Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Amanda Knox Is Innocent

Not at all. Why do you say that?

Yes you have!

Let's review:

I said:
..and the guy they have already convicted, has a history that suggests he is a psychopath?

You said:
Sort of yes...

I said:
Eh? What? Do go on Phil.

another part of you said:
Petty criminal rather than psychopath.

Ah so not even the end of page one and you have changed your mind already then?

Is that evidence alone enough for me to call you schizophrenic?
 
Out of your depth

1661489.jpg
 
Yes...and by your superior logic you said that and later said this

But you have no logic at all!

Being locally notorious as a petty criminal and basically a local degenerate and all-round bad egg is a history consistent with psychological disturbance. Obviously.

Anyway, he's admitted it.
 
No, some people really do hate hot girls. And furthermore it is to such people that the media appealed with their salacious tales of "Foxy Knoxy," which bore no relation to reality whatsoever but nonetheless ensured her conviction.

Aye... some do. But for every one who hated her for her looks and easy sexuality there's one who won't believe that pretty girls do such things. That's what I meant by balance.

How do you think the media's portrayal influenced her trial?
 
But you have no logic at all!

I have used the same logic you youself have employed on this thread pathologising on those who you deem to have and have not shown psychopathic tendencys, to show that you could be called scizophrenic because you have changed your mind so quickly.

Of course I don't think you are, but that's because I don't share the same logic as you. :)
 
I've no way to know whether she was innocent or guilty.

If she was innocent, then what scuppered her was her behaviour after the killings, she didn't react in a way people would deem normal. And Im sure lots of innocent people suffer a lot of shit from organs of society such as the media and the law, if they happen to have personality traits or disorders that make them seem aloof, disconnected, unemotional, or guilty of behaviour that runs contrary to cultural norms. The small percentage of weirdos who actually commit violent crimes does not help.
 
You think it's offensive to call someone who raped and murdered someone a psychopath because they may not actually be one?

Seems an odd crusade you've embarked on there tbh.

No crusade actually C66, thank you all the same for that over dramatic dig and misunderstanding of the point I was making to Phil.

I just thought it odd that Phil was so sure that AK hasn't shown any psychopathic tendencies, then claimed RG had, then he said sort of...and now says he definately has because he has a history of theft.
 
I have used the same logic you youself have employed on this thread pathologising on those who you deem to have and have not shown psychopathic tendencys, to show that you could be called scizophrenic because you have changed your mind so quickly.

Hang on, he's admitted to murder. Surely that is pretty good evidence for his being a psychopath.
 
Hang on, he's admitted to murder. Surely that is pretty good evidence for his being a psychopath.

Oh come on Phil. He has admitted it, so now you can think him a psychopath.

However you began by suggesting that AK doesn't have anything in her background to suggest she is a 'murderer/psychopath', then suggested RG does have, but then when we broke it down we realise that you think that because he has a history of theft. For me, someone having a history of petty crime/theft does not suggest they have psychopathic/murderous tendencies.
 
What are the Kerchers saying?
The American media have been highlighting Knox's 'innocence' for sometime now, the Oprah show, Fox News etc...
 
They are in Italy.... ;)

Seriously... I'm genuinely interested in why Knox may not be guilty. I think the circumstances suggest that she was at least involved. How much is the only debate, I think.
 
However you began by suggesting that AK doesn't have anything in her background to suggest she is a 'murderer/psychopath', then suggested RG does have, but then when we broke it down we realise that you think that because he has a history of theft. For me, someone having a history of petty crime/theft does not suggest they have psychopathic/murderous tendencies.

For me, it makes them far more likely to have such tendencies than somebody with no such history, such as Amanda Knox.
 
The terms psychopath and schizophrenic seem to be used in this thread with no regard for what they actually mean. Changing your mind or contradicting yourself is no guide to schizophrenia, and although this condition was only mentioned in a jestful attempt to make a point, the point seems to rely on the hopelessly inaccurate misconception that schizophrenia is a split personality disorder (as in the equally wrong joke 'Im schizophrenic and so am I').

Admitting to murder is also not good evidence for being a psychopath. Psychopaths are considered to be disproportionately responsible for violent acts, so its something you'd want to look into further, but people do violence for all sorts of other reasons too. Looking at definitions for psychopath, or more modern terms such as antisocial personality disorder, and what we actually see are a few of the symptoms that some people thought they were seeing from Amanda Knox, i.e. reports indicate that her emotional response to the killings was not what people would expect, raising suspicions.
 
Back
Top Bottom