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

[Matthew Best]

It may be just me getting confused, but are posts being moved between here and the other thread by some moderator or other? If not, I think I may be starting to lose my faculties.

 

[Bill Williams]

It may be just me getting confused, but are posts being moved between here and the other thread by some moderator or other? If not, I think I may be starting to lose my faculties.

Yes. I am the worst offender.... I think the poor mod has had to move 7 of mine. Apologies.

 

[Matthew Best]

Oh, no problem. It just got a bit confusing. It would help if there was some notification in the thread, but no matter.

 

[Antony]

Incredibly moving piece, well worth reading to the end. It's scary and hard to understand how and for what motives seemingly upstanding officials, policemen, experts, witnesses collaborate to hide exculpatory evidence and give false evidence to the goal of putting an innocent man in jail and keep him there.

There are probably a number of reasons, and different players have their own particular motivations for seeing a guilty verdict as an objective. The big group in this phenomenon are those whose professional success is defined by "achieving" convictions: the police and prosecutors in particular.

It's a case of the Law of Unintended Consequences: incentives for law enforcement to solve crimes leads to "solving" the crime the easy way.

 

[RoseMontague]

CoulsdonUK's point about sticking closer to home, is perhaps a good one. Even if it is yet another veiled reference that he believes Sollecito and Knox to be guilty. I also wonder how his comment fulfils his overtly stated goal of posting simply to keep Meredith Kercher's name front and centre.

But sticking to his point, this is in fact what has happened to me. I would never have heard of the Nyki Kish conviction in Toronto if the wrongful conviction and eventual acquittal of Knox and Sollecito had not attracted my attention.

I am also now active in the issue of Cyndy Vanier in a Mexican jail. The attention paid to the Knox/Sollecito case led me to that as well. I also now simply do not have the time to even try to follow the others on Bruce Fisher's site, except that one in Nevada is esp. crazy. At least Knox and Sollecito were actually within the same city limits before they were falsely accused. Not so the case from Nevada.

When you look at the Lobato case there is just no way that anyone involved in the prosecution of this lady could possibly believe she is guilty. There is no mystery and it is as clear a case of railroading that you will ever see.

For cases like the AK/RS one as well as the Nyki Kish and the Sabrina/Cosima Misseri cases it would take a very unlikely string of maybes, possibles, and could haves to get to a point of guilt. In my opinion this is the reason these cases get more attention, there are possibilities, extremely unlikely ones, but still something that stirs a debate. The only defense of the prosecution and conviction in the Lobato case are from those with ties to the prosecution and justice system.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

This is tantamount to me giving £5 to a homeless guy to get something hot to eat on a cold night, and someone coming up to me and saying "What's so special about that particular guy? If you go down to the railway arches, there are dozens of homeless people! Why aren't you giving each and every one of them £5 too? And while we're at it, why aren't you also giving money to every person starving in Africa and South Asia?"

I have a different point of view, if I were being critical of the plight of homeless people in Africa or Asia whilst seemingly not acknowledging homeless people in my own country I would be open to fair and reasonable criticism of “what about the homeless in your own country?”.

 

[LondonJohn]

I have a different point of view, if I were being critical of the plight of homeless people in Africa or Asia whilst seemingly not acknowledging homeless people in my own country I would be open to fair and reasonable criticism of “what about the homeless in your own country?”.

Then we will have to agree to differ. I could have chosen (just for example) the miscarriage of justice against Paco Larranaga in the Philippines to discuss - and perhaps I might have done so had I read a book about the case or seen a TV programme about it. But I didn't. So I didn't.

And I also note your not-so-artful sidestep on the "remembering the victim" issue, when challenged to remember the victims of infamous killers such as Jack the Ripper. Your "answer" - that a quick googling could find the names - was not only disingenuous, but it also exposed the very truth you're trying to deny.

Name two victims of Jeffrey Dahmer (without googling...). Do you mourn for them every day? Name three victims of the Columbine school shooting. Do you realise that those kids' parents probably feel the very same way as Meredith Kercher's parents - and yet you probably know the names of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, those kids' killers? Doesn't that make you feel just as angry and terrible towards yourself as you affect to feel towards people who discuss Knox and Sollecito without name checking Meredith Kercher each and every time? To me, your constant stance on this "remember Meredith" issue is nothing more than hypocrisy and a poorly aimed emotional weapon.

Personally, I wish you'd stop going on about it all the time. We all feel dreadfully sorry for the victim and her family/friends in this case. That doesn't mean that we have to bring it up in every post about the trial process of two people who were wrongfully accused of kiling her.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Doesn't that make you feel just as angry and terrible towards yourself as you affect to feel towards people who discuss Knox and Sollecito without name checking Meredith Kercher each and every time? To me, your constant stance on this "remember Meredith" issue is nothing more than hypocrisy and a poorly aimed emotional weapon.

Personally, I wish you'd stop going on about it all the time. We all feel dreadfully sorry for the victim and her family/friends in this case. That doesn't mean that we have to bring it up in every post about the trial process of two people who were wrongfully accused of kiling her.

Indeed.

I'd further add that unless CoulsdonUK was a friend or member of the Kercher family (which would be inconsistent with CoulsdonUK's previous claims) any feelings for Meredith which CoulsdonUK has are based on an entirely imaginary relationship with a person long since deceased.

I didn't know Meredith. I'm sure she was a wonderful person but she was long dead before I ever knew she even existed. I don't pretend that reading about her, even for years, or having one stance or another about the circumstances of her death entitles me to any emotional stake with regard to her.

I don't know Amanda Knox of Raffaele Sollecito either. Based on what I've read they both seem like very nice people and I wish them both all the best, but once again I don't pretend to have any special feelings about them beyond what I have about, say, any of the twenty-something people recently murdered in that dreadful school shooting last week.

It irritates me to see them libelled by the dregs of the internet, but I'd like to think I'm equally irritated by all internet libel of provably innocent people.

Those who are or were acquainted with Meredith, Amanda or Raffaele personally are perfectly entitled to an emotional stake in their welfare and reputation. Anyone else, well, I think they're at best indulging in an imaginary, vicarious emotional relationship with a person who might as well be fictional, at worst they're bunging on a maudlin act to try to score cheap emotional points in an internet debate they've become over-invested in.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I have a different point of view, if I were being critical of the plight of homeless people in Africa or Asia whilst seemingly not acknowledging homeless people in my own country I would be open to fair and reasonable criticism of “what about the homeless in your own country?”.

Rather poor example considering that most charities do just this. CCF, World Vision, The Red Cross, Oxfam. All of them spend far more money feeding and helping the poor in Africa and Asia than they do those children and families in Western Countries who are homeless and starving.

 

[Meed]

I have a different point of view, if I were being critical of the plight of homeless people in Africa or Asia whilst seemingly not acknowledging homeless people in my own country I would be open to fair and reasonable criticism of “what about the homeless in your own country?”.

I don't understand how that is a criticism at all, not even getting into whether it's "fair and reasonable". It seems to just be a vague inquiry.

 

[bookworm]

Originally Posted by CoulsdonUK:
Well I am not a fan of justice by cyberspace. However, there is no place like home to start a campaign maybe you could consider reviewing the 3,000 plus people sitting on death row in the United States, I wonder how many of them are wrongful convictions, you know people who couldn’t necessarily afford a decent defence team etc.

Hi CoulsdonUK, are you aware that Bruce Fisher has a forum called Injustice Anywhere which is highlighting many of those cases of wrongful conviction? Many of the posters here are very involved with that. If you're interested in that, I'm sure you'd be welcome to check it out.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by CoulsdonUK:
Well I am not a fan of justice by cyberspace. However, there is no place like home to start a campaign maybe you could consider reviewing the 3,000 plus people sitting on death row in the United States, I wonder how many of them are wrongful convictions, you know people who couldn’t necessarily afford a decent defence team etc.

Hi CoulsdonUK, are you aware that Bruce Fisher has a forum called Injustice Anywhere which is highlighting many of those cases of wrongful conviction? Many of the posters here are very involved with that. If you're interested in that, I'm sure you'd be welcome to check it out.

I would be surprised if many pro-guilt posters had any such interest.

My observation is that what you might call phase one of the Kercher murder debate was about whether or not Knox and Sollecito did it, and that phase of the debate has turned into a rout of the pro-guilt side. Plus the Hellmann report and the declaration of their innocence pretty much put paid to any realistic dreams of the Italian court system backing the guilters.

Phase two, the fallback position, is about whether the pro-guilt side can by some tortured reasoning construe the pro-innocence side as bad people in some way. They're over-committed, they're inconsistent, they're hot for Amanda Knox, they're hot for Raffaele Sollecito, one of them got something wrong once and so they're morally equivalent to police who frame and defame suspects, one of them got something wrong once and so they're morally equivalent to deliberate liars conducting extensive libel campaigns across the internet and so on.

The thinking seems to be that yes, maybe the pro-innocence side were objectively right about the facts of the case, but if they can still be shown to be jerks or hypocrites and that would still be a victory of sorts.

That's yet another reason the debate is so long-lived. There are some terribly invested people involved, who really, really, really hope that at some stage they will be proven right about something.

 

[Meed]

Sorry if this is off topic, but does anyone have an opinion on "The Fatal Gift of Beauty" by Nina Burleigh?

 

[Bill Williams]

Phase two, the fallback position, is about whether the pro-guilt side can by some tortured reasoning construe the pro-innocence side as bad people in some way. They're over-committed, they're inconsistent, they're hot for Amanda Knox, they're hot for Raffaele Sollecito, one of them got something wrong once and so they're morally equivalent to police who frame and defame suspects, one of them got something wrong once and so they're morally equivalent to deliberate liars conducting extensive libel campaigns across the internet and so on.

The thinking seems to be that yes, maybe the pro-innocence side were objectively right about the facts of the case, but if they can still be shown to be jerks or hypocrites and that would still be a victory of sorts.

I know I can be a jerk. What that has to do with anything I don't know....

And, gasp, the first verifiable lie I read about, a lie Amanda Knox told, was related in Candace Dempsey's book. Sometime between Nov 2 and Nov 5 all of Meredith's friends were interviewed about Meredith's boyfriends.... "did she do anal," which caused all the friends, Knox included, to get a little grossed out at the suggestion about a recently deceased friend.

Knox, like Sophie, told a white lie about both Meredith's soft-drug use as well as boyfriends. Knox probably told a few "exaggerations" about her own drug use - afterall these WERE police asking.

And I won't outright admit to being, "hot for Raffaele". I do wish I was 30 years younger and 30 lg. lighter. It's more jealousy than, "being hot for."

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Indeed.

I'd further add that unless CoulsdonUK was a friend or member of the Kercher family (which would be inconsistent with CoulsdonUK's previous claims) any feelings for Meredith which CoulsdonUK has are based on an entirely imaginary relationship with a person long since deceased.

I didn't know Meredith. I'm sure she was a wonderful person but she was long dead before I ever knew she even existed. I don't pretend that reading about her, even for years, or having one stance or another about the circumstances of her death entitles me to any emotional stake with regard to her.

I don't know Amanda Knox of Raffaele Sollecito either. Based on what I've read they both seem like very nice people and I wish them both all the best, but once again I don't pretend to have any special feelings about them beyond what I have about, say, any of the twenty-something people recently murdered in that dreadful school shooting last week.

It irritates me to see them libelled by the dregs of the internet, but I'd like to think I'm equally irritated by all internet libel of provably innocent people.

Those who are or were acquainted with Meredith, Amanda or Raffaele personally are perfectly entitled to an emotional stake in their welfare and reputation. Anyone else, well, I think they're at best indulging in an imaginary, vicarious emotional relationship with a person who might as well be fictional, at worst they're bunging on a maudlin act to try to score cheap emotional points in an internet debate they've become over-invested in.

I have addressed this before but I say this one more time.

I do not know any member of the Kercher family; I have seen Mrs Kercher and Stephanie Kercher locally but have never spoken to either of them.

I have daughters who attend Keston Primary School as did Meredith and her sister, my eldest read the same degree as Meredith although she opted for French. One year after Meredith murder my daughter choose Dekar, Senegal of all places for her year abroad, unlike Meredith she returned home having had a wonderful experience and making lifelong friendships. I simply identify with the Kercher family.

I do not show anger or hatred in my posts and I have certainly never referred to Amanda in any derogatory way. I do find it peculiar that some people who post here question my interest and conclude I must know the family or have some unhealthy interest in Meredith, whilst seemingly finding acceptable that others have gotten to know Raffaele or Amanda and their families, I don’t understand the difference. I feel no need to attack those who have gotten to know Raffaele or Amanda nor do feel the need to imply they have some kind of unhealthy interest I assume like me for their own reasons they identify with them.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I do not show anger or hatred in my posts and I have certainly never referred to Amanda in any derogatory way. I do find it peculiar that some people who post here question my interest and conclude I must know the family or have some unhealthy interest in Meredith, whilst seemingly finding acceptable that others have gotten to know Raffaele or Amanda and their families, I don’t understand the difference. I feel no need to attack those who have gotten to know Raffaele or Amanda nor do feel the need to imply they have some kind of unhealthy interest I assume like me for their own reasons they identify with them.

I'm sorry you're getting this kind of flack. It's not constructive, and you have done nothing to deserve it.

I have always assumed you are as you describe yourself, someone who lives in the same community as the Kerchers, so you are sensitive to local opinion and to the loss they have suffered.

Have you looked at Mark Olshaker's blog post about this case? It is focused on the feelings of the Kercher family.

http://mindhuntersinc.com/meredith-kerchers-murder-and-the-victims-of-injustice/

They feel the same way I do, and Olshaker expresses those feelings perhaps better than I can.

I communicated with Olshaker as well as John Douglas in 2010, and gave them all the crime scene photos and video. Douglas draws on years of experience, with thousands of cases, to determine what happened at a crime scene, and what kind of thinking and motives were in play. That doesn't yield a detailed description of the person who did the crime, but it allows the police to evaluate how well a given theory or suspect fits the evidence.

Douglas is an old lion at this point. He made it clear that he would form his own opinion, and let the chips fall where they may. I was entirely comfortable with that.

 

[Draca]

I find it interesting that mentioning any murder victims name doesn’t generate any comment or discussion, books or movies aren’t written or made about them but usually the perpetrators, I guess it is the sign of the times we live that infamy is celebrated.

When did the Meredith Kercher murder trial become the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case in the media?

The way you wrote this the correlation I see is:
Meredith = victim
Amanda & Raffaele = perpetrators

Yes, it is wrong that perpetrators are usually more famous than their victims. And the press certainly had a field day with making the imagined perpetrator 'Foxy Knoxy' famous.

The reality though is that Amanda & Raffaele belong in another category of famous people. Instead of famous perpetrators they are the famous wrongfully convicted. Their names belong beside the WM3, Lindy Chamberlain, The Duke Lacrosse players, Michael Morton and the Norfolk Four.

It is a good thing that the media has brought attention to these cases of injustice so that lessons can be learned and hopefully new wrongful convictions prevented.

At times it seems some who support Amanda Knox struggle acknowledging Meredith such is the focus that their sincere belief that Amanda Knox is the victim, I completely and utterly reject the idea that what has befallen Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is somehow worse than being brutally murdered.

I think you misunderstand most supporters view. Amanda Knox is (a) victim, not (the) victim. Yes, Meredith Kercher is the biggest victim. She was the one murdered. However, Amanda and Raffaele are (also) victims. Just because their victimization was not as large as the one Meredith suffered does not mean that their own hurt doesn't count! Four years in jail, time in solitary confinement for something they didn't do .... If any of us were thrown wrongfully in jail for years of our lives we would feel we were victims of a great injustice, and we would be right. No one is claiming their fate was worse than being brutally murdered though!

