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

[Baylor]

Some people take an interest in miscarriages of justice. Some other people don't much care as long as it doesn't happen to them or someone they know.

The idea that it's all because Knox is particularly good-looking seems flimsy to me. But (inasmuch as she's not horribly ugly) I suppose it probably didn't hurt.

This guy was in jail for nearly 4 times as long as Knox, and the "interest" has accumulated all of 10 posts. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249104

halides1 alludes to misogyny playing a role in Knox's conviction (no strawman intended, she never did flesh out her argument.) The case never would've got the attention it did if she wasn't female, and being attractive doesn't hurt. There wouldn't've been a grassroots effort to save her if she was a dude. So her sex might have done her in, but it also saved her.

There are other factors Caper mentioned. The cross-culture courtroom drama.

halides1 doesn't bother to explain how misogyny would account for Raffaele Sollecito's conviction.

 

[Matthew Best]

The case never would've got the attention it did if she wasn't female,

Indeed. A female murderer is comparatively rare and thus more unlikely.

The idea that it's all because she's particularly good-looking still seems feeble, and unsupported.

 

[Baylor]

Evidence needed.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249104

 

[anglolawyer]

You got to remember here sweetheart, not everyone has the emotional stock invested in Amanda Knox like you do.

You should head to the GS&P section to discuss your supposed psychic abilities and teach us all how you know when someone is "desperate for attention." It's got to be a lot more fruitful than defending a *****.

Is that allowed here? Whether it is or not, I suggest your attitude reveals another reason why the case attracted so much attention from 'the other' side: the punitive folk who play out personal issues and project their own failings and inadequacies by adopting an unjustifiably harsh and vindictive stance towards someone about whom they invent more than they know.

 

[Baylor]

Is that allowed here? Whether it is or not, I suggest your attitude reveals another reason why the case attracted so much attention from 'the other' side: the punitive folk who play out personal issues and project their own failings and inadequacies by adopting an unjustifiably harsh and vindictive stance towards someone about whom they invent more than they know.

Yes, calling a non-member a whore is allowed here. However, insulting other members like Katody Mattress did to me is not. Katody is engaging in the same type of behavior that the Italian police and media did against Knox. Katody knows nothing about me yet she is quick to judge and call me names and just like you, even described a motivation behind my behavior. She sure doesn't like when someone does that to Amanda Knox. That doesn't stop her from doing it to someone else-- even a fellow JREF member.

Calling Knox a whore was to shed light on Katody Mattress's sanctimony and not to "play out personal issues and project [my] own failings and inadequacies by adopting an unjustifiably harsh and vindictive stance towards someone about whom invent more than know" whatever the hell that means.

eta: the nominate button in on the bottom left.

 

[Matthew Best]

Calling Knox a whore was to shed light on Katody Mattress's sanctimony

That's pretty funny!

 

[anglolawyer]

Yes, calling a non-member a whore is allowed here. However, insulting other members like Katody Mattress did to me is not. Katody is engaging in the same type of behavior that the Italian police and media did against Knox. Katody knows nothing about me yet she is quick to judge and call me names and just like you, even described a motivation behind my behavior. She sure doesn't like when someone does that to Amanda Knox. That doesn't stop her from doing it to someone else-- even a fellow JREF member.

Calling Knox a whore was to shed light on Katody Mattress's sanctimony and not to "play out personal issues and project [my] own failings and inadequacies by adopting an unjustifiably harsh and vindictive stance towards someone about whom invent more than know" whatever the hell that means.

eta: the nominate button in on the bottom left.

It means what it says: projecting outwards onto someone else your own weaknesses and failings, ascribing your own failings to someone else. It's a well-attested phenomenon and many of those who vilify Amanda Knox as 'a whore' seem to suffer from it. Here's wikipedia:

Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.

Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.

The theory was developed by Freud apparently.

I am not going back through the entire thread but I think you already used that description before Katody Matrass was brought into the discussion. Maybe you could have found a better way to make your point given that Amanda Knox is a real human being.

It is possible, I do not know you well enough to be able to say (just as you do not know Ms Knox), that you have concerns about your own promiscuity or frigidity which you are projecting onto Amanda Knox. If you are, then you instance a phenomenon that has been frequently observed among those who spend their time calling her names. This subject is directly relevant to this thread of course, which is why it is worth delving a little deeper. So why do you see her as a whore (which I understand to be one who sells their body for money)?

Btw. how do you know she is not a member?

 

[anglolawyer]

@ UNLoVedRebel

I decided to look it up to see if my memory was correct. In post no. 25 you said:

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

Katody Matrass had not posted anything at that time so your justification for using the term again seems a little thin.

 

[Matthew Best]

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.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

I'm sort of surprised the mods have let this go so long when I've seen other threads get shut down instantly.

 

[anglolawyer]

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.

I think his (is the poster male?) apparent attitude is one of things the thread is about so I hope he explains how he settled on this extremely harsh and pejorative view. Sounds like there are some issues there, which are important as one encounters a lot of this type of thinking in this case and possibly explains 'why so much attention [has been given] to the Knox/Sollecito case.'

 

[CoulsdonUK]

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.

 

[anglolawyer]

I'm sort of surprised the mods have let this go so long when I've seen other threads get shut down instantly.

Isn't the level of interest in this one case itself a subject fit for discussion? Why not? We aren't discussing the facts, just the reaction to the case which has been pretty unusual.

 

[anglolawyer]

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.

Maybe what's intriguing is how slanders and slurs against her are somehow the accepted norm among so many. If you added up everything negative that had been said about her and compared it to everything positive, and bear in mind the mainstream media counts, which do you think would be prevalent - positive or negative? The background is not one of 'remotely negative' things being said about her but of her being called a murderer (fine, if that's your opinion) and a whore (no evidence whatever). Personally, I could not care less what people think of her looks. I would count bitchy remarks about that as 'remotely negative' but not the other stuff.

 

[Rolfe]

Isn't the level of interest in this one case itself a subject fit for discussion? Why not? We aren't discussing the facts, just the reaction to the case which has been pretty unusual.

The problem arises when someone cites "facts" about the case which are completely false as an explanation for the level of interest, then aggressively slaps down any attempt to correct them as "off topic - this thread isn't about the facts of the case".

I think the real interest is in why so many people have developed this visceral, condemnatory hatred of Knox and Sollecito which is impervious to facts, logic or reason. I sort of understand the same phenomenon in the Lockerbie case, because Megrahi was an Arab spiv and on the face of it not necessarily a terribly sympathetic character (and that's even before it emerged that he was cheating on his wife). Also, a terrorist mass murder commands heightened responses, especially after September 2011.

But in this case, it should be easy for anyone to empathise with Knox and Sollecito. Being caught up in something like that through no real fault of your own could happen to anyone, and it's slightly horrifying to realise that.

Maybe that's it? Denial that such a nightmare could possibly happen to people who hadn't done anything to deserve it?

Rolfe.

 

[Matthew Best]

Personally, I could not care less what people think of her looks. I would count bitchy remarks about that as 'remotely negative' but not the other stuff.

A paradoxical note about the assertion that the reason her case attracted so much attention is because she is good-looking: most of the people who go on about how "hot" she is also claim not to be interested in the case.

Go figure.

 

[anglolawyer]

Yes it can. What in the world gives you that idea?

If I had an opinion that "On planet Earth the sky is purple with huge red clouds" that would be an incorrect opinion.

You should have said "some opinions can be neither correct nor incorrect". That would be true. Especially opinions based on taste. But you implied "all" opinions, which is wrong.

Take for instance a murder case. X is on trial for murdering Y.

An opinion that stated "X had no part in murdering Y" would either be incorrect or correct. Human tastes have nothing to do with it.

I think I disagree with this. Your examples are statements of fact disguised as expressions of opinion. 'In my opinion Barack Obama is the president of the US' is not properly a statement of opinion as it is within the province of verifiable fact.

Some opinions are, however, capable of being falsified or confirmed. In my opinion, the next president of the US is likely to be Tom Cruise. I think the stock market will rise this week and fall next week. Both falsifiable eventually. Your dress is pretty - not falsifiable. Bach is better than Beethoven - likewise.

I recommend this course of legal action as opposed to that my opinion of the law being X (or Y) - may or may not be falsifiable.

The distinction between fact and opinion is very important in the law. Ordinary witnesses may only prove facts while experts may give evidence of their opinions. But whether planet Earth has a purple sky or not is not a matter of opinion however it is expressed.

 

[anglolawyer]

The problem arises when someone cites "facts" about the case which are completely false as an explanation for the level of interest, then aggressively slaps down any attempt to correct them as "off topic - this thread isn't about the facts of the case".

I think the real interest is in why so many people have developed this visceral, condemnatory hatred of Knox and Sollecito which is impervious to facts, logic or reason. I sort of understand the same phenomenon in the Lockerbie case, because Megrahi was an Arab spiv and on the face of it not necessarily a terribly sympathetic character (and that's even before it emerged that he was cheating on his wife). Also, a terrorist mass murder commands heightened responses, especially after September 2011.

But in this case, it should be easy for anyone to empathise with Knox and Sollecito. Being caught up in something like that through no real fault of your own could happen to anyone, and it's slightly horrifying to realise that.

Maybe that's it? Denial that such a nightmare could possibly happen to people who hadn't done anything to deserve it?

Rolfe.

The trouble is you need a Masters degree in the case before you can arrive at a well-informed opinion, for which most people have neither time nor inclination (reasonably enough). The number of people who know something of the case, however minimal, vastly outweighs the number who have delved into it in any depth.

I am not sure whether the OP is referencing merely interest here at JREF or wider public interest but for those who cannot but help having an opinion but do not want to spend their free time on nothing but this one case, the easier, default mode is to assume the Italian authorities would not have proceeded against them without good reason, thus explaining, if not justifying, some of the hostility.

 

[Supernaut]

All I can say is that certain peoiple obviously have very low standards.

I'd like to remind you that that in practically every image of this girl/woman that exists she is entirely without makeup. I've never seen a photo in which she makes the slightest effort to look 'sexy', and it's something I actually find endearing (particularly in such an evidently confident and self-possessed individual).

Were she to get the kind of makeover most self-conscious 'beauties' do for any and all media appearences ('panda' eye-liner etc') she would probably knock peoples' socks off.

I've said it before; people nowadays seem unable to differentiate genuine female beauty from its fake counterpart, "glamour".

I'm also rather disappointed at the number of people who seem to think that it isn't possible to appreciate fremale beauty without a frisson of lust.

 

[CoulsdonUK]

Maybe what's intriguing is how slanders and slurs against her are somehow the accepted norm among so many. If you added up everything negative that had been said about her and compared it to everything positive, and bear in mind the mainstream media counts, which do you think would be prevalent - positive or negative? The background is not one of 'remotely negative' things being said about her but of her being called a murderer (fine, if that's your opinion) and a whore (no evidence whatever). Personally, I could not care less what people think of her looks. I would count bitchy remarks about that as 'remotely negative' but not the other stuff.

I am not a fan of justice by popular vote, as I have said before I am content to take part in a “discussion” but I am concerned that a sovereign western country’s justice system and individuals working within it are also subjected to concerted slanders and slurs. Indeed depending on one’s point of view everyone connected to this case has been subjected slanders and slurs including the murder victim, but I guess that is acceptable to some.

The media printed and electronic (national and international) stoked the polarising flames of this case.