Continuation Part 10: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Draca]

Answer: a feeling that one is right in one's analysis of the issue.

And I think it's crucial to distinguish between a) emotional investment in a position (e.g. that Knox/Sollecito should not be convicted) and b) emotional investment in the people themselves (e.g. Knox/Sollecito). As I stated clearly in that post, I term myself a strong supporter of their cause, but not a supporter of them per se.

I go back to what I've said: to be described as a "supporter" of Knox or Sollecito automatically implies (in my mind) an emotional attachment to those people that goes beyond (and possibly even overrides) an analysis of what crimes they might or might not have committed. That's why I think it's important to draw the distinction between support for the person and support for the cause.

LJ,

I really think you would find most 'supporters' are foremost invested in the case itself, even long time supporters.

I don't particularly agree that being a supporter of Knox and Sollecito means there is an emotional attachment to them as people. That includes people who have met them. There are of course supporters who have met them or their families and now have an emotional investment in them as individuals. However, even those who may now have an investment in them as individuals first had an investment in the miscarriage of justice. I also don't agree analysis of the case is overridden by any investment.

 

[Dan O.]

...Someone could say they were innocent and framed, but how would we know for sure they really were innocent? Hell, no one here or anywhere knows whether Raffaele and Amanda are absolutely (100%) innocent (or guilty), only Meredith, Rudy, Raffaele and Amanda know that for sure.

I would say that you are wrong on all 4 counts in the highlighted section. Amanda and Raffaele certainly believe they are both innocent. But there will always be an ember of doubt left over from the interrogation that they will never completely extinguish. Rudy has probably told his lies often enough that for him they have become the truth. And as of approximately 10 pm Perugia time on 1 November 2007, Meredith no longer had any memories to know.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I would say that you are wrong on all 4 counts in the highlighted section. Amanda and Raffaele certainly believe they are both innocent. But there will always be an ember of doubt left over from the interrogation that they will never completely extinguish. Rudy has probably told his lies often enough that for him they have become the truth. And as of approximately 10 pm Perugia time on 1 November 2007, Meredith no longer had any memories to know.

-

Only they really know which one of us is right,

d

-
ETA: Raffaele knows if he's innocent. He may not be absolutely (100%) sure that Amanda or Rudy are innocent, but he knows whether he's innocent or not.

-

 

[anglolawyer]

Emotions are the basis of ethics, morality, law and a sense of justice. You can't talk about the origins or intentions of any of these concepts without eventually resorting to a discussion of human emotion. You can't care about an injustice without, in whatever small way, having emotions about the people who are being treated unjustly or, conversely, about the people who are committing the injustice.

LJ,

I really think you would find most 'supporters' are foremost invested in the case itself, even long time supporters.

I don't particularly agree that being a supporter of Knox and Sollecito means there is an emotional attachment to them as people. That includes people who have met them. There are of course supporters who have met them or their families and now have an emotional investment in them as individuals. However, even those who may now have an investment in them as individuals first had an investment in the miscarriage of justice. I also don't agree analysis of the case is overridden by any investment.

Great! Nice to have my opinion expressed better than I could do it myself. Having had the pleasure of meeting one of the protagonists, I care about her more than I did before. I am unaware of any effect on my opinion of the case but who knows, maybe my judgment is now way off.

Very small children have a strong sense of justice. There are probably more scientific experiments than the ones I inadvertently visited on my son when he was less than a year old. I'm pretty sure he had no intellectual comprehension at all, just the feeling. I am sure I think too much and feel too little but
I agree with Mary_H that, at bottom, even for the likes of LJ, these cases are emotional. 10 continuations and tens of thousands of posts aren't the result of a crossword puzzle.

Question for Grinder and LJ: what, if anything, do you want to happen in this case?

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Great! Nice to have my opinion expressed better than I could do it myself. Having had the pleasure of meeting one of the protagonists, I care about her more than I did before. I am unaware of any effect on my opinion of the case but who knows, maybe my judgment is now way off.

Very small children have a strong sense of justice. There are probably more scientific experiments than the ones I inadvertently visited on my son when he was less than a year old. I'm pretty sure he had no intellectual comprehension at all, just the feeling. I am sure I think too much and feel too little but
I agree with Mary_H that, at bottom, even for the likes of LJ, these cases are emotional. 10 continuations and tens of thousands of posts aren't the result of a crossword puzzle.

Question for Grinder and LJ: what, if anything, do you want to happen in this case?

-

It's not that I want to believe Raffaele and Amanda are innocent, it's that I really have no choice in the matter. Not if I really want to be honest with myself, and not to mention all the things that make their guilt so improbable, I just have no choice.

Does that make me a supporter or a fan? In my opinion, I think you have to make a choice to be either or both. Since I don't have a choice, to me that means I'm neither, in my opinion,

d

-

 

[Samson]

Great! Nice to have my opinion expressed better than I could do it myself. Having had the pleasure of meeting one of the protagonists, I care about her more than I did before. I am unaware of any effect on my opinion of the case but who knows, maybe my judgment is now way off.

Very small children have a strong sense of justice. There are probably more scientific experiments than the ones I inadvertently visited on my son when he was less than a year old. I'm pretty sure he had no intellectual comprehension at all, just the feeling. I am sure I think too much and feel too little but
I agree with Mary_H that, at bottom, even for the likes of LJ, these cases are emotional. 10 continuations and tens of thousands of posts aren't the result of a crossword puzzle.Question for Grinder and LJ: what, if anything, do you want to happen in this case?

Traction is difficult to achieve, the longevity of this thread can be measured against others on JREF.

 

[Samson]

If the case against AR was well founded, this thread would not survive.

 

[Samson]

Because the case against AR is not well founded, and indeed is built on manufactured premises, this thread will survive until they are exonerated

 

[Desert Fox]

Because the case against AR is not well founded, and indeed is built on manufactured premises, this thread will survive until they are exonerated

I think it may have also gotten a fair number of people to think about other wrongful convictions. For the longest time, there was almost no noise towards fair treatment of those on trial. It was all crying about rights of the victim.

I am not against the rights of the victim but it does the victims no good to throw an innocent in prison.

 

[platonov]

Never mind the quality feel the length

If the case against AR was well founded, this thread would not survive.

Yes, in the same way that the longevity of the Bigfoot, 9/11 and Holocaust denial threads indicate existence, inside job and a giant hoax respectively.

 

[Grinder]

Why wait?

I like having it to look forward to. I meant more than on the Internet. Maybe yard-signs near Salty's with a personalized message.

 

[Grinder]

Question for Grinder and LJ: what, if anything, do you want to happen in this case?

My greatest hope would be for these two to be found not guilty by a court in Italy. I'm not absolutely sure that the ISC can do it as they supposedly only can rule on legal issues AFAIK and I'd prefer that it be on the merits. I prefer that for me so I can do my yardsign with gusto. I prefer it for the kids to clear their names as best possible.

Though a supporter in the sense of believing they both most likely had nothing to do with the murder and being 100% sure the case was not handled professionally by the ILE and the convictions were not BARD.

As for emotional investment, I go back to politics. If there is an article the campaign hope people comment in favor of the candidate that isn't part of the campaign because it isn't a vested interest. I care far more about people I know well or even a little than complete strangers. For those posting on this subject here that have met the principals and been part of the support group this would apply.

Since the PGP have outed or advertised the self outing of some people here, I'm aware of them. They seem to be more likely to defend FOA or be angered by any criticism of that group.

ETA - I'm not saying they are members of FOA.

 

[anglolawyer]

My greatest hope would be for these two to be found not guilty by a court in Italy. I'm not absolutely sure that the ISC can do it as they supposedly only can rule on legal issues AFAIK and I'd prefer that it be on the merits. I prefer that for me so I can do my yardsign with gusto. I prefer it for the kids to clear their names as best possible.

Though a supporter in the sense of believing they both most likely had nothing to do with the murder and being 100% sure the case was not handled professionally by the ILE and the convictions were not BARD.

As for emotional investment, I go back to politics. If there is an article the campaign hope people comment in favor of the candidate that isn't part of the campaign because it isn't a vested interest. I care far more about people I know well or even a little than complete strangers. For those posting on this subject here that have met the principals and been part of the support group this would apply.

Since the PGP have outed or advertised the self outing of some people here, I'm aware of them. They seem to be more likely to defend FOA or be angered by any criticism of that group.

Thank you for this reply. I got lost somewhere around the highlighted part, though, so if you have time, could you please clarify your meaning?

I think it's perfectly natural to care more about people you know than those you don't. As I said, I am more committed to Amanda's cause having met her (albeit very briefly) than I would have been otherwise. It's easy to forget there are real people mixed up in this nightmare which, for most of us, is not much more than a fascinating diversion. I wonder what the effect on you would be if you met her and her family (not that I am proposing or in a position to set that up). Knowing you to the extent that I do, I doubt it would have any effect on your objectivity.

 

[moije2]

Thank you for this reply. I got lost somewhere around the highlighted part, though, so if you have time, could you please clarify your meaning?

I think it's perfectly natural to care more about people you know than those you don't. As I said, I am more committed to Amanda's cause having met her (albeit very briefly) than I would have been otherwise. It's easy to forget there are real people mixed up in this nightmare which, for most of us, is not much more than a fascinating diversion. I wonder what the effect on you would be if you met her and her family (not that I am proposing or in a position to set that up). Knowing you to the extent that I do, I doubt it would have any effect on your objectivity.

I would speculate that the reason you met her was because you had already established a strong belief in her innocence. Meeting her was perhaps similar to meeting a politician whose platform and causes you strongly identify with. (Please don't get carried away with this comparison folks!)

This whole thing about emotional attachment seems a dangerous slope. If you identify strong enough with something to become actively involved in the cause then there is alway the possibility that you will meet the key players. Then your objectivity can be challenged because of it. The claim of treating this as purely an intellectual exercise devoid of feeling or passion strikes me as completely disingenuous. I have commented previously that there are many here who have spent thousands upon thousands of hours on this and appear to be at their keyboard 24/7. It would be a strange bird indeed that does that without emotion and passion.

 

[Grinder]

Thank you for this reply. I got lost somewhere around the highlighted part, though, so if you have time, could you please clarify your meaning?

I think it's perfectly natural to care more about people you know than those you don't. As I said, I am more committed to Amanda's cause having met her (albeit very briefly) than I would have been otherwise. It's easy to forget there are real people mixed up in this nightmare which, for most of us, is not much more than a fascinating diversion. I wonder what the effect on you would be if you met her and her family (not that I am proposing or in a position to set that up). Knowing you to the extent that I do, I doubt it would have any effect on your objectivity.

The analogy was intended to point out that supporters' POV isn't as powerful as non-supporters because the supporters are biased in favor of the candidate. I play some fantasy sports games and need not to become enamored of a player because of being with the home team, ethnic origin or anything except talent.

You read me wrong. I'm very loyal to old and new friends. One of the main reasons I haven't used my location and minor connections to join in is that I want to keep myself as objective as possible. Hell, I'd wash any friends' walls if needed.

People think that only others have a subconscious that affects their judgments and decisions. Having personal connections to the kids will impact objectivity and well it should.

 

[Grinder]

I would speculate that the reason you met her was because you had already established a strong belief in her innocence. Meeting her was perhaps similar to meeting a politician whose platform and causes you strongly identify with. (Please don't get carried away with this comparison folks!)

This whole thing about emotional attachment seems a dangerous slope. If you identify strong enough with something to become actively involved in the cause then there is alway the possibility that you will meet the key players. Then your objectivity can be challenged because of it. The claim of treating this as purely an intellectual exercise devoid of feeling or passion strikes me as completely disingenuous. I have commented previously that there are many here who have spent thousands upon thousands of hours on this and appear to be at their keyboard 24/7. It would be a strange bird indeed that does that without emotion and passion.

Agreed in the most part. I personally was mostly driven by my disgust with the PGP and their tactics. At the time one couldn't be sure of things as we are today they carried on with power points and long essays etc.

They don't know the Kerchers and they didn't know Meredith and I've never bought into the "remember Meredith" meme because they haven't expanded it into remember everyone nor have they done anything significant for Meredith. They are vile people and I ..... them.

I have fought with them on "neutral" sites including Frank's, JREF and Feinsteins' blog (that was one of the last places SA are Kermit were taken to task by Chris, myself and others, that were not complimented by Sharon btw) and never liked defending unsourced crud.

 

[AmyStrange]

Call me a strange bird...

-

I would speculate that the reason you met her
was because you had already established a strong belief in her innocence. Meeting her was perhaps similar to meeting a politician whose platform and causes you strongly identify with. (Please don't get carried away with this comparison folks!)

This whole thing about emotional attachment seems a dangerous slope. If you identify strong enough with something to become actively involved in the cause then there is alway the possibility that you will meet the key players. Then your objectivity can be challenged because of it. The claim of treating this as purely an intellectual exercise devoid of feeling or passion strikes me as completely disingenuous. I have commented previously that there are many here who have spent thousands upon thousands of hours on this and appear to be at their keyboard 24/7. It would be a strange bird indeed that does that without emotion and passion.

-

I agree with you up to a point m, but you forget that it is quite possible to be involved in a subject (or subjects) 24/7 without becoming personally involved or feel any emotional investment towards all the players.

I myself run a website that involves researching and verifying unexplained events like Bigfoot, UFOs, serial killers, missing persons and many other fringes of society. I do admit to getting involved emotionally with the victims and families of serial killers and missing persons, and although my emotions are involved with that, I do still always look at the serial killer case to see if it's a good case. You do NOT want to convict the wrong person there. Not to mention, those cases where serial killers are not even considered and the wrong person convicted.

My point being that I spend a lot of time working on these cases, but with my Bigfoot and UFO cases, I am only interested in finding the original sources and verifying other data, and in no way am I emotionally invested in the players. As an aside, it's interesting the number of original sources that are different than the events listed in books about them.

In the serial killer and missing person cases, I admit I am emotionally invested, but in the Bigfoot, UFO and other fringes, I am only trying to verify their veracity. As an aside, there's something out there. It may not be Bigfoot or UFOs, but there's something out there. There's just no good evidence to support their existence.

I write too much, I'm sorry but that's what a strange bird like me does well,

d

-
ETA, I guess I do have a passion for it all, but I'm not emotionally invested in the players. Some schools of psychology believe emotion comes before reason, and if that's true, maybe passion is the result of the reason and not the emotion. I also believe that perception plays a large part in your reasoning process, but that's just my opinion.

-

 

[Grinder]

I agree with you up to a point m, but you forget that it is quite possible to be involved in a subject (or subjects) 24/7 without becoming personally involved or feel any emotional investment towards all the players.

I myself run a website that involves researching and verifying unexplained events like Bigfoot, UFOs, serial killers, missing persons and many other fringes of society.
-

But if you met Bigfoot or ET wouldn't you be emotionally more invested?

 

[AmyStrange]

Probabilities

-

But if you met Bigfoot or ET wouldn't be emotionally more invested?

-

Interesting question g, I don't know. probably, especially if other people were trying to kill them.

In this case, I only want to make sure the case is solid, and its not, not even close. One of the reasons I come here is to see if anyone can lower the probabilities enough so it's feasible Raffaele and Amanda did kill Meredith. So far, nothing even worth mentioning has changed the probabilites.*

I've been to the Gumper sites and read a lot of their stuff. I couldn't join, I wouldn't last a day, and it's also not worth the time to me. So, I wait here for some of them to be kind enough to come here so I (or anyone else) can have an intelligent conversation with them, but all we get here are the...

Mach (and a couple others) give the best efforts, but most of the rest are just a lot of...

You never know though, someday someone who isn't just trying to make points for their "side" might actually show up, in my opinion,

d

-
ETA: *The duodenum is the game changer to me. Adding to that Meredith's last call to her mother and Rudy's skype. Raffaele and Amanda would have had to know when Meredith got home and immediately run over, fight quickly then kill her, all without leaving any evidence except some questionable DNA on a bra-clasp that has a strong probability of being contamination. I read the autopsy report, there were not 40 stab wounds and that Gumper myth is not true. There were 7 or 8 stab wounds out of a total of 38 wounds (IIRC) and the rest are contusions, and evidence that her hair was forcibly pulled back, and the front of Meredith's face was smashed against something, all of that consistent with Meredith being thrown around the room and her face smashed into the floor and her hair pulled back and stabbed by one person. It's possible two other people were there at the time, but with no good DNA, fingerprints, hair, bloody clothes to back that up, Raffaele and Amanda's alibi, the duodenum evidence, Meredith's last call to her mother, and Rudy's skype call; it all leads me to conclude it's really highly improbable that they were the other two. And, it's not that each individual fact proves the case, but the probabilities that ALL of them would happen together is what makes it more improbable, in my opinion.

-

 

[moije2]

-


-

I agree with you up to a point m, but you forget that it is quite possible to be involved in a subject (or subjects) 24/7 without becoming personally involved or feel any emotional investment towards all the players.
I myself run a website that involves researching and verifying unexplained events like Bigfoot, UFOs, serial killers, missing persons and many other fringes of society. I do admit to getting involved emotionally with the victims and families of serial killers and missing persons, and although my emotions are involved with that, I do still always look at the serial killer case to see if it's a good case. You do NOT want to convict the wrong person there. Not to mention, those cases where serial killers are not even considered and the wrong person convicted.

My point being that I spend a lot of time working on these cases, but with my Bigfoot and UFO cases, I am only interested in finding the original sources and verifying other data, and in no way am I emotionally invested in the players. As an aside, it's interesting the number of original sources that are different than the events listed in books about them.

In the serial killer and missing person cases, I admit I am emotionally invested, but in the Bigfoot, UFO and other fringes, I am only trying to verify their veracity. As an aside, there's something out there. It may not be Bigfoot or UFOs, but there's something out there. There's just no good evidence to support their existence.

I write too much, I'm sorry but that's what a strange bird like me does well,

d

-
ETA, I guess I do have a passion for it all, but I'm not emotionally invested in the players. Some schools of psychology believe emotion comes before reason, and if that's true, maybe passion is the result of the reason and not the emotion. I also believe that perception plays a large part in your reasoning process, but that's just my opinion.

-

I don't think I forget, but rather I am a different creature than that/you. To each his own. I personally reject the idea of a person without emotions. The issue is really the ability to separate emotions from analysis. I will state that I am emotionally... something ... by this case. Let's say affected. And not just by the facts, but with regard to AK, RS, and their families. Of the more nonobjective labels, I don't think I belong. I feel strongly for these kids and their close ones. And at the same time I would turn my emotions the other direction in a heart beat if there was <reasonable> evidence against them.