From Heroes to Villain: Knox in the News

Actress, Hayden Panettiere, is all set to play the part of Amanda Knox (lead role) in an upcoming original Lifetime movie scheduled to air on February 21, 2011. “The Amanda Knox Story” is a TV movie based on the Barbie Nadeau's book Angel Face: the real story of student killer Amanda Knox; chronicling the sensational Italian murder trial over the brutal killing of Knox’s roommate, Meredith Kercher.

Panettiere had expressed her interest in meeting Knox before she portrays the exchange student in the project, which begins filming at the end of October in Rome.

The 21-year-old actress’ request to meet Knox—best known for her role on television show “Heroes,”—was denied, however, by Knox’s lawyers.


The family of the murdered British student slammed the movie's plans after it was announced:

“I don't like the idea of a film based on Meredith’s death. Seeing it graphically portrayed on the big screen is a horrible thought,” her father John Kercher told the Daily Mirror.


Commenting on her involvement Panettiere said,

“They called me up and asked me to do it,” she said. “I was completely floored and flattered. I was like, ‘Are you sure?’ I’m looking forward to it. I’m really excited about it. It’s going to be a really tough project to do but it will be good. It’s a really great story and a very controversial one. The script is written very well, in a way that I don’t think anyone is going to have a problem with. It only takes place up until she was convicted. I know her appeal is coming up pretty soon too so it should be interesting to see what is going to happen with that.”

Besides this new role, Hayden is also expected to play a part in the upcoming ‘Scream 4’ movie.

Erikson’s Eight Stages of Psychosocial Development

Erik Erikson was born in Frankfurt, Germany, on June 15, 1902. Born Erik Homberger; he officially changed his name to Erik Erikson after becoming an American citizen. Erikson practiced child psychoanalysis privately at Harvard Medical School. He later taught at Yale, and later still at the University of California at Berkeley; and it was during this period of time that he conducted his famous studies of modern life among the Lakota and the Yurok. Erikson left Berkeley in 1950, spent ten years working and teaching at a clinic in Massachusetts, and ten more years back at Harvard—before retiring in 1970. He died in 1994.

Before he died he left a great legacy of work—none better than his eight stage theory of Psychosocial Development. Erikson was a “Freudian ego-psychologist,” meaning that he accepted Sigmund Freud’s theories as correct. He was, however, much more culture and society oriented than Freud or most Freudians, with his anthropological background. Freud had previously postulated his famous ‘five stages of psychosocial development,’ which ended in late adolescence. Surely humans do not stop developing after this period. Picking up on this, Erikson added to Freud’s theory, postulating development from late adolescence until death. Like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory, Erikson gives us the framework for human development throughout an entire lifespan.

NOTE: Erikson believed that if any stage was missed (or the potential skill associated with that stage was not acquired) it would affect other stages of development, keeping one from achieving his or her maximum potential.



Stage One - Trust vs. Mistrust

The first stage is from birth until one-and-a-half years old. In this stage the ultimate goal of the infant (through the parents) is to develop trust without completely eliminating the capacity for mistrust. In this stage, if the parents can give the child a degree of familiarity, consistency, and continuity, the newborn will develop a sense that the world is a safe place and that people are reliable and loving. If the parents, however, are unreliable, or do an inadequate job raising the child, the infant will develop mistrust and be apprehensive and suspicious around people.

Stage two - Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt

The second stage occurs from about eighteen months to three or four years old. The primary goal of this stage (through the parents) is to achieve a degree of autonomy (independence) while minimizing shame and doubt. This is a stage in which the parents need to be “firm, but tolerant.” Children in this stage need to be allowed to explore and manipulate their environment in order to develop a sense of independence, as well as self-control and self-esteem. On the other hand; if the parents or caretakers come down to hard on the child for trying to explore their environment, they will instill in the child a sense of shame and to doubt their abilities.

Stage three - Initiative vs. Guilt

The third stage occurs from about three or four to five or six. The primary goal of this stage (through the parents) is to achieve initiative (inventiveness) without too much guilt. Children in this stage need to develop a sense of responsibility and learn new skills informally, not through formal education. A delicate balance needs to be maintained between initiative and guilt. If the parent is too harsh on the child, the child will develop feelings of guilt about his/her feelings: what Erikson called “inhibition.” If the child, however, has too much initiative and not enough guilt, the child will develop a maladaptive tendency; what Erikson called “ruthlessness.”

Stage four - Industry vs. Inferiority

The fourth stage occurs from about six to twelve. The ultimate goal of this stage is to develop a capacity for industry while avoiding an excessive sense of inferiority. In this stage it is time for formal learning, and children must start their education and learn the social skills required by society. Parents, other family members, teachers, and even the child's peers become major influencing factors in this stage. Balance at every level is vital. Too much industry and a child will develop what Erikson called “narrow virtuosity,” such as when parents push their kids to hard to become child actors, musicians or prodigies of all sorts. Too little industry leads to a more common malignancy which Erikson termed “inertia,” or inferiority complexes.

Stage five - Ego-identity vs. Role-confusion

The fifth stage is adolescence, begining with puberty and ending around 18 or 20 years old. Obviously covering a much wider range—in terms of age—there are a number of developmental goals to be attained in this stage. The ultimate goal of this stage is to achieve ego identity while avoiding role confusion; taking all you have learned thus far and molding it into a self image: knowing who you are and your role in society. Society now becomes the biggest influence, and must allow for certain “rights of passage” (tests of endurance, symbolic ceremonies, or educational events, etc.) for individuals to achieve and distinguish child from adult. Too much “ego identity” leads to “fanaticism” (i.e. a person believing that their way is the only way). Lack of identity leads to “repudiation,” which leads individuals to join groups which are eager to provide details of identity (Religious cults, militaristic organizations, groups founded on hatred, etc.), or to destructive activities such as drugs and alcohol.

Stage six – Intimacy vs. Isolation

The sixth stage is young adulthood, which occurs from about 18 to 30. In this stage the ultimate goal is to develop some degree of intimacy, as opposed to remaining in isolation. Intimacy gained too freely is a maladaptive tendency that Erikson termed “promiscuity.” Isolation from love, friendships, and community leads to “exclusion,” in which the individual develops a hatefulness to compensate for the loneliness.

Stage seven – Generativity vs. Self-absorption

The seventh stage is somewhere between mid-twenties and late fifties. The primary goal of this stage is to cultivate the proper balance of generativity (extension of love into the future) and stagnation (self-absorption). The maladaptive tendency Erikson calls “overexertion” is when a person becomes so over generative that they no longer have time for themselves--overextending themselves until they can no longer contribute effectively. The flip side is “rejectivity,” or the tendency to become so self-absorbed that the person no longer cares for anyone and no longer contributes to society.

Stage eight - Integrity vs. Despair

The last stage, loosely termed late adulthood, maturity, or most commonly old age; this stage occurs from about 60 until death. The ultimate goal of this stage is to develop ego integrity with a minimal amount of despair. Many believe that this stage is the most difficult of all because of the many disparities which are associated with it. A detachment from society (or feeling of uselessness), failing of the body to react as it once did, illness, and ultimate concerns of death debilitate many during this stage. In this stage one must effectively put their life into perspective and attach a certain meaning to it in order to feel "whole." People who are unable to do this, develop a deep sense of anguish and despair and wish they had their lives to live over (doing things differently).

http://www.willsavive.webs.com/

PURCHASE SAVIVE'S LATEST BOOK (Amazon.com)

Knox in Court for Slander

Amanda Knox was back in court yesterday, facing slander changers. Francesco Maresca, the attorney for the eight police officers listed on the request for trial filed Friday, told the Seattle Post Intelligencer that the complaint was “all based on what she [Knox] said herself on the stand on the 12 and 13th of June.” Sources say that Knox appeared visibly “drawn and pale” when she appeared in court Friday for the hearing, and that she had also gained weight.

The next hearing for the slander trial against Knox is scheduled for 8 November 2010, at which time arguments are expected to be heard. The actual slander trial, however, may not take place until after Knox’s criminal appeal has been heard and ruled on, which may not take place until January 2011. If she wins the appeal the slander charges may be shelved, but the prosecutor appears to be determined to pursue the charges in order to prove Knox was not mistreated.

The West Memphis 3: Injustice 4 All (Part 1)

New evidence has surfaced in the West Memphis Three murders that have caused a public resurgence of the case. Led by Pearl Jam’s, Eddie Vedder, actor, Johnny Depp, and Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks; the public outcry to overrule the 1994 convictions of three teens for the murder of three second-graders has reached a fevered pitch, and a new hearing on the case is scheduled for September 30, 2010. But if the three were not the killers then who was? Moreover, should they have even been convicted in the first place or were they railroaded by a corrupt and unjust group of individuals?

On May 5, 1993, West Memphis, Arkansas, was left in shock by just about the worst type of crime that could ever be committed. It was the day when three eight-year-old boys [Christopher Byers, Michael Moore, and Steve Branch] were brutally murdered. Their bodies were later discovered in the woods of Robin Hood Hills badly beaten; with Byers found with his testicles removed and the skin on his penis carved-away. During a completely botched investigation and pressure from the community to apprehend the perpetrator(s), police announced on June 3, 1993, that they had arrested three suspects: Damien Echols [18], Jason Baldwin [16], and Jessie Misskelley [17]. The three boys were typical heavy-metal, problem children who appeared to be dead-ringers for the murders. The alleged killers were dubbed “The West Memphis Three” (WM3), and the town quickly went into an uproar, calling for the boys’ heads; and a modern day witch trial followed.

The arrest, and the entire case for that matter, rested primarily on the coerced confession from Jessie Misskelley. With a 72 IQ—bordering on mental retardation—police interrogated Misskelley for 12 hours, recording only the last 45 minutes. During the ‘confession,’ Misskelley said that Echols beat the kids, had sex with them, and then killed them. Misskelley said that one victim, Steven Branch, began to run away, so he ran after him and brought him back to the scene in the woods and then left. Police accepted the confession, although Misskelley’s statement was filled with contradictions. For instance, Misskelley claimed that this happened at 12 noon, although the victims were in school until about 4p.m. Also, there were no signs of sexual abuse, according to the medical examiner. Dr. Richard Ofshe, a Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of California, Berkeley, and an expert witnesses for Misskelley’s defense, testified that the brief recording was a “classic example” of police coercion. Ofshe has described Misskelley’s statement saying, “[It is] the stupidest fucking confession I’ve ever seen.”

The evidence against the WM3 included:

• Jessie’s confession (June 3, 1993)
• A fiber found on Steven Branch’s shirt that matched a fiber from Jason Baldwin’s mother (secondary transfer)
• A couple of fibers from a shirt found at Damien Echols house (one on Michael’s cub scout cap and one on his shirt)
• The Hollingsworth Clan told police that they witnessed Damien on the Service Road near the crime scene
• Two girls (Christy VanVickle & Jodee Medford) claimed that they overheard Echols say at a kids softball game that he had killed the boys and that he was going to kill two more before he turned himself in
• Michael Ray Carson, who was in the Craighead County Juvenile Detention Center (for burglary) with Jason Baldwin, claimed that Jason told him that they killed the boys and ate their testicles
• Serrated knife found in the lake behind Jason Baldwin’s home

Evidence Debunked

The evidence against the WM3 has always been in question. The most decisive evidence-violation in the trial was the jury’s use of Jessie Misskelley’s confession. Misskelley refused to testify at the Echols/Baldwin trial and his confession was ruled inadmissible by the judge. However, jury foreman, Kent Arnold, admitted that he was trying to convince other jurors to convict based upon news reports of the confession. Not only is this considered hearsay-evidence, but it clearly indicates jury-misconduct, and this alone should warrant a mistrial, and Arnold should’ve been held in contempt of court. In regard to the fiber evidence, specialists claimed that none of the fibers found could be attributed to Echols or Baldwin to the exclusion of all others. In essence meaning, authorities could not give a definitive answer whether those fibers came from Echols or Baldwin.

Danny Williams had been a counselor at the Craighead County Juvenile Detention Center at the same time that Jason Baldwin and Michael Ray Carson had been there. Williams told Baldwin’s defense that several months prior to the trial, Carson was one of the boys that he had been counseling. Williams said that during one conversation he had informed Carson of the details of the murder. Williams claimed that Carson—who was a medically-diagnosed LSD addict—was lying and the only reason that he had this information about Baldwin was because he himself informed Carson of the details. Councilor Williams also informed the prosecution of this story, yet they still used Carson as a witness. The presiding judge, David Burnett, ruled that this information was a violation of Carson’s right to patient-counselor confidentiality and did not allow the jury to hear Mr. Williams’ testimony.

In December 1993, John Mark Byers (stepfather of victim Christopher Byers) gave the makers of the film Paradise Lost a used hunting knife as a Christmas gift. The knife appeared to have dried blood on it, so they handed it over to police on 8 January 1994 (folding-lockable Kershaw knife – exhibit # E6). DNA expert for the prosecution, Michael DeGuglielmo, testified that the blood on the knife was the same type as Mark and Chris Byers. Since they both had the same DNA type, the test was inconclusive. Forensic pathologist, Dr. Frank Peretti, testified that some of the wounds found on Chris Byers were consistent with Byers’ knife. Private investigator for Damien’s defense team, Ron Lax, was told by Mr. Byers that no one had ever been cut with that particular knife.

On 26 January 1994, WMPD inspector, Gary Gitchell, asked Mr. Byers during a taped conversation if he had ever taken the knife hunting. Mr. Byers answered, “No,” claiming that “the knife had not been used at all; it has just been in my dresser.” During that same recorded conversation, Mr. Byers also stated, “I have no idea how it could have any blood on it…I don’t ever remember nicking myself with it.”
However, during the trial Mr. Byers testified that he did not remember telling the inspector this, and his new claim was that he had used the knife around Thanksgiving to cut venison. Moreover, Mr. Byers told the court that he had “cut his thumb with the knife.” Conveniently for the prosecution, the blood evidence has since been destroyed, preventing any further analysis.

During the trial, Christy VanVickle testified that she did not remember how close or how far away that she was from Damien Echols when he admitted to the murders, nor whether he had said it softly or loudly. After the convictions, a sworn affidavit from Jodee Medford’s mother (of one of two girls who testified that she overheard Echols admit to the crime at a softball game) now says that Echols’ statement was not serious and that neither she nor her daughter believes he committed the crime.

Jason Misskelley was tried first in a separate trial. He was convicted and received a life sentence plus 40 years. In the next trial, Jason Baldwin was sentenced to life in prison without parole, and Damien Echols is on Death Row, sentenced to die by lethal injection. Despite week evidence, the 24 jurors convicted all three men “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

In spite of powerful new evidence presented in Craighead County Circuit Court, Judge David Burnett refused to grant Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley a new trial. The Arkansas Supreme Court is currently reviewing the new DNA and forensic evidence as well as juror misconduct to determine whether to grant Damien Echols a new trial.

Stay tuned for PART 2…

PURCHASE SAVIVE'S LATEST BOOK (Amazon.com)

Queen of Coffee Nabbed & indicted

Former lingerie model from the Colombian city of Barranquilla, Angie Sanclemente Valencia, was arrested on May 26, 2010, after being on-the-run since December 2009. Valencia, who is accused of running one of the biggest drug-trafficking operations in the world, was captured by Airport Security forces in the Buenos Aires neighborhood of Palermo, in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Valencia had been hiding out in Buenos Aires since December, when airport police caught a 21-year-old Argentine woman with 55 kilograms of cocaine in her baggage boarding a flight to Cancun. That led to arrests of six other alleged gang members; all of whom implicated Valencia as being the ring-leader. Judge Marcelo Aguinsky issued the international warrant for the beauty queen soon after.

During her period in hiding, Valencia declared her innocence on Facebook. Her mother, Jeannette Valencia, flew in from Colombia some weeks ago to protest her innocence as well. “She is no drug trafficker, nor is she the queen of cocaine,” she declared after the arrest. “There are bad intentions—a plot against her,” she added. Judicial authorities have rejected a request for special treatment from her lawyer, Guillermo Tiscornia, who said Valencia had not turned herself in for fear that her looks would expose her to rape or other mistreatment in a common Argentine prison. “They will rape her...they will cut her face,” her mother asserted.

Valencia was dubbed “The Queen of Coffee” after winning her country’s National Coffee Queen beauty pageant in 2000. She was stripped of her crown, however, when it was discovered she was married at the time, which was in violation of pageant rules. Valencia, 30, was formally charged with “attempted aggravated contraband” for her alleged part in a ring dedicated to international drug trafficking from Argentina to Europe via Mexico. Valencia was indicted recently by Judge Rafael Caputo, who also ordered the seizure of goods owned by Valencia in the amount of $3.2 million dollars. Police were able to determine Valencia’s identity because she had made quite an impression upon her arrival in Argentina, flying first class with a Pomeranian dog, an official said. Valencia posed as a college student from Mexico, she was traveling under the name “Annie,” she had dyed her hair blonde, and she put on weight to evade capture.

Unprecedented Murder-4-Hire Sting

In one of the more bizarre murder-for-hire cases, police set up an elaborate sting operation to catch a woman who was attempting to have her husband killed. In 2009, petite, curvaceous ex-escort, Dalia Dippolito, told her friend (an unnamed informant) that she needed help finding someone to kill her husband, Michael Dippolito. The informant had been friends with Dalia for nearly a decade before, and had only gone to police because he believed that she was “dead serious” about going through with the crime. Immediately, Boynton Beach Police began working with the informant, setting up a sophisticated sting operation. Police taped meetings between Dalia and the informant, where she provided him with a picture of her husband. Working with police, the informant had told Dalia that he had found a friend who would carry out the crime. During one meeting Dalia gave the informant a $1,200 down payment to give to the killer. Still, police did not move in; instead, they waited and built-up more of a case against her.

Police styled an undercover cop as a hit-man that met with Dalia to discuss the details of the murder while being recorded by police. Parked in a car near her apartment, Dalia told the undercover officer that she was “five-thousand percent sure” that she wanted her husband killed. Police then went so far as to set up a fake crime scene. On August 5, 2009, police simulated a murder scene by putting up crime-scene tape at the Dippolito’s home and waited for Dalia. When she arrived they led her to believe that the murder had been committed, having an officer break the news of her husband’s death. As she sobbed dramatically, her antics were caught by a video crew. Police then took her down to the police station as a witness, allowing her to incriminate herself further. Only later, in a tiny interrogation room at the police station, would officers reveal that her husband was alive. Then, in a phone call conversation from jail she had the nerve to call her husband and refute the things that she clearly said on tape, as well as making herself out to be the victim. Her trial is coming up soon with a plethora of evidence to convict. There will also likely be a made-for-TV-movie as well...

Click HERE for verdict and sentencing

Is there a Serial Killer in Bergen County?

On Tuesday night, police and firefighters responded to a call from neighbors that the house at 976 Alpine Drive, Teaneck, NJ, was on fire. When they arrived they found a woman charred beyond recognition in the bedroom of the house. Police believed that it was the home owner, Fairleigh Dickinson professor, Joan Davis, 72. Suddenly things changed on Wednesday, when police tape surrounded the scene and a forensic crime truck was seen pulling into the driveway. Suddenly, Bergen County Prosecutor, John L. Molinelli, announced (late afternoon) that an autopsy coupled with analysis of the scene indicated the death was the result of a homicide.

Then NBC (New York) announced that the cause of death was blunt force trauma. Other sources have stated that the victim was stabbed multiple times before the perpetrator burned the scene; likely to cover-up evidence. Investigators believe that the body—which has not been identified yet and dental records are being sought—is in fact the owner, Joan Davis. Neighbors were aghast, labeling the crime a “complete shock.” No other facts have been released publically at this time.

In an eerily similar incident back in April 2010, Palisades Park resident, Dolores Alliotts, 69, faced an analogous fate. Another beloved longtime resident had been pulled from her fire-damaged home on 12th Street. Prosecutor Molinelli said that a preliminary autopsy on the badly burned body revealed that she had been stabbed several times in the torso and possibly elsewhere, before the blaze was set.

Both murders involved older women who lived alone, and were longtime, well-known residents. They were also both stabbed and their bodies were set on fire in their homes, and both crimes appear to have occurred around the same time of night/early morning. Both murders have also been classified as arson/homicides. Surely police and the prosecutor are aware of the uncanny similarities of both murders and are investigating the possibility that they may have been committed by the same person(s), although nothing public has been stated even linking the murders yet.


Police should be looking into if there are any connections between the two victims, such as whether they may have gotten their prescriptions from the same place, or whether they had the same doctor, etc. There is also the prospect that at least one of the crime scenes has some type of DNA or fingerprint evidence that may identify and link the killer(s) to either scene, although the fire may have damaged key evidence. Police have set-up a large perimeter around the home and many of the surrounding homes on Alpine Drive. The perimeter is so large that it is impossible to even get a glimpse at the house. Hopefully police will find some type of pertinent evidence. I will continue to follow this developing story and provide updates.

In the meantime, if you have any information contact police immediately…

PART 2