Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby RoseMontague » Sun May 06, 2012 5:33 am

Italian readers please take a look at this one for me. I have several questions.
Does the 3D CD have any connection to the #D video prepared by the prosecution?

La morte di Meredith Kercher turba e appassiona l'opinione pubblica mondiale. Un giallo avvolto ancora da molti misteri che ha avuto un forte impatto mediatico. Questo libro analizza la vicenda punto per punto, mettendo in luce i molti aspetti ancora irrisolti di questa torbida storia. In allegato CD Rom con la ricostruzione in 3D della scena del delitto.


Do the authors have a connection?

I notice a lot of references to psychology?

http://books.google.com/books/about/Mer ... TVRS6kkiMC
User avatar
RoseMontague
 
Posts: 3529
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby RoseMontague » Sun May 06, 2012 5:39 am

Part of the question maybe answered here:

http://www.italbooks.com/Exhibition/book/1879/meredith



This book analyzes the event point by point, supported by an enclosed DVD, containing an accurate and technologically advanced reconstruction in 3D of the crime scene. With this book, the Authors succeed in highlighting many unsolved aspects of Meredith’s murder, introducing some essential documents and dwelling upon the personalities involved in this case.

Vincenzo Maria Mastronardi, Psychiatrist and psychotherapist, holds the chair of Forensic Psychopathology of the Rome University “La Sapienza” and the chair of Criminology of the Roma Tre University. He is also Director of the International Master in Criminological Sciences of the Rome University “La Sapienza”.

Giuseppe Castellini lives in Perugia, where is in charge of the “Il Giornale dell’Umbria”. Journalist, he also was Professor of legal and economic doctrines, public administrator for eight years and he worked in the national press department of the UIL.
User avatar
RoseMontague
 
Posts: 3529
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby roteoctober » Sun May 06, 2012 11:23 am

I'd define this book an early guilter work.
It appears to have been written after Micheli's ruling but probably even before the start of the first trial or during its very early stages.
The prosecution's theories earn the lion's share: even the early ones concerning Halloween and satanic rites are seriously considered.
Then there is the "psycographological" analysis of Amanda's and Raffaele's handwriting and of course they reveal Amanda's narcissism and even aggressivity...
All in all a waste of money if one plans to buy it.
I don't know what there could be in the DVD but I guess it contains a graphical representation of a clearly one sided point of view about the crime.
roteoctober
Tech Director
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:01 pm
Location: Turin - Italy

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Hans » Sun May 06, 2012 11:47 am

roteoctober wrote:I'd define this book an early guilter work.
It appears to have been written after Micheli's ruling but probably even before the start of the first trial or during its very early stages.
The prosecution's theories earn the lion's share: even the early ones concerning Halloween and satanic rites are seriously considered.
Then there is the "psycographological" analysis of Amanda's and Raffaele's handwriting and of course they reveal Amanda's narcissism and even aggressivity...
All in all a waste of money if one plans to buy it.
I don't know what there could be in the DVD but I guess it contains a graphical representation of a clearly one sided point of view about the crime.
The publication date was 1.1.2009 according to amazon.it.
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4545
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Teddy » Sun May 06, 2012 1:19 pm

Giuseppe Castellini is one of the authors. That's all you need to know to realize that it's a load of bullsh*t.
Amanda Knox: "According to Mignini, we found Meredith at the villa and said, Hey, that stupid bitch. Let’s show Meredith. Let’s get her to play a sex game. I was horrified. Who thinks like that?".... indeed, who thinks like that?
User avatar
Teddy
 
Posts: 1774
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:17 am

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Bill Williams » Sun May 06, 2012 2:12 pm

roteoctober wrote:I'd define this book an early guilter work.
It appears to have been written after Micheli's ruling but probably even before the start of the first trial or during its very early stages.
The prosecution's theories earn the lion's share: even the early ones concerning Halloween and satanic rites are seriously considered.
Then there is the "psycographological" analysis of Amanda's and Raffaele's handwriting and of course they reveal Amanda's narcissism and even aggressivity...
All in all a waste of money if one plans to buy it.
I don't know what there could be in the DVD but I guess it contains a graphical representation of a clearly one sided point of view about the crime.

teddy wrote:Giuseppe Castellini is one of the authors. That's all you need to know to realize that it's a load of bullsh*t.

I know nothing of DNA analysis.... but writing analysis is what I do know about. I may not know a lot about such things, but I know enough to say with 100% confidence that ANYONE who makes a sophisticated psychological diagnosis based on handwriting alone is simply.... :batshit crazy::

It is the equivalent of saying that you can determine if someone is a killer by looking at a picture of them.

It is why we have trials with things called.... er, what's it called, I always forget... lessee... oh yes, it's called EVIDENCE!
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8091
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby RoseMontague » Sun May 06, 2012 4:32 pm

My main question is that if it is possible that some of this 3D material on the CD provided with the book comes from the same people that produced the video for the prosecution.
User avatar
RoseMontague
 
Posts: 3529
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Teddy » Mon May 07, 2012 12:04 am

I don't think it's the same video as the €182,000 version, but it doesn't say it isn't either. If you click on the book you can actually read the first 44 pages of the book and page 45 says that the DVD was 3d and avangard, step-by-step reconstruction of what happened.
Amanda Knox: "According to Mignini, we found Meredith at the villa and said, Hey, that stupid bitch. Let’s show Meredith. Let’s get her to play a sex game. I was horrified. Who thinks like that?".... indeed, who thinks like that?
User avatar
Teddy
 
Posts: 1774
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:17 am

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby RoseMontague » Mon May 07, 2012 3:59 am

Thanks Teddy. This book came out about the time the first trial was just beginning. I am guessing there is a connection here but I have no confirmation. I wonder if this reconstruction also showed AK and RS bring the lamp into Meredith's room?
User avatar
RoseMontague
 
Posts: 3529
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Teddy » Mon May 07, 2012 8:29 am

Interesting question... I'm afraid it doesn't say. One would have to buy the book + DVD to find out and I have no intention of contributing to Castellini's pocket money! :-)
Amanda Knox: "According to Mignini, we found Meredith at the villa and said, Hey, that stupid bitch. Let’s show Meredith. Let’s get her to play a sex game. I was horrified. Who thinks like that?".... indeed, who thinks like that?
User avatar
Teddy
 
Posts: 1774
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:17 am

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Hans » Thu May 24, 2012 8:09 am

RoseMontague wrote:Thanks Teddy. This book came out about the time the first trial was just beginning. I am guessing there is a connection here but I have no confirmation. I wonder if this reconstruction also showed AK and RS bring the lamp into Meredith's room?
The "accurate and technologically advanced reconstruction in 3D of the crime scene." is a 9.7 megabyte "walkable" 3D rendering of the interiour of the cottage. Walls, floors and most of the furniture are coloured in different shades of grey. Only a few items, like the duvet on Amanda's bed (bright magenta) are colored. No animation.
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4545
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Hans » Thu May 24, 2012 10:46 am

The last part of the book is judging the character of Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy by analysing their handwriting:
Conclusion for Amanda: (google translation)
Diagnostic hypotheses:
The DSM-IV-TR defines borderline personality disorder as "a pervasive pattern of instability of interpersonal relationships, self-image and affects, and marked impulsivity ..." (p. 756).
From examination of psiocografologica made some writings by Amanda revealed that the same is not suffering from severe personality disorder borderline, not able to disabling the ability to understand (the value or disvalue of acts, facts or omissions, as well aware of the determine the variations which might be appropriate for the occasion) and will.
An examination of previous similar cases evaluated psicografologicamente, when deepened psychiatric diagnostics due to mode-psychiatric clinical interview (see Mastronardi, operators manual for forensic criminology and psychopathology, Giuffre, 2001) and through the use of testistica universally accepted (eg Rorschach, MMPI, etc..), did not appear separated by highlighting the most minute until you get in certain cases to the revaluation of the total or partial impairment of the ability to understand and desire.
The relationship with the drug does not rule out Amanda in her ability to understand the risk of the consequences of their actions, after taking the drug.
The predominant features psicografologiche Amanda are:
1) heightened narcissism;
2) anger and aggressiveness;
3) manipolativita and theatricality;
4) tendency to transgression;
5) lack of empathy and emotional anesthesia;
6) tend to dominate the relationship with sudden satisfaction of immediate needs;
7) tendency to develop easy dislikes when interacting with people who do not share her views or that they have very competitive;
8) the most profound feeling of neglect of the dictates of authority to which attitudes tend to defend themselves with concealed internal challenge.

for Raffaele: (google translation)
Diagnostic hypotheses:
Whether, as a dependent personality* afraid to express disagreement frankly unrealistic fears of losing support, it is also available from under the thumb facing unpleasant situations in order to obtain the approval of others.
It is capable of discernment.

* Fears and anxieties make it vulnerable to relational interaction with each other.


For Rudy: (google translation)
Diagnostic hypotheses:
No severe personality disorder (not otherwise specified) (DSM-IV TR NAS) as are observed:
- Obsessive-compulsive traits that lead ultimately be carried to the surface and unproductive social and occupational functioning;
- Is concerned (especially) of rejection and criticism of of others;
- Tends to take advantage of others to achieve their goals;
- Is easily suggestible;
- The design is paranoid and is accentuated as a result of physical or psychological stress;
- Impulsivity;
- Tendency to hold grudges;
- Susceptibility to criticism, mainly interpreted in the sense malicious and often with a hidden meaning. We report extremely important because in the third last leaf Rudy, about himself, says: "My life was not easy, yes, I am biased to say the lies ...".
:scurrilous verunglimpfung:
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4545
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Bill Williams » Thu May 24, 2012 11:01 am

Hans wrote:The last part of the book is judging the character of Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy by analysing their handwriting:
Conclusion for Amanda: (google translation)

At the risk of me being boring.... and repetitive.... and redundant.....

This is junk science. No reputable analyst alive would draw such conclusions based on handwriting. Period. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but it is hard enough to have the "soft sciences" like psychology, et. al., taken seriously when these junk-science things are out there.

The one "Statement Analysis" person I do listen to has a giant disclaimer which accomplanies all the stuff he does. He says appropriately:

"Statement Analysis is not evidence. It is an investigative tool that serves to help investigators in their efforts to determine investigative direction, gather information in an effort to discover the truth. All people so analysed are presumed innocent of all charges until proven otherwise in a recognized court of law."

In short, if the investigative direction supplied by the analysis proves worthless, then one abandons the results of the statement analysis that got you there. It is far, far, from an exact science.

All this "soft science" also has to include cultural, gender, age, and psychological analysis & differences between people as to the way they express things. Hungarians are bad for black humour.... therefore it DOES make a difference when something "sinister" is said by a Hungarian..... that sort of thing.

Handwriting analysis is even more tenuous, if not total junk.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8091
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby pmop57 » Thu May 24, 2012 11:13 am

Bill Williams wrote:
Hans wrote:The last part of the book is judging the character of Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy by analysing their handwriting:
Conclusion for Amanda: (google translation)

At the risk of me being boring.... and repetitive.... and redundant.....

This is junk science. No reputable analyst alive would draw such conclusions based on handwriting. Period. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but it is hard enough to have the "soft sciences" like psychology, et. al., taken seriously when these junk-science things are out there.

The one "Statement Analysis" person I do listen to has a giant disclaimer which accomplanies all the stuff he does. He says appropriately:

"Statement Analysis is not evidence. It is an investigative tool that serves to help investigators in their efforts to determine investigative direction, gather information in an effort to discover the truth. All people so analysed are presumed innocent of all charges until proven otherwise in a recognized court of law."

In short, if the investigative direction supplied by the analysis proves worthless, then one abandons the results of the statement analysis that got you there. It is far, far, from an exact science.

All this "soft science" also has to include cultural, gender, age, and psychological analysis & differences between people as to the way they express things. Hungarians are bad for black humour.... therefore it DOES make a difference when something "sinister" is said by a Hungarian..... that sort of thing.

Handwriting analysis is even more tenuous, if not total junk.


I totaly agree with you.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4870
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Bill Williams » Thu May 24, 2012 11:24 am

pmop57 wrote:
Bill Williams wrote: "Statement Analysis is not evidence. It is an investigative tool that serves to help investigators in their efforts to determine investigative direction, gather information in an effort to discover the truth. All people so analysed are presumed innocent of all charges until proven otherwise in a recognized court of law."


I totaly agree with you.

The strange thing is that the Statement Analysis guy I follow seems to drop all these principles for one person. Amanda Knox.

They take the one phrase Knox uses to close the appeal trial, "I did not kill." They say that dropping the 'object' of the sentence weakens the assertion.

In total, they say that Knox's final plea for release suggests that she has "sexual homicide" in her background.

The big disappointment for me is that this person does not even follow their own principles in relation to this one case. At best, this suggestion of 'sexual homicide' revealed by speech should only be an investigative direction. Once the forensics rule on that, and once a brief check of Washington State criminal archives reveals a clean record.... that should be that.

It's disappointing to see someone drop their own principles in favour of thier own unsupported biases.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8091
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby pmop57 » Thu May 24, 2012 11:49 am

Bill Williams wrote:
pmop57 wrote:
Bill Williams wrote: "Statement Analysis is not evidence. It is an investigative tool that serves to help investigators in their efforts to determine investigative direction, gather information in an effort to discover the truth. All people so analysed are presumed innocent of all charges until proven otherwise in a recognized court of law."


I totaly agree with you.

The strange thing is that the Statement Analysis guy I follow seems to drop all these principles for one person. Amanda Knox.

They take the one phrase Knox uses to close the appeal trial, "I did not kill." They say that dropping the 'object' of the sentence weakens the assertion.

In total, they say that Knox's final plea for release suggests that she has "sexual homicide" in her background.

The big disappointment for me is that this person does not even follow their own principles in relation to this one case. At best, this suggestion of 'sexual homicide' revealed by speech should only be an investigative direction. Once the forensics rule on that, and once a brief check of Washington State criminal archives reveals a clean record.... that should be that.

It's disappointing to see someone drop their own principles in favour of thier own unsupported biases.


All this is rediculising serious science, its a dangerous arguing towards a person envelopping admissions and suppositions into a psychological medical cadre to give it a certain scientific authority value. All psychological tele analyses is simply humbug. He never met that girl. This are simply the same statements, like looking at person and knowing her, like the cold eyes and all the deductions from if, identifying the culprit by simply observing him, and so on, .... ITS HUMBUG ...
pmop57
 
Posts: 4870
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Hans » Thu May 24, 2012 12:10 pm

pmop57 wrote:All this is rediculising serious science, its a dangerous arguing towards a person envelopping admissions and suppositions into a psychological medical cadre to give it a certain scientific authority value. All psychological tele analyses is simply humbug. He never met that girl. This are simply the same statements, like looking at person and knowing her, like the cold eyes and all the deductions from if, identifying the culprit by simply observing him, and so on, .... ITS HUMBUG ...
I totally agree. Handwriting- and statement-analysis is humbug.
But I think, two things are remarkable:
First. All this psycological pseudo-analysing shows how weak the case against Amanda and Raffaele really is. If there had been solid evidence against them, nobody would have brought this up. Wouldn't any psycological illness count as a mitigating circumstance?
Second. This book was published, according to amazon.it, January 1st 2009, even before the first trial started. Even if one wants to believe, that the tabloids had no influence on the judges, a book written by so called "scientists" is a different thing.
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4545
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby pmop57 » Thu May 24, 2012 12:46 pm

Hans wrote:
pmop57 wrote:All this is rediculising serious science, its a dangerous arguing towards a person envelopping admissions and suppositions into a psychological medical cadre to give it a certain scientific authority value. All psychological tele analyses is simply humbug. He never met that girl. This are simply the same statements, like looking at person and knowing her, like the cold eyes and all the deductions from if, identifying the culprit by simply observing him, and so on, .... ITS HUMBUG ...
I totally agree. Handwriting- and statement-analysis is humbug.
But I think, two things are remarkable:
First. All this psycological pseudo-analysing shows how weak the case against Amanda and Raffaele really is. If there had been solid evidence against them, nobody would have brought this up. Wouldn't any psycological illness count as a mitigating circumstance?
Second. This book was published, according to amazon.it, January 1st 2009, even before the first trial started. Even if one wants to believe, that the tabloids had no influence on the judges, a book written by so called "scientists" is a different thing.


You are right, all and everything is moved to harm and only one person, Amanda, she is the target, the responsable person for everything. All is organised like if anybody participated in a conspirative action plan against here, as if they wanted to get her destroyed by all means.
I still dont get the WHY of the hate against this inoffensive young women.
And there is an other point to which guilters always refer to, that Amanda had to pass psychological tests in Capanne but I never saw these tests beeing named or appearing anywhere.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4870
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Hans » Thu May 24, 2012 1:36 pm

pmop57 wrote:
Hans wrote:
pmop57 wrote:All this is rediculising serious science, its a dangerous arguing towards a person envelopping admissions and suppositions into a psychological medical cadre to give it a certain scientific authority value. All psychological tele analyses is simply humbug. He never met that girl. This are simply the same statements, like looking at person and knowing her, like the cold eyes and all the deductions from if, identifying the culprit by simply observing him, and so on, .... ITS HUMBUG ...
I totally agree. Handwriting- and statement-analysis is humbug.
But I think, two things are remarkable:
First. All this psycological pseudo-analysing shows how weak the case against Amanda and Raffaele really is. If there had been solid evidence against them, nobody would have brought this up. Wouldn't any psycological illness count as a mitigating circumstance?
Second. This book was published, according to amazon.it, January 1st 2009, even before the first trial started. Even if one wants to believe, that the tabloids had no influence on the judges, a book written by so called "scientists" is a different thing.


You are right, all and everything is moved to harm and only one person, Amanda, she is the target, the responsable person for everything. All is organised like if anybody participated in a conspirative action plan against here, as if they wanted to get her destroyed by all means.
I still dont get the WHY of the hate against this inoffensive young women.
And there is an other point to which guilters always refer to, that Amanda had to pass psychological tests in Capanne but I never saw these tests beeing named or appearing anywhere.
That is one of the things I don't understand, too. They could have released her (and Raffaele), with an apology, the day Rudy entered the picture. They could have explained that mistake with "We totally misread your behaviour."
But they went on, the collecting of the (some/any) knife in Raffaele's apartment ,the december visit to the cottage to find someting that could have Raffaele's DNA on it, and so on...
I don't buy the anti-americanism-thing, or the quote from Nina Burleigh, from the 48 hours documentary "Amanda Knox, the untold story" concerning Prosecutor Mignini: "when he looked into the eyes of Amanda Knox, he thought that she was evil..." So, what was it? "Pride, vanity,whatever it was..." as Journalist Bob Graham states in the same documentary? I don't know. It's a guilter point, I know: "Why should an Italian prosecutor, try to jail (for life) an innocent american girl?
On the psycological tests, I think they dissapeared for the same reason as the drug tests: negative, or nothing against them... :((:
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4545
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Teddy » Thu May 24, 2012 2:01 pm

Just to play along with this nonsense somewhat, was it an Italian that analyzed Amanda's hand-writing? Italian hand-writing is very different to the hand-writing most of us were taught through school - I still struggle to read Italian hand-writing after 20 years. Anyway, what a load of XXXXXXIT.
Amanda Knox: "According to Mignini, we found Meredith at the villa and said, Hey, that stupid bitch. Let’s show Meredith. Let’s get her to play a sex game. I was horrified. Who thinks like that?".... indeed, who thinks like that?
User avatar
Teddy
 
Posts: 1774
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:17 am

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Flipp » Thu May 24, 2012 2:02 pm

Diagnostic hypotheses:
The DSM-IV-TR defines borderline personality disorder as "a pervasive pattern of instability of interpersonal relationships, self-image and affects, and marked impulsivity ..." (p. 756).
From examination of psiocografologica made some writings by Amanda revealed that the same is not suffering from severe personality disorder borderline, not able to disabling the ability to understand (the value or disvalue of acts, facts or omissions, as well aware of the determine the variations which might be appropriate for the occasion) and will.
An examination of previous similar cases evaluated psicografologicamente, when deepened psychiatric diagnostics due to mode-psychiatric clinical interview (see Mastronardi, operators manual for forensic criminology and psychopathology, Giuffre, 2001) and through the use of testistica universally accepted (eg Rorschach, MMPI, etc..), did not appear separated by highlighting the most minute until you get in certain cases to the revaluation of the total or partial impairment of the ability to understand and desire.
The relationship with the drug does not rule out Amanda in her ability to understand the risk of the consequences of their actions, after taking the drug.
The predominant features psicografologiche Amanda are:
1) heightened narcissism;
2) anger and aggressiveness;
3) manipolativita and theatricality;
4) tendency to transgression;
5) lack of empathy and emotional anesthesia;
6) tend to dominate the relationship with sudden satisfaction of immediate needs;
7) tendency to develop easy dislikes when interacting with people who do not share her views or that they have very competitive;
8) the most profound feeling of neglect of the dictates of authority to which attitudes tend to defend themselves with concealed internal challenge.

This is interesting. Mignini quoted this book during the closing arguments of the first trial. We can ear him going trough the list in the documentary "The trials of Amanda Knox" at about 52 seconds from the start:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8lccObjh1U&playnext_from=TL&videos=8hdtKul--fQ
Flipp
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:14 pm

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Dougm » Thu May 24, 2012 2:04 pm

Hans wrote:
pmop57 wrote:
Hans wrote:
pmop57 wrote:All this is rediculising serious science, its a dangerous arguing towards a person envelopping admissions and suppositions into a psychological medical cadre to give it a certain scientific authority value. All psychological tele analyses is simply humbug. He never met that girl. This are simply the same statements, like looking at person and knowing her, like the cold eyes and all the deductions from if, identifying the culprit by simply observing him, and so on, .... ITS HUMBUG ...
I totally agree. Handwriting- and statement-analysis is humbug.
But I think, two things are remarkable:
First. All this psycological pseudo-analysing shows how weak the case against Amanda and Raffaele really is. If there had been solid evidence against them, nobody would have brought this up. Wouldn't any psycological illness count as a mitigating circumstance?
Second. This book was published, according to amazon.it, January 1st 2009, even before the first trial started. Even if one wants to believe, that the tabloids had no influence on the judges, a book written by so called "scientists" is a different thing.


