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

[Charlie Wilkes]

Clear breach of both the MA and Kmortis's mod warning - post reported.

If anyone has negative opinions about Amanda Knox then he or she is entitled to that opinion. Regardless of what your psychic abilities tell you, I do not "habour strong (and highly pejorative) feelings about the principal character" as I already mentioned. But, as kmortis said, this thread is not about my or any other members' personal feelings and I am sure he will take proper action against anglolawyer's inability to follow simple rules.

Derogatory words are usually described when a woman's sexual behavior is made public so it should be no surprise this case is no different. This simple and easy to understand principle seems to escape the Knights in shining armor.

WRT to this forum, it is certainly well within the MA and any other reasonable, unwritten rule to call a non-member a derogatory name. However, personalizing discssions and calling other members names is not and moderator action is being requested.

I think you're gaming the rules. You're making nasty comments about a woman who some of us have passionately supported and have come to admire greatly. Perhaps that is within the charter because she's not a member. But isn't it trolling, just as anglo says? What is the definition of trolling, if not throwing out incendiary comments about a subject in which you are not really interested, purely to incite the anger of those who are interested?

 

[Antony]

Getting back to the OP: what is it about the Meredith Kercher murder, and the accusations against 2 students, that inspired the setting up of the websites TJMK and PMF?

I'm not the first to point out that dodgy legal processes often inspire innocence campaigns, but a guilt campaign (other than against abuses of power by political leaders) seems to be something new. Is it just a phenomenon of the internet age?

 

[Baylor]

That drew a reaction from ... and I was commenting on that saying s/he doubtless did not want to be thought of that way and might like to explain why s/he had resorted to calling Amanda Knox 'a whore'.

As I already explained, it's the same reason Matthew Best called Amanda Knox 'a whore.'

He's right though, isn't he? Finding out that your daughter [,Amanda Knox,] is a whore probably is a parent's nightmare, let alone the whole world finding it out.

As I've already described, that word, along with slut, is often used when a woman's premiscuous sexual behavior is made public. Even Amanda Knox supporters, viz. Matthew Best, used that word to describe her.

People tend to greatly over-estimate the number of sexual partners someone else has had, especially if that person is young and attractive. The perception of someone else's sexual behavior can greatly affect the attitudes and opinions you have for that person. At least intuitively, the Italian press and Media knew this and used it to their advantage. I'll even say that they were surprised how effective it was. Once the public has a negative opinion of you, especially if it's based on sexual behavior, then it's very difficult to reverse. Similiar to men who've been acquited of sex crimes have difficultly salvaging their reputations.

Another reason why this case has garnered some much interest is because when people have limited information about others, they love to fill in the rest with wrong information in order to justify their opinion. Here's one such example:
"

I don't want to armchair diagnose but is it possible [Amanda Knox] has Asperger's or some other social problem that could contribute to her callous behavior?​

"
You don't need to go far for more evidence:

He knows he can't get away with it in the moderated thread, so....

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.

For someone for whom the case holds little interest you nevertheless seem to harbour strong (and highly pejorative) feelings about the principal character.

...........................

Perhaps that is within the charter because she's not a member. But isn't it trolling, just as anglo says?

Anglo specifically said he never said I was trolling.

No, it was some one else who said [he was trolling], not me.

What is the definition of trolling, if not throwing out incendiary comments about a subject in which you are not really interested

You missed the part where I specifically said I was interested in the subject.

Because I am interested in public opinion/attitude change/attitude formation/persuasion.

purely to incite the anger of those who are interested?

As always, if you claim to be able to read minds, please discuss it in GS&P.

 

[anglolawyer]

I think you're gaming the rules. You're making nasty comments about a woman who some of us have passionately supported and have come to admire greatly. Perhaps that is within the charter because she's not a member. But isn't it trolling, just as anglo says? What is the definition of trolling, if not throwing out incendiary comments about a subject in which you are not really interested, purely to incite the anger of those who are interested?

I am not lucky enough to know Ms Knox and am not angry, just curious at what impels people to hurl anonymous abuse at others they don't know. It is cowardly, libellous and reprehensible and comes as no surprise that Unloved prefers to make smoke rather than defend or justify his/her ridiculous, childish abuse. It is also relevant to the topic, since so much of the intense online discussion has consisted of similar trash.

 

[Baylor]

It is cowardly, libellous and reprehensible and comes as no surprise that Unloved prefers to make smoke rather than defend or justify his/her ridiculous, childish abuse.

Perhaps you can quote this "ridiculous, childish abuse"

 

[anglolawyer]

Perhaps you can quote this "ridiculous, childish abuse"

Sure

How about the world finding out that your daughter's a whore? That's gotta be a parent's nightmare.

 

[Baylor]

Then certainly you must hold Matthew Best to the same standards.

He's right though, isn't he? Finding out that your daughter [,Amanda Knox,] is a whore probably is a parent's nightmare, let alone the whole world finding it out.

 

[anglolawyer]

Then certainly you must hold Matthew Best to the same standards.

No, I detected in Matthew's post an ironic reference to yours. Is this all you can think of to say?

 

[Kaosium]

He's right though, isn't he? Finding out that your daughter is a whore probably is a parent's nightmare, let alone the whole world finding it out. Quite what it has to do with this case is a mystery, mind you - it should probably have been reported as a derail.

Then certainly you must hold Matthew Best to the same standards.

When the context is restored and your insert removed it doesn't say what you said it did. He agreed that were it true it would be a parents nightmare, but since it's not and not germane to this case it ought to be reported as a derail.

Incidentally why do you consider a girl who had relations with 1-2 boys a year in high school and college a 'whore?' Just who do you suppose agrees with that definition in this day and age, or for that matter has since the Beatles invaded?

 

[Baylor]

No, I detected in Matthew's post an ironic reference to yours. Is this all you can think of to say?

Sorry if you incorrectly perceived Matthew Best's post as Ironic, but there was nothing ironic meant. Although he agreed with me, his post was to cite an alleged derail. The full quote:

He's right though, isn't he? Finding out that your daughter is a whore probably is a parent's nightmare, let alone the whole world finding it out. Quite what it has to do with this case is a mystery, mind you - it should probably have been reported as a derail.

 

[Baylor]

When the context is restored and your insert removed it doesn't say what you said it did. He agreed that were it true it would be a parents nightmare, but since it's not and not germane to this case it ought to be reported as a derail.

Please discuss this with anglolawyer because he has an entirely different take on it.

No, I detected in Matthew's post an ironic reference to yours.

Incidentally why do you consider a girl who had relations with 1-2 boys a year in high school and college a 'whore?' Just who do you suppose agrees with that definition in this day and age, or for that matter has since the Beatles invaded?

I've been through this over and over and I already said I don't like repeating myself.

There are other examples, one in this very thread, where someone said the exact same thing about the exact same thing (knowledge of daughter's premsicuous sexual behavior being made public) and it never got described as "childish abuse"

Read through this other day. Her parents must be proud [of their daughter's premisuous sexual behavior], she's already received offers from book publishers and film producers.

My favorite scene was when...

she was having sex in the stairwell of a library during finals. She was giving the guy a blow-job and they high-fived each other because "this is *********** awesome!"

He's right though, isn't he? Finding out that your daughter is a whore probably is a parent's nightmare, let alone the whole world finding it out. Quite what it has to do with this case is a mystery, mind you - it should probably have been reported as a derail.

How about the world finding out that your daughter's a whore? That's gotta be a parent's nightmare.

One isn't about Amanda Knox, so no pack-animal behavior. The other is said by a pro-Knoxer so it's "ironic." The third is said by someon who doesn't seem to have any positive attitudes about Amanda Knox, so it's "childish abuse" "cowardly, libellous and reprehensible" "nasty" "desperate for attention of any kind"

I'm certainly not the first one to discover this pack-animal behavior.

It is intriguing how an unconnected group of people seem to respond like a rebuttal unit if anything remotely negative is mentioned about Amanda Knox or to a lesser extent Raffaele Sollecito; of course I realise there is no Svengali or controlling authority behind these responses, nonetheless it is curious phenomenon.

Curious indeed.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

....
Incidentally why do you consider a girl who had relations with 1-2 boys a year in high school and college a 'whore?' Just who do you suppose agrees with that definition in this day and age, or for that matter has since the Beatles invaded?

I'm curious how you came by this information ?

We have two other posters who claim she had precisely 7, based on her own revelation.

 

[Kaosium]

I'm curious how you came by this information ?

We have two other posters who claim she had precisely 7, based on her own revelation.

Yes, when she was imprisoned she was told she'd failed an HIV test, she then wrote down a list of her sexual partners that was leaked to the press. Elsewhere it was revealed by the tabloids that she had her first experience when she was a sophomore in high school, which was about 4-5 years before, thus the '1-2 per year in high school and college.'

 

[Skeptical Greg]

While the number may be accurate, I find it amazing that a number of arm-chair litigators present it as if is irrefutable..

 

[anglolawyer]

@Unloved

So, let's see if I have this right. It's OK for you to call Amanda Knox, a real human being in case you didn't know, 'a whore' because other people abuse other women in a similar manner without attracting complaint? And I am supposed to ignore your posts because of some interpretation you think I should make about Matthew Best's post?

These are cowardly and evasive 'arguments'. I would suggest you reconsider and retract what you said if I didn't think you had become too invested in defending your ridiculous position.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

I can understand why the family say that, but it's completely off the beam. If her murder had been competently investigated and prosecuted in the first place, almost nobody would now remember who Meredith was, sadly.

Uncomfortable as it may be to realise, it is the prosecution and persecution of a couple of innocent friends of hers which has ensured that Meredith's name is recognised by many many people, and she is not forgotten as so many victims of ultimately routine and senseless murders are.

Rolfe.

Not sure I agree with your points. I believe the onset of 24/7 global news the competition to “get the storey” between printed and electronic media has resulted in a steady decline in what was once called investigative journalism or even just plain journalism, these days the media in its various forms editorialise embellish and this isn’t unique to any particular country with developed media organisations.

Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, Rudy Guede will for many many people always be linked to Meredith Kercher it depends on one’s point of view in which way they are linked.

Finally for the sake of accuracy the judicial process will not be concluded until the Italian Supreme Court complete their deliberation and as you may know the prosecution have appealed against the second level trial verdict.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

amazing

While the number may be accurate, I find it amazing that a number of arm-chair litigators present it as if is irrefutable..

If one were told that one were HIV+, that person would probably write a list of his or her sexual partners for two reasons. One is to determine who might be the source of the infection, and two to learn who else might now be infected. In this particular instance, Ms. Knox also provided the means of contraception, bolstering the notion that one or both of these considerations was her intent. I don't think the list is "irrefutable," but I think it is likely to be accurate. It is also undisputed; no one has shown it to be inaccurate in over 1000 pages here. What I find amazing is that the leaking of this list and of Ms. Knox's supposed or actual HIV status did not generate more outrage. My name is one of many on a letter to that effect, to an appropriate party. A member here had a big part in organizing the drafting and signing of this letter.

 

[Kaosium]

Please discuss this with anglolawyer because he has an entirely different take on it.

No, he doesn't. Just because the words are different doesn't indicate the meaning is incompatible. It's ironic because (in this case) it's not true and thus not relevant.

I've been through this over and over and I already said I don't like repeating myself.

Then perhaps it would be a good time to start making sense?

There are other examples, one in this very thread, where someone said the exact same thing about the exact same thing (knowledge of daughter's premsicuous sexual behavior being made public) and it never got described as "childish abuse"

I suspect it was the word you chose that Cain did not.

One isn't about Amanda Knox, so no pack-animal behavior. The other is said by a pro-Knoxer so it's "ironic." The third is said by someon who doesn't seem to have any positive attitudes about Amanda Knox, so it's "childish abuse" "cowardly, libellous and reprehensible" "nasty" "desperate for attention of any kind"

I'm certainly not the first one to discover this pack-animal behavior.

If you are actually aware of the circumstances in which that information became public and the actual correct information that was distorted (if not wholly invented in Barbara Nadeau's case) and then propagated throughout the free world despite it being untrue you shouldn't be surprised you were corrected it on it and that attitude treated disdainfully.

However just reviewing your posts I've a suspicion you are the poster child for this thread: the uniformed person whose interest was mostly in the (original) tabloid (and tabloidish) presentation of the 'facts' which were for the most part completely divorced from reality, at first by ILE and the Perugian prosecution and then by the fevered imaginations and half-truths relayed by the media.

So I suspect you actually don't know the circumstances and the correct information and are probably not quite as sanctimonious, severe and heartless as you're coming across.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

If one were told that one were HIV+, that person would probably write a list of his or her sexual partners for two reasons.
One is to determine who might be the source of the infection, and two to learn who else might now be infected. In this particular instance, Ms. Knox also provided the means of contraception, bolstering the notion that one or both of these considerations was her intent. I don't think the list is "irrefutable," but I think it is likely to be accurate. No one has shown it to be inaccurate in over 1000 pages here. What I find amazing is that the leaking of this list and of Ms. Knox's supposed or actual HIV status did not generate more outrage. My name is one of many on a letter to that effect, to an appropriate party. A member here had a big part in organizing the drafting and signing of this letter.

My point is simply that no one ( except AK ) could possibly know if the number is accurate. The overwhelming feeling by her supporters that it must be true, for whatever reason, does not make it more likely to be so ..

Remember where you are.

 

[anglolawyer]

My point is simply that no one ( except AK ) could possibly know if the number is accurate. The overwhelming feeling by her supporters that it must be true, for whatever reason, does not make it more likely to be so ..

Remember where you are.

Sorry if I have lost track but what does your point have to do with the topic of this thread?