I think there's a fundamental difference between momentary facial expressions on the one hand, and a conscious clothing decision on the other hand.
For sure and I feel a little guilty having your agreement to a post on the t-shirt and then deserting you. Not that you needed any help.
But a conscious clothing decision is, in my eyes, a completely different kettle of fish. That's not a spontaneous or instantaneous happening. That's something that requires consideration, a certain amount of planning, and ample opportunity to rectify. And, as I said, her lawyer simply shouldn't have allowed her anywhere near the courtroom (or the cameras....) wearing that t-shirt. Assuming of course that he or the other lawyers actually saw her before the start of that day's proceedings, as they should have done.
I'm not sure the lawyers saw their clients until they entered the courtroom but the dress code should have been made clear before the trial even started. I think that Amanda did make a statement with the shirt that didn't benefit her at all.
While many here NOW say it didn't make a difference, I don't think that's perfectly clear. It occurred early on and made her look a little crazy. It became part of the osmotic case against her.
I go with RandyN on this one. She could have worn Hillary Clinton conservative pantsuits for all the sessions, and this travesty would have still happened.
It's all part of blaming the victim - Barbie Nadeau and Andrea Vogt have made careers out of it.
Amanda may as well be Amanda with all the warts.
Why Clinton? Why the overstatements? You weren't following the case at the time if I recall your first posts here. It was shocking and not just to Barbie and Vogt. Every outlet featured it.
It was not clear to anyone at the time that she would be convicted. She and her family sure didn't think so.
I'm not suggesting that her choice of attire did make any difference to the verdict(s) - as you say, it's entirely likely that nothing would have made any difference.
What I am saying, though, is that there was nothing but a potential downside to Knox from choosing to wear that t-shirt. In other words, she did herself no favours whatsoever by wearing it, and could only have stood to harm herself judicially-speaking. Therefore, it was a stupid and ill-judged decision to wear the t-shirt, and it was even more stupid and remiss of her lawyers to let her wear it.
In addition, of course, Knox did herself few favours in the court of public opinion. I cannot imagine that any "neutral observer" thought that it was somehow "cute" or "free-spirited" for someone to wear that sort of clothing while appearing at their own trial for murder. Instead, I suspect that most such observers would have considered the move disrespectful to a court, and rather crass. I know I did.
.
I'm not as sure as you that this and other behaviors didn't impact the verdict. Marriott and the FOA gang had long been pushing the 54 hours of interrogation and the railroad job from hell, etc.
I wonder what the opinion on Amanda being Amanda would have been if she wore a "**** Happens" t-shirt on April 1st.
Bill Williams,
I partially agree with both you and LondonJohn. It is good to show respect for the court, even when the court has not earned it. Journalists who wrote about the shirt instead of the forensics are either showing that they have a shallow intellect, or that they let their personal biases rule their judgment.
I hope that Amanda and Raffaele understand what Mary_H enunciated so well: the PG community is not looking for information, they are searching for ammunition.
Yes and they continue to look for anything. The mug shot was a another bad idea. There is no way that the photo will drive people to study the case details more.
I firmly believe that putting together the facts on this case is what is needed, not clever artsy photos.
Sorry LJ, I don't believe this for a second. The downside, judicially, was going to happen anyway.
For the argument to be made that Knox contributed, even unwittingly, to a downside is ludicrous. This is in regard to ANYTHING she did or did not do.
The analogy used about the business/executive situation is not apt. The implication is that you might be denied business or a promotion because all of a sudden you lapsed from some social norm. The whole point of the situation facing Sollecito and Knox is that, to continue the analogy, they were going down no matter what.
You really do need to watch "The Sicilian Scene" in "True Romance". If you're going down, you may as well go down your way - and not still clinging to some social norm you mistakenly think might have a small smidgeon of hope will rescue you.
Long live Dennis Hopper! With all due respect, your reasoning in seriously flawed.
"You're part eggplant." "You're a cantaloupe."
This isn't a favorite movie, it's a trial for murder. At the time of the shirt the outcome to those following the case was not at all clear.
The idea that she knew there was no hope so why not be me is just absurd.
What "upside" judicially speaking was there for Nelson Mandala to make a speech in court about how corrupt Apartheid was?
Please explain what big political statement she was making with the t-shirt.
I say, tell the truth about yourself and let the heavens fall. Screw 'em all.
Really. Is that what you advise couples for successful relations?
When I responded yesterday regarding Amanda wearing the "All you need is love" T-shirt, my focus was on her as a young person isolated and lost in an Italian prison, being manipulated by older Italian police, prosecutor, prison HIV "doctor", and a (sexual predator) deputy warden. Amanda was given a shirt by her best friend Madison with a line from a favorite song that comforted her and she wore it to court, probably because it was a bonding message to her few family and supporters who would be in attendence.
Much of that, if true came out years later.
Amanda's family is middle class. Her mother is a school teacher. Her father at the time was an accountant for a non-profit. Her mother flew to Italy to support her daughter and while changing planes at an airport in Switzerland learns from TV news that Amanda is being perp-walked to the world media for murder. "Case closed!"
Her father was a V.P. at Macy's not that it matters.
What they needed, but did not get and did not understand, was an Italian attorney to take this on - to get them a very capable and savy criminal defense team, forensic experts, and a media advisor to guide them and perhaps defend them in the media. The Knox family had no knowledge of what they were facing and probably did not have the ready means. (I understand that her parents subsequently mortgaged their homes and cashed out their retirement funds.)
Even Sollecito's family, which being Italian knows how things work in Italy, initialy had weak attorneys defending Raffaele.
They had top experts and GB is a top lawyer.
Note the contrast with the resources the police and prosecution have put into this. When Mignini wanted a visual to incite the case and seal a guilty verdict, he had Commodi issue a Euro 180,000 purchase order for an animation. He also had the Kercher family's attorneys and Lumumba's attorney attack and slander the defendants in parallel. Look at the nastiness that the prosecution, their incompetent and corrupt forensic scientists, and parallel attorneys have brought to this case. How could the Knox family know what was coming?
The state always has deep pockets.
First off we're arguing this in 2014, not 2009. We now know that it was completely immaterial what Knox wore, what Knox said, what length her hair was, or if she'd been anywhere on a continuum from The Virgin Mary to the Whore of Babylon. Or if she'd had Atticus Finch as a lawyer or the Hardy Boys.
She is now in 2014 controling her own person. If she wants to fart at a funeral, all I would say is, "That's so Seattle."
The only meaning behind the tshirt was that it was a valentine gift from her sister. Everything else is part of the problem. They took a nickname she'd had since she was 11 and sluttified it.
The problem is elsewhere rather than earning scorn for not knowing which fork to use in polite company. Sheesh.
That really isn't "so Seattle" more of a Canuck thing.
Yes it's 2014 and she is still doing things that hurt and don't help. You just can't see.
Yes, and this is the point that you (and others) have missed. By wearing the shirt during a court hearing, Amanda gave the press something to focus on so they had another excuse not to focus on the irregularities in the case.
Yup and today we have the mug shot instead of De Felice and the heroin dealer.
Of course Amanda's shirt didn't have any effect on the Massei verdict, which was as pre-decided as the Nencini verdict has been - but it was still a mistake on her part.
We really don't know how all the bone-headed things done by team Knox affected the decision.
Let me be clear, I am not disagreeing with you.
I am only arguing that I can at least understand her point of view.
Differences also include that I have a military background and am over forty years old.
I don't know how I would have looked at it when I am twenty years old and not having a military background.
When I was 16 and someone blew an air horn out of my car, I dressed up to go to the hearing.
I understand your perspective. And I also agree with you that Knox probably had different perspectives. But even to a 20-year-old (a well-educated and well-reared 20-year-old) that sort of social convention is well known. For the same reason, a 20-year-old Knox would NEVER have turned up for a clerical job interview wearing that t-shirt.
Nope she wouldn't.
But I would also add in that Knox found herself in extremely stressful and frightening circumstances, and therefore I'd give her loads of extra leeway on that account. However, it's at that point that I look squarely towards Dalla Vedova (and Knox's other lawyers) for not doing their jobs properly. As I said before, they should have (in my opinion) kindly but firmly have told Knox that she absolutely could not have that t-shirt on public display in the court room, and they should have found other attire for her to use to cover it up (heck, in extremis, one of the female junior lawyers (Dell Grasso?) could have given Knox her own jacket for the day).
I'm not sure she wasn't instructed and just ignored them.