You are right, all and everything is moved to harm and only one person, Amanda, she is the target, the responsable person for everything. All is organised like if anybody participated in a conspirative action plan against here, as if they wanted to get her destroyed by all means.
I still dont get the WHY of the hate against this inoffensive young women.
And there is an other point to which guilters always refer to, that Amanda had to pass psychological tests in Capanne but I never saw these tests beeing named or appearing anywhere.
That is one of the things I don't understand, too. They could have released her (and Raffaele), with an apology, the day Rudy entered the picture. They could have explained that mistake with "We totally misread your behaviour."
But they went on, the collecting of the (some/any) knife in Raffaele's apartment ,the december visit to the cottage to find someting that could have Raffaele's DNA on it, and so on...
I don't buy the anti-americanism-thing, or the quote from Nina Burleigh, from the 48 hours documentary "Amanda Knox, the untold story" concerning Prosecutor Mignini: "when he looked into the eyes of Amanda Knox, he thought that she was evil..." So, what was it? "Pride, vanity,whatever it was..." as Journalist Bob Graham states in the same documentary? I don't know. It's a guilter point, I know: "Why should an Italian prosecutor, try to jail (for life) an innocent american girl?
On the psycological tests, I think they dissapeared for the same reason as the drug tests: negative, or nothing against them... :((:


All of the above points to what is probably the key pivot point in this case: Why indeed, do some people hate Amanda Knox so, when many other people find her to be an innocent, basically normal young woman? The guilters have, for years, gone on about how we here are IIP somehow idolize Amanda, and think she is a little angel who could never do anything wrong. For me, it is the contrary. I see her as a normal college girl, doing all the things college girls do. A bit on the quirky side, maybe, but so what? You go to any college dorm, walk down the hall, and it is full of Amanda Knoxes, and many would be much more "naughty" than she ever was. Most of them would be less of a student, less responsible, and not as nice in their everyday actions as she was/is.

The bigger question is -- why do they hate her so? WTF is their problem? I don't know if Mignini saw evil in her eyes, or what, but I don't see anything about her that should cause someone to think anything bad about her. It seems to me her worst trait is being a bit self absorbed and absent minded. Who of us was not that at the age of 20?

This to me, is what makes this case weird. The hate against a normal girl that these people don't even know.

:batshit crazy:: Oops, wrong thread.
When you berate someone and push them and confuse them and lie to them and convince them that they're wrong you're not finding the truth.

Amanda Knox
Dougm
Moderator
 
Posts: 3189
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 5:00 pm

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Bill Williams » Thu May 24, 2012 2:07 pm

Hans wrote: I totally agree. Handwriting- and statement-analysis is humbug.
But I think, two things are remarkable:
First. All this psycological pseudo-analysing shows how weak the case against Amanda and Raffaele really is. If there had been solid evidence against them, nobody would have brought this up. Wouldn't any psycological illness count as a mitigating circumstance?

In another thread, I would defend Statement Analysis.... not as evidence, but as a clue to unlocking investigative directions. But I agree.... the way SA was/is used in relation to this case is pure bunk - humbug if you want.

But SA can be useful even in this case...... basic statement analysis determines that the "confessions" Knox signed were not in her language, nor in the kind of language she could accomplish; namely, legalese Italian police language.

At that basic level, you'll have to agree that "statement analysis" is at the very leaset..... useful.

I also agree - if at the end of the day all you have is the analysis of anyone's statements, things that have not led anywhere solid, then that shows how weak the overall case is..... if not, nonexistant.

My disappointment is that people who know better threw aside all the proper caveats to use SA as evidence. Evidence of "sexual homicide". That is pure, pure bunk and a blatant misues of what can be a useful tool.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8091
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby pmop57 » Thu May 24, 2012 2:22 pm

Hans wrote:
pmop57 wrote:
Hans wrote:
pmop57 wrote:All this is rediculising serious science, its a dangerous arguing towards a person envelopping admissions and suppositions into a psychological medical cadre to give it a certain scientific authority value. All psychological tele analyses is simply humbug. He never met that girl. This are simply the same statements, like looking at person and knowing her, like the cold eyes and all the deductions from if, identifying the culprit by simply observing him, and so on, .... ITS HUMBUG ...
I totally agree. Handwriting- and statement-analysis is humbug.
But I think, two things are remarkable:
First. All this psycological pseudo-analysing shows how weak the case against Amanda and Raffaele really is. If there had been solid evidence against them, nobody would have brought this up. Wouldn't any psycological illness count as a mitigating circumstance?
Second. This book was published, according to amazon.it, January 1st 2009, even before the first trial started. Even if one wants to believe, that the tabloids had no influence on the judges, a book written by so called "scientists" is a different thing.


You are right, all and everything is moved to harm and only one person, Amanda, she is the target, the responsable person for everything. All is organised like if anybody participated in a conspirative action plan against here, as if they wanted to get her destroyed by all means.
I still dont get the WHY of the hate against this inoffensive young women.
And there is an other point to which guilters always refer to, that Amanda had to pass psychological tests in Capanne but I never saw these tests beeing named or appearing anywhere.
That is one of the things I don't understand, too. They could have released her (and Raffaele), with an apology, the day Rudy entered the picture. They could have explained that mistake with "We totally misread your behaviour."
But they went on, the collecting of the (some/any) knife in Raffaele's apartment ,the december visit to the cottage to find someting that could have Raffaele's DNA on it, and so on...
I don't buy the anti-americanism-thing, or the quote from Nina Burleigh, from the 48 hours documentary "Amanda Knox, the untold story" concerning Prosecutor Mignini: "when he looked into the eyes of Amanda Knox, he thought that she was evil..." So, what was it? "Pride, vanity,whatever it was..." as Journalist Bob Graham states in the same documentary? I don't know. It's a guilter point, I know: "Why should an Italian prosecutor, try to jail (for life) an innocent american girl?
On the psycological tests, I think they dissapeared for the same reason as the drug tests: negative, or nothing against them... :((:


I also dont buy the anti-american-thing, of cause the story was ballooned by the english press bacause the victim was british (some nationalism for sure), in Italy it was treated by the italien press like all the cases are treated, italien like these cases. But nevertheless all was focussed on Amanda, but wasn't this more then sexism. In most other europeen papers the case was not really thematizised.
The most reliable explanations for me are coming from Frank Sfarzo even if he sometimes is overdrawing thé events, but thats his way of writing.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4870
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Hans » Thu May 24, 2012 2:29 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
Hans wrote: I totally agree. Handwriting- and statement-analysis is humbug.
But I think, two things are remarkable:
First. All this psycological pseudo-analysing shows how weak the case against Amanda and Raffaele really is. If there had been solid evidence against them, nobody would have brought this up. Wouldn't any psycological illness count as a mitigating circumstance?

In another thread, I would defend Statement Analysis.... not as evidence, but as a clue to unlocking investigative directions. But I agree.... the way SA was/is used in relation to this case is pure bunk - humbug if you want.

But SA can be useful even in this case...... basic statement analysis determines that the "confessions" Knox signed were not in her language, nor in the kind of language she could accomplish; namely, legalese Italian police language.

At that basic level, you'll have to agree that "statement analysis" is at the very leaset..... useful.

I also agree - if at the end of the day all you have is the analysis of anyone's statements, things that have not led anywhere solid, then that shows how weak the overall case is..... if not, nonexistant.

My disappointment is that people who know better threw aside all the proper caveats to use SA as evidence. Evidence of "sexual homicide". That is pure, pure bunk and a blatant misues of what can be a useful tool.
The problem I have with Handwriting- or Statement analysis is, that it is (fighting with the language here) comparative? analysis. Compare the handwriting or statements of anyone to the handwriting or statements of Albert Einstein to evaluate if the writer is a genius or not, compare the words written of anyone to the words written by Chalres Manson or the statements he made to evaluate if he/she is a killer, wonder where an analysis of my handwriting would lead...
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4545
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Hans » Thu May 24, 2012 2:41 pm

pmop57 wrote:I also dont buy the anti-american-thing, of cause the story was ballooned by the english press bacause the victim was british (some nationalism for sure), in Italy it was treated by the italien press like all the cases are treated, italien like these cases. But nevertheless all was focussed on Amanda, but wasn't this more then sexism. In most other europeen papers the case was not really thematizised.
The most reliable explanations for me are coming from Frank Sfarzo even if he sometimes is overdrawing thé events, but thats his way of writing.
Amanda was/is "Der Engel mit den Eisaugen" (The Angel with the icy eyes) in germany, I still have to use that phrase to get people to recognize who (and what) I'm talking about, when I mention the Name: "Amanda Knox"...
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4545
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Bill Williams » Thu May 24, 2012 2:44 pm

Hans wrote: The problem I have with Handwriting- or Statement analysis is, that it is (fighting with the language here) comparative? analysis. Compare the handwriting or statements of anyone to the handwriting or statements of Albert Einstein to evaluate if the writer is a genius or not, compare the words written of anyone to the words written by Chalres Manson or the statements he made to evaluate if he/she is a killer, wonder where an analysis of my handwriting would lead...

I think you have hit on it..... you would want some scientific control groups - if SA was intended to produce evidence.

It's not meant to do that.

One of the things that Lee Harvey Oswald always refused to answer, was anything to do with the rifle used to kill John Kennedy in Dallas. He'd be forthcoming about everything else, but as soon as the rifle came up, he'd change the subject.

Does this mean that Oswald shot Kennedy? No. What it means is that a cop needs to investigate this link between the rifle and Oswald further... probably before other stuff. It could very well lead to nothing... but it is a guide to sorting out investigative priorities....

Using SA to say, "these are the words og a killer," would make one want to see the controlled, double-blind experiments which would lead one to say stupid things like that.

It's not what SA is.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8091
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Hans » Thu May 24, 2012 2:45 pm

Teddy wrote:Just to play along with this nonsense somewhat, was it an Italian that analyzed Amanda's hand-writing? Italian hand-writing is very different to the hand-writing most of us were taught through school - I still struggle to read Italian hand-writing after 20 years. Anyway, what a load of XXXXXXIT.
:::thumbs up::: :clap:
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4545
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby pmop57 » Thu May 24, 2012 3:01 pm

Dougm wrote:All of the above points to what is probably the key pivot point in this case: Why indeed, do some people hate Amanda Knox so, when many other people find her to be an innocent, basically normal young woman? The guilters have, for years, gone on about how we here are IIP somehow idolize Amanda, and think she is a little angel who could never do anything wrong. For me, it is the contrary. I see her as a normal college girl, doing
all the things college girls do. A bit on the quirky side, maybe, but so what? You go to any college dorm, walk down the hall, and it is full of Amanda Knoxes, and many would be much more "naughty" than she ever was. Most of them would be less of a student, less responsible, and not as nice in their everyday actions as she was/is.
The bigger question is -- why do they hate her so? WTF is their problem? I don't know if Mignini saw evil in her eyes, or what, but I don't see anything about her that should cause someone to think anything bad about her. It seems to me her worst trait is being a bit self absorbed and absent minded. Who of us was not that at the age of 20?
This to me, is what makes this case weird. The hate against a normal girl that these people don't even know.
:batshit crazy:: Oops, wrong thread.


I agree with you : At the beginning of this case all these kids were students, like thousands others, like my kids and probably yours, absolutly ordinary kids. And this was as valid for Amanda as it was valid for Meredith. People on the way to dicover their lifes and preparing to manage their futur life, on the way to cut the cords from their parents. It was only after the desaster that Amanda was forced toi accelerate mher becoming an adult person, th testing life was abruptly over. THIS COULD BE ANALYSED MORE IN DEPTH.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4870
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Hans » Thu May 24, 2012 3:03 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
Hans wrote: The problem I have with Handwriting- or Statement analysis is, that it is (fighting with the language here) comparative? analysis. Compare the handwriting or statements of anyone to the handwriting or statements of Albert Einstein to evaluate if the writer is a genius or not, compare the words written of anyone to the words written by Chalres Manson or the statements he made to evaluate if he/she is a killer, wonder where an analysis of my handwriting would lead...

I think you have hit on it..... you would want some scientific control groups - if SA was intended to produce evidence.

It's not meant to do that.

One of the things that Lee Harvey Oswald always refused to answer, was anything to do with the rifle used to kill John Kennedy in Dallas. He'd be forthcoming about everything else, but as soon as the rifle came up, he'd change the subject.

Does this mean that Oswald shot Kennedy? No. What it means is that a cop needs to investigate this link between the rifle and Oswald further... probably before other stuff. It could very well lead to nothing... but it is a guide to sorting out investigative priorities....

Using SA to say, "these are the words og a killer," would make one want to see the controlled, double-blind experiments which would lead one to say stupid things like that.

It's not what SA is.
Even if SA isn't to be used to "create" evidence, it was used that way in the case of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Things they said/written were interpreted to fit the prosecution's theory... :sadno:
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4545
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Bill Williams » Thu May 24, 2012 4:56 pm

Hans wrote:Even if SA isn't to be used to "create" evidence, it was used that way in the case of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Things they said/written were interpreted to fit the prosecution's theory... :sadno:

I am not sure how much I want to argue this, but let me try this on for size....

..... Statement Analysis of the two confessions should produce an obvious confused conclusion, that would tend to mitigate going out and arresting Patrick Lumumba. Whatever it was that Knox was supposed to have confessed to, Statement Analysis would not say, "go out and arrest the black guy."

In fact, AngloLawyer did a version of Statement Analysis when he compared the two statements Knox signed that night. In this case there IS something resembling "scientific control conditions", given that it was the same person doing the signing, and the same police force composing the text as the night wore on.

His theory was that the two statements actually showed the police's "theory of the crime" as the night progressed. For instance, the first statement makes no mention of Raffaele, and the second has Knox saying that she cannot remember if Raffaele was at the cottage or not.

There's probably 100 things you can say about that simple fact - RS is in one, and not the other. You would want to delve into investigative lines as to why RS is mentioned (or not) in each. Guilters have one theory.... yet as the forensics come in, you'd want to say, "Jeez Louise, Raffaele is simply not at the cottage," so the investigate question to pursue would be, "Why would Amanda first sign something that has no mention of him, and then sign something that has this ridiculous statement, "I can't remember if he was there or not?"

For me, using Anglo's hunch, this is how Statement Analysis can cut both ways. Now there is cause to investigate the investigators, simply on the text of the two "confessions".

I wish Anglo would repost his compare and contrast the two confessions.... simply by looking at the text of Italian Police legalese, and how it changes, one can unlock what SOMEONE was thinking that night. Guilters say it unlocks Knox's series of lies and ver changing stories. Anglo was implying that it actually unlocked the way this whole thing went out of whack.

And note - haven't even touched the "See You Later" text, that the first set of cops mistranslated as Knox intending to meet Lumumba later in the evening. I mean, basic idiomatic differences between languages is part of SA. It's what intepretors are for - and Anna Donino failed miserably at this - even in court described the very method by which she failed, when she said she started to act as a mediator, rather than a translator. Remember - she'd arrived 90 minutes into Knox's first interrogation; so far, just analysing the texts produced by everyone of that first interrogation alone describes a chaotic scene that even the flippin' translator said needed mediating!

What was to happen in the next 75 minutes is the sum total of this case. In the next 75 minutes Lumumba's name enters the narrative, and we're away to the races. And the text of the "first confession" is a product of the confusion and it shows.

I have no quarrel at all with people who say that SA does not create evidence. At the very best it points to possible evidence, and 75%-99% of the time it is wrong. It does not replace the gumshoe work of going and knocking on al the doors in Perugia. It is not a short cut, and to hell with those who use it as one. But given that it was only when the forensics came back, pointing to Guede and to Guede alone, my point is that SA alone could have and should have cut the students free.....

I ask you this.... what part of the narrative before Guede came on the scene, when analysed as text, points to the students? Points to Lumumba?

It's why I tire at the accusation that Knox fingered Lumumba in her confession. She did nothing of the kind, even if Hellmann is correct that Knox fingered Lumumba simply to lessen the intesity and discomfort of interrogation.

As statements, as text, as narrative, nothing Knox said or signed says, "go out and arrest Lumumba."

As statements, as text, as narrative, everything Knox said or signed says, "we need to step back a bit and put this into perspective. This girl is saying wild things, and we have to seriously consider that the experimenter is biasing the experiment."

And that is what it SHOULD look like to any reasonable person - in even a bare, unsophisticated analysis of the statements made.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8091
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Canto » Thu May 24, 2012 5:24 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
Hans wrote:Even if SA isn't to be used to "create" evidence, it was used that way in the case of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Things they said/written were interpreted to fit the prosecution's theory... :sadno:

I am not sure how much I want to argue this, but let me try this on for size....

..... Statement Analysis of the two confessions should produce an obvious confused conclusion, that would tend to mitigate going out and arresting Patrick Lumumba. Whatever it was that Knox was supposed to have confessed to, Statement Analysis would not say, "go out and arrest the black guy."

In fact, AngloLawyer did a version of Statement Analysis when he compared the two statements Knox signed that night. In this case there IS something resembling "scientific control conditions", given that it was the same person doing the signing, and the same police force composing the text as the night wore on.

His theory was that the two statements actually showed the police's "theory of the crime" as the night progressed. For instance, the first statement makes no mention of Raffaele, and the second has Knox saying that she cannot remember if Raffaele was at the cottage or not.

There's probably 100 things you can say about that simple fact - RS is in one, and not the other. You would want to delve into investigative lines as to why RS is mentioned (or not) in each. Guilters have one theory.... yet as the forensics come in, you'd want to say, "Jeez Louise, Raffaele is simply not at the cottage," so the investigate question to pursue would be, "Why would Amanda first sign something that has no mention of him, and then sign something that has this ridiculous statement, "I can't remember if he was there or not?"

For me, using Anglo's hunch, this is how Statement Analysis can cut both ways. Now there is cause to investigate the investigators, simply on the text of the two "confessions".

I wish Anglo would repost his compare and contrast the two confessions.... simply by looking at the text of Italian Police legalese, and how it changes, one can unlock what SOMEONE was thinking that night. Guilters say it unlocks Knox's series of lies and ver changing stories. Anglo was implying that it actually unlocked the way this whole thing went out of whack.

And note - haven't even touched the "See You Later" text, that the first set of cops mistranslated as Knox intending to meet Lumumba later in the evening. I mean, basic idiomatic differences between languages is part of SA. It's what intepretors are for - and Anna Donino failed miserably at this - even in court described the very method by which she failed, when she said she started to act as a mediator, rather than a translator. Remember - she'd arrived 90 minutes into Knox's first interrogation; so far, just analysing the texts produced by everyone of that first interrogation alone describes a chaotic scene that even the flippin' translator said needed mediating!

What was to happen in the next 75 minutes is the sum total of this case. In the next 75 minutes Lumumba's name enters the narrative, and we're away to the races. And the text of the "first confession" is a product of the confusion and it shows.

I have no quarrel at all with people who say that SA does not create evidence. At the very best it points to possible evidence, and 75%-99% of the time it is wrong. It does not replace the gumshoe work of going and knocking on al the doors in Perugia. It is not a short cut, and to hell with those who use it as one. But given that it was only when the forensics came back, pointing to Guede and to Guede alone, my point is that SA alone could have and should have cut the students free.....

I ask you this.... what part of the narrative before Guede came on the scene, when analysed as text, points to the students? Points to Lumumba?

It's why I tire at the accusation that Knox fingered Lumumba in her confession. She did nothing of the kind, even if Hellmann is correct that Knox fingered Lumumba simply to lessen the intesity and discomfort of interrogation.

As statements, as text, as narrative, nothing Knox said or signed says, "go out and arrest Lumumba."

As statements, as text, as narrative, everything Knox said or signed says, "we need to step back a bit and put this into perspective. This girl is saying wild things, and we have to seriously consider that the experimenter is biasing the experiment."

And that is what it SHOULD look like to any reasonable person - in even a bare, unsophisticated analysis of the statements made.


(bolding mine)

...They fed her lines she could not possibly understand; she signed them. She gave them what they wanted, an excuse to arrest Lumumba. At that point, they weren't (yet) interested in anything else.
"You can escape from prison, but how do you escape from a convincing story? After enough repetitions, the facts come to serve the story and not the other way around.
Like kudzu, suddenly the story is everywhere and impenetrable.”

~ Errol Morris
User avatar
Canto
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Bill Williams » Thu May 24, 2012 5:37 pm

Canto wrote:
Bill Williams wrote: As statements, as text, as narrative, everything Knox said or signed says, "we need to step back a bit and put this into perspective. This girl is saying wild things, and we have to seriously consider that the experimenter is biasing the experiment."

And that is what it SHOULD look like to any reasonable person - in even a bare, unsophisticated analysis of the statements made.


(bolding mine)

...They fed her lines she could not possibly understand; she signed them. She gave them what they wanted, an excuse to arrest Lumumba. At that point, they weren't (yet) interested in anything else.

Please remember the limitations of what I am doing here. It's taking at face value that what Knox signed, Knox said. I am saying this based on only the text of what is on record, nothing more.

You're raising a different issue - it is one that only the tapes or video of the interrogation would reveal. My view on that is that if there was ANYTHING on those tapes which supported the police, we would have long since seen them.

Instead of not friggin' showing up for the parents' calunnia trial, they would have strode into the courtroom with a video cassette, a VCR and said, "OK judge, everyone get comfy. We're going to play you 6 and 3/4 hours of video tape. Everyone needs to be glued to the screen, because we are about to show you that in 6 3/4 hours, Knox was not hit once."

That would have been case closed on that other calunnia charge. That they cannot do that, or worse do not want to do that, says everything I need to hear.

But note - for the purposes of this thread, all I am considering is the bare meaning of texts. And they aren't even very damning to Amanda Knox....
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8091
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Canto » Thu May 24, 2012 6:01 pm

You've caught me out. :red: I'm arguing from conclusion to evidence rather then from evidence to conclusion--a basic mistake in reasoning I think the Guilters make all the time and as a matter of course. But I have concluded, for other reasons, that Amanda and Rafaelle are innocent. That leaves me to explain why Amanda would make such ostensibly self-incriminating statements. I've concluded she never made them--or at least didn't understand what she was saying. That conclusion doesn't seem much of a stretch to me. Assuming that Amanda had nothing to do with Meredith's murder (as I think we have ample grounds for other reasons to conclude), given what we know the circumstances in which these statements were made and the indisputable fact Amanda did not speak Italian well at this point, it is curious how well these statements served to advance the prosecution's case against Lumumba--the initial suspect.


I smell a rat.
"You can escape from prison, but how do you escape from a convincing story? After enough repetitions, the facts come to serve the story and not the other way around.
Like kudzu, suddenly the story is everywhere and impenetrable.”

~ Errol Morris
User avatar
Canto
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri May 25, 2012 4:44 am

Canto wrote:You've caught me out. :red: I'm arguing from conclusion to evidence rather then from evidence to conclusion--a basic mistake in reasoning I think the Guilters make all the time and as a matter of course. But I have concluded, for other reasons, that Amanda and Rafaelle are innocent. That leaves me to explain why Amanda would make such ostensibly self-incriminating statements. I've concluded she never made them--or at least didn't understand what she was saying. That conclusion doesn't seem much of a stretch to me. Assuming that Amanda had nothing to do with Meredith's murder (as I think we have ample grounds for other reasons to conclude), given what we know the circumstances in which these statements were made and the indisputable fact Amanda did not speak Italian well at this point, it is curious how well these statements served to advance the prosecution's case against Lumumba--the initial suspect.

I smell a rat.

You know, I've been thinking about the highlighted bit. If you substitute the word 'theory' for 'conclusion' not only is it a perfectly reasonable thing to be doing, I suggest it is actually impossible to think in any other way about crime solutions. The error comes in forgetting that it is only a theory. But a good theory will predict things that only get found out later, about which the theorist could not have known. Einstein's theory of general relativity predicted, but with no way of knowing until it was actually measured (by Rutherford?), the number of seconds of arc by which Mercury's perihelion (closest approach) advances with each orbit around the Sun, Newton's calculations having failed to account for all of it.

Even more stupendous than that, 'my' (I know it's really mine btw.) theory that the cops already suspected Amanda, Raffaele and Lumumba before the interrogations was confirmed by things I didn't know when I formulated it e.g. De Felice saying on 06 Nov 'she buckled and told us what we knew' and, more remarkably, the theory eventually proved more powerful than John Kercher's recollection of his own travel arrangements (I can expand if required).

The point is to remember it is only a theory to be tested by reference to the facts to see whether they fit. And this is a reasonable way (conceptually it is probably the only way, or an indispensable part of the only way) to proceed: you gather facts, immediately start theorising, gather more facts and either modify or toss out the first theory.

There is a third word which better describes what the guilters do. Their belief in guilt is neither a theory nor a conclusion. Rather, it is an axiom to which all other facts must submit. It's like the Earth is flat - therefore you will fall off the edge if you go far enough and if you don't you haven't gone far enough and if you go all the way round and arrive where you started you must have travelled in a circle and if the Sun moved from port to starboard while you did so the Sun's own motion must account for that etc. etc.

The thing is that theories make predictions and good ones can make very startling predictions. The theory that Guede murdered Meredith on his own predicts that Kokomani is a liar and, less strongly, that the Perugia cops know that perfectly well but it is not evidence that Kokomani is a liar. Probably, a theory cannot be evidence of anything. That's another thing to take account of.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Canto » Fri May 25, 2012 6:37 am

anglolawyer wrote:
Canto wrote:You've caught me out. :red: I'm arguing from conclusion to evidence rather then from evidence to conclusion--a basic mistake in reasoning I think the Guilters make all the time and as a matter of course. But I have concluded, for other reasons, that Amanda and Rafaelle are innocent. That leaves me to explain why Amanda would make such ostensibly self-incriminating statements. I've concluded she never made them--or at least didn't understand what she was saying. That conclusion doesn't seem much of a stretch to me. Assuming that Amanda had nothing to do with Meredith's murder (as I think we have ample grounds for other reasons to conclude), given what we know the circumstances in which these statements were made and the indisputable fact Amanda did not speak Italian well at this point, it is curious how well these statements served to advance the prosecution's case against Lumumba--the initial suspect.

I smell a rat.

You know, I've been thinking about the highlighted bit. If you substitute the word 'theory' for 'conclusion' not only is it a perfectly reasonable thing to be doing, I suggest it is actually impossible to think in any other way about crime solutions. The error comes in forgetting that it is only a theory. But a good theory will predict things that only get found out later, about which the theorist could not have known. Einstein's theory of general relativity predicted, but with no way of knowing until it was actually measured (by Rutherford?), the number of seconds of arc by which Mercury's perihelion (closest approach) advances with each orbit around the Sun, Newton's calculations having failed to account for all of it.

Even more stupendous than that, 'my' (I know it's really mine btw.) theory that the cops already suspected Amanda, Raffaele and Lumumba before the interrogations was confirmed by things I didn't know when I formulated it e.g. De Felice saying on 06 Nov 'she buckled and told us what we knew' and, more remarkably, the theory eventually proved more powerful than John Kercher's recollection of his own travel arrangements (I can expand if required).

The point is to remember it is only a theory to be tested by reference to the facts to see whether they fit. And this is a reasonable way (conceptually it is probably the only way, or an indispensable part of the only way) to proceed: you gather facts, immediately start theorising, gather more facts and either modify or toss out the first theory.

There is a third word which better describes what the guilters do. Their belief in guilt is neither a theory nor a conclusion. Rather, it is an axiom to which all other facts must submit. It's like the Earth is flat - therefore you will fall off the edge if you go far enough and if you don't you haven't gone far enough and if you go all the way round and arrive where you started you must have travelled in a circle and if the Sun moved from port to starboard while you did so the Sun's own motion must account for that etc. etc.

The thing is that theories make predictions and good ones can make very startling predictions. The theory that Guede murdered Meredith on his own predicts that Kokomani is a liar and, less strongly, that the Perugia cops know that perfectly well but it is not evidence that Kokomani is a liar. Probably, a theory cannot be evidence of anything. That's another thing to take account of.


I don't disagree.

My point is that guilters are wedded to their conclusion--evidence be damned. Though they argue the minutiae of the case with Talmudic fervor, they are not really concerned to understand what the evidence suggests. They invent theories after the fact to fit their conclusion, and the principle they use to guide them on when to include or discard evidence is whether the supposed evidence confirms Amanda's guilt or not. What they call evidence of Amanda's guilt is most often pure speculation and when not speculation at least open to innocent interpretation. But in their world, any speculation is acceptable so long as it confirms Amanda's guilt and any evidence is open to only one interpretation--it must point to Amanda's guilt or it doesn't count. That's what I understand to be their mistake and what I understand to be the mistake of reasoning from conclusion to evidence.
"You can escape from prison, but how do you escape from a convincing story? After enough repetitions, the facts come to serve the story and not the other way around.
Like kudzu, suddenly the story is everywhere and impenetrable.”

~ Errol Morris
User avatar
Canto
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri May 25, 2012 6:47 am

Or from axiom to necessary inference. I agree Canto, whichever one puts it. They even come out and say it sometimes, demanding a demonstrable case for innocence to be made out, ignoring not merely the burden of proof but the inherent difficulty in proving a negative. As a rule of thumb, in law, he who asserts a fact must prove it. There is a reason for that which leaps out as soon as you try to do the opposite (you stole my car; prove you didn't).

But if you have a theory you can use it to make predictions, so long as you keep in mind the theory doesn't evidence the prediction.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Canto » Fri May 25, 2012 7:28 am

anglolawyer wrote:Or from axiom to necessary inference. I agree Canto, whichever one puts it. They even come out and say it sometimes, demanding a demonstrable case for innocence to be made out, ignoring not merely the burden of proof but the inherent difficulty in proving a negative. As a rule of thumb, in law, he who asserts a fact must prove it. There is a reason for that which leaps out as soon as you try to do the opposite (you stole my car; prove you didn't).

But if you have a theory you can use it to make predictions, so long as you keep in mind the theory doesn't evidence the prediction.


To pick up from your earlier post, where you note "The error comes in forgetting that it is only a theory. But a good theory will predict things that only get found out later, about which the theorist could not have known", if we were to assume Amanda's and Rafaelle's guilt, what surprising, unpredicted facts has this theory uncovered?

With the exception of the kitchen knife and the bra clasp, nothing was ever discovered implicating the two that was anything like as definitive as the evidence pointing to Guede's involvement--and the DNA on the kitchen knife and bra clasp have now been thrown out. So that leaves nothing. The theory that Amanda and Rafaelle were involved in the murder had no predictive value, led to no unexpected discoveries, while the theory that Guede committed the murder--surprise, surprise--fully accounts for all the evidence at the scene of the crime.
"You can escape from prison, but how do you escape from a convincing story? After enough repetitions, the facts come to serve the story and not the other way around.
Like kudzu, suddenly the story is everywhere and impenetrable.”

~ Errol Morris
User avatar
Canto
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Clive Wismayer » Fri May 25, 2012 7:43 am

Canto wrote:
anglolawyer wrote:Or from axiom to necessary inference. I agree Canto, whichever one puts it. They even come out and say it sometimes, demanding a demonstrable case for innocence to be made out, ignoring not merely the burden of proof but the inherent difficulty in proving a negative. As a rule of thumb, in law, he who asserts a fact must prove it. There is a reason for that which leaps out as soon as you try to do the opposite (you stole my car; prove you didn't).

But if you have a theory you can use it to make predictions, so long as you keep in mind the theory doesn't evidence the prediction.


To pick up from your earlier post, where you note "The error comes in forgetting that it is only a theory. But a good theory will predict things that only get found out later, about which the theorist could not have known", if we were to assume Amanda's and Rafaelle's guilt, what surprising, unpredicted facts has this theory uncovered?

With the exception of the kitchen knife and the bra clasp, nothing was ever discovered implicating the two that was anything like as definitive as the evidence pointing to Guede's involvement--and the DNA on the kitchen knife and bra clasp have now been thrown out. So that leaves nothing. The theory that Amanda and Rafaelle were involved in the murder had no predictive value, led to no unexpected discoveries, while the theory that Guede committed the murder--surprise, surprise--fully accounts for all the evidence at the scene of the crime.

That's a good reverse use of what I was saying. The theory of Amanda's involvement has to predict or at least explain things like why she would implicate Lumumba (and herself) in the crime when interrogated at the Questura. It predicts that witnesses who saw her and Raffaele in the vicinity of the crime scene will eventually come forward (but oh, dear, look who stepped up to the plate: Koko, Toto and Quint). It predicts that forensic evidence of their presence will be found but, oh dear again, the knife and clasp are gone and there's nothing left. It is forced to explain the absence of forensic evidence by a modification to the theory: there was a clean up. Now the theory is more complicated but at least serviceable (in their eyes)

It (loosely) predicts a lot of things that didn't happen that might well have happened had they been guilty like:

1 they might have lawyered up
2 Amanda might have flown home
3 they might have revealed their involvement when secretly bugged on their phones or at the questura
4 there may have been signs in their past of a predisposition to extreme violence
5 the existence of a motive
6 a cut-throat defence strategy (he did it)
7 evidence of a clean up

etc. etc.

The guilters spend hours on these topics, explaining them away in ever crazier ways, because they realise, at some pre-conscious level probably, the implications of their theory (or, as I prefer, axiom). It has to make good predictions and explain things satisfactorily, but it doesn't, so they are forced to regard as plausible (or at least possible, or conceivable anyway) things which make no sense at all.
Clive Wismayer
 

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Bill Williams » Fri May 25, 2012 7:51 am

anglolawyer wrote:
Canto wrote:You've caught me out. :red: I'm arguing from conclusion to evidence rather then from evidence to conclusion--a basic mistake in reasoning I think the Guilters make all the time and as a matter of course. But I have concluded, for other reasons, that Amanda and Rafaelle are innocent.

You know, I've been thinking about the highlighted bit. If you substitute the word 'theory' for 'conclusion' not only is it a perfectly reasonable thing to be doing, I suggest it is actually impossible to think in any other way about crime solutions. The error comes in forgetting that it is only a theory.

The word is "science".

Science is theory, self-corrected by observation and repeatability. The word "conclusion" is probably too static...
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8091
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby freeski » Fri May 25, 2012 11:38 am

Bill Williams wrote:
anglolawyer wrote:
Canto wrote:You've caught me out. :red: I'm arguing from conclusion to evidence rather then from evidence to conclusion--a basic mistake in reasoning I think the Guilters make all the time and as a matter of course. But I have concluded, for other reasons, that Amanda and Rafaelle are innocent.

You know, I've been thinking about the highlighted bit. If you substitute the word 'theory' for 'conclusion' not only is it a perfectly reasonable thing to be doing, I suggest it is actually impossible to think in any other way about crime solutions. The error comes in forgetting that it is only a theory.

The word is "science".

Science is theory, self-corrected by observation and repeatability. The word "conclusion" is probably too static...

Indeed. Everything you guys have so eloquently talked about this afternoon is the scientific method. You look at what you know, you formulate a theory, then you look for evidence to both support and disprove it. Note you cannot look for evidence to prove it, because that is impossible. Support is as good as it gets (see Popper's falsifiability theory).

In this case the theory is that the break-in was staged. That leads to the conclusion that the killer was let in by someone with a key. The next theory is that it wasn't Meredith who let him in, so (cutting out lots of stages for brevity) it must have been Amanda Knox who let him in. Evidence to support this? She brings strange men back to the house all the time.

So now we propose another theory: one of the strange men she brought back to the house was the murderer and because she was most likely there at the time, then (i) she knows who it is, (ii) she's involved and hence guilty as well.

Before we continue, let's be clear, this whole line of reasoning falls if the original theory is false: if the break-in was not staged, everything falls. If the break-in was staged, that still doesn't mean that Amanda Knox was guilty.

So, now we're running with several theories layered on top of each other. Now normally one would come up with ways to gather evidence and test these theories. But under pressure, being arrogant, and having preconceived ideas about witches, femme fatales, or whatever, I believe that the cops/Mignini decided that this theory was fact (that which they knew to be true). I believe this is where the cops/Mignini got to by the end of Nov 4. [at a meta level, of course, this is now my theory and would need to be tested, supported and verified which of course, at this point in time, I cannot do very well - so it just remains an unsubstantiated theory].

So at what point should this theory have been totally debunked (there are many points where it should be held in some doubt)? Why of course, when Guede turns up. He's a burglar: the very first theory in the stack crumbles. The new evidence that turns up throws real doubt on the staged break-in. Once that theory is undermined, the idea that someone inside let the murderer in is undermined. That in turn undermines the idea that Amanda Knox let the guy in (and therefore the whole thing about bringing strange men back, even if it were true, becomes just a minor detail). And hence, what they knew to be true is no longer looking anything like the truth.

When the CERN crowd reported that the neutrino had gone faster than the speed of light, it wasn't just an oddity. If it had been true, the whole of physics would have had to be rewritten. Everything Einstein said would have to be re-analysed. Every single principle of physics would have to be questioned. Assuming neutrinos have mass, then because so much is layered on top of the special theory of relativity, it would have been utterly and completely earth-shattering to all existing theories.

When the forensic evidence showed a burglar was involved and that the break-in was now a strong possibility, it should have been utterly and completely earth-shattering to all existing theories.

But here's the kicker. No one really ever believed the CERN result. Everyone expected that it would turn out to be false - and it did. So no one ever really believed that Einstein was wrong.
freeski
 
Posts: 684
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 5:46 pm

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby pmop57 » Fri May 25, 2012 11:48 am

freeski wrote:
Bill Williams wrote:
anglolawyer wrote:
Canto wrote:You've caught me out. :red: I'm arguing from conclusion to evidence rather then from evidence to conclusion--a basic mistake in reasoning I think the Guilters make all the time and as a matter of course. But I have concluded, for other reasons, that Amanda and Rafaelle are innocent.

You know, I've been thinking about the highlighted bit. If you substitute the word 'theory' for 'conclusion' not only is it a perfectly reasonable thing to be doing, I suggest it is actually impossible to think in any other way about crime solutions. The error comes in forgetting that it is only a theory.

The word is "science".

Science is theory, self-corrected by observation and repeatability. The word "conclusion" is probably too static...

Indeed. Everything you guys have so eloquently talked about this afternoon is the scientific method. You look at what you know, you formulate a theory, then you look for evidence to both support and disprove it. Note you cannot look for evidence to prove it, because that is impossible. Support is as good as it gets (see Popper's falsifiability theory).

In this case the theory is that the break-in was staged. That leads to the conclusion that the killer was let in by someone with a key. The next theory is that it wasn't Meredith who let him in, so (cutting out lots of stages for brevity) it must have been Amanda Knox who let him in. Evidence to support this? She brings strange men back to the house all the time.

So now we propose another theory: one of the strange men she brought back to the house was the murderer and because she was most likely there at the time, then (i) she knows who it is, (ii) she's involved and hence guilty as well.

Before we continue, let's be clear, this whole line of reasoning falls if the original theory is false: if the break-in was not staged, everything falls. If the break-in was staged, that still doesn't mean that Amanda Knox was guilty.

So, now we're running with several theories layered on top of each other. Now normally one would come up with ways to gather evidence and test these theories. But under pressure, being arrogant, and having preconceived ideas about witches, femme fatales, or whatever, I believe that the cops/Mignini decided that this theory was fact (that which they knew to be true). I believe this is where the cops/Mignini got to by the end of Nov 4. [at a meta level, of course, this is now my theory and would need to be tested, supported and verified which of course, at this point in time, I cannot do very well - so it just remains an unsubstantiated theory].

So at what point should this theory have been totally debunked (there are many points where it should be held in some doubt)? Why of course, when Guede turns up. He's a burglar: the very first theory in the stack crumbles. The new evidence that turns up throws real doubt on the staged break-in. Once that theory is undermined, the idea that someone inside let the murderer in is undermined. That in turn undermines the idea that Amanda Knox let the guy in (and therefore the whole thing about bringing strange men back, even if it were true, becomes just a minor detail). And hence, what they knew to be true is no longer looking anything like the truth.

When the CERN crowd reported that the neutrino had gone faster than the speed of light, it wasn't just an oddity. If it had been true, the whole of physics would have had to be rewritten. Everything Einstein said would have to be re-analysed. Every single principle of physics would have to be questioned. Assuming neutrinos have mass, then because so much is layered on top of the special theory of relativity, it would have been utterly and completely earth-shattering to all existing theories.

When the forensic evidence showed a burglar was involved and that the break-in was now a strong possibility, it should have been utterly and completely earth-shattering to all existing theories.

But here's the kicker. No one really ever believed the CERN result. Everyone expected that it would turn out to be false - and it did. So no one ever really believed that Einstein was wrong.


Just to put it in : You have objectively three possibilities for the broken window: 1) a real break in (in relation with the murder); 2) a staged break in (in relation with the murder); 3) the broken window not related to the actual crime (an act of vandalism for example, and the broken windows and the murder occuring at the same time, pure coincidence). So to list all possibilities.
pmop57
 
Posts: 4870
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:13 pm
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Hans » Fri May 25, 2012 2:13 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
Hans wrote:Even if SA isn't to be used to "create" evidence, it was used that way in the case of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Things they said/written were interpreted to fit the prosecution's theory... :sadno:

I am not sure how much I want to argue this, but let me try this on for size....

..... Statement Analysis of the two confessions should produce an obvious confused conclusion, that would tend to mitigate going out and arresting Patrick Lumumba. Whatever it was that Knox was supposed to have confessed to, Statement Analysis would not say, "go out and arrest the black guy."

In fact, AngloLawyer did a version of Statement Analysis when he compared the two statements Knox signed that night. In this case there IS something resembling "scientific control conditions", given that it was the same person doing the signing, and the same police force composing the text as the night wore on.

His theory was that the two statements actually showed the police's "theory of the crime" as the night progressed. For instance, the first statement makes no mention of Raffaele, and the second has Knox saying that she cannot remember if Raffaele was at the cottage or not.

There's probably 100 things you can say about that simple fact - RS is in one, and not the other. You would want to delve into investigative lines as to why RS is mentioned (or not) in each. Guilters have one theory.... yet as the forensics come in, you'd want to say, "Jeez Louise, Raffaele is simply not at the cottage," so the investigate question to pursue would be, "Why would Amanda first sign something that has no mention of him, and then sign something that has this ridiculous statement, "I can't remember if he was there or not?"

For me, using Anglo's hunch, this is how Statement Analysis can cut both ways. Now there is cause to investigate the investigators, simply on the text of the two "confessions".

I wish Anglo would repost his compare and contrast the two confessions.... simply by looking at the text of Italian Police legalese, and how it changes, one can unlock what SOMEONE was thinking that night. Guilters say it unlocks Knox's series of lies and ver changing stories. Anglo was implying that it actually unlocked the way this whole thing went out of whack.

And note - haven't even touched the "See You Later" text, that the first set of cops mistranslated as Knox intending to meet Lumumba later in the evening. I mean, basic idiomatic differences between languages is part of SA. It's what intepretors are for - and Anna Donino failed miserably at this - even in court described the very method by which she failed, when she said she started to act as a mediator, rather than a translator. Remember - she'd arrived 90 minutes into Knox's first interrogation; so far, just analysing the texts produced by everyone of that first interrogation alone describes a chaotic scene that even the flippin' translator said needed mediating!

What was to happen in the next 75 minutes is the sum total of this case. In the next 75 minutes Lumumba's name enters the narrative, and we're away to the races. And the text of the "first confession" is a product of the confusion and it shows.

I have no quarrel at all with people who say that SA does not create evidence. At the very best it points to possible evidence, and 75%-99% of the time it is wrong. It does not replace the gumshoe work of going and knocking on al the doors in Perugia. It is not a short cut, and to hell with those who use it as one. But given that it was only when the forensics came back, pointing to Guede and to Guede alone, my point is that SA alone could have and should have cut the students free.....

I ask you this.... what part of the narrative before Guede came on the scene, when analysed as text, points to the students? Points to Lumumba?

It's why I tire at the accusation that Knox fingered Lumumba in her confession. She did nothing of the kind, even if Hellmann is correct that Knox fingered Lumumba simply to lessen the intesity and discomfort of interrogation.

As statements, as text, as narrative, nothing Knox said or signed says, "go out and arrest Lumumba."

As statements, as text, as narrative, everything Knox said or signed says, "we need to step back a bit and put this into perspective. This girl is saying wild things, and we have to seriously consider that the experimenter is biasing the experiment."

And that is what it SHOULD look like to any reasonable person - in even a bare, unsophisticated analysis of the statements made.
Note to myself: "re-read the posts you are answering... :Asche auf mein Haupt: " I think I understand your point now and I agree. But what do you make of this:
Follain Death in Perugia (pg 349-350/kindle 5559-5564) wrote:Mignini also had to take into account the sentence imposed on Rudy; he had been condemned to thirty years in prison, but if his hadn't been a fast-track trial, it would have been life.
And yet Mignini also felt sadness, and compassion, at what awaited Amanda and Raffaele if the sentence he requested was passed by the court. He thought of his own teenage daughters, and of Amanda's parents and what a life sentence imposed on their girl would mean for them.
Soon afterwards, a friend told Mignini: 'I imagine the seven and a half hours of your closing argument were the worst hours of your life.'
Mignini replied: 'Actually, the worst was the minute in which I asked for the life sentences.'
... (I could read it as: Actually, the worst was the minute in which I asked for the life sentences, because I know that they are innocent.') :winks:
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4545
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Bill Williams » Fri May 25, 2012 2:27 pm

Hans wrote:I think I understand your point now and I agree. But what do you make of this:
Follain Death in Perugia (pg 349-350/kindle 5559-5564) wrote:Mignini also had to take into account the sentence imposed on Rudy; he had been condemned to thirty years in prison, but if his hadn't been a fast-track trial, it would have been life.
And yet Mignini also felt sadness, and compassion, at what awaited Amanda and Raffaele if the sentence he requested was passed by the court. He thought of his own teenage daughters, and of Amanda's parents and what a life sentence imposed on their girl would mean for them.
Soon afterwards, a friend told Mignini: 'I imagine the seven and a half hours of your closing argument were the worst hours of your life.'
Mignini replied: 'Actually, the worst was the minute in which I asked for the life sentences.'
... (I could read it as: Actually, the worst was the minute in which I asked for the life sentences, because I know that they are innocent.') :winks:

Ack - the problem with being taken seriously is that you're asked to actually walk the walk..... Ack!

Anyway, there simply is not enough information here.... for one thing, this is Follain servicing his own larger narrative by suggesting that Mignini is a sympathetic character.

So, the first thing anyone would say, and this is anyone with an ounce of sense - and not necessarily doing heavy duty statement analysis - is that for some reason, Follain's own larger narrative depends upon him representing Mignini in a sympathetic light. Not just a "positive light", but one in which you are inclined to feel sympathy for the guy. Why does Follain want to do that?

It's Follain's book, and Follain's overarching narrative.

So the first question I would want to *investigate* to see if it goes anywhere is why Follain's agenda is so? Of course, this could prove a fruitless line of inquiry. It could very well be that Follain is simply reporting this and letting the chips fall where they may, without some overarching narrative he intends to support.

If you want me to say something about Mignini and why Mignini would say something like that - it is obligatory to do some source criticism, meaning to understand the source of the quote.

If it turns out that this quote is "factual" and is representative of Mignini's own overarching narrative, then once understanding Follain's role as the writer, there might be something to be understood about Mignini. But not before.

How's that?
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8091
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Hans » Fri May 25, 2012 2:43 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
Hans wrote:I think I understand your point now and I agree. But what do you make of this:
Follain Death in Perugia (pg 349-350/kindle 5559-5564) wrote:Mignini also had to take into account the sentence imposed on Rudy; he had been condemned to thirty years in prison, but if his hadn't been a fast-track trial, it would have been life.
And yet Mignini also felt sadness, and compassion, at what awaited Amanda and Raffaele if the sentence he requested was passed by the court. He thought of his own teenage daughters, and of Amanda's parents and what a life sentence imposed on their girl would mean for them.
Soon afterwards, a friend told Mignini: 'I imagine the seven and a half hours of your closing argument were the worst hours of your life.'
Mignini replied: 'Actually, the worst was the minute in which I asked for the life sentences.'
... (I could read it as: Actually, the worst was the minute in which I asked for the life sentences, because I know that they are innocent.') :winks:

Ack - the problem with being taken seriously is that you're asked to actually walk the walk..... Ack!

Anyway, there simply is not enough information here.... for one thing, this is Follain servicing his own larger narrative by suggesting that Mignini is a sympathetic character.

So, the first thing anyone would say, and this is anyone with an ounce of sense - and not necessarily doing heavy duty statement analysis - is that for some reason, Follain's own larger narrative depends upon him representing Mignini in a sympathetic light. Not just a "positive light", but one in which you are inclined to feel sympathy for the guy. Why does Follain want to do that?

It's Follain's book, and Follain's overarching narrative.

So the first question I would want to *investigate* to see if it goes anywhere is why Follain's agenda is so? Of course, this could prove a fruitless line of inquiry. It could very well be that Follain is simply reporting this and letting the chips fall where they may, without some overarching narrative he intends to support.

If you want me to say something about Mignini and why Mignini would say something like that - it is obligatory to do some source criticism, meaning to understand the source of the quote.

If it turns out that this quote is "factual" and is representative of Mignini's own overarching narrative, then once understanding Follain's role as the writer, there might be something to be understood about Mignini. But not before.

How's that?
Haven't taken the "Follain has his own agenda thing" into account... If the quote is fictional, it fits your description "why", if it's real ... :confused:
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4545
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Bill Williams » Fri May 25, 2012 2:50 pm

Hans wrote:Haven't taken the "Follain has his own agenda thing" into account... If the quote is fictional, it fits your description "why", if it's real ... :confused:

I didn't say necessarily that it was fiction. It's just that this business is about ferreting out what needs to be investigated so as to determine precisely that sort of thing.

It also depends on your entry point - are you, Hans, wanting to enter directly into the words of Mignini or the words of Follain, even the words Follain might put into the mouth of Mignini?

I may have betrayed my own entry point of interest by focusing on Follain so quickly? I don't know.

If you want to simply focus on the bare comment, 'Actually, the worst was the minute in which I asked for the life sentences,' then perhaps ferret around to other sources that quote Mignini similarly. Get a sense of the agenda of each source and see if something can be pulled from it that doesn't belong to any of their agendas. Heck, call up Mignini himself and ask him what he meant!
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8091
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Hans » Fri May 25, 2012 3:12 pm

Bill Williams wrote:
Hans wrote:Haven't taken the "Follain has his own agenda thing" into account... If the quote is fictional, it fits your description "why", if it's real ... :confused:

I didn't say necessarily that it was fiction. It's just that this business is about ferreting out what needs to be investigated so as to determine precisely that sort of thing.

It also depends on your entry point - are you, Hans, wanting to enter directly into the words of Mignini or the words of Follain, even the words Follain might put into the mouth of Mignini?

I may have betrayed my own entry point of interest by focusing on Follain so quickly? I don't know.

If you want to simply focus on the bare comment, 'Actually, the worst was the minute in which I asked for the life sentences,' then perhaps ferret around to other sources that quote Mignini similarly. Get a sense of the agenda of each source and see if something can be pulled from it that doesn't belong to any of their agendas. Heck, call up Mignini himself and ask him what he meant!
Just don't hit on the bavarian, he's still weeping into his beer mug... :winks: on the first bolding, I agree, it's his business, on the second: I'll search for a quote, a bit difficult, because he made that statement in Italian... and I may do what you suggested, if I can find the phone-register of Perugia, the prosecutor's office should be in it... ::Cheers:: :winks:
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4545
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Hans » Tue May 29, 2012 1:40 pm

I'm feeding the book to the (translation-)bots bit by bit... (slow going, but almost readable...). One question can be answered already, according to the acknowledgements, the 3D rendering of the cottage was done by Ivano Cincinnato.
google translation of a part of the "Ringraziamenti" wrote:Acknowledgements
Many thanks for your kind cooperation and graphological grafometrica
Claudia Petricelli, Clinical Psychologist, and Psicografologo Criminologist
and for the reconstruction of the crime scene in 3D Ivano Cincinnato,
Clinical psychologist
, both employees of CrimC lab (Laboratory
criminology and behavioral analysis of CATTID - Sapienza
University of Rome) led by Vincenzo Maria Mastronardi, [...]

The chapters are: (google translation)
La macabra scoperta (The gruesome discovery)
La notte del delitto secondo la ricostruzione degli inquirenti (The night of the crime according to the reconstruction of the investigators)
La ricostruzione del Gup (The reconstruction of Gup)
I due cellulari e la telefonata minatoria (The two phones and the threatening phone call)
La telefonata di Raffaele (The call from Raffaele)
I tre arresti (The three arrests)
Le contraddizioni di Amanda )The contradictions of Amanda)
Le giravolte di Raffaele (The twists and turns of Raffaele)
Rudy, il quarto uomo (Rudy, the fourth man)
Le contraddizioni di Rudy (The contradictions of Rudy)
- Prima versione Guede (- First version Guede)
- Seconda versione Guede (- Second version Guede)
- Terza versione Guede (- Third version Guede
La questione dei soldi rubati (The issue of the stolen money)
Vecchi testimoni ("Old witnesses")
Il giallo dell'auto scura (The dark yellow car)
I nuovi testimoni (The new witnesses)
I riscontri della scientifica (The findings of the scientific)
Piedi nudi insanguinati (Bloody bare feet)
La morte e la "pietà" (Death and the "mercy")
Non è stato un ladro solitario ("It was not a lone thief")
Amanda e Meredith, quanto amiche? (Amanda and Meredith, what friends?)
Amanda e Raffaele, un amore da Erasmus (Amanda and Raffaele, a love of Erasmus)
Premeditazione e violenza sessuale (Premeditation and sexual violence)
Report psicografologico di Amanda (Report psicografologico Amanda)
Report psicografologico di Raffaele (Report psicografologico Raffaele)
Report psicografologico di Rudy (Report psicografologico Rudy)
review follows...(sometime :winks: )
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4545
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby RoseMontague » Tue May 29, 2012 4:49 pm

Hans wrote:I'm feeding the book to the (translation-)bots bit by bit... (slow going, but almost readable...). One question can be answered already, according to the acknowledgements, the 3D rendering of the cottage was done by Ivano Cincinnato.
google translation of a part of the "Ringraziamenti" wrote:Acknowledgements
Many thanks for your kind cooperation and graphological grafometrica
Claudia Petricelli, Clinical Psychologist, and Psicografologo Criminologist
and for the reconstruction of the crime scene in 3D Ivano Cincinnato,
Clinical psychologist
, both employees of CrimC lab (Laboratory
criminology and behavioral analysis of CATTID - Sapienza
University of Rome) led by Vincenzo Maria Mastronardi, [...]

The chapters are: (google translation)
La macabra scoperta (The gruesome discovery)
La notte del delitto secondo la ricostruzione degli inquirenti (The night of the crime according to the reconstruction of the investigators)
La ricostruzione del Gup (The reconstruction of Gup)
I due cellulari e la telefonata minatoria (The two phones and the threatening phone call)
La telefonata di Raffaele (The call from Raffaele)
I tre arresti (The three arrests)
Le contraddizioni di Amanda )The contradictions of Amanda)
Le giravolte di Raffaele (The twists and turns of Raffaele)
Rudy, il quarto uomo (Rudy, the fourth man)
Le contraddizioni di Rudy (The contradictions of Rudy)
- Prima versione Guede (- First version Guede)
- Seconda versione Guede (- Second version Guede)
- Terza versione Guede (- Third version Guede
La questione dei soldi rubati (The issue of the stolen money)
Vecchi testimoni ("Old witnesses")
Il giallo dell'auto scura (The dark yellow car)
I nuovi testimoni (The new witnesses)
I riscontri della scientifica (The findings of the scientific)
Piedi nudi insanguinati (Bloody bare feet)
La morte e la "pietà" (Death and the "mercy")
Non è stato un ladro solitario ("It was not a lone thief")
Amanda e Meredith, quanto amiche? (Amanda and Meredith, what friends?)
Amanda e Raffaele, un amore da Erasmus (Amanda and Raffaele, a love of Erasmus)
Premeditazione e violenza sessuale (Premeditation and sexual violence)
Report psicografologico di Amanda (Report psicografologico Amanda)
Report psicografologico di Raffaele (Report psicografologico Raffaele)
Report psicografologico di Rudy (Report psicografologico Rudy)
review follows...(sometime :winks: )


Sounds interesting. Basically they are presenting the prosecutions case.
User avatar
RoseMontague
 
Posts: 3529
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Teddy » Wed May 30, 2012 12:10 am

Rose, do you have a full Italian version of this?
Amanda Knox: "According to Mignini, we found Meredith at the villa and said, Hey, that stupid bitch. Let’s show Meredith. Let’s get her to play a sex game. I was horrified. Who thinks like that?".... indeed, who thinks like that?
User avatar
Teddy
 
Posts: 1774
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:17 am

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby RoseMontague » Wed May 30, 2012 3:36 am

Teddy wrote:Rose, do you have a full Italian version of this?


I didn't buy it. My main interest was the CD, which I understand is just a 3D mostly non-color walk through of the cottage. I am now interested in the case as presented by the authors, however. It looks like at least 2 of our members have downloaded this thing.
User avatar
RoseMontague
 
Posts: 3529
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Hans » Wed May 30, 2012 9:23 am

RoseMontague wrote:
Teddy wrote:Rose, do you have a full Italian version of this?


I didn't buy it. My main interest was the CD, which I understand is just a 3D mostly non-color walk through of the cottage. I am now interested in the case as presented by the authors, however. It looks like at least 2 of our members have downloaded this thing.
I'll have to admit, that I bought it. Mainly because of the CD. But as the 3D-rendering turned out to be quite unsatisfying, I'm now trying to "read" the book somehow. :winks:
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4545
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby RoseMontague » Wed May 30, 2012 9:57 am

Hans wrote:
RoseMontague wrote:
Teddy wrote:Rose, do you have a full Italian version of this?


I didn't buy it. My main interest was the CD, which I understand is just a 3D mostly non-color walk through of the cottage. I am now interested in the case as presented by the authors, however. It looks like at least 2 of our members have downloaded this thing.
I'll have to admit, that I bought it. Mainly because of the CD. But as the 3D-rendering turned out to be quite unsatisfying, I'm now trying to "read" the book somehow. :winks:


I can't wait for your book report. You should enter it in for a chance to win the BMW.

Soon we will be able to say that Hans read it so we don't have to.
User avatar
RoseMontague
 
Posts: 3529
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Hans » Wed May 30, 2012 10:03 am

RoseMontague wrote:
Hans wrote:
RoseMontague wrote:
Teddy wrote:Rose, do you have a full Italian version of this?


I didn't buy it. My main interest was the CD, which I understand is just a 3D mostly non-color walk through of the cottage. I am now interested in the case as presented by the authors, however. It looks like at least 2 of our members have downloaded this thing.
I'll have to admit, that I bought it. Mainly because of the CD. But as the 3D-rendering turned out to be quite unsatisfying, I'm now trying to "read" the book somehow. :winks:


I can't wait for your book report. You should enter it in for a chance to win the BMW.

Soon we will be able to say that Hans read it so we don't have to.
I'll do my worst. :winks:
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4545
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Malkmus » Thu May 31, 2012 12:55 pm

RoseMontague wrote:
Hans wrote:
RoseMontague wrote:
Teddy wrote:Rose, do you have a full Italian version of this?


I didn't buy it. My main interest was the CD, which I understand is just a 3D mostly non-color walk through of the cottage. I am now interested in the case as presented by the authors, however. It looks like at least 2 of our members have downloaded this thing.
I'll have to admit, that I bought it. Mainly because of the CD. But as the 3D-rendering turned out to be quite unsatisfying, I'm now trying to "read" the book somehow. :winks:


I can't wait for your book report. You should enter it in for a chance to win the BMW.

Soon we will be able to say that Hans read it so we don't have to.


I believe this book is the origin of the "Amanda didn't have rent money because Patrick hadn't paid her yet" story.
Malkmus
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 6:04 pm

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Hans » Thu May 31, 2012 1:20 pm

Malkmus wrote:I believe this book is the origin of the "Amanda didn't have rent money because Patrick hadn't paid her yet" story.
You could be right:
google translation from the chapter "The issue of the stolen money" wrote:[...]
On November 7, 2007, say Pm in the summation, Romanelli also reported that she and the other roommates pay rent EUR 300 per head and poured by 5th of every month. At the end of October 2007 Meredith had told her to get money for rent, so she and Mezzetti had commented favorably on this fact, saying that it was very precise. Amanda was present at this conversation. The November 1, 2007 is the Romanelli Mezzetti have further indicated that the detail, saying that: your Oct. 30, in Meredith, present Amanda, had said that after the bridge of the saints, ie by November 5 had to pay 'rent. Meredith said that she had the money there and that they would have could give the two Italian flatmates, then agreeing that the 4 would have put together the sum for the lease. Amanda, however, said that Lumumba had not paid. Meredith pointed out, always in the presence of Amanda, to have money at that time because he had won a scholarship and had two credit cards.
[...]
But the source for that seems to be Filomena's testimony...
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4545
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Hans » Thu May 31, 2012 1:47 pm

I didn't know, that already Judge Micheli had ruled out premediation:
part of the chapter "RECONSTRUCTION OF GUP wrote:[...]
In short, the Gup crime was committed by the three accused. However, unlike the thesis of the DPP, there was no intent to Micheli. This is because there are at least two facts contradict it. The first is that, as long as Amanda does not receive from Patrick Lumumba - at 20.30 - the sms which lets you know you should not go to work the room "Le Chic", but you know that the evening did not make 'is free. And Raffaele to about 17.50 had consented to the request of a friend, Jovana Popovic, to accompany her to the station in the evening. Popovic will be the same, at 20.40, knocking the] door urge - the open and there's also the guy Amanda Pugliese - telling him that the passage does not need it most. Even Raffaele, therefore, to 20.40, and knows he has a commitment to be here for the Gup, on the 'fact that the crime could not have been premeditated.
(bolding is mine)
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4545
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Hans » Sat Sep 17, 2016 3:27 pm

Food for thought perhaps...
The book "Meredith Luci e ombre a Perugia was published (according to amazon.it ) on "1 gennaio 2009", so before "the trial" had even started...

PQ over on TJMK, in a comment
[...]
There are several good books in Italian on Meredith’s case, and one is very very good. Meredith Light And Shadows In Perugia.
This is by the best reporter in Italy on the case, Giuseppe Castellini, and the leading criminal psychologist in Italy, Vincenzo Mastronardi.
https://www.amazon.it/Meredith-Luci-omb ... 17&sr=1-13
We really wish it was available in English, but it is not. Very telling is that the defenses never even let out one squeak of protest about the book.
Dr Mignini really never says anything in court that at least one expert has not analysed for him first. He resists having any opinions solely his own.
He mentions Dr Vincenzo Mastronardi above, as his psychology expert, about halfway through.
Dr Mastronardi is in fact vastly more qualified than Saul Kassin and John Douglas and other ill-qualified Americans who have introduced flaky psychology into the case.
Now we know that a psychologist was asked to evaluate Sollecito and Knox very early on and Guede when he was returned.
Results and the name of the psychologist were never given out but it was probably Dr Mastronardi who interviewed the three.
Although Dr Mignini does not ever talk of the assessments made, they strongly influenced the Matteini, Ricciarelli, and Supreme Courts 2007-08 in not letting Sollecito and Knox out on house arrest.
They were considered a possible danger to witnesses who might testify.
Given how the crazy Knox supporters in particular have acted as a lynch mob against all who support the prosecution case and mounted several screaming attacks in Perugia itself, that was pretty smart.
Late in the 2009 trial Dr Mastronardi and another respected psychiatrist, Dr Alessandro Merluzzi, testified in court. They and not Dr Mignini explained to the jury the probable psychological dynamics of the attack, and why Guede ran away.[...]
to his "We Interview Dr Mignini On Innocence Fraudster Judy Bachrach’s Latest Crackpot Claims" post comes up again with the alleged psycological evaluation in prison of Amanda anf Raffaele that allegedly led to the denial of house arrest, and makes up that :"Results and the name of the psychologist were never given out but it was probably Dr Mastronardi who interviewed the three."
Pete and Ergon should exchange notes more often, because according to this one found on TMoMK, Mastronardi (who had his say also in the Vogt-Russell mockumentary) was hired by Guede's defense on October 13, 2009. (any idea, why? ;) )
The interesting thing is that Mastronardi managed to slip into the court records for Guede's appeal (he never testified), the "psycographological" evaluation of Guede he had published alongside those of Amanda and Raffaele in the book 10 months earlier... Hmmm...
He [Raffaele] is collateral damage in the unreasonable, irresponsible, and unrelenting scapegoating of the prosecution’s grotesque caricature that is “Foxy Knoxy”
~ Amanda Knox
Hans
 
Posts: 4545
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 8:41 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Meredith: Luci ed ombre a Perugia

Postby Bill Williams » Sun Sep 18, 2016 8:59 am

Hans wrote:Food for thought perhaps...
The book "Meredith Luci e ombre a Perugia was published (according to amazon.it ) on "1 gennaio 2009", so before "the trial" had even started...

PQ over on TJMK, in a comment
[...]
There are several good books in Italian on Meredith’s case, and one is very very good. Meredith Light And Shadows In Perugia.
This is by the best reporter in Italy on the case, Giuseppe Castellini, and the leading criminal psychologist in Italy, Vincenzo Mastronardi.
https://www.amazon.it/Meredith-Luci-omb ... 17&sr=1-13
We really wish it was available in English, but it is not. Very telling is that the defenses never even let out one squeak of protest about the book.
Dr Mignini really never says anything in court that at least one expert has not analysed for him first. He resists having any opinions solely his own.
He mentions Dr Vincenzo Mastronardi above, as his psychology expert, about halfway through.
Dr Mastronardi is in fact vastly more qualified than Saul Kassin and John Douglas and other ill-qualified Americans who have introduced flaky psychology into the case.
Now we know that a psychologist was asked to evaluate Sollecito and Knox very early on and Guede when he was returned.
Results and the name of the psychologist were never given out but it was probably Dr Mastronardi who interviewed the three.
Although Dr Mignini does not ever talk of the assessments made, they strongly influenced the Matteini, Ricciarelli, and Supreme Courts 2007-08 in not letting Sollecito and Knox out on house arrest.
They were considered a possible danger to witnesses who might testify.
Given how the crazy Knox supporters in particular have acted as a lynch mob against all who support the prosecution case and mounted several screaming attacks in Perugia itself, that was pretty smart.
Late in the 2009 trial Dr Mastronardi and another respected psychiatrist, Dr Alessandro Merluzzi, testified in court. They and not Dr Mignini explained to the jury the probable psychological dynamics of the attack, and why Guede ran away.[...]
to his "We Interview Dr Mignini On Innocence Fraudster Judy Bachrach’s Latest Crackpot Claims" post comes up again with the alleged psycological evaluation in prison of Amanda anf Raffaele that allegedly led to the denial of house arrest, and makes up that :"Results and the name of the psychologist were never given out but it was probably Dr Mastronardi who interviewed the three."
Pete and Ergon should exchange notes more often, because according to this one found on TMoMK, Mastronardi (who had his say also in the Vogt-Russell mockumentary) was hired by Guede's defense on October 13, 2009. (any idea, why? ;) )
The interesting thing is that Mastronardi managed to slip into the court records for Guede's appeal (he never testified), the "psycographological" evaluation of Guede he had published alongside those of Amanda and Raffaele in the book 10 months earlier... Hmmm...

It is evident that the Massei report in 2010 put to rest forever the issue of some psychological malady in either of AK or RS, or else Massei would have made mention of it. Against this was Machiavelli's remarks that a judge would not comment on those things.... however, I'd be the first to admit I had trouble wading through Machiavelli's tomes on these issues.

Then, this. There was a psychological assessment used in court to suggest that AK and RS would be a gander to witnesses against them. Sheesh. This is used to justify their precautionary detention, but is dropped by the time of trial. By the time of the first motivations report in 2010, it is gone all together.

Do I have this right? If so, this travesty was worse than I thought.
    “The only way I can pay back for what fate and society have handed me is to try, in minor totally useless ways, to make an angry sound against injustice.”
    Martha Gellhorn
Bill Williams
 
Posts: 8091
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:49 pm


Return to Book Reviews and Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest