DEFENDANT #17: DR. KORY KNAPKE #A49908 (The Vernon Patterson Dossier)

 

Role in People v. Michael Taylor (XNEGA111132)
Dr. Kory Knapke, a court-appointed forensic psychologist, was assigned to evaluate Mr. Michael Taylor under Penal Code § 1369 while Mr. Taylor was detained at Twin Towers Jail in Downtown Los Angeles. Though Dr. Knapke made an objectively honest admission in his final report that he was unable to evaluate or form a clinical opinion, he nonetheless submitted a report to the court that included and cited the prior defective evaluation by Dr. Pietro D’Ingillo — thereby validating and extending the effects of a fraudulently initiated psychiatric process.


Summary of Involvement
In the forensic sequence of People v. Michael Taylor, Dr. Knapke appears as a relatively neutral figure — a psychologist who acknowledged the constitutional challenges raised by the defendant, expressed skepticism about the basis for his own evaluation, and declined to deliver a firm conclusion on Mr. Taylor’s mental competency. However, this limited integrity does not shield him from complicity.

At the time of his jailhouse interaction with Mr. Taylor, Dr. Knapke possessed a copy of Dr. Pietro D’Ingillo’s § 730 assessment — an evaluation that had no lawful foundation, having been initiated based on a sealed court order never served or lawfully entered into the record. Rather than discard or disqualify that document, Dr. Knapke included and cited it in his own forensic report. By doing so, he:

• Perpetuated the use of a jurisdictionally void document in the record;
• Failed to flag or challenge the legality of the psychiatric foundation he was assigned to build upon;
• Enabled the court to proceed as if lawful psychiatric continuity existed, when in fact it did not.

While Dr. Knapke refrained from issuing a fabricated diagnosis, his willingness to participate in a tainted process without objection ultimately served the same purpose: his report functioned as a procedural placeholder, giving the illusion of legitimacy while deflecting attention from the jurisdictional collapse at the core of the proceedings.

Why He Is Defendant #17 in the Dossier

• Knowingly relied upon and cited an evaluation (Dr. D’Ingillo’s) that was itself unlawfully obtained, violating due process.
• Despite being unable to form an opinion, he submitted a forensic report, thereby validating the appearance of a legitimate mental health record in proceedings that lacked jurisdictional grounding.
• Failed to flag the legal insufficiency of the process or challenge the legitimacy of his own assignment under constitutional principles.
• His inaction contributed to the false psychiatric narrative, and helped preserve the appearance of procedural normalcy in a case collapsing under fraud.

> “Even silence in the storm carries consequence. Though Dr. Knapke spoke with caution, he walked among broken foundations — and left them unchallenged.”