I also get a feeling from your post something similar to what I have seen the Kerchers themselves say. Stephanie Kercher in particular has stated that in the end this is ALL about Mez. That they were all their because of Mez.

I would fully disagree with that view and honestly find it to be highly selfish and self-centered. No, it is NOT all about Mez. Amanda and Raffaele's own lives were impacted. So were many others. Mez's life was not worth more than that of Amanda and Raffaele's. That she is the victim of murder does not mean that anything that anyone else suffered is of no importance because it fails in comparison. It matters tremendously to those whose life was also impacted. The inability to have empathy for the pain that Amanda and Raffaele also suffered being wrongfully convicted is unsavory.

 

[Rolfe]

That's a terrific post, Draca, and I couldn't agree more.

Being imprisoned for four years, being placed in solitary confinement, being abused by both the system and by individuals, is no light matter - particularly for people in their early twenties who should be completing their education and getting started on their careers. To assert that nobody should baulk at this because someone was murdered, is ridiculous.

Amanda and Raffaele are also victims. In an accident, the injured are given a mention along with the fatalities. War "casualty" lists often include "killed and injured" together. Meredith was the fatality, the victim who died. Amanda and Raffaele are nevertheless in the seriously injured category.

Rolfe.

 

[anglolawyer]

That's a terrific post, Draca, and I couldn't agree more.

Being imprisoned for four years, being placed in solitary confinement, being abused by both the system and by individuals, is no light matter - particularly for people in their early twenties who should be completing their education and getting started on their careers. To assert that nobody should baulk at this because someone was murdered, is ridiculous.

Amanda and Raffaele are also victims. In an accident, the injured are given a mention along with the fatalities. War "casualty" lists often include "killed and injured" together. Meredith was the fatality, the victim who died. Amanda and Raffaele are nevertheless in the seriously injured category.

Rolfe.

And it is not just the four years in jail either. How about the rest of their lives having to put up with being seen as culpable in the eyes of many, as they will be regardless of the outcome of the SC appeal.

 

[RoseMontague]

The way you wrote this the correlation I see is:
Meredith = victim
Amanda & Raffaele = perpetrators

Yes, it is wrong that perpetrators are usually more famous than their victims. And the press certainly had a field day with making the imagined perpetrator 'Foxy Knoxy' famous.

The reality though is that Amanda & Raffaele belong in another category of famous people. Instead of famous perpetrators they are the famous wrongfully convicted. Their names belong beside the WM3, Lindy Chamberlain, The Duke Lacrosse players, Michael Morton and the Norfolk Four.

It is a good thing that the media has brought attention to these cases of injustice so that lessons can be learned and hopefully new wrongful convictions prevented.




I think you misunderstand most supporters view. Amanda Knox is (a) victim, not (the) victim. Yes, Meredith Kercher is the biggest victim. She was the one murdered. However, Amanda and Raffaele are (also) victims. Just because their victimization was not as large as the one Meredith suffered does not mean that their own hurt doesn't count! Four years in jail, time in solitary confinement for something they didn't do .... If any of us were thrown wrongfully in jail for years of our lives we would feel we were victims of a great injustice, and we would be right. No one is claiming their fate was worse than being brutally murdered though!

I also get a feeling from your post something similar to what I have seen the Kerchers themselves say. Stephanie Kercher in particular has stated that in the end this is ALL about Mez. That they were all their because of Mez.

I would fully disagree with that view and honestly find it to be highly selfish and self-centered. No, it is NOT all about Mez. Amanda and Raffaele's own lives were impacted. So were many others. Mez's life was not worth more than that of Amanda and Raffaele's. That she is the victim of murder does not mean that anything that anyone else suffered is of no importance because it fails in comparison. It matters tremendously to those whose life was also impacted. The inability to have empathy for the pain that Amanda and Raffaele also suffered being wrongfully convicted is unsavory.

Great post, Draca. I see the same thing happening with Sabrina and Cosima Misseri. They are victims also.