Duck! and Gather

Pathology, Development, and Hormones

Posted on: January 13, 2009

I guess I should post this one on my YOUscription website since it addresses mental health. But I’m posting it here because it follows from my “Foxy Knoxy” posts.

The idea is the following: The difference between pathologically crazy people and “normal” people, which becomes clear as we pass our 30s, is much less clear during childhood.

Specifically, during baby/toddler-hood (i.e. before the kids can count, identify the alphabet, etc.), and during puberty-teens-early-20s, this difference is quite small. Very hard to detect.

I think the reason for this is that those two periods are the periods of greatest change and development in the human body and mind. Those huge changes affect all people — the crazy ones, and the normal ones alike. And those changes are bigger “signals” than the crazy vs. normal signal.

For example, in my own life, we have a 3-year-old daughter. It is just now becoming obvious which of her peers is on the crazy path, and which isn’t. This difference is obvious in terms of development — language, math, etc. (assuming no medical reasons for the slower development).

But before this point in her life, when she was a baby, the difference wasn’t obvious at all. The babies were growing so fast, it was hard to chalk up any differences to pathology.

The Foxy Knoxy case addresses the other period of rapid human change.

I mean, you watch the videos of these three “perps” — Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, and Rudy Guede — and one minute they seem like diabolical criminals in need of public stoning. The next minute, they seem like children in need of a warm glass of milk.

This is the puberty phase. We start puberty as children, and we end it in our early 20s as adults. That’s a huge transformation. So radical and so dramatic for everyone that the differences between the crazy ones and the normal ones are washed away in the surge of hormones.

To me, that’s the great tragedy of the Foxy Knoxy story. If I was to score the three perps and their victim on a 1-10 scale of emotional health (with 10 being pathological, and 1 being enlightened), then based on what I’ve read and watched, I’d score as follows:

  • Meredith: 2-3
  • Raffaele: 4-5
  • Rudy: 5-6
  • Amanda: 8-9

If true, these would be huge differences in emotional health. But given that all of these kids were close to 20, these differences were not very noticeable.

Everyone should have steered clear of Amanda. She was a disaster waiting to happen.

But instead, the opposite happened. Meredith challenged Amanda, Raffaele fell for her, and there seems to have been some positive connection between Amanda and Rudy.

Food for thought for when my daughter reaches puberty.

37 Responses to "Pathology, Development, and Hormones"

You know, I’ve seen the same stuff, and I would put Amanda at 4 – 5.

Average. I think the average 20 year old is in the middle of enlightened and pathological. And I think that we all, like a sine wave, vascilate from 2 – 3 all the way to 7 – 8; just short of Christ and Ted Bundy.

So let’s take the premise of guilt for arguments sake.

I think your idea of a situation happening because of the combination and input of 3 people is quite accurate. And in any other situation, this would not have happened, if let’s say Amanda was with, let’s say another personality type at a better level of health. Or even the same personality type at a healthier vascilating state of health at the night in question.

It seems to me (if I were to presume guilt), that the following had to occur:

All 3 perps were at their 7 – 8 state of vascilating unhealth all at the same time.

The scary thing about this, is that when you are raising your daughter, you have a say about who her friends are (to a more or lesser extent since you are the driver!) – up until about 17 or 18. After that. Sianara baby. It’s totally out of your control.

Your kid could be a 2 – 3 (average), but she could vascilate at the occasional 5 – 6, and you’re hoping that she’s not hanging out with a 7 – 8 (average), vascilating at a 9 – 10.

Sometimes it just seems like it’s all about the wrong place, with the wrong person at the wrong time.


Excellent observation. I agree that the emotional health of all of us vascillates up and down across time. Perhaps even it’s a contagious thing. That is, maybe a person at 8-9 could drag their friends down that direction. Interesting food for thought.

The only reason I put Amanda at an average of 8-9 is the depth and breadth of stories about her, from Seattle and from Italy, showing signs of deep emotional disturbance.

Often, it difficult to get a good sense of personality type from stories like this. e.g. I have no idea of Meredith’s type.

The types of Raffaele and Rudy are reasoned guesses.

But I would bet my left nut on Amanda’s type.

Since, IMHO, Enneagram type is a synonym of insanity, then the easier it is to type someone, the less healthy they must be.

I just stumbled across your blog. It’s fascinating! I too, have been following this case from day one. I’m going off now to study more about Enneagram types, but I’ll be back!

Thank you!

Thanks pukalini. Look forward to hearing more from you.

I really appreciate your timely professional analysis, the first I have read while trying to understand the three of them.

I beleive you are right – at that age what passes for normal and what needs some attention are hard to separate out. Parents can have issues too.

I wonder if you might post on any possibilities you see for treatment?

You know of course that Raffaele Sollecito’s mother committed suicide and he has a strong liking for gothic comics and movies. he apparently had therapy in the past and his father seems to have struggled to help him keep his balance.

Amanda Knox has a long trail of peculiar behavior and it seems to me to be calling out “treat me”. It appears that Meredith did not like her and there were several flare-ups over flushing the toilet, cleaning the apartment, and
bringing strange men home.

Known traumas in growing up were the explosive separation of her biological parents when she was a toddler and apparent conflict with her stepfather – in her diary she says that he referred to her as an obtuse retard.

Wow. I didn’t read all of this other stuff that other people are blogging about. If it’s true, then yeah, I’m leaning toward guilt.

Thanks for the comment Byron. The only “treatment” my wife and I have been giving our daughter for emotional issues is unconditional love. We actually listen to what the other says to our daughter, and if we hear something that might be interpreted by her as conditional love we’ll mention it to each other.

Maybe young kids — pre-puberty — can still be reached this way. But I think it gets harder and harder the older the kids get. By mid-puberty, almost impossible.

I believe that we humans go through the following periods: (1) Babyhood — figuring out our own boundaries; (2) Childhood — figuring out how we fit in our family; (3) Puberty — figuring out how we fit in with our peers; and (4) Adulthood — figuring out we fit in our culture; and (5) Enlightenment — understanding our place in the universe.

From Step (1) to (2), babies become children. The paramount challenge is to separate out from mommy. This is what, I believe, the tantrums of 2-3 old kids is about.

From Step (2) to (3), children become teens. The paramount challenge is to separate out from the family, and integrate with peers.

For damaged kids trying this latter step, I don’t know what a parent can do at this point. I mean, even healthy kids are supposed to oppose parents.

I guess if I get to that point, I’ll search out other adults that my daughter respects, and see if they can help counsel her. Of course, I’ll try myself. But, like I said, that might be futile.

Interesting discussion. Thanks,

Okay, injustice bothers me. I’m still trying to figure out the guilt/innocence of Knox/Raffaele.

I’ve read everything I could find on the diaries. They have been misconstrued and paraphrased unfairly by authors and media alike. Of what I’ve read of her words verbatim, there is nothing really abnormal there. And the media has twisted lots of stuff. Plus, the prosecutor, I don’t know how he came up with his sex crazed theory – reading too many novels I guess – the DNA just doesn’t back up what he says.

Amanda promiscuous? She kept a diary BEFORE she was incarcerated and during her incarceration. She slept with 7 guys total (probably Rafaelle is # 7, probably also her US boyfriend). Let’s say she started having sex at 15, and she was 20 when incarcerated. 7 guys in 5 years? I wouldn’t call that promiscous in this day and age. Maybe 40 years ago, yes. But if that’s promiscuous, then 95% of teenagers are promiscuous. The media have put their spin on her sexual life. I can’t get any details of the riot in Seattle ( charged? convicted? I couldn’t find anything).

The DNA evidence is very weak.

I’m not trying to defend her. I’m just trying to see if she is telling the truth: “I am innocent” she writes.

But do you know what might clinch it for me regarding guilt?

Apparently in July, Raffeale sent her flowers in prison. If this is true, why would an innocent person do that? An innocent person would not do that. An innocent person with think: you’re bad news, look what’s happened to me since I’ve met you, I want nothing to do with you.

But a guilty person would do something like that. Why? As a gesture of truce. Like don’t say anything bad about me to make my case worse. Or as a gesture of “let’s both be silent” so that we both can get away with murder.

What do you think?

Then you have the eye witness that says he saw Knox with a bloody knife coming out of the cottage. And Guede says a man fled from the scene (who he only identified as Raffaele at a much later date) with a bloody knife. Nothing makes sense. Then you have the DNA of another unknown person all over the crime scene in 14 places.

I don’t think we’ll ever get the truth out of this story, unless of course, someone spills.

Let me ask you. If it was indeed a sex game gone wrong – Raffaele holding, Guede raping, and Knox knifing – don’t you think it would have been in Guede’s best interest to admit his part, get charged for rape, but not for second degree murder? he would have done less time. Then Raffaele could have pleaded to agg sexual assault – not murder. Leaving Amanda holding the bag. Or would all three be charged equally for murder even though only one person may have done the killing?

This story has left me baffled.

It’s hard to figure out what is truth with so many conflicting stories and ideas.

If there was more DNA of Knox and Raffaele at the crime scene, that would make it airtight for me. If they washed everything with bleach, don’t you think the press would have gotten hold of that info by now?

Wild going away party & promiscuity:

Is the Daily Mail lying here? Piece on her by a Seattle author:

Kathy, you write: “don’t you think it would have been in Geude’s best interest to admit his part, get charged for rape, but not for second degree murder”. It still sounds like you’re missing something here. It was not up to Rudy to choose what crime he would be charged with. It was up to the prosecutor. So then we have to think of a good reason why the prosecutor would have offered Rudy a mere attempted rape charge in exchange for testimony against the other two.

I don’t see any reason why the prosecutor would. Reasoning includes:
– the prosecutor is likely racist, as is probably most older Italians
– physical evidence of Rudy at a murder scene was undeniable
– he was well known as a persistent liar — making his credibility as a witness very low

By offering him a deal, prosecutors have very little to gain and much to lose.

Now the interesting question is whether Rudy will testify at the trial against the other two. Now his only motivation will be revenge since he already got 30 years.

Duckandgather. I have 3 comments/questions.

#1. What I am missing about Guede is this. Why did he fast track his trial. With all of his DNA at the crime scene, I think it would have been more advantageous for him, to get a trial around the time the others were being charged. If he admitted to his part in the crime, his defense lawyer could have made a deal with the prosecutor for Knox/Raffaele, for testimony against them. i.e. testify to your role, implicate the other two and we’ll cut you a deal. Does it not work that way?

#2. The scary part of reading those articles, (the first one is highly subjective and biased), is that many kids act wild during that time in their lives, even those who have come from a solid loving famliy (e.g. some of my daughter’s friends), and they have done many things like that – trashed people’s property, wild sex, etc. Maybe it’s sheer grace that they all make it out alive from this stage in their lives. So the “promiscuity”, previous conviction, still doesn’t sway me toward guilt.

#3. However, I’ve read lots of other solid evidence which lead me to believe they are all guilty.

Very, very sad.

Now, my theory on Ennegram types. I believe that eventually Knox will cave. Patholical lying I don’t think are a 2 characteristic.

1. Fast track gives the defendant a lighter sentence. I guess he would have gotten life in a regular trail. But I’m sure he was hoping for less than 30 years.

2. Consistent with my post, normal and crazy teens look very similar. But looker closer at Amanda’s behavior, I think her wildness, across multiple factors (promiscuity + violence + disrespect of others + sweet/caring image), pushes her past the normal category.

Okay, I’m back to thinking she is innocent again. The guy who is prosecuting her was on trial for abuse of power. And as I’ve mentioned before, 7 lovers at the age of 21 is not what I would call promiscuos (4 in the US and 3 probably in Italy).

And about the HIV thing, they took her blood test in prison, so they asked her to recount her sexual partners, then after she does so, they tell her she’s false positive. Something smells really fishy here.

What I would like to see is a timeline of facts by the police/investigators.

Some media reports say she knew Guede, some say she didn’t.

Without having a solid feeling of guilt here, it’s really hard to talk personality types. Is it just an average wild 20 year old kid whose story has been severely twisted for media appeal, or a severely disturbed person. I’m glad I’m not going to be on that jury.

That link you give is such a spin piece. Perfectly opposite to the Daily Mail spin pieces. This one conveniently leaves out Amanda’s arrest at her going-away party because that wouldn’t have fit in with their story. They leave out the inconvenient fact that the knife in Raffaele’s apartment with Amanda’s blood on the handle had someone else’s blood on the knife (I’ve read conflicting stories about whether that latter blood is Kercher’s). They leave out that security video shows her coming back to the house shortly before Kercher. They don’t bother quoting people both in Italy and the U.S. with much less flattering things to say about Amanda. Probably a piece commissioned by her PR firm.

Yes exactly. (Actually the idea about her being on the security video was not conclusive because they could not positively ID her – this info was on a guilty spin piece – so that leaves the door open).

