Tuesday, September 01, 2020

This Seeming Level-Playing-Field Analysis Is Pointing Most Viewers Toward Guilt

Posted by Peter Quennell


Above: the first of two high-traffic videos by a behavoral analysis team.

A second is due soon, and one analyst has added more of his own perceptions of Knox in the video below. All claim they had no prior concrete knowledge of the hard facts.

Both videos seem to be driving a certain fraction over here to see what the hard facts admissible in court actually said. No doubt to find that Knox lied in the interview pretty steadily throughout. 

You can arrive at the viewer comments by scrolling down here and here.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/01/20 at 07:32 AM in

Comments

For once it’s a plus that questioners of Knox - or in this instance questioners of questioners - did not know much about the case.

Under guidance by the late PR puppet master David Marriott, Knox was never, never to be exposed to questioners really familiar with the case. This rule still stands. Only dummy interviewers need apply.

But we do carry numerous questions for media if Knox ever does let down her guard - which some of our psychologists believe is only a matter of time.

https://tinyurl.com/y62lzlvd

https://tinyurl.com/y3ntlkyf

https://tinyurl.com/y3e5munf

https://tinyurl.com/y3utcebd

https://tinyurl.com/y2oraxju

https://tinyurl.com/yxnrrjb5

https://tinyurl.com/y54e3lxy

https://tinyurl.com/y5764hre

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/01/20 at 10:01 AM | #

Thanks a lot for running these videos on your site. You might want to start the first video at the 24-minute mark to get into the Amanda Knox body analysis right away.

Earlier today I read somewhere that Knox actually has a loose skin face from all the malnutrition she suffered from while in prison for nearly four years. Apparently this is a common condition seen in prisoners and ex cons. Also, if you look closely, you may notice a distinct grey tint to Knox’s skin tone. That is also common among former gen poppers.

In Knox’s interview, its all quite obvious that these conditions work against her as she quickly reveals more and more lies and absurdities in her story through her face movements, eyes and patterns of speech etc. I am looking forward to watching part 2 soon! Thanks again.

Posted by Johnny Yen on 09/03/20 at 01:36 AM | #

This one is delicious. To answer Johnny Yen, the face reveals hard time served and cannot be concealed. I expect other concealed things to come to light..

Posted by Tina on 09/03/20 at 07:59 PM | #

Amanda Knox, she’s exactly where you’d expect her to be. Try “Crime Story” website. She is a columnist there. September 8, 2020 she (with Christopher Robinson) pens: “Interview: Jody Armour on Moral Luck, Blame and Punishment”.

Jody Armour is a law professor at University of Southern California. He has written a new book to, in Knox’s words, “promote solidarity between law-abiding people and non law-abiding people”. It’s the same old song and dance that crime is society’s fault, not the criminal’s.

Armour has a few humane ideas that I agree with but he thinks society needs to “Make allowances for somebody who committed homicide, a brutal assault, armed robbery, rape.”

He wants us to feel compassion for the violent wrongdoer, says “This requires an overhaul…a new moral framework that embraces redemption, reconciliation, restoration and rehabilitation.”

Knox mostly wants to get into questions of free will, whether culprits have free moral agency. (wonder why?) She says the terms choice, personal responsibility…all of these terms are inadequate. That is code for “it ain’t my fault if I did something bad” imho.

Armour responds to her: Says his book attacks ” the distinction between the wicked and the worthy.” Music to Knox’s ears.

Armour seems to try to reduce a criminal’s culpability by coming up with the term “moral luck”. Using the idea of moral luck, the casino crapshoot approach to why a person breaks the law, he says the justice system can’t make a moral judgment. “This phenomenon (moral luck) undermines the legitimacy of all our pain and blame judgments.”

Knox responds to this with words to the effect: I’m morally lucky I’m a woman so I don’t feel aggressive impulses like men do because of testosterone. They have a different chemistry.

Jody Armour: “Good point.” By same token he argues that character traits are formed in utero, thus are out of our control so to judge a person based on those is unfair.

Knox returns to issue of free will. She injects idea that if all people are pre-conditioned to make good or bad choices and have no free will does it rob the justice system of its power and of its meaning?

Jody Armour: says the criminal justice system is about moral condemnation.
His solution is to reduce “crimes”, reduce laws (I agree to some extent.) He mentions decriminalization of marijuana, sodomy. He says society must “incapacitate” the truly violent offenders in a new and humane way. (He doesn’t use the term “incarcerate”, but how do you incapacitate violent offenders?). He calls for a humane and just way, says get rid of solitary confinement which is torture, maybe put a ceiling of 12 years max for any crime without allowing offender a parole board.

Armour says the U.S. system is criminogenic. He thinks “society” (I assume law abiding society) is collectively responsible for social conditions and thus for the wrongdoing of criminals. Heck with the novus actus doctrine, your choice is NOT your fault.

No doubt Knox agrees.

She returns to the free will issue immediately, says, “I’ve even heard Sam Harris and Daniel Demett argue about this, specifically over whether or not free will exists. Sam Harris takes the stance of, “Well, if you really look hard enough, you won’t find free will,” because you aren’t really the author of your own thoughts and intentions.
And Daniel Demett takes the stance of, “Well, sure, if you want to talk about absolute free will that is unconditioned—absolutely it doesn’t really exist. But there’s a pragmatic difference between someone holding a gun to your head (to force you to do wrong, implied) versus you just deciding to steal something….there is a distinction.”

Then Knox mentions how the poor man will steal for food, but the Bernie Madoff type who enjoys luxury and plenty will steal anyway. What explains his crime?

Armour says that to decrease the masses of incarcerated “It will take a revolution…a revolution in our consciousness when it comes to law and punishment, morality, even the nature of language itself.” He pleads for “...humility when we’re making moral judgments of others.”

In an August 10, 2020 interview for “Crime Story” website, Knox interviews Emily Galvin-Almanza, Criminal Justice Advocate for Activists…She is CEO and founder of Partners for Justice and I think The Justice Collaborative.


How can any of these interviewees be fooled by Knox? She wants to bathe in their righteous indignation and activism, their strange idea of pursuing a good cause. Innocence by association.

Like the ego driven Captain Jeffrey MacDonald who killed his wife and kids, same as Chris Watts of more recent infamy who did same, Amanda Knox continues to disavow any guilt. A wolf in sheep’s clothing she is now. Like the wily MacDonald who got involved with police associations to pretend he was on their side in California after fleeing the scene of his murders in the east (Ft. Bragg, North Carolina), Knox does the double cross.


She seems like Chris Watts who now in recent letters subtly blames his killings on “possession” or the evil influence of his lover Nicole Kessinger. His ego sees himself after a miraculous (I hope it’s real) spiritual born again experience behind bars as a prison prophet.

Knox likewise sees herself with a grand destiny of telling others about right and wrong after fleeing Italy.

In “Crime Story” columns Knox mixes herself with advocates of the criminals’ best friend and excuse-machine, with haters of law and order. After all nobody’s really guilty, just disadvantaged and put upon by life.

She is more like Bernie Madoff with little excuse. She had no poverty or awful neighborhood full of violence to overcome. Yet she chose chaos and rebellion at Seattle Prep, UW and a foreign school abroad, too.

See how she now paints herself in victim wear, defending the downtrodden. Worthy of a Madoff scam.

She sympathizes and identifies with trouble makers and blame shifters, seeking to create her pristine new image like Watts and MacDonald, the latter of whom has never confessed to his crimes, caused partly by him flipping out after ingesting amphetamines to fuel his endless ambition in the form of moonlighting at hospitals after a full work shift at Fort Bragg hospital, his constant affairs with multiple women and the ambition to stay active with the Green Beret boxing team. He had to keep his weight down. He survived on 3-4 hours of sleep by the time of the massacre, popping pills.

Posted by Hopeful on 09/08/20 at 07:03 PM | #

Hopeful,
I took a look at the Crime Story interview.  I can’t bear to listen to her.  But I just want to comment that her voice is robotic.  No emotion or fluctuations in tone.  Rather like Google Assistant.

Posted by DavidB on 09/09/20 at 03:59 AM | #

I think Part 2 is up now.

Posted by pensky on 09/10/20 at 07:15 AM | #

Make a comment

Smileys



Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry This Analysis Is Pointing Most Viewers Toward Guilt Part 2

Or to previous entry Despite Depredations By Witless Knox, Perugia University Is Again Rated Italy’s #1