• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Malfie Henpox said:
OK, cheers. That's an excellent point.

Despite not understanding why this case is so unbelievably massive, if it helps turn people on to the many, many injustices in the world, it has to be a good thing.

Let's hope that happens!
Click to expand...

That's my view entirely. This case had the attention it had for largely arbitrary reasons, not because Amanda and Raff's tragedy was any worse than other victims of mistrials. Indeed, most wrongly convicted people suffer for far longer than 4 years without the world's press paying them any attention at all.

It's the external factors particular to this case that made it so intriguing - among them the quite mystifying existence of a whole industry of hatred directed at the 2 accused, as well as a cult-like group of online bloggers devoted to maintaining the accusations against all reason. This, combined with the shallowness of the arguments used, naturally drew the attention of fair-minded people who quickly saw the sham for what it was. One side of the debate fed the other, which is why we have seen the enormous attention raised by the case, way beyond what it would have attracted in normal circumstances.
 
Malfie Henpox said:
But this kind of thing happens all the time. I just wonder what makes it so special. I'd be interested to see if there is a geographical divide on opinions of guilt.

Being British, I would definitely say that their is a stronger feeling of guilt there. And the whole affair has been compared to Americans in general. I don't subscribe to this view, but I do wonder if the opposite opinion is, in general, held by the states.

What I mean is this:

UK: American girl kills poor British girl. Money thrown at case. Tramples all over local justice.

US: Innocent angel held captive by evil foreigners. But we'll get her back.

See what I'm saying? Am I right?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think you're right, Malfie, although there are a lot of Britons who recognize the truth, too. There also are plenty of Americans who still think it's a case of a pretty, privileged white girl getting away with murder.

You're also right that media attention to cases involving young, attractive, sexually active subjects is common. You've noticed, though, that this case is set apart by the efforts of the innocence supporters, who by and large are educated, often intellectual, well-established members of mainstream society, as well as by the detractors, a minority of whom are from the same socioeconomic subgroup. It's true, murder cases don't always attract such intense interest from the non-tabloid-reading population.

I think certain people are drawn to the case because of its complexity. It entails not only the injustice of false arrest and false imprisonment, but also the misuse of international communications media, the misinterpretation of tenets of modern science, and serious failures of political representatives in both countries.*

Two primary realities of the case add to its challenges. First, to understand the facts of the case is to know Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. Thus, it becomes a fascinating, if frustrating, puzzle for supporters, who want to understand why the detractors display such strong resistance to the facts.

Second, the pitting of Amanda and Meredith against each other as if they are on opposite poles represents a complete and total misunderstanding and false view of the meaning of the case. Correcting that misconception in people's minds will be rewarding, once accomplished.

ETA: *I want to amend this to say political representative in the U.S. and legal authorities in Italy.
 
Last edited:
Machiavelli said:
The testimonies are focused on the relation between Meredith and Knox. Evidence reports a series of complaints from Meredith in tha latest weeks about Knox's behaviour.
Click to expand...

I don't suppose you would be willing to cite or document this so-called evidence.
 
Mary_H said:
that this case is set apart by the efforts of the innocence supporters, who by and large are educated, often intellectual, well-established members of mainstream society, as well as by the detractors, a minority of whom are from the same socioeconomic subgroup.
Click to expand...

Whilst I agree for the most part with your words, I find the quoted above an outrageous statement. Proof?
 
Antony said:
That's my view entirely. This case had the attention it had for largely arbitrary reasons, not because Amanda and Raff's tragedy was any worse than other victims of mistrials. Indeed, most wrongly convicted people suffer for far longer than 4 years without the world's press paying them any attention at all.

It's the external factors particular to this case that made it so intriguing - among them the quite mystifying existence of a whole industry of hatred directed at the 2 accused, as well as a cult-like group of online bloggers devoted to maintaining the accusations against all reason. This, combined with the shallowness of the arguments used, naturally drew the attention of fair-minded people who quickly saw the sham for what it was. One side of the debate fed the other, which is why we have seen the enormous attention raised by the case, way beyond what it would have attracted in normal circumstances.
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
Malfie Henpox said:
Whilst I agree for the most part with your words, I find the quoted above an outrageous statement. Proof?
Click to expand...

Is there anyone here who does not want to be included in the group* I described? Let me know, and I will except you.

Same goes for the vocal minority represented by PMF and TJMK.

*"educated, often intellectual, well-established members of mainstream society"
 
Last edited:
Mary_H said:
Is there anyone here who does not want to be included in the group* I described? Let me know, and I will except you.

Same goes for the vocal minority represented by PMF and TJMK.

*"educated, often intellectual, well-established members of mainstream society"
Click to expand...

I think Rose is a bit strange, personally.
 
Mary_H said:
Is there anyone here who does not want to be included in the group* I described? Let me know, and I will except you.

Same goes for the vocal minority represented by PMF and TJMK.

*"educated, often intellectual, well-established members of mainstream society"
Click to expand...

You're saying that the people in the group all think they're intellectual well educated so therefore they are?

Is this perhaps the real reason for the size of this group? Is there a chance that a superiority complex has developed?

If you're going to state that one side of the argument is intelligent and the other side is less so, I think both sides would like to see proof, wouldn't they?
 
Malfie Henpox said:
You're saying that the people in the group all think they're intellectual well educated so therefore they are?
Click to expand...

I don't know what they think of themselves, but my perception is that everyone here is well educated, whether by school or by self. The core, publicly vocal group of innocence supporters contains many professionals with graduate degrees.

Is this perhaps the real reason for the size of this group? Is there a chance that a superiority complex has developed?
Click to expand...

What IS the size of this group?

If you're going to state that one side of the argument is intelligent and the other side is less so, I think both sides would like to see proof, wouldn't they?
Click to expand...

The arguments themselves are repeated many time over in the four threads, if you would like to judge for yourself.

As for the people, did you miss the part where I said some of the guilters are from the same group? PMF has its share of graduate degrees, lawyers and academics.

And Peter Quennell wrote the book on pseudo-intellectualism.
 
Malfie Henpox said:
You're saying that the people in the group all think they're intellectual well educated so therefore they are?

Is this perhaps the real reason for the size of this group? Is there a chance that a superiority complex has developed?

If you're going to state that one side of the argument is intelligent and the other side is less so, I think both sides would like to see proof, wouldn't they?
Click to expand...

When she says that, I would like to see proof as well. We may have to wait awhile for her to say it, however.
 
Mary_H said:
I don't know what they think of themselves, but my perception is that everyone here is well educated, whether by school or by self. The core, publicly vocal group of innocence supporters contains many professionals with graduate degrees.



What IS the size of this group?



The arguments themselves are repeated many time over in the four threads, if you would like to judge for yourself.

As for the people, did you miss the part where I said some of the guilters are from the same group? PMF has its share of graduate degrees, lawyers and academics.

And Peter Quennell wrote the book on pseudo-intellectualism.
Click to expand...

I have read them, and the PMF thread. And that is not the conclusion I came to with regards intellect, no.

And you said a 'minority' of them were the same group. As opposed to the 'by and large' of 'Team Innocent'.

An outrageous claim that needs verification, I would say.
 
Machiavelli said:
What the police believe - suspect is she is not telling the truth, and she is covering someone - is not something that legally prevents the police from interogating her as a witness and collect statements from her.
Click to expand...

But what DOES prevent the police from interrogating in the absence of counsel is the fact that the person is a suspect. And these police believed that Knox was a suspect at least as soon as she made the oral statements that the police wrote down. So, while they could have written down or recorded these statements, they had no right to persuade Knox to sign their document. She should have had counsel there and then.

Machiavelli said:
And about the point of "signature", this makes no sense. Minutes of police questionings are no official documents. They are internale administrative acts. They do not require to be signed by the suspect.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point. So why then did they persuade a suspect to sign their document without the presence of counsel? This was illegal.

Machiavelli said:
Moreover, the police is not allowed by the law to not verbalize statements; they simply may not decide to "not type", they have to report whatever the person has said. They can only decide, then, to stop their questioning, to not go further, and call a magistrate if the verbalization of questioning already contains evidence that had shifted the legal status of the person to that of a formal suspect. This happens only if the police have collected material which is evidence usable by a magistrate.
Click to expand...

Yes. The police are supposed to record the interrogation, but must create a minute of a suspect interrogation if they fail to record it (which they claim they did). But the police can draft a minute without persuading someone who is now a suspect to sign it. You cannot identify someone as a suspect and then continue to cause her to do and say incriminating things in violation of the right to counsel that attaches as soon as they are suspected. This, which these police have done, is illegal.

I think you mistake the rights and responsibilities that attach when police question a witness about third parties versus the rights and responsibilities that attach when police question a person about her own potential criminal conduct. A person has a right to counsel and to silence in the latter case, and under international law, these rights attach as soon as that person is suspected. These rights are not dependent on the police having already succeeded in violating them by getting the person to sign an incriminating statement, and are not dependent on some an arbitrary, self-serving decision by the cops to "formally" charge someone.

The interrogation was illegal.
 
Malfie Henpox said:
I have read them, and the PMF thread. And that is not the conclusion I came to with regards intellect, no.

And you said a 'minority' of them were the same group. As opposed to the 'by and large' of 'Team Innocent'.

An outrageous claim that needs verification, I would say.
Click to expand...

I have a question, please.

Now that she's been acquitted, why do you care what people think?
 
Diocletus said:
But what DOES prevent the police from interrogating in the absence of counsel is the fact that the person is a suspect.
Click to expand...


But no. It must be a formal suspect. It must have the legal status of a suspect. Which is given by the evidence, not by police suspicion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom