Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#10

[DerKritiker2011]

I just thought of it as a common sense thing - meaning, people guilty of a murder, who don't want to get caught, usally give a story which is not the truth.

That's right.

But you wrote, that a person guilty of murder will try to stay as far away from the truth as possible!

This is probably not correct. I would say the reverse is true. A culprit says as much as possible the truth (only the incriminating parts would be changed) or invents very simple actions without details.

The involvement of Guede is obvious, deny is not "possible". A culprit won't blame a wrong person in this case.

 

[Katody]

I would agree, it is common sense that people who have committed crimes and don't want to admit to this, will lie.

There is a theory out there (by FBI forensic psychiatrist Andrew G Hodges) that says all criminals are always confessing in special subconscious language (he calls this "thought print analysis"). It's kind of like statement analysis, albeit more symbolic. I wish he would analyze the thoughtprints of Knox.

Isn't statement analysis a voodoo pseudoscience?

I remember there was one nutjob "statement analyst" which inserted himself into the online Kercher discussion with his blog and the guilters endorsed him enthusiastically. He blogged about other cases, e.g. Duke Lacrosse and it was quite funny, because he was rewriting his old blogposts that were 100% wrong to make them fit the emerging facts.

 

[SMK]

What is your basis for saying this? How do you know what Hodges would say?
If you are correct about what he would say, what is the scientific/medical/psychiatric basis for this claim? Is this claim based on scientific research? Has the research supporting Dr. Hodges theories been published in peer reviewed journals and are his theories generally accepted by the psychiatric community?

If he thought she was guilty, using his formula (it's very basic) as he applies it to others, so would he to Knox (people are speaking of themselves when they accuse others; people are projecting; people are giving away details of the crime, yada yada yada....)

 

[SMK]

Isn't statement analysis a voodoo pseudoscience?

I remember there was one nutjob "statement analyst" which inserted himself into the online Kercher discussion with his blog and the guilters endorsed him enthusiastically. He blogged about other cases, e.g. Duke Lacrosse and it was quite funny, because he was rewriting his old blogposts that were 100% wrong to make them fit the emerging facts.

I guess psychology itself is a voodoo science. I know they would not allow Hodges' thought print analysis in the Ramsey court. I tend to have a sort of Freudian respect for much of it, but how can it be proven scientifically, any more than Freud or Jung theories could? You cannot prove its veracity any more than you can prove a piece of poetry.
Which analyst was this? I know there was a precognitive dreamer who altered his posts, but I never heard that Peter Hyatt did. In any case, all of this has zero effect on the trial and verdict.

 

[whoanellie]

If he thought she was guilty, using his formula (it's very basic) as he applies it to others, so would he to Knox (people are speaking of themselves when they accuse others; people are projecting; people are giving away details of the crime, yada yada yada....)

If Ryan Fergeson denied murdering Heitholt would Hodges use that denial to demonstrate Ryan's guilt?

 

[whoanellie]

Isn't statement analysis a voodoo pseudoscience?

I remember there was one nutjob "statement analyst" which inserted himself into the online Kercher discussion with his blog and the guilters endorsed him enthusiastically. He blogged about other cases, e.g. Duke Lacrosse and it was quite funny, because he was rewriting his old blogposts that were 100% wrong to make them fit the emerging facts.

It seems to be voodoo to me.

 

[Katody]

I guess psychology itself is a voodoo science.

I can't agree. Some of the research about forming false memories and internalized false confessions is very relevant in this case. It also has empirical confirmation.

I know they would not allow Hodges' thought print analysis in the Ramsey court. I tend to have a sort of Freudian respect for much of it, but how can it be proven scientifically, any more than Freud or Jung theories could? You cannot prove its veracity any more than you can prove a piece of poetry.

If you say it's not falsifiable than it also lacks predictive power. "Statement analysis" and it's various offshoots are useless. And useless becomes harmful in a case like this where clarity, logic and reason is badly needed, not smoke and mirrors.

Which analyst was this? I know there was a precognitive dreamer who altered his posts, but I never heard that Peter Hyatt did. In any case, all of this has zero effect on the trial and verdict.

It was the guitar guy, I don't remember his name. Years ago, this case never ends

 

[SMK]

If Ryan Fergeson denied murdering Heitholt would Hodges use that denial to demonstrate Ryan's guilt?

Only if he had cause to believe Ferguson guilty. If not, then , no.

 

[SMK]

I can't agree. Some of the research about forming false memories and internalized false confessions is very relevant in this case. It also has empirical confirmation.


If you say it's not falsifiable than it also lacks predictive power. "Statement analysis" and it's various offshoots are useless. And useless becomes harmful in a case like this where clarity, logic and reason is badly needed, not smoke and mirrors.


It was the guitar guy, I don't remember his name. Years ago, this case never ends

Well, the APA itself now admits that too much of its theory is not empirically sound. The National Institute for Mental Health announced in May that DSM will no longer be used in studies. I have very little respect for modern psychology, and far more respect for classical theory.

I know Peter Hyatt is used by private corporations and attorneys. He is a civil analyst and a linguistic theorist. Obviously, he has no bearing on the case in any solid way. The people who believe him already have those tendencies an those who do not, write him off, as they are free to do. I myself certainly do not take his word for gospel.

 

[whoanellie]

Only if he had cause to believe Ferguson guilty. If not, then , no.

So then according to you it is simply a matter of what Dr Hodges "believes". If I believed some one was guilty and they denied it then I too would claim that they were lying. You don't need an MD to come up with that.

 

[whoanellie]

Well, the APA itself now admits that too much of its theory is not empirically sound. The National Institute for Mental Health announced in May that DSM will no longer be used in studies. I have very little respect for modern psychology, and far more respect for classical theory.

I know Peter Hyatt is used by private corporations and attorneys. He is a civil analyst and a linguistic theorist. Obviously, he has no bearing on the case in any solid way. The people who believe him already have those tendencies an those who do not, write him off, as they are free to do. I myself certainly do not take his word for gospel.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[SMK]

So then according to you it is simply a matter of what Dr Hodges "believes". If I believed some one was guilty and they denied it then I too would claim that they were lying. You don't need an MD to come up with that.

I said, if he had cause to believe Ferguson was guilty. Not if he simply 'believed' him to be.

 

[SMK]

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Sometimes you throw out the bathwater, and you find there is no baby.

 

[SMK]

Incidentally, Hyatt (whose analysis TJMK posted) does not believe Knox killed Kercher. He believes her statements prove she is telling the truth when she says she did not. He believes she had some knowledge an was involved in a clean up. Another person who engages in linguistic analysis arrives at the same conclusion.

 

[Katody]

I know Peter Hyatt is used by private corporations and attorneys.

You know it from him, do I guess right ?

Google is good for refreshing memory. Hyatt is the charlatan Seamus blogger, indeed.

 

[SMK]

You know it from him, do I guess right ?

Google is good for refreshing memory. Hyatt is the charlatan Seamus blogger, indeed.

So you're saying he is basically a liar and a fake....

 

[whoanellie]

I said, if he had cause to believe Ferguson was guilty. Not if he simply 'believed' him to be.

Some one needs to do a linguistic analysis of that distinction.

 

[whoanellie]

Sometimes you throw out the bathwater, and you find there is no baby.

There doesn't appear to be any baby when it comes to this linguistic analysis.

 

[SMK]

There doesn't appear to be any baby when it comes to this linguistic analysis.

Well, my opinion is, the 3 main people one can find on the internet (Hyatt, Hodges, and one other whose name now escapes me) are not the best people to be engaging in this. I like the old classical linguists such as Earnest Jones (his linguistic analysis of Hamlet), Freud, and Jung. I think theirs would be the more profound analyses of Knox's statements.

 

[SMK]

Some one needs to do a linguistic analysis of that distinction.

circumstantial and direct evidence to draw inference from.