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

[CoulsdonUK]

You didn't, and I am happy to clarify. You did make one statement that was hyperbolic IMO, namely comment #112.

Thank you for your clarification.

I fail to see any exaggeration in post 112:

I assume you and others who post and support Ms Knox are not connected other than your shared interest in this case, is this not the case?

I also wrote “there is no Svengali or controlling authority behind these responses”; once again is this not the case?

Generally my comments have been emotionally detached and balanced, I have said and do believe the media are largely at fault. However, where our opinions differ is that you believe media attacks are part of some larger conspiracy directed at Ms Knox, whilst I believe everyone directly connected to this case has suffered at the hands of the media of whatever country.

 

[Mary_H]

About the poll

The case does get a lot of attention on JREF, but that attention is from a limited number of people. On the huge, four-part original thread about the case, essentially the same group of posters have been focusing on it in depth for three years, primarily because of the complexity and significance of the subject matter to those posters.

The case has received a lot of attention in the media at times, but not consistently. Some people seem to think it dominates the news, but it was hardly covered in U.S. media until 2011, when it started to look like the defendants would be exonerated on appeal. A lot of people in the United States, even in Seattle, still don't know someone is in jail for killing Meredith.

The Seattle Times, on the other hand, covered it in the first couple of years, but pretty much stopped altogether once the local TV stations got involved, again in the last year before aquittal. "Serious" papers like The New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor barely looked at the case for the four-year duration from arrest to acquittal.

In my large social circle in Seattle, which includes extended family, friends, co-workers and acquaintances, I was the only one who was personally involved in writing about it. I met all of the local supporters I know through the internet.

Looking at the first section of the original thread recently, I was reminded that in the spring of 2010 (two-and-a-half years after the crime), the infamous video of Amanda and Raffaele kissing outside of the cottage was mentioned, and several CONSUMMATE guilters claimed they had never seen it. This despite their interest in the case and the huge blitz by British and Italian tabloids in the first two years.

All of this points to a variety of experiences and perceptions when it comes to how much attention the case receives.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

One wonders why the word "whore" is even a part of this discussion. Obviously, there are two distinct groups interested in paying attention to the case -- those who take it seriously, and those who number among the lowest common denominator of society when it comes to intellect and respect for others. The latter will involve themselves in every famous case -- yawn. Probably the motivations of the former are more deserving of our attention.

If all you had was the former, the OP and thus the poll would never have materialized..

 

[Chris_Halkides]

birds on a wire

Thank you for your clarification.

I fail to see any exaggeration in post 112:

I assume you and others who post and support Ms Knox are not connected other than your shared interest in this case, is this not the case?

I also wrote “there is no Svengali or controlling authority behind these responses”; once again is this not the case?

Generally my comments have been emotionally detached and balanced, I have said and do believe the media are largely at fault. However, where our opinions differ is that you believe media attacks are part of some larger conspiracy directed at Ms Knox, whilst I believe everyone directly connected to this case has suffered at the hands of the media of whatever country.

We are not connected, but some of us have gotten to know Ms. Knox and her family, as well as Mr. Sollecito and his family, either personally or through correspondence. You had written, "people seem to respond like a rebuttal unit if anything remotely negative mentioned about Amanda Knox or to a lesser extent Raffaele Sollecito..." I think that our responses were pretty individual (meaning, not sounding as if we were using a set of talking points). I also think that responding when such strong language ("remotely?") was used as was used in this thread, a response is entirely to be expected, especially from those of us for whom these are real, flesh-and-blood people.

You are entirely mistaken with respect to my putative beliefs regarding a conspiracy that includes the media, and I have no idea why you would believe so. I am quite happy to set the record straight on that point. I believe many, perhaps most, wrongful convictions involve some element of collusion: looking the other way, going along to get along, consciously shading the evidence or failing to follow up leads that don't fit with the suspects at hand being guilty. Sometimes this involves a conspiracy that later comes to light, but perhaps not every time. However, I also believe that the media are shallow and reporters behave like birds on a wire (touch the wire, and all will fly). In many cases, a powerful, if false narrative, permeates the coverage of a high profile case, and I have illustrated this point with a few examples upthread. Reporters who succumb to a narrative instead of challenging it are not part of a conspiracy, but they are unprofessional.

IIRC you also asked about the effect of the media on the public's perception of guilt. That question is a tough one. "In March 1984, a Gallup Poll asked Australians, "Do you believe that Mrs Lindy Chamberlain is guilty or not guilty of the baby Azaria murder charge?" An overwhelming 76.8 per cent said they believed she was guilty." One might not be entirely surprised at this number in 1984, but a 2012 article states, "Not all Australians believe a dingo killed Azaria. Even recent polls show a deep divide in opinions." Even birds on a wire can leave their mark.

 

[Rolfe]

If all you had was the former, the OP and thus the poll would never have materialized..

So, within this forum at least, the reason there seems to be so much attention paid to this topic is simply that it has become seen as a vehicle for a number of posters who enjoy trolling to annoy and flamebait posters who are trying to have a serious discussion. These posters have been driven out of the main thread by the moderation, however they appear like flies on a turd the minute someone starts an op-ed sort of thread on the issue.

Why they do this, I have little idea. I speculate that it may be related to the "pseudoscepticism" seen in some forum members, where knee-jerk support for the mainstream position in any argument is mistaken for scepticism. In this context, support for a court verdict is regarded as the mainstream position, therefore such posters regularly show up in threads discussing possible miscarriages of justice deriding the actual sceptics as woos.

In this particular case, in the early stages the most knowledgeable posters on the pro-innocence side were newbies who had joined specifically to discuss the case in a neutral forum, and something of a pack mentality developed among the old-timer pseudpsceptics who ganged up to deride the newbies as conspiracy nutters. Then, when it became more and more clear that the pro-innocence posters had the facts and the logic on their side, and more so when the courts started to agree with them, in true pseudosceptic style the old-timer pack refused to consider that they might be mistaken, feigned a lack of interest in the case, and resorted to cheap flame-bait to attack their targets.

Sad, really, but that's how it seems to have come about.

Rolfe.

 

[Mary_H]

If all you had was the former, the OP and thus the poll would never have materialized..

You could be right, if you believe that the response of people who were interested in the case only because of its prurient aspects contributed to the conviction at the first trial.

Nonetheless, as I said, those people are going to be interested in every case with prurient aspects. We already know why they give this case so much attention.

 

[Bill Williams]

So, within this forum at least, the reason there seems to be so much attention paid to this topic is simply that it has become seen as a vehicle for a number of posters who enjoy trolling to annoy and flamebait posters who are trying to have a serious discussion. These posters have been driven out of the main thread by the moderation, however they appear like flies on a turd the minute someone starts an op-ed sort of thread on the issue.

Why they do this, I have little idea. I speculate that it may be related to the "pseudoscepticism" seen in some forum members, where knee-jerk support for the mainstream position in any argument is mistaken for scepticism.

I don't know whether to thank you or curse you, but i was going to say exactly this. Yes, there seems to be an element out there who just revels in calling people names - and the early misreporting of this case allowed for the most lurid of slurs to be bandied about with abandon.

The early lurid stuff attracted flame-baiters. I'm going to have to write that one down, because there's an element who really doesn't care that there are real people out there suffering - the Kerchers for example.

They just want an opportunity to log on to the internet and use bad words.

 

[Bill Williams]

Generally my comments have been emotionally detached and balanced, I have said and do believe the media are largely at fault. However, where our opinions differ is that you believe media attacks are part of some larger conspiracy directed at Ms Knox, whilst I believe everyone directly connected to this case has suffered at the hands of the media of whatever country.

Something we can agree upon.

I'm not sure how I can evaluate your claim to be emotionally detached and balanced - without a crystal ball - so I'll just have to take your word for it.

I would make the same claim for myself! Where I've been accused of being too emotionally attached - I've sat back in my chair more with astonishment, checking my pulse and assuring myself that I am not excited at all!

I believe it, though, to be true that all have suffered at the hands of the media in whatever country. I believe that this case is more directly connected to the Leveson Inquiry than many admit - certainly the Daily Mail's misreporting of the appeals verdict attracted the attention of the managing editor who testified at the Leveson Inquiry about that particular episode.

I just happen to believe that the suffering that the Kerchers have received at the hands of the media has been less pronounced - although, given that this is their daughter/sister who is the ultimate victim here, none of it could have been welcome. And it hits them in places where few of us know there are places; so who the hell am I to judge them to begin with! I mean that.

Where I do draw the line, though, in a calm balance and emotionally detached way, is when some claim the reason Sollecito and Knox got off was because of a sustained PR campaign emanating from Seattle. That is ludicrous, and insulting to Italy.

And I say all this in a balanced, calm and emotionally detached manner!

 

[Baylor]

I don't know whether to thank you or curse you, but i was going to say exactly this. Yes, there seems to be an element out there who just revels in calling people names - and the early misreporting of this case allowed for the most lurid of slurs to be bandied about with abandon.

The early lurid stuff attracted flame-baiters. I'm going to have to write that one down, because there's an element who really doesn't care that there are real people out there suffering - the Kerchers for example.

They just want an opportunity to log on to the internet and use bad words.

As always, anyone claiming to have psychic powers, please discuss it in GS&P. Obviously, you don't judge people or draw conclusions on their behavior without acquiring all pertitent information first. Or do you just hold those standards about those who hold opinions on Amanda Knox?

Also, it's not that people (here at least) "[don't] care that there are real people suffering."

If some would stroll outside AK threads and into FC, you'd see there are real people--your fellow JREF Forum members--who are really out there suffering. People who have it much worse than Amanda Knox, people who won't have "happy endings." People who won't sign book deals which will secure them financially for the rest of their lives. People who will or have lost their lives, homes, kids etc. People who have much more serious things to worry about than what the opinions are of people on the Internet.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

no inside track

I don't have any specific knowledge about the costs of this case, just general knowledge about how much a good defense costs in a major case. My best guess that Amanda Knox and her family will roughly break even, once four years of legal bills and travel expenses are subtracted from the proceeds from her book. I also note that Bill Williams specifically mentioned the Kercher family in his comment about real people suffering.

 

[anglolawyer]

Snip - Obviously, you don't judge people or draw conclusions on their behavior without acquiring all pertitent information first -snip

No comment required.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

halides1

Do you know what the book deal amounts to ?

My Googling says 4mil ..

If true, there should be a little left over after expenses...

 

[Meed]

If some would stroll outside AK threads and into FC, you'd see there are real people--your fellow JREF Forum members--who are really out there suffering. People who have it much worse than Amanda Knox, people who won't have "happy endings."

It's kind of a low blow to bring Travis into this.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

In this particular case, in the early stages the most knowledgeable posters on the pro-innocence side were newbies who had joined specifically to discuss the case in a neutral forum, and something of a pack mentality developed among the old-timer pseudpsceptics who ganged up to deride the newbies as conspiracy nutters. Then, when it became more and more clear that the pro-innocence posters had the facts and the logic on their side, and more so when the courts started to agree with them, in true pseudosceptic style the old-timer pack refused to consider that they might be mistaken, feigned a lack of interest in the case, and resorted to cheap flame-bait to attack their targets.

That's exactly right.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

guesstimate

halides1

Do you know what the book deal amounts to ?

My Googling says 4mil ..

If true, there should be a little left over after expenses...

Yes, I know. Start by subtracting taxes. Now consider that the Peterson murder case cost $1 million and the Frank Esposito arson case cost $500,000. No one knows for certain what the Duke lacrosse case cost, but informed speculation was that it was $1 million per defendant, and that case did not even go to trial. The present case dragged on over four years and two trials. It also included the cost of flying from Seattle to Perugia and at least one family member's living in Perugia. I am not an expert in legal costs, and I have no inside knowledge, but I would guess at least $2 million cost to the family.

If you have a major illness, you will probably go broke. if you are accused of a major crime, you will probably go broke. That's OK, because we have the best medical and legal systems in the world...

ETA
She will probably end up in the black; my numbers were pretty rough.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

halides1

Do you know what the book deal amounts to ?

My Googling says 4mil ..

If true, there should be a little left over after expenses...

I think she will have a prosperous life.

My reason for attesting to her character is not to defend her, which she doesn't need, but to establish a baseline of truth. She's a wholesome, thoroughly decent and likable person. Ergo The Narrative, as I sketched it out on page 1 of this thread, is a preposterous fable. Anyone who has any interest in Amanda Knox, or why so many people became obsessed with her case, needs to understand that, or else every opinion they form is bound to be wrong.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

That's exactly right.

Since Meredith's brutal murder I have followed the very slow judicial process and wonder whether it will be completed as soon as some believe. I make no apology that my focus and support is for the Kercher family and their life sentence. I sincerely wish I had never heard of Meredith or her family under these circumstances.

 

[Bill Williams]

Since Meredith's brutal murder I have followed the very slow judicial process and wonder whether it will be completed as soon as some believe. I make no apology that my focus and support is for the Kercher family and their life sentence. I sincerely wish I had never heard of Meredith or her family under these circumstances.

Nor should you apologize or retreat one iota from this.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Since Meredith's brutal murder I have followed the very slow judicial process and wonder whether it will be completed as soon as some believe. I make no apology that my focus and support is for the Kercher family and their life sentence. I sincerely wish I had never heard of Meredith or her family under these circumstances.

In my opinion, the Kerchers have been victimized twice. First they lost their daughter in a savage murder. Then the people on whom they relied to answer their questions gave them all the wrong answers, and brought them over to the wrong side of a legal travesty. What can they do now? I wish their friends and supporters would help them come to terms with what really happened, to their daughter, and to them.

 

[Trish Randall]

I think it's the Curt Knox/Edda Mellas public relations machine.

If interest in the case were independent interest, not driven by the family's paid PR campaign, I think public opinion in America would not be so far on the side of the claims of innocence by AK & RS.

Looking at the information long available in English, like the Mignini report, it's pretty clear that AK & RS were involved in the crime, and that the Italian justice system has not yet declared them innocent, and the final judicial decision from the Italians isn not likely to go the way Knox, Solletico & their very vocal support want.