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

[Chris_Halkides]

it takes a village to fit someone up

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.

Great post, Draca. The Duke lacrosse three were only accused, not convicted, yet the three indicted players lost a year of their lives to fighting a court case that never should have been brought (one had an unimpeachable alibi that was public knowledge within weeks). And being a high profile case, they got stared at when they went out in public, went to the gym, etc. Outside of a courthouse, one was told that he was a dead man walking, if I understand correctly.

There is another way in which the Duke case is relevant to the discussion. CoulsdonUK has made a similar point to Lionking, namely that neither one believe that there was a conspiracy. CoulsdonUK has also said that he doesn't see Raffaele or Amanda as likely targets of a fitting-up by the authorities. There are some problems with these beliefs. One: the question of how wrongful convictions happen. At least two people conspired with respect to the DNA evidence, and a third person shaded her words (at the very least) in her description of the false accuser's physical examination. At least one officer spoke falsely in public and two probably knowingly gave false (and sadly unrecorded) testimony to the grand jury, after having conducted a lineup that violated the city's own standards (and these were carefully thought-through guidelines, from what I can gather). BTW the Lindy Chamberlain case could also be profitably mined in regards to how many people it takes to convict someone falsely.

Two: One of the two officers involved in the lineup also provided a "from memory" months-later reconstruction of the false accuser's descriptions of her alleged attackers. The officer's reconstruction was in complete contradiction to his own partner's notes of her descriptions made at the time (April 2006), but it did match very well to the three accused players' actual appearance, which by that time had been in national news magazines, etc. This officer's testimony was a blatant lie, an attempt to shore up a faltering case that might have put three young men away for 30 years each. It was directed against three white, upper middle class (even privileged) men, not against three poor, black, uneducated men. Although I am sympathetic to (and somewhat conversant in) the special problems of being an indigent defendant, the idea that only indigent people get fitted up is clearly not true. MOO.

 

[christianahannah]

- partial quote -

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.

I think Stephenie has said that for them (the family) this has only ever been about Meredith. I don't see anything wrong with that feeling or statement and do not find it selfish or unsavory.

I don't see it said anywhere by the family that they want the wrong people convicted for a crime they didn't commit or that they wouldn't have empathy for the wrongly convicted. She (the family) has said they don't want the wrong people put away for a crime they didn't commit.

Until you are in the position of being a family member of a loved one who is murdered it is difficult to imagine the roller coaster feelings that exist during a murder trial and especially one that will consist of three separate trials with two different verdicts thus far.

And I apply the above sentiment to Amanda's and Raffaele's families. I see nothing wrong with the families' focus being on Amanda or Raffaele and how difficult it must have been on the families during Amanda's and Raffaele's incarceration.

All families are fighting for justice for their loved one. I can't fault any of them for that.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

CoulsdonUK has also said that he doesn't see Raffaele or Amanda as likely targets of a fitting-up by the authorities.

I do find these arguments curious at best.

A: I have ample, specific, concrete reasons to believe that the investigators in this case were culpably incompetent to a degree that utterly stretches credibility at best, but more likely they were engaging in deliberate misconduct.

B: Humph. The accused don't seem to me to be like the type to be framed. That's a good enough reason to dismiss all your "evidence". It doesn't matter how much evidence of misconduct you have if you're claiming that they framed a white girl from the USA. Couldn't happen. Totally impossible. Silly even to suggest it. Go away with your "evidence".

 

[Bill Williams]

I think Stephenie has said that for them (the family) this has only ever been about Meredith. I don't see anything wrong with that feeling or statement and do not find it selfish or unsavory.

I don't see it said anywhere by the family that they want the wrong people convicted for a crime they didn't commit or that they wouldn't have empathy for the wrongly convicted. She (the family) has said they don't want the wrong people put away for a crime they didn't commit.

Until you are in the position of being a family member of a loved one who is murdered it is difficult to imagine the roller coaster feelings that exist during a murder trial and especially one that will consist of three separate trials with two different verdicts thus far.

And I apply the above sentiment to Amanda's and Raffaele's families. I see nothing wrong with the families' focus being on Amanda or Raffaele and how difficult it must have been on the families during Amanda's and Raffaele's incarceration.

All families are fighting for justice for their loved one. I can't fault any of them for that.

Well said.

 

[RoseMontague]

I don't see it said anywhere by the family that they want the wrong people convicted for a crime they didn't commit or that they wouldn't have empathy for the wrongly convicted. She (the family) has said they don't want the wrong people put away for a crime they didn't commit.

Then they must believe that AK and RS are guilty because they are clearly on the side of the prosecution and their lawyer is arguing for guilt. In this, they are wrong because these are the wrong people charged with a crime they did not commit. Why did their lawyer argue against breaking the knife apart and testing it?

 

[Grinder]

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.

In this you reveal a big part of the online dividing line. The PGP in order to promote the "all about Mez" meme have made her life much more valuable than Amanda's and that guy. They have deified Mez and vilified Amanda. They had to make Amanda a bad student, messy, smelly, a heavy drug taker, a slut, and from a bad family. They have dug into court records of the Knox divorce from 20 years ago. They have attacked any all people that have spoken out in way in favor of Amanda. They attacked her city, her school and her university.

That's why it's been all about Amanda not the two young men.

They have ignored that Mez's parents were also divorced. They never attacked John K for working a tabloid Murdoch publication. Imagine Curt had worked for the National Enquirer.

They made a mountain out of a noise ticket, trying to turn it into some sort criminal activity and a sure sign of murder to follow. At the same time Rudi's escalating deviate behavior is hand-waved away since he was never convicted. They harped about the party resulting in a conviction in Seattle Muni Court when in fact it was just a ticket that was paid, no trial.

Certain members of the PGP seem obsessed with Meredith which can seen by the wall of pictures.

The two girls were very similar IMO. They both were good students. They both enjoyed partying. Meredith was more into drink and Amanda into pot. Amanda to have a wider world of interests, including sport and music. We really haven't heard what Meredith was into other than school and a little karate.

The PGP act as if Amanda, even if totally innocent, should have at all times during her arrest, confinement, trial, further confinement, appeal and after being freed cared only about Meredith.

If the memory of Mez is the number one thing for her family, they couldn't have done better than how it turned out.

 

[AnimalFriendly]

Then they must believe that AK and RS are guilty because they are clearly on the side of the prosecution and their lawyer is arguing for guilt. In this, they are wrong because these are the wrong people charged with a crime they did not commit. Why did their lawyer argue against breaking the knife apart and testing it?

Rose - I agree with you fully here. I've never been able to get out of my mind that, immediately after Hellman's verdict, Stephanie Kercher was quoted as saying "we were hoping for a different result". All the Kerchers have at one time or another stated they don't want to see the wrong people punished and yet their other statements clearly contradict this. Even more obviously, John Kercher's book Meredith discusses at length how shocked he was upon learning of Hellman's verdict. And it's pretty clear from the book how he hopes the Supreme Court's decision will go in late March '13.

 

[Rolfe]

Not to derail, but this is spookily similar.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8862103

I can't get my head round the suggestion that a wrongful murder conviction should be allowed to stand because if it is overturned the families of the victims will be upset. But some people seem to take that view.

Rolfe.

 

[Bill Williams]

Not to derail, but this is spookily similar.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8862103

I can't get my head round the suggestion that a wrongful murder conviction should be allowed to stand because if it is overturned the families of the victims will be upset. But some people seem to take that view.

Rolfe.

Right now a large portion of what little attention is paid to all this, is exactly as you say.

What I've noted (my opinion only and your mileage will vary) is that there is almost a direct inverse relationship between the way a wrongful conviction should be allowed to stand because of the continuing upset to the victims.....

..... and the willingness to dive into the actual evidence. (I've also noted that when this is pointed out, you're accused of showing disrespect to the victims, which, in a way, proves the point!)

There I said it. It is my opinion that this inverse relationship between care for the victims and the willingness to actually parse the evidence actually serves to further victimize the people who had to bear the original horror.

 

[Antony]

Not to derail, but this is spookily similar.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8862103

I can't get my head round the suggestion that a wrongful murder conviction should be allowed to stand because if it is overturned the families of the victims will be upset. But some people seem to take that view.

Rolfe.

Not totally parallel, but in the same area, is the Denning ruling on the Birmingham Six appeal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Denning,_Baron_Denning#Illness_and_controversy.

 

[christianahannah]

Then they must believe that AK and RS are guilty because they are clearly on the side of the prosecution and their lawyer is arguing for guilt. In this, they are wrong because these are the wrong people charged with a crime they did not commit. Why did their lawyer argue against breaking the knife apart and testing it?

No, not really. I think they want the truth whatever that will be. The family have been a part of two trials, one which resulted in a guilty verdict and one which resulted in an acquittal. There is now a third which will be different from the prior two. One sees the process through to the end and hopes the truth will be clear and decisive once it is all finished.

It wasn't always the case that these were the wrong people charged with a crime they did not commit re: the first verdict. That, of course, changed with the second trial's acquittal.

It was the same evidence for both trials yet was viewed differently by each court. Is it not surprising that each family then may view the evidence differently than the other?

I understand why a civil suit is lodged by the family. In the event of a guilty verdict it keeps the guilty from profiting from their crime. This will be effective with Rudy when he is released in a few years. However, if the Supreme Court upholds the second trial verdict for Amanda and Raffaele this civil suit will no longer exist (I think I am correct in writing this - if not I'm sure someone will correct me). I think this is fair and is what should be the standard. In the United States, for example, one can be found not guilty in a criminal trial yet found guilty in a civil trial and have to pay damages. I don't think this is fair.

As for the knife, I have my opinion why it was not broken open and tested (though the knife was re-tested but not broken open, and not re-tested enough for the prosecution). Why do you think it was not broken apart and tested?

 

[RoseMontague]

No, not really. I think they want the truth whatever that will be. The family have been a part of two trials, one which resulted in a guilty verdict and one which resulted in an acquittal. There is now a third which will be different from the prior two. One sees the process through to the end and hopes the truth will be clear and decisive once it is all finished.

It wasn't always the case that these were the wrong people charged with a crime they did not commit re: the first verdict. That, of course, changed with the second trial's acquittal.

It was the same evidence for both trials yet was viewed differently by each court. Is it not surprising that each family then may view the evidence differently than the other?

I understand why a civil suit is lodged by the family. In the event of a guilty verdict it keeps the guilty from profiting from their crime. This will be effective with Rudy when he is released in a few years. However, if the Supreme Court upholds the second trial verdict for Amanda and Raffaele this civil suit will no longer exist (I think I am correct in writing this - if not I'm sure someone will correct me). I think this is fair and is what should be the standard. In the United States, for example, one can be found not guilty in a criminal trial yet found guilty in a civil trial and have to pay damages. I don't think this is fair.

As for the knife, I have my opinion why it was not broken open and tested (though the knife was re-tested but not broken open, and not re-tested enough for the prosecution). Why do you think it was not broken apart and tested?

Asked you first but I will answer anyway. They knew there was nothing there. That knife as the murder weapon makes no sense even before you get into the forensics and DNA. Another finding of nothing just adds to the fact that this knife has no relation to the crime. The Kerchers are clearly promoting guilt for AK and RS and have not shown they are interested in exploring the possibility that these are two wrongfully accused innocents. On this we disagree.

I believe they took an early stance and are sticking to that despite further information that has come forward. It is like they are stuck in the 2007-2009 view of the case and are covering their eyes on many things that have come up since the first trial ended. I always value your input and maybe you can convince me otherwise.

 

[AnimalFriendly]

No, not really. I think they want the truth whatever that will be. The family have been a part of two trials, one which resulted in a guilty verdict and one which resulted in an acquittal. There is now a third which will be different from the prior two. One sees the process through to the end and hopes the truth will be clear and decisive once it is all finished.

It wasn't always the case that these were the wrong people charged with a crime they did not commit re: the first verdict. That, of course, changed with the second trial's acquittal.

It was the same evidence for both trials yet was viewed differently by each court. Is it not surprising that each family then may view the evidence differently than the other?

I understand why a civil suit is lodged by the family. In the event of a guilty verdict it keeps the guilty from profiting from their crime. This will be effective with Rudy when he is released in a few years. However, if the Supreme Court upholds the second trial verdict for Amanda and Raffaele this civil suit will no longer exist (I think I am correct in writing this - if not I'm sure someone will correct me). I think this is fair and is what should be the standard. In the United States, for example, one can be found not guilty in a criminal trial yet found guilty in a civil trial and have to pay damages. I don't think this is fair.

As for the knife, I have my opinion why it was not broken open and tested (though the knife was re-tested but not broken open, and not re-tested enough for the prosecution). Why do you think it was not broken apart and tested?

I think the Kerchers, father/John and Stephanie at least, have already made up their minds about what the truth is, given her having stated the family was hoping for a "different result" after the acquittal as well as his statements throughout his 2012 book. Regarding the two trials, can they both really be considered to have looked at the same evidence when only the second of the two included an independent review of the DNA evidence?

Also regarding criminal vs. civil trials, at least in the United States, the standard of proof for the latter is lower so I always thought it reasonable that someone have to pay damages as a result of being found liable in a wrongful death suit. Even though there may not have been enough evidence to convict them in a criminal court using the beyond a reasonable doubt standard to sentence them to prison.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

What one person can do

Pete Shellem of the Harrisburg Patriot-Ledger has helped to free four people wrongfully convicted. Here are two quotes from a American Journalism Review article:
"I was always taught that reporters are supposed to be government watchdogs. The most drastic thing the government can do to an individual is charge them with a crime and send them to jail," says Shellem, a Temple University grad who has spent the past 21 years with the Patriot-News. "We have a good justice system in this country, and it pisses me off to see people misuse it to run over people, most of whom are at some sort of disadvantage."
and
"I don't take this stuff lightly, and I'm not the type that believes every con that comes along," says Shellem. Sometimes, his stories emerge from tips from private investigators working for the defense. Other times, it's simply a nagging sense, honed by years as a courts reporter, that something just isn't right. "But in these cases, I don't start writing until I'm sure I'm right, and if people need to be embarrassed into doing the right thing, I'm happy to oblige them."

 

[Supernaut]

Not to derail, but this is spookily similar.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8862103

I can't get my head round the suggestion that a wrongful murder conviction should be allowed to stand because if it is overturned the families of the victims will be upset. But some people seem to take that view.

Rolfe.

Yep, it's called "being wrong for the right reasons" .

 

[Supernaut]

I think the Kerchers, father/John and Stephanie at least, have already made up their minds about what the truth is, given her having stated the family was hoping for a "different result" after the acquittal as well as his statements throughout his 2012 book. Regarding the two trials, can they both really be considered to have looked at the same evidence when only the second of the two included an independent review of the DNA evidence?

Also regarding criminal vs. civil trials, at least in the United States, the standard of proof for the latter is lower so I always thought it reasonable that someone have to pay damages as a result of being found liable in a wrongful death suit. Even though there may not have been enough evidence to convict them in a criminal court using the beyond a reasonable doubt standard to sentence them to prison.

They must be quite extraordinarily simple-minded people, then. That's as charitable a conclusion as can be drawn, IMO.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

consider other people in the same situation

They must be quite extraordinarily simple-minded people, then. That's as charitable a conclusion as can be drawn, IMO.

The mother of the victim (Dolores?) in the Eric Volz case in Nicaragua still blamed him, even though he was a good 2-2.5 hours away by car at the approximate time of the murder. It is difficult for a family to think clearly under such tragic circumstances. That does not mean that what the family says publicly should not be thoughtfully answered.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

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.

I would accept that the Knox and Sollecito families and their supporters have every right to focus on them as do the Kercher family; I do not believe I am qualified to criticize any of their personal experiences or tell them what they should or shouldn’t think or feel, it is a very personal experience. That being said, I also completely identify with Stephanie Kercher’s comments that for her and the rest of Meredith’s family, friends and supporters it is all about Meredith.

This may be a form of heresy for some but I do not see railroading, wrongful conviction, despotic prosecutors, corrupt or at best incompetent police officers, of course mistakes were made during the investigation and the media played its role by polarising the case early on, but I do not see a grand conspiracy against Raffaele and Amanda.

I have watched Italy prosecute a murder case according to its own justice system and which at this stage has resulted in their release; now I would agree that the length time it takes given that the Supreme Court will probably not rule until spring 2013 is a problem. However, I also believe the 3 trial process with its checks and balances and criminal procedure codes is better than plea bargaining or behind the scene deals that happens elsewhere in the world.

I have no problem with people posting what wonderful misunderstood people Raffaele and Amanda are and by the same token I do not understand why showing support for the Meredith Kercher and her family should be such an issue to some who post here. I do not believe my position is any different to someone who is from the same area as Raffaele or Amanda and for whatever reason identifies with them and their families.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

<snip> ….. It was directed against three white, upper middle class (even privileged) men, not against three poor, black, uneducated men. Although I am sympathetic to (and somewhat conversant in) the special problems of being an indigent defendant, the idea that only indigent people get fitted up is clearly not true …. <snip>

Oh come on, what is the dominate ethnic, socio-economic groups that populate most American prisons, white middle classes or African American, Hispanic and people from economically deprived backgrounds? Duke Lacrosse were an exception as was Lindy Chamberlain, they are by no means the norm.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Let's move this over to the main discussion thread!