Why so much attention to the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Baylor]

still obsessed with playing internet tough guy

Sorry, but you are still getting some simple facts mixed up. Maybe RoseMontague or Katody Matrass can explain it to you.

Please quote me where I got a fact wrong.

 

[GrouchoMarxist]

Well, she is indeed a hottie.

Res Ipsa Loquitur

Operio ascendit.

 

[Caper]

No one has attempted to provide an answer to the OP but me. There's a few here obsessed with the Knox case and seem to be using this thread to circumvent a moderated thread. If I seem uninformed, it's because I have nearly no interest in the Amanda Knox case. This thread is about the Public Interest of the Amanda Knox case. As I said before, it's because the intimate details about her premiscuous sexual behavior have been made public (by which means is irrelevant) the public opinion of Amanda will be a "whore." More to the point, if you can provide an answer to the OP, go ahead and do so. If you'd like to discuss the Amanda Knox case or defend her actions, please take it to the proper thread(s).

There are tonnes of cases involving good looking females.

I was fascinated with this case from the beginning. I first heard of the case on Nightline...probably within days after it happened. The report presented them as guilty... and I believed it. They made the story about how today's technology betrays criminals. Nightline was talking about their cell phones betraying their locations.... maybe even the bleach receipt.... At first I was fascinated with that aspect. Her looks may have played a role in my interest on a subconscious level, I don't know.

As I read more about the case and came to realize she was innocent. My interest included a lot of rage. I don't think this had anything to do with her looks. The Norfolk Four case held the same type of obsession for me and filled me with the same rage..... There is no one good looking people in the Norfolk case.

The international flavor played a role as well I believe... and was a fascinating aspect. I don't know if she was Canadian, if she would have been found guilty. I believe the rest of the world likes to believe the worst in Americans...... and the worst in good looking people.......

Anyway... that's why I think it generated so much interest. There were just so many aspects to the case.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I truly laughed out loud when I read this. It is unclear to me whether it is possible to be intellectually honest when one is as badly misinformed as you are. Ms Knox had a total of seven intimate partners her whole life, and that includes steady boyfriends. She had relations with exactly two men in Italy, and one was Raffaele Sollecito. She did have a ONS with Daniel De Luna, but if having a one night stand makes one a whore, then the (male and female) whores greatly outnumber the nonwhores. More to the point calling Ms. Knox a whore and trashy is not an answer to the question of the OP; it is just name calling.

Is that you Amanda ?

Seriously, how can you be so sure about these numbers?


What was that about one not being entitled to their own facts ?

 

[Baylor]

If anyone here knows Amanda Knox personally or has an emotional attachment to her, it's probably best to avoid such threads. I notice two peope here signed up the same month the infamous cartwheel thread started. Charlie Wilkes, thank you for clarifying that you know the Knox family personally.

Since this is a skeptic's forum, you gotta face reality. If someone is a topic on an internet forum, people are going to say bad things about that person, especially if the topic deals with sex and murder. This has become a new law of physics. There are going to be some mean, hateful things said. If it's emotionally upsetting to you, it's best to just not join the discussion.

If you do know Amanda, it's best that she's home with her family and not in an Italian prison. What people say about her on the Internet shouldn't affect the quality of her (or your) life. Cause, let's face it, the rules of cyberspace aren't going to change just because you're mad.

There were some good comments about the OP despite me saying there wasn't during the derail. It's well understood the mere mention of Amanda Knox brings up heated arguments. I hope this thread can keep those emotions/arguments at bay because this OP topic can bring up some good quality discussion

 

[This is The End]

An opinion can be neither correct nor incorrect.

Yes it can. What in the world gives you that idea?

If I had an opinion that "On planet Earth the sky is purple with huge red clouds" that would be an incorrect opinion.

You should have said "some opinions can be neither correct nor incorrect". That would be true. Especially opinions based on taste. But you implied "all" opinions, which is wrong.

Take for instance a murder case. X is on trial for murdering Y.

An opinion that stated "X had no part in murdering Y" would either be incorrect or correct. Human tastes have nothing to do with it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

three strikes

Please quote me where I got a fact wrong.

Comment #48: "Classmate 1: "Did you hear about Amanda? She slept with like 4 different dudes in like two weeks? What a whore." Two partners her whole time in Italy.

Comment #55: "You keep changing your mind like Amanda changes her story." False, for the reason already discussed.

Comment #76: "People's attitudes about Amanda's post-arrest behavior could've been a subtopic of this thread, but it'll never come to fruition now. I found her blaming a murder on a man whom she know was innocent to be selfish and trashy behavior, regardless of how much she was coerced."
She was not arrested until well after she made the false accusation.

Why am I still interested, despite having heard years of name-calling and false facts? I don't think that the narrative that Charlie Wilkes described would have had as much traction as it did, but for sexism, among other prejudices. Even after all of this time, it still surprises me. MOO.

 

[Caper]

Just out of curiosity... Is there anyone who posts here at Jref Forum that believes Amanda Knox is guilty.

 

[John Mekki]

To everyone: please this is not a thread about Amanda and that murder, but it is a thread about why people have interest in that story.
Thank you for your cooperation

 

[Chris_Halkides]

just looking

Seriously, how can you be so sure about these numbers?


What was that about one not being entitled to their own facts ?

When she was told she might be HIV-positive (this happened while she was in custody), she made a list of everyone with whom she had intimate relations. Regrettably, that information was leaked.

One aspect of some of these cases is that one learns more than one might be comfortable knowing about the accused, and those around them. During the time when Duke lacrosse was in the news, we found out that college-age men actually masturbated in their bathrooms. I was shocked and horrified, but that is the reality of what DNA and other forensic testing can indicate. Perhaps the voyeuristic aspect is what attracts some people to these cases. JREFF, for all of its faults, did not seem to be a forum where those people came to discuss this particular case, if indeed there were any.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

areas of agreement and disagreement

If anyone here knows Amanda Knox personally or has an emotional attachment to her, it's probably best to avoid such threads. I notice two peope here signed up the same month the infamous cartwheel thread started. Charlie Wilkes, thank you for clarifying that you know the Knox family personally.
SNIP
There were some good comments about the OP despite me saying there wasn't during the derail. It's well understood the mere mention of Amanda Knox brings up heated arguments. I hope this thread can keep those emotions/arguments at bay because this OP topic can bring up some good quality discussion

This is the first comment of yours with which I somewhat agree. I know the families far less well than Charlie Wilkes does. One of the areas where you and I still disagree is the notion of what it means to derail a thread. I am happy to leave the discussion of the case on the main thread. However, correcting a misapprehension is not the same thing as discussing the case. On a skeptics forum, no one should expect to be able to misstate a fact and not hear about it. MOO.

 

[Baylor]

Comment #48: "Classmate 1: "Did you hear about Amanda? She slept with like 4 different dudes in like two weeks? What a whore." Two partners her whole time in Italy.

Note the quoation marks, meaning, I'm not held accountable for those words. It's hypothetical and likely (the first quote anyway) gossip. Also, note the words "like". eta: please use the proper quotes within quotes rule.

"You keep changing your mind like Amanda changes her story." False, for the reason already discussed.

Amanda Knox did, in fact, change her story as you admit to.

[[Comment #76: "People's attitudes about Amanda's post-arrest behavior could've been a subtopic of this thread, but it'll never come to fruition now. I found her blaming a murder on a man whom she know was innocent to be selfish and trashy behavior, regardless of how much she was coerced."
She was not arrested until well after she made the false accusation.

So she did change her story! Not having years of training in Amanda Knoxism I did get a fact wrong. Oh noes! I should've and could've said post-murder nite behavior. Doesn't change anything though.

 

[Baylor]

This is the first comment of yours with which I somewhat agree. I know the families far less well than Charlie Wilkes does. One of the areas where you and I still disagree is the notion of what it means to derail a thread. I am happy to leave the discussion of the case on the main thread. However, correcting a misapprehension is not the same thing as discussing the case. On a skeptics forum, no one should expect to be able to misstate a fact and not hear about it. MOO.

The "3 strikes" "misapprehension" "misstaing a fact" you talk about is just your failure to understand what was being communicated.

 

[Antony]

Already described and a derail. If you'd like to discuss Amanda's post-arrest behavior, please do so in the proper thread(s).

You started the derails by making a personal attack on Amanda Knox, based on false information that has long ago been debunked. Since this was pointed out, you have continued the attack by claiming that she changed her story.

The way you have tied yourself to aspects of what Charlie Wilkes called "the Narrative" illustrates the OP quite nicely for me.

 

[Baylor]

You started the derails by making a personal attack on Amanda Knox, based on false information that has long ago been debunked. Since this was pointed out, you have continued the attack by claiming that she changed her story.

Please discuss this crap with halides1 (in the proper thread of course) since you two don't agree.

Amanda had two stories, the one she told on 5-6 November, and the one that she told every other time, before and after.

A split to the recently de-moderated thread or AAH is being requested.

 

[Matthew Best]

Please discuss this crap with halides1 (in the proper thread of course) since you two don't agree.
A split to the moderated thread or AAH is being requested.

There is no moderated thread. Another mistake by you!

 

[anglolawyer]

Just out of curiosity... Is there anyone who posts here at Jref Forum that believes Amanda Knox is guilty.

Yes. Not many but there are some. There used to be more.

ETA I am not one of them.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Sorry, but you are still getting some simple facts mixed up. Maybe RoseMontague or Katody Matrass can explain it to you.

Sorry, but I'm not interested. As I thought, just a sad troll desperate for attention of any kind. That he stoops so low, without any scruples, that just disgusts me and creeps me out. I don't wish for any interaction with this individual.

 

[Baylor]

Sorry, but I'm not interested. As I thought, just a sad troll desperate for attention of any kind. That he stoops so low, without any scruples, that just disgusts me and creeps me out. I don't wish for any interaction with this individual.

You got to remember here sweetheart, not everyone has the emotional stock invested in Amanda Knox like you do.

You should head to the GS&P section to discuss your supposed psychic abilities and teach us all how you know when someone is "desperate for attention of any kind." It's got to be a lot more fruitful than defending a whore.

 

[Matthew Best]

Some people take an interest in miscarriages of justice. Some other people don't much care as long as it doesn't happen to them or someone they know.

The idea that it's all because Knox is particularly good-looking seems flimsy to me. But (inasmuch as she's not horribly ugly) I suppose it probably didn't hurt.