Amanda Knox found guilty for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy #15

[Madeleine74]

I'm so relieved we possess experts who can determine who is evil by merely seeing them on TV. That's going to make it much faster and less costly to lock bad people up because we won't need any of that pesky stuff to get in the way (like evidence).

And even though it's been said that AK has not been diagnosed with a mental illness or learning disability, we have Interweb experts who, with nary a degree in said subject, can determine and pronounce with great acuity major personality disorders. That too will certainly help streamline getting the right 'evil' looking people into prisons.

But wait there's more! We also have a multitude of armchair quarterback psychics who, upon reading some media and blog reports and seeing some news reports know exactly what a defendant is thinking at all times. They know what the person is feeling, they know the person's motivations, they know intent, they know it all.

 

[aa9511]

Interesting how the analysis of a subject matter expert is dismissed because he dares to suggest Amanda is innocent.

Yet in this same discussion tabloid psychological analysis and pseudo science are accepted at face value.

We are not purporting to be experts in the field writing a paper which in an academic field.

If you are addressing me, why don't you just address me instead of going round-a-bout way? You are obviously addressing the post I wrote in reply to Harmony about the paper regarding false confessions.

 

[aa9511]

Interesting how the analysis of a subject matter expert is dismissed because he dares to suggest Amanda is innocent.

Yet in this same discussion tabloid psychological analysis and pseudo science are accepted at face value.

Also if you would like to discuss the paper, I would be happy to discuss with you, instead of attacking me in an undercover type of way. Thank you.

I went through the effort of pointing out specific concerns I had with the article. I did not just dismiss it summarily. I put in quotes and I thought I took the time to discuss it in a meaningful way, to where anyone reading my post could understand why I felt the way I did about the article. I gave reasons.

Please do not act like I just summarily dismissed it for no reason.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Maybe she is developing the "Fog" defense that we have seen so much of lately. LOL:twocents:

BBM: :floorlaugh::floorlaugh: Yep ... blame it on the "fog" ...

:seeya:

 

[aa9511]

I'm so relieved we possess experts who can determine who is evil by merely seeing them on TV. That's going to make it much faster and less costly to lock bad people up because we won't need any of that pesky stuff to get in the way (like evidence).

And even though it's been said that AK has not been diagnosed with a mental illness or learning disability, we have Interweb experts who, with nary a degree in said subject, can determine and pronounce with great acuity major personality disorders. That too will certainly help streamline getting the right 'evil' looking people into prisons.

But wait there's more! We also have a multitude of armchair quarterback psychics who, upon reading some media and blog reports and seeing some news reports know exactly what a defendant is thinking at all times. They know what the person is feeling, they know the person's motivations, they know intent, they know it all.

Like I said earlier, I don't think anyone on here claims to be an expert on any field. It's not like we are misleading people.

 

[Harmony 2]

New thread is open and this thread will close in 10 minutes.

Amanda Knox found guilty for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy #16 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[Linda7NJ]

Interesting how the analysis of a subject matter expert is dismissed because he dares to suggest Amanda is innocent.

Yet in this same discussion tabloid psychological analysis and pseudo science are accepted at face value.

IMO a person can choose to believe what they want.
I would encourage everyone to reach their own conclusions.
It seems rather silly to blindly follow anyone else's opinion based on who they are, ex FBI, lawyer, or psychologist that's already exhibited huge unsubstantiated and not rooted in fact bias one way or the other.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

Interesting how the analysis of a subject matter expert is dismissed because he dares to suggest Amanda is innocent.

Yet in this same discussion tabloid psychological analysis and pseudo science are accepted at face value.

IMO a person can choose to believe what they want.
I would encourage everyone to reach their own conclusions.
It seems rather silly to blindly follow anyone else's opinion based on who they are, ex FBI, lawyer, or psychologist that's already exhibited huge unsubstantiated and not rooted in fact bias one way or the other.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SMK]

I think that any defense attorneys anywhere would do the same thing, that is their whole job, to try to take every opportunity they can to help their clients. I would take more interest in all of this if I had not watched the Arias case. But I did, and from that case I learned that sometimes attorneys can make, what is that term, a mountain out of a molehill (?), in order to do their jobs. For example, in the Arias case - mistrial for Juan Martinez signing a citizens' cane. If you think about how ridiculous that sounds - they wanted an entire months-long case thrown out for that. Also, mistrial for Martinez "bullying," when all he was doing was cross-examining witnesses who didn't want to answer his questions. In the Richard Chrisman trial, his defense attorney wanted a whole new case to be heard because he claimed prosecutorial misconduct for Juan Martinez.

Of course, if JSS had done an interview, of course Arias' attorneys would have given some motion for re-trial due to biased judge. They would have claimed she was biased towards Jodi, they would have picked at her words and used everything they could to help Jodi's case.

The problem is that this Judge made a misjudgement, and he shouldn't have given the interview. He was just allowing himself to be used as a pawn for the defense attorneys.

JMO.

Yes, I agree - and I am just a worrier - I guess I hate imperfections and an unnecessary flaw in an otherwise great work. As you say, allowed himself to be used. Why? Baffling.....

 

[aa9511]

Anyway, I guess if we are not PhD's, we're not supposed to really say much. We're supposed to stay quiet and low-profile.

 

[Amber29]

I'm so relieved we possess experts who can determine who is evil by merely seeing them on TV. That's going to make it much faster and less costly to lock bad people up because we won't need any of that pesky stuff to get in the way (like evidence).

And even though it's been said that AK has not been diagnosed with a mental illness or learning disability, we have Interweb experts who, with nary a degree in said subject, can determine and pronounce with great acuity major personality disorders. That too will certainly help streamline getting the right 'evil' looking people into prisons.

But wait there's more! We also have a multitude of armchair quarterback psychics who, upon reading some media and blog reports and seeing some news reports know exactly what a defendant is thinking at all times. They know what the person is feeling, they know the person's motivations, they know intent, they know it all.

I don't think anyone here is claiming to be an expert. Is this not a discussion forum? Are defendants not always discussed? Are people entitled to their opinions? No one here is claiming that because of the way Amanda acts on tv she must be guilty. News flash she's already been convicted and we've discussed the evidence repeatedly. Personally I think anytime defendants do interviews, write books and so on, people naturally are going to pick them apart. Like I said previously I've talked to numerous people who know nothing about the case and question her innocence after seeing her in an interview. Many people agree on the way she comes off but no one is saying is guilty because of this.

 

[Harmony 2]

New thread is open and this thread is closed.

Amanda Knox found guilty for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy #16 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

:drumroll: