a short update about your paraphrase, as the topic is not that interesting to most people. You used it in this argument:
Originally Posted by Machiavelli View Post
But in fact, all this things you mention is exactly what makes Amanda's explanation not so credible. Especially her panic and banging on Meredith's door. In this situation, she doesn't remember of having done a phone call to her mum wakng her up in the middle of the night. Because Amanda - bear in mind - doesn't remember at all of any phone call by this time and never mentions it. She doesn't reply to Comodi: "No, wait a minute: it was when I started to panic and Meredith wasn't answering, it is then that I called my mother". And in fact, in such a situation of anxiety and adrenaline, how could she forget about the first thing she decided to do, calling her mother? Calling her mothr for the first time, wking her up in the middle of the night?
Instead, she doesn't even care about the imprecise timing, she doesn't mention any call at all, but answers: "well I don't remember, if I did a call (that woke up my mother) it was probably because I found an open door and Meredith didn't answer the phone". This answer is inantural, and moreover by this answer Amanda herself is placing this "forgotten" call in the place where she was getting worried, and Edda is placing the same content decribed by Amanda in the 12:47 call, exactlt the content Amanda guesses but doesn't remember.
As we see, from your paraphrase you derived a conclusion that
a) Amanda doesn't care about the imprecise timing
b) This answer is innatural
c) Amanda is placing this "forgotten" call in the place where she was getting worried
d) Amanda hypothesizes the same content of the call as Edda described.
You also reiterated that argument later:
Quote:
Amanda gave a description of a situation and of a phone conversation which is identical to Edda's descritpion of the 12:47 call, implying she didn't mistake Comodi's question for a qustion about a call from Sollecito's apartment
The problem with your argument is you are basing it on a paraphrase that is
1) missing important elements of what Amanda really said
2) including made up elements that Amanda didn't say
i.e. your paraphrase is mostly bogus.

Let's take a look at what Amanda really said, it's not long and we don't have to paraphrase it at all:
AK: Yes. Well, since I don't remember this phone call, because I remember the one I made later, but obviously I made that phone call. If I did that, it's because I thought that I had something I had to tell her. Maybe I thought right then that there was something strange, because at that moment, when I went to Raffaele's place, I did think there was something strange, but I didn't know what to think. But I really don't remember this phone call, so I can't say for sure why. But I guess it was because I came home and the door was open, and then -- (here Comodi cuts off her answer)
As you see your paraphrase is missing the part about timing:
because at that moment, when I went to Raffaele's place, I did think there was something strange, but I didn't know what to think.
when we include it your points a) and c) are no longer valid. Additionally we immediately see that Amanda hypothesizes about the call like it took place at 12:00, exactly what Comodi implied.

As you also see, your paraphrase includes a part "and Meredith didn't answer the phone" which you made up and is not what Amanda said. If we take it out, your point d) is no longer valid.

Additionally when we look at direct quote compared to your paraphrase we see that your point b) is not valid too.
But this is of course subjective, as are some estimations of probability. Some people find it more probable that you can simply forget one of three calls to your mother, one of twelve other calls on a day you found your friend murdered, and that you may still not remember it more than a year after. Some people think more probable explanation is a drug fueled ritual group sex orgy gone wrong killing with a kitchen knife carried casually for protection.

Thanks and have a great weekend
__________________
Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.
Katody Matrass is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2010, 10:14 AM   #12160
LondonJohn
Philosopher
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,512
Originally Posted by treehorn View Post
Oh, I think it's not so clear cut. Profilers aim to determine, as precisely as possible, a suspect's 'personality' based on their behavior.

Recognizing the signs of a disordered personality, therefore, go with the territory.

Consider this quote from an FBI 'profiler':

"The basic premise is that behavior reflects personality," explains retired FBI agent Gregg McCrary. In a homicide case, for example, FBI agents glean insight into personality through questions about the murderer's behavior..."

see: http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/criminal.aspx

A profiler ignorant of/ blind to the signs and symptoms of a disordered personality wouldn't stand much of a chance in the analysis of a suspect's behavior, now would s/he?

What is it that you're not grasping?
It is clear-cut. Criminal profilers do not (and nor are they qualified to) make diagnoses of personality disorders in given individuals.

And, by the way, the whole area of criminal profiling is on the verge of being re-classified as a pseudo-science, after so many of its central tenets have been shown to be unreliable. As you probably know, the Washington Sniper case was particularly embarrassing for the Quantico crew.

However, you do seem very heavily invested in defending your original point, so if it makes it easier I'll stop talking about it now.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

JREF Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:28 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.