It’s so hard to make a determination. What I would really like to read is this: a) her diary verbatim b) the investigator’s evidence and timeline (with no media spin or PR firms).

No one has a perfect childhood. No one. I mean when you talk about our childhood, I sometimes think you see with rose coloured glasses and often say that we were unconditionally loved. I wouldn’t say that. I would say that we were enormously loved, but very frequently conditionally.

I think that most families are like this – enormous love, and frequently conditional because none of us are operating at the Jesus/Buddha level (and Jesus didn’t have any kids and Buddha took off to find enlightenment when his kid was small).

My daughter has friends, who are similar to Knox. Well, maybe not quite. Some are “wild” with the sex thing, and others trash property. Some do both to a more or lesser degree – casual sex, string of one-night stands, affairs, trashing other’s cars, homes, parties, drinking, some drugs, etc.

Even though this is unhealthy and dysfunctional behaviour, I think it’s the “norm” for the age crowd. That’s pretty frickin’ scary I know. (Good luck during those years in raising your kid. It’s really tough).

So when we look back at our teenage years and say: “I don’t know how I survived that”, maybe it’s just the luck of the draw. So we come full circle to the very beginning of your blogs where you state that it took a combination of personalities to pull this tragedy off.

I don’t know. I just wish you could give people truth serum or something and then we wouldn’t be guessing.

Go to 2:19 of this video:

Take all of your daughter’s wacky friends. Are you saying that if their housemate, who they say is their “friend”, whose bedroom was on the other side of their bedroom, was discovered brutally murdered in that bedroom on a morning, that later in that same morning would behave like Amanda did in that clip?

Given she behaved that way in that video that any of us can watch, I tend to believe the guy at 0:38 of that same YouTube video. Assuming he is telling the truth, are you saying your daughter’s friends, in the same situation described above, would behave like Amanda reportedly did in the police building that same day?

I doubt it.

Oh yeah, I forgot. One of the most damning stories I’ve read about Raffaele was from his dry cleaner. Remember, Raffaele is a Five. Fives are all about order and habit.

So Raffaele regularly took his shirts to the same dry cleaner. Right after the murder, he brought a clean shirt to be dry cleaned. Although clean, the shirt was stiff, like it had been hung on a hanger to dry. This was an exception to Raffael’s normal habit.

Another exception was that he asked his dry cleaner to finish the job that day. He’d never done that before, being content to get the shirts back a day or two later.

Why the exceptions to his habits right after the murder? Easy to guess.

That’s a good point. I would say that none of my daughter’s friends would have joked and laughed – that I know of. They would all be crying or hysterical or in shock, i.e. no reaction. Some would definately be comforted by their boyfriend and kiss them, for sure.

But is this Italian guy telling the truth? We have no reason to believe this guy is lying. Is the laughing and joking in a moment of time? Like, they are sad, quiet, in shock, maybe privately crying for the most part, and have a few moments of laughter when they aren’t focused 24/7 on the death while in public. I don’t know.

I do know this. I would be hysterical for days, and cry for days. But that’s me.

I remember at mom’s funeral, we were all in the limo, and you were cracking jokes. I mean you were hilarious. I don’t remember what you exactly said, but I remember smiling, but not laughing because I was too sad. And I remember Bill telling me “you won’t believe your brother, he was cracking jokes the whole time we were carrying the casket”.

I think everyone responds to stress differently. Sometimes death and loss are so painful that humour/laughing/joking is a release. Could Knox and Socellito have dealt with stress by laughing? at least for maybe a moment? perhaps. I dunno. It’s not in my nature but I can see that as an outlet for some people.

I guess there is nothing yet (because even so much of the evidence has 2 opposite explanations), that makes me go: guilty – no question.

Thanks for feeding my indulgence. Come next week when I do my cleanse, I’m sure I’ll be cured of this story! (I guess if you had decided to blog re: Casey Anthony, your blog responses would not have been so long. i.e. guilty, selfish and nuts. No question, case closed – 1 response).

You know what the possible damning piece of evidence for me is?

The washing machine was on when the police first got there. If she had been at Raffaele house all night, why was the machine going in the morning?

And apparently (I don’t know if this is true, but it’s what I read), Guede wrote “AF” in Kercher’s blood on the wall when she said “af”. Well it doesn’t take a genius to figure that one out.

Question: Is there any other motive other than revenge that would cause Guede to retell his story with himself implicated in the crime?

And the flowers bug me too. Innocent people don’t send flowers to their co-accused. Why would they?

Could Knox be protecting Raffaele?

Kathy — Too bad we’ll have no answers to your excellent questions until sometime next summer.

Interesting that I was cracking jokes during mom’s funeral. I don’t remember that. But I don’t doubt the story. Because I remember that it wasn’t until we dropped her coffin in the ground, closed the lid, and began tossing dirt on it that I started weeping, and feeling a sense of vertigo. Before that, I was in a state of denial.

Was Amanda similarly in a state of denial the morning Meredith’s body was discovered? I don’t think so. The video of her and Raffaele kissing outside the house actually does show her looking very sad and worried. I agree with Amanda’s dad who said that video shows her daughter reacting in a way that seems “normal” (i.e. kissing the boyfriend then doesn’t trouble me).

But it’s her behavior afterward, in the Bubble shop (caught on video), and in the police station (reported by that Italian guy) that’s incongruous.

I agree that everyone responds to stress differently. But even I don’t think I would have been joking the morning of the discovery of Meredith’s brutally murdered body. Especially if she had been in the bedroom next to mine.

Interesting comments! Watching Knox in court yesterday was disturbing to me. I can understand a quick smile to her aunt and uncle, but I thought the laughing was outrageous! However, there is one picture of her posted at that shows her looking over at Sollecito – a very eerie photo. She looks VERY concerned about what he and his lawyers are going to do. She NEEDS him for her alibi.

If both are innocent as they claim, and had an intense love story for one week, why would they have a problem acknowledging eachother in the courtroom? After all, they have been falsely charged. Why avoid looking at eachother? After all, they’re innocent right? I don’t belive so.

The behavior of these two has been questioned by all. I have found myself “role-playing” on many occaisions while reading about this case. Amanda Knox has issues in my opinion. I just don’t get it!

Thanks pukalani. I agree with your take on the meaning of the two kids not looking at each other in court.

But on Amanda laughing, I’m leaving some room for Kathy’s idea that different people respond to stress in different ways. Your own trial, more than a year after the incident, seems far enough removed to allow for very different kinds of responses.

The responses of Amanda that seem really relevant to me are the ones caught on video the morning that Meredith’s body was discovered. The shock of that event would seem to normalize innocent human responses to it — even humans of different personality types.

Thank you so much pukalani for directing me to a fabulous website. I found the timeline I was looking for:

Now this website does seem to be a bit biased, but as neutral as one can be while still being biased.

If the timeline is accurate, I’m on the “all 3 are guilty” bandwagon.

From that same page, regarding Knox’s mom is written:

“Equally indicative of a wrong strategy is the absence of any message of condolence to the Kercher family over the loss of their daughter and sister. Truly extraordinary.”

If this is true, that family is plum crazy. I’ve seen many video clips with her parents talking, and I can’t remember if that is quite true. But if they did not express any condolences toward the dead girl and her family …. and they’ve been on TV oodles of times ….. I don’t think you need PR people to tell you that that would be a good stradegy to express sympathy. I think that’s just being frickin human.

Also, duckandgather, could you please give me the link for the video of Amanda in the bubble shop. I can’t find it anywhere.

Also, I can’t find anything (print of video) about her laughing in the court, and I’m still trying to find the eerie pick of her looking at Sollecito.

Links please. Thanks.

Well, the two of them not looking at each other – don’t you think their lawyers would have asked them to do that – just in case they did look at each other and the media put their own interpretation of the looks in print and spread it like wildfire?


Okay, on the site pukalani directed us to I found what I’ve been looking for:

“But he got no break from the judge. Why did he not – why did he get a stiff 30 year sentence?

Three possible reasons. One, the evidence is tough and very extensive, it hangs together, and points to a truly depraved scene in the house. Two, Guede and his lawyer chose to contend some of it, but that “some” was quite marginal at best. And three, Guede chose not to come clean over what happened, even in the slightest, or to show any remorse. ”

After reading this, I think Rudy and his lawyer are plain stupid and plum nuts.

This is what I would have done if I were Rudy. Fast tracked the trial. Said I was part of the threesome. Say I didn’t do any killing, but was involved in consensual sex games – told of Knox’s and Socellito’s involvement – sex game gone wrong – and expressed remorse.

Dollars to donuts, if he had done that, he would be looking at 15 instead of 30.

And my belief is that this was not premeditated. I think it was 4 kids hanging out, and one didn’t want to participate in the game, and the other 3 were higher than a kite and killed her. The reason I think it was second degree or manslaughter, is because they left her to die. They didn’t make sure she was dead. The game went to far and they got scared and ran.

Hi Kathy,

Biscotti, Rudy’s lawyer will appeal the 30 years. From what I understand, this is an automatic. Biscotti believes in Rudy’s innocence of murder, although he did leave poor Meredith dying. I believe Rudy will be called as a witness for the prosecution, but I also just heard in an interview with Curt Knox and Edda Mellas that Amanda’s defense may call Rudy as well. I don’t know how all that works!

I wonder if one of them starts spilling the beans, the truth will then come out? It has been stated that Mignini has strong evidence not yet revealed that puts all three at the scene.

I’ve been following this case closely on another site in addition to It’s; both are non for profit unlike some of the other blogs out there that are pro-Knox.

I like your discussion here about the psychology of this crime. Thank you for allowing me to join you!

(I’m Tara at the other sites, by the way)

Now I’m thinking that Knox, Sollecito, and both of their lawyers are plum nuts. Just Stupid. If they both plead guilty to manslaughter, that Meredith was a willing participant initially, but the intensity of the games got out of control, they were all stoned or drunk, they accidently killed her, they ran because they were scared. They would not be looking at possible life in prison.

Now here’s what really interests me. The reason that I was so fascinated by the Casey Anthony case. Why would someone deny their guilt if they killed someone by accident?

So maybe MK’s death was not an accident. With everything that I’ve read though, I think it was.

Thanks all. Kathy, the link for the YouTube video with Amanda coming home is in an above comment with the time noted.

What a wonderful discussion. Kathy’s last comment takes us back to my original theory two posts ago. I don’t believe the murder was premeditated — least of all by Rudy and Raffaele. Amanda, I believe, was looking to humiliate Meredith, and didn’t decide to kill her until the very moment she stabbed Meredith. Impulse.

But Kathy, you watch too much TV. You keep says “X should plead to …”. I keep telling you, defendants can only plead to what the prosecution offers.

And this prosecutor sounds like a grand-stander. The very last thing he wants to do is to settle this case before he get world attention for his performance.

It will be almost better for his legend if Amanda and/or Raffaele is acquitted in a dramatic trial (a la OJ). He’s still be able to write the book and get a movie done.

So Kathy, please take out of your reasoning the idea that any of these defendants could have pleaded to a lesser charge. There’s no evidence they ever had the opportunity, and every indication that they actually did not.

So their only choice is to go for acquittal. That’s what helps make this a made for TV trial. Too bad the judge is excluding TV. Would have out-OJ-ed the OJ trial.

Sidebar: This sort of wonderful comment thread is what I was looking for when I started this blog in late 2003. But the number of people interested in theories behind the imminent collapse of the American Empire is evidently not significant.

So I was itching to blog about Gaza, and the meaning of that for Obama and the world. But I agreed with my wife that doing so might not be the best idea.

So that’s the only reason I got onto this Foxy Knoxy story. I mean, I was surfing YouTube, watching all the Israel/Gaza videos, being frustrated not to be blogging about it. And, in the side bar, I saw a link to the Foxy Knoxy story. Got watching it, got hooked, and blogged away.

Now this little diversion onto Foxy Knoxy represents by far the biggest interest this blog has attracted in its 5 years of life.

This is funny to me. Chicken Little wants to know: Doesn’t anyone want to know that the sky is falling in America, and thus the world? 🙂

A must-view for Kathy and any other addict of this story:

Amazing Powerpoint with timeline on top of photo-map of the town, with routes mapped, etc. A tour de force!

Oh maybe that’s what I’m missing.

You mean if a prosecutor says, hey kathy, “I’m charging you with murder one”, I can’t say to the prosecutory, “no way man. I’m innocent of murder one, I want to plead guilty to manslaughter, because that’s the truth, not the one you’re spinning”.

You mean it doesn’t work like that?

If it doesn’t, then that’s not truth and justice. I think (many, many emails ago I asked you this question). If someone is charged with murder one, and they plead innocent, what does that mean? So you’re telling me that could me any number of things? Yes judge, I’m completely innocent – no involvement. Yes judge, I’m innocent of premeditation, but I was a bystander, Yes judge I’m innocent of murder one, but I did kill accidently. So when you plead innocent, can your defense lawyer not make your case for manslaughter to the judge/jury?

And secondly, you mean if they are found guilty, there will be no book or movie? So you mean this is opposite to the US? If this is Italian law, it is wise. No one should be able to profit from this kind of pain.

There will be books and a movie in any outcome.

I think if the prosecution sticks to a charge of murder one, then it’s up to the judge, when he instructs the jury, to decide if any other charges can be decided upon.

But if you are a juror, and the judge instructs you only on a charge of murder one, but you think it’s murder two, you have to acquit.

So I guess the way it would work is the defense counsel, before or during the trial, approaches the prosecutor and asks if he wants to make a deal. If the prosecutor says no deal, defense is out of luck.

For the reasons I said above, I don’t think this prosecutor has been open to any deals.

Duckandgather, you write:

“This is funny to me. Chicken Little wants to know: Doesn’t anyone want to know that the sky is falling in America, and thus the world?”

Well, I think there are 2 issues here. First, lack of interest in Chicken Little, and the interest in a unique Murder/sex/innocence/guilt Case.

Chicken Little:

Most people don’t think the sky is falling, or is ever going to fall, and those that may entertain that possibility, do not because it’s too scary to think of because it hits home. If true, it means that it affects you, me, our famililies, people we love, our neighbours, everyone. As well, I think the intricacies of politics and the big picture of it, is highly, highly complex. I mean, I consider myself quite intelligent, and some of your blogs are way over my head.
Also, the U.S. government/corporations/citizens are not on trial. They are not being asked to take accountability e.g. the billion dollar bail outs, ridiculous consumer spending, – hell, in the states, you can sue McDonalds for spilt coffee on your lap, NO SELF-RESPONSIBILITY for health and for healthcare (even though I enjoyed Michael Moore’s film “Sicko”, there was not ONE MENTION of self-responsibility for health and he is obese himself). The reason no one cares about Chicken Little is because the sky has not already fallen. If (and when it does), I wonder if we’ll still be able to blog as easily, or put this much energy into theorizing.

Murder/sex case:

It’s way easier for people to talk about something that is far removed from us. Like, “those people are so weird and dysfunctional, I would never behave like that”. The story does not affect us personally. It was not our loved one who died. It is not our loved one on trial. So we have the luxury of discussing – how the hell something like this could have happened? without being emotionally crushed by the discussion.
And of course, because a precious life has been taken, the issue of accountability is at the forefront. This story demand accountablity.

Chicken little does not demand immediate accountability – and you know how many people are interested in prevention don’t you? A very, very small minority. That’s why we have 1 in 2 dying of heart disease and 1 in 3 having cancer. That’s why the economy is the way it is, and crime and violence is that way they are. Most people don’t care until the boom is lowered.

Another legal question:

If at the outset, Knox had told (what we consider the truth): “Yes I was involved, this is what happened, it was an accident, I was scared, I didn’t know what to do, etc.”

Is there a better chance that she would have been charged with manslaughter/second degree as opposed to murder one?

If the chance is not better, then I can understand why people lie even if they killed by accident.

Sorry, another legal question.

So I’m on the jury for a murder one case. The judge does not instruct me that I can vote for a lesser charge, so I have to aquit even though I believe the defedant is guilty of murder 2.

Can that defendant be tried again, but for murder 2?

On your second legal question, in America, the answer I believe is “no”. That would violate the double jeopardy clause of the Constitution. Otherwise, trials would never end.

On your first question, I’d say “probably”. The prosecutor could still push murder one. But the difference between murder one, two, or manslaughter is merely a state of mind. So if the defendant is already admitting to a lesser state of mind, the prosecutor will have a very hard time proving a higher state of mind, absent solid communication evidence (e.g. prior recorded threats to the victim, credible witness testimony about expressed mental state, etc.).

Thanks for your Chicken Little analysis Kathy. You’re probably right.

All these ‘commentators’ never considered how dangerous they, themselves are. There is nothing worse than amateurish, pop psychology, written by people who have absolutely no professional training in areas that they willingly write about on the net. All of the above comments are written by people who would score a 10 for their complete and utter disregard for others, and their willingness to use real young people for their own stupid egoic comments!

Comments are closed.

for the money has gone too far

Blog Stats

  • 10,145 hits
January 2009
%d bloggers like